|
User talk:DamolisherMarch 2013
Hi, Edit warring Your recent editing history at List of Shortland Street characters (2015) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC) So, ya gonna send that memo to your pompous little friend who won't stop trying to bully people into her stupid hairsplitting and then telling tales when they're wrong?
I also think you might like to have a word with Hatio93 about being worried more about what they're doing and less about what I'm doing. I'd be open to discussion if there were anything to discuss as evidence by the fact that if Hatio93 would bother looking at the talk page on the Damo Johnson page, and also that Hatio93 would also be wise to understand that while certain editing rules may be useful in several situations, there's also this wonderful concept called "commonsense." In addition to this, there is also this concept called "teamwork," which Hatio doesn't quite seem to understand unless using it against other users in order to hair split. For example, the Info Box they deleted last night which another user attempted to create. Rather than revert it if it had been complete and working due to "unsourced actor," all Hatio needed to do was find an article where Ryan O'Kane was listed as the new character's actor. After all, the credits list Ryan O'Kane, multiple users can verify the actor is Ryan O'Kane, but if Hatio93 is insistent on 'references' purely for hairsplitting reasons, what was stopping them from simply adding the reference rather than reverting this user's edit? As evidenced by the multitude of edits I've made elsewhere and the fact that I've interacted with other users with no problem, perhaps Hatio93 might like to stop telling tales on others users, overexaggerating things and attempting to outright lie about things I have or haven't done and, as I stated, focus more on themselves and less about myself. Now, thank you for your time, our correspondence is done, thank you. Damolisher (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I rest my case. ;) Damolisher (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) And Hatio93 is back at it again. I wouldn't object to the reverts quite so much if they weren't frivolous and intentional attempts at one-upsmanship. My issue isn't just the "I can do whatever I want while other editors answer to me" attitude, it's the fact that Hatio93 has reached an understanding with themselves that they're in charge of the Shortland Street pages on this website to a pompous degree. I know for a fact if anyone else tried adding nothing for a character but an info box, Hatio93 would remove it. Yet because Hatio93 thinks that quoting Wikiproject rules is the only thing that counts, they're allowed to upload useless blank space? Come on. Damolisher (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you ACTUALLY stalking my talk page? That's bloody creepy. What purpose does a blank character profile have? None. You don't see TunaStreet uploading blank character biographies. You also don't seem to see any flaws in yourself given you constantly expect me to edit to your liking while ignoring anything you're doing wrong, but hey. Don't give me that "DA ROOLS THO" BS either. You've reverted several completely legitimate edits people have made, like fixing your (unsourced. Funny that) cock up on Lily Flores, Frank Warner's name, Luke and Ezra's surname and having the bloody gall to revert my edit to Tor Anderton's character history back to being full of spelling and grammar screw-ups out of spite. Here's an idea: if it's unsourced, source it. Don't be a jerk and revert factually correct information because it doesn't have enough references for you and you only. You don't see me or TunaStreet reverting other people's work all the time. We expand it because it's helpful. Damolisher (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
And there's the usual Whataboutism I've come to expect along with the missing the point I've come to expect. I was getting at how you show up to complain or reference my talk page whenever you're mentioned. There's the arrogance again too. You think leaving autogenerated messages is gonna stop me from making perfectly legitimate changes because you think we all have to edit to your standard when myself and others have gotten along rather harmoniously when it comes to editing things. You show up and bam, you don't like it? Nope, can't do that!Damolisher (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 3Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Shortland Street characters (2018), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Finn and Frank Warner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC) ImpactPlease, if you want to include Zachary in the Impact roster article, use a source about him signing a contract with the promotion. The YouTube descrption doesn't include it, just saying "debut" doesn't mean "hired by iMPACT" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because the company indicating he's now working for them is literally the opposite of him.working for them. That's two videos ON IMPACT'S CHANNEL indicating he's hired, the only one contradicting that would be... you. And as far as I'm aware, you're not an Impact employee. So don't tell me to stop when you're the one arguing against Impact themselves. Damolisher (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Which part of "here's his debut" on one video and "here's his new theme and video" on another is assumption? Damolisher (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 25An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Major League Wrestling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)  Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)  Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to professional wrestling. Before continuing to make edits that involve professional wrestling, please read the full description of these sanctions here. General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.TomStar81 (Talk) 18:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:MLW Logo 2018.jpg Thanks for uploading File:MLW Logo 2018.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Checkuser block You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Hi. The Lee depature was reported by a reliable source. After that, he denied it. Its not necessary the personal attack about "you dont follow impact". This kind of things happend all the time. Also, 90% of my edits are based on sources, i dont watch everything i edit.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC) It's hardly a personal attack, but one would think that in order to have proper credibility, you'd watch something before you edit it. I for example wouldn't edit an article on Astrophysics since I don't know what I'm talking about. Trying to enforce bureaucracy as you do is neither helpful nor does it make people think highly of you. For example, instead of reverting the Rascalz edit, you simply could have seeked out a source and edited it in as Chaosithe does once a proper source does when one becomes available rather than reverting people's edits because you don't believe the person who edited it in. And lo and behold, you were wrong and wound up making yourself look arrogant and obstinate rather than helpful. The same is true for the Trevor Lee edit. The same goes for the Allie edit you keep reverting. James Mitchell has never been shown as a manager. He appears exclusively in background segments as someone she has sold her soul to. I very, very rarely see you making useful edits to the Impact Wrestling Personnel page. Oftentimes, it's simply you trying to dictate things to people when you're incorrect and in the wrong regardless of what the guidelines are. One of the tenets as far as I'm aware of Wikipedia is good faith. You have none. You seem to try and lord over people. There is where my issue lies. Damolisher (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Damolisher. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Damolisher. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Crazy StevePlease, include Crazy Steve on the roster with a proper source showing he signed with the promotion, no just he worked yesterday. