User talk:24.35.122.169

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Thera obeliscata has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tiderolls 05:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pizza Hut, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Pizza Hut was changed by 24.35.122.169 (u) (t) deleting 7740 characters on 2010-05-01T01:35:06+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop inserting commentary into the article mainspace. Thanks Tiderolls 07:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned for your other recent activities as well, so I'll only say this once. Please stop re-adding the speedy deletion tags to Mana Bar. There has been sufficient justification for the notability of the subject. Please see Talk:Mana Bar for the responses to your comment you made there. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mana Bar

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mana Bar. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana Bar. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is also made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana Bar. Please look there, as well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Mana Bar, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can offer a good reasoning, please don't add any deletion tags to Mana Bar again. The deletion was even discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana Bar, where neutral editors also commented, and the general consensus was to not delete it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good evening. It has been established that Mana Bar is not going to be deleted as things now stand, or in the foreseeable future. It fits The Rules: it has a number of sources to back our words up, and unlike the majority of Australian pubs, it clears the accursed, arbitrary barrier of notability by having that same press coverage. Further attempts to do away with the article would fall into pointless antagonism, so it'd be nice if you didn't make them. --Kizor 11:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue adding the deletion tag to Mana Bar. You have already been told several times, and also contributed to the deletion discussion. The general consensus among everyone was to not delete it, and the discussion has been closed. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Mana Bar has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tiderolls 07:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 Hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for 3 weeks due to your persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Kizor 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I get the impression that your grudge against the Mana Bar article and what it represents is expanding into a grudge against Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot meaningfully stop you from acting on it, but in all likelihood your edits will get reverted, people won't care much about them, and you'll have wasted time that could've been spent on things like looking at dolphins.

Alternatively, I can take a look at those deleted edits of yours that you've mentioned if you point me at them. I can't guarantee that it'll do any good, but at least I could give an explanation. --Kizor 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't true that people won't care much about them. Writing something, anything at all, on wikipedia is a fast way to get a bunch of weird nerds interested in what you're saying

June 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Ben Croshaw, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This isn't unsourced defamatory information, that really is Ben Croshaw posting. There's articles on the sexuality of other noteworthy people, why is this a problem? Here is a link where the frontpage of the forums credits Ben Croshaw as a forums poster and promotes his video review site. I await your apology. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/zero-punctuation-yahtzee.php

Forums are not reliable sources. Considering your block record, you better step carefully. Favonian (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm it's a forum that Yahtzee posts in, where he made a personal statement about his own video game artwork, and the people that run the site are affiliated him with and advertise his member status as well as his video reviews. Give me 5 more minutes and I can dig up stuff even more concrete proving it since I can tell you're a hardass. Also I am confused why it is defamatory to post someone's own views about themselves? I think it's pretty insulting when you insinuate that Ben Croshaw's personal opinion of himself is defamatory.

Hey what if I got an e-mail from Yahtzee saying he posted that? Would that count as a source then? Or can it never be a source at all because it's posted on a forum? I'm curious how your dumb rules work.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for repeated violation of the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

24.35.122.169 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for sourcing a web forum, but I continued to be blocked even after providing evidence that the forums poster is Ben Croshaw and that he is widely known for providing information on his work, business and personal life on the forums. Below I am providing several links, including the original links I used as citations, as well as links from Ben Croshaw himself and several others identifying the forums poster as Yahtzee. I was not defaming Yahtzee, I was posting something he said about himself in a public space and I think it's insulting that I get banned for that even after going out of my way to provide more evidence.

Decline reason:

Two things: first, are these recognized reliable sources? Have you had this okayed via the reliable source noticeboard? If not, then anything such as this will NEVER pass the biography of living persons policy. Second, is anything that you're adding really important/useful? I read an entry regarding being "asexual" which has absolutely zero significant in an encyclopedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Here are some relevant links:

Here Yahtzee admits to reading somethingawful:

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/interview-zero-punctuations-yahtzee-20080214/

On 23/8/09 Yahtzee specifically mentions the SA forums and the "let's play" thread he is posting in. On 21/1/10 he identifies several websites where people pretend to be him but does not mention the somethingawful forums:

http://www.fullyramblomatic.com/

Posts where the forums poster "Yahtzee" provides information only he would know such as private correspondences with game designers addressed personally to him:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2579800&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2579800&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1#post331567497

Two pages of Ben Croshaw talking, decide for yourself if it is really him or a clever impostor:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3297636&userid=79639

Several websites and individuals identifying the forums Yahtzee as the real Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw some going so far as to include how they offered him work:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awful-links/zero-punctuation-yahtzee.php

http://wiki.fandomwank.com/index.php/Zero_Punctuation

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BenCroshaw

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/google-yahtzee-whocares.php

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/google-yahtzee-whocares.php?page=2

Basically the more sources I found, the less reason people gave me for reverting my edits, they just went ahead and did it. I've gone far above and beyond offering a single forum as a source, and even when I made an edit with three separate sources for my edit I was immediately reverted without comment. I would like this reviewed. Hell, at this point I am fine with waiting until I get a letter from Yahtzee himself that he is a poster at somethingawful and is willing to stand behind those words. But I would like to be unbanned and I would like it acknowledged that I'm not posting outsourced, defamatory material but a personal statement from Ben Croshow on a medium that he uses regularly to communicate his artistic and personal desires. As far as I am aware the majority of his postings that would be of interest to history as on web forums and it's absurd that I can get banned for putting the man's own words into the record. Almost every reference to him outside of the sa forums themselves makes reference to Yahtzee having a history on the forums and being a poster there. It's absurd the game wikipedia editors are playing by pretending what I posted isn't a reliable quote from Ben Croshaw himself.

---