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Surely even you can put 2 and 2 together and realise that they wouldn't simply put him out there on Impact versus a jobber just for shits and giggles. He worked the tapings, he posted the Impact Wrestling logo on his Instagram, he won the match. If it were say, Steve versus... I dunno, Eli Drake, for example and he lost, then yeah, he's more than likely not getting used again. But when they're putting him on Impact against a jobber, putting him over and he's hinting he's working for the company again... come on, man. You're literally just being obstructive because of a power trip behind a keyboard. This is the Rascalz situation all over again. This is the third time you've done this and the third time you're wrong in doing so. Damolisher (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Sanctions noticePlease read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to professional wrestling. Before continuing to make edits that involve professional wrestling, please read the full description of these sanctions here. General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.LM2000 (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
How about you don't threaten me and you don't dictate to me what I can and can't edit? If you're wrong, I'm going to return the information back to the article. I'm not going to be bullied by you or HHHPedrigree. Damolisher (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC) UncivilRead WP:UNCIVIL. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC) You know what gets really tiring? When someone us frequently in the wrong, yet refuses to admit they're ever in the wrong. 118.149.253.159 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC) February 2019
Original research"No original research?" They're spoilers from the bloody show! Do we need signed and dotted confirmation from Impact officials themselves nowadays? The same could be said for you: Disruptive editing and self-appointed policing to the point of obstructiveness. Damolisher (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, and which part of frequently undoing other people's edits based upon "you're wrong because I say so" is good faith again?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damolisher (talk • contribs)
Uhhhh, the fact you literally undid my edit on the List of Impact Personnel page twice says you've interacted with me. That's what I'm getting at. Damolisher (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Except I'm not. You're literally just going "You're wrong because I say so." Damolisher (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And for the umpteenth time as I've explained to you- the source is valid, the source's sources are valid, it's a valid edit, you just refuse to be wrong. Damolisher (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
THEY SOURCED THEIR RESULT FROM TWITTER FROM PEOPLE AT THE SHOW. YOU ARE SAYING YOU KNOW MORE THAN PEOPLE AT THE SHOW. You're intentionally ignoring the obvious to be a bureaucrat. That's what it boils down to. I expect an apology once I'm proven right. Damolisher (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC) February 2019Your recent editing history at List of Impact Wrestling personnel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. StaticVapor message me! 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Yeah, with you because you don't listen to reason. I'm *still* not going to be bullied by jargon. Damolisher (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Just a noteHi, my name's Tony and I'm an admin and CheckUser on Wikipedia. Another user is concerned that you edited logged out previously. I have not looked at the technical data, and wouldn't comment publicly even if I had, but if this is the case please avoid doing so in the future and always remember to log in when editing contentious topic areas where you are active. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC) List of Impact Wrestling personnelHi there. Please refrain from reverting edits that contribute positively to the page, such as filling in references. Thanks! KyleJoantalk 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Damolisher (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. You removed direct links to profiles which prove the wrestlers in question work for the company. You for whatever reason also removed pieces of information pertaining to the on-air product. It made the article worse, not better. Damolisher (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh goody! I have one who isn't just obnoxious, they're passive-aggressive too! You removed profiles for the Lucha Bros and the Radcalz. Not an improvement. You removed people James Mitchell is managing without proof, not an improvement. You removed links which had sourced information, not an improvement. It's bad enough myself and others have to deal with bureaucrats whenever we want to edit the Impact Personnel article, we shouldn't have to deal with passive-aggressive ones who wreck the thing too. Damolisher (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Notice
Oh wonderful! Attempted bullying yet again. Damolisher (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC) March 2019You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has been lifted, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
My contempt isn't for the rules and regs, it's for the people who attempt to use them in a way which is done purposely to minimize the contributions of others. StaticVapor, HHHPedrigree and whoever their associate are seem to find it is their prerogative to hang around a page, police others and make disruptive edits all while attempting to use wikipedia guidelines to do so. If you notice, since my previous block, every incident you speak of has involved one of those three. HHHPedrigree himself admits to not watching Impact Wrestling, yet feels like his word is somehow more important than sourced information, as does StaticVapor. I've told them before that I'm perfectly happy for them to alter information with sources which apply to guidelines, yet they would rather waste the time of myself and others by deleting perfectly correct additions to articles because according to them and solely according to them, my sources and the sources of other editors aren't good enough. StaticVapor and HHHPedrigree would have you believe that I am trying to divert blame by calling what they're doing harassment. What else do you call it when every single time I make an addition to the talk page of the Impact Wrestling personnel page or the main page itself, one of those two are there to either undo or alter my additions. Is that not suspicious? As I say- I have no issue following rules, I have an issue when those rules are thrown at me in such a way it wastes my time and is used to prevent me from making positive edits to pages. That's my problem. And I wouldn't have engaged in conflict with this group were they not simply using alleged regulations to bully others.Damolisher (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC) And to the person who made the unnecessary comment about "unrepentant response", again, please state which part of bullying anand harassment is civil? Or is that perfectly fine provided the user can quote wiki jargon?Damolisher (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC) So... Am I talking to myself here? You repeatedly cite alleged disruptive edits, while citing year to multiple year old disputes which have long since internally being settled with other editors. I feel like I'm in essence talking to someone who only wishes to see one side of a story and is using old information to make a snap judgment based on one editor who feels that they have reign over other people. If you'd check the List of Impact Wrestling Personnel page, you'll see StaticVapor just ignored a valid edit and undid it because he didn't agree with the source, even though Chaosithe provided a corroborating source in his edit. I think this proves my point about StaticVapor, personally speaking. Damolisher (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
