User talk:CC8200

Welcome![edit]

Hi CC8200! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Wings of Fire (novel series) and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 02:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Hi CC8200! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Wings of Fire (novel series) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Wings of Fire (novel series), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bro thats exactly what I did 💀 why you leaving messages on my talk page when your the one who reverted my edit CC8200 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have stated your itnention to continue edit warring, which will most likely result in you getting blocked if you continue to do so. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my intention to stop your vandalism to the page by removing information for no reason CC8200 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read what they linked, your information is considered WP:Fancruft, it will only interest people who are fans of the series, and is (somewhat) inappropriate on Wikipedia. Happy Editing! -I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact read what he linked, my additions to the article only helped it. What I wrote is correct and important information, so it doesn't matter if only people who are fans of the series will be intrested in it, it is simply important and correct information that needed to be added. CC8200 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CC8200 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: ). Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a history of disruptive editing, edit warring, battleground behaviour and personal attacks that resulted in blocks of your IPs which continue with this account.

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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

CC8200 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, to whoever may read this, please read the whole thing and respond to it all instead of responding with one sentence like most wikipedians do. Now, I believe I should be unblocked. This is because on the "Wings of fire" article, I put a lot of important information into a section. It was promptly reverted by @TheMysteriousShadeHeart, who, when reverting my edit, said "Previous several edits to the "setting and universe" section cleaned up for grammatical, formatting, spacing and phrasing fixes; minor sentence rephrasing for ease of understanding and readability. ^^" He makes it seem like he only changed sentence structure, but leaves out the part where he took out several edits worth of information that is extremely important to the story." He changed this : "The world of Wings of Fire is made up of two continents that are populated by dragons - Pyrrhia (the focus of Books 1-10) and Pantala (the focus of Books 11-15). While Pyrrhia is home to seven tribes (MudWings, SandWings, SkyWings, SeaWings, RainWings, IceWings, NightWings), Pantala houses only three tribes (HiveWings, SilkWings, LeafWings), and hybrid dragons also exist in the world. Each tribe lives in a habitat suited to its biological needs and abilities(save the NightWings and LeafWings, who both were in hiding until The Dark Secret and The Hive Queen, respectively.), is ruled by a queen (though once the RainWings, who used to have several rotating queens and no known royal family until The Hidden Kingdom, and the SilkWings, once united under the HiveWing queen, until “Flames of Hope”), and generally exist independently from the other tribes(except for the NightWings and RainWings, who live together after The Dark Secret). Both continents are also inhabited by humans (called "scavengers" by Pyrrhian dragons and "reading monkeys" by some Pantalan dragons) who are seen as inferior animals and are often eaten, although Moon rising and some of the later books in the third arc and the legends books Dragonslayer and Darkstalker explore the humans of the Wings of Fire world and their interactions with dragons more thoroughly." to this: "The world of Wings of Fire is made up of two continents that are populated by dragons - Pyrrhia (the focus of Books 1-10) and Pantala (the focus of Books 11-15). While Pyrrhia is home to seven tribes (MudWings, SandWings, SkyWings, SeaWings, RainWings, IceWings, NightWings), Pantala houses only three tribes (HiveWings, SilkWings, LeafWings), and hybrid dragons also exist in the world. With a few exceptions to each rule, each tribe lives in a habitat suited to its biological needs and abilities, is ruled by a queen, and generally exist independently from the other tribes. Both continents are also inhabited by humans (called "scavengers" by Pyrrhian dragons and "reading monkeys" by some Pantalan dragons), which are seen as inferior animals and are often eaten, although the series' interactions between humans and dragons is explored throughout the series." Obviously, there are not just a "few exceptions to each rule". This sentence doesn't do it justice in the slightest. I changed it back to how it was in the first place, because I viewed his edit as non-constructive to the article, and replied "Don't revert my edits again. You can fix grammatical errors or whatever, but don't remove actual information on the books. There is little enough of it in this article as there is." He responds by making the EXACT same edit and saying "Reverting the edit of user "CC8200" to the setting and universe section: page is unnecessarily hindered by the run-on sentence I cleaned up and you insufficiently reverted. Wikipedia needs to be written well and I fully agree that the page should be biographically fulfilled insofar as it makes sense, though the sentence as it stood in the section didn't encyclopedically justify itself. I do NOT remove information on the book(s)/series; I am committed to making it written as well as possible. ^^" He said all that AFTER he had just removed several sentences worth of information on the books. I responded by reverting his edit back to how it was before, fixing up the grammar and getting rid of the run-on sentence. Then I said "By all the moons, feel perfectly free to fix the grammar and the run-on, just 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯. Find a way to keep it in. Saying "there are a few exceptions" Does not do it justice at all. I looked at your edit history and you have a record of randomly reverting things with no talk beforehand. Do not do this again. If you still disagree, ping me and lets talk instead of edit warring." This should be good, right? Wrong. Instead of someone talking to me on the talk page, I get my edits reverted AGAIN, by a completely different person, Blaze Wolf. He should have checked to see that I cleaned up the grammar, but instead reverted my edit without thinking first. He said "No I agree with them. A lot of this information is just WP:CRUFT and really only important to those really invested in the series." Now this is untrue, first of all. This person has never read any of the books in the series, so he was not aware that the information was actually VERY important to the series, having SIX of the fifteen books revolve around it. I revert the edit back to how it was, and say "Do NOT revert this edit without first reading what I told you both and giving me a proper reason on the talk page. Don't try ghosting me as all you Wikipedia editors do, I'm happy to revert this page as much as I need to. And don't hit me with the stupid happy face that you do, it's annoying as anything." I wanted to talk to them now, instead of just reverting edits over and over, I left a huge message to both of them on the talk page to clear things up. In this message I said "@Blaze Wolf @TheMysteriousShadeheart I really don't think that the information in that section is fancruft. When I look up an article on Wikipedia and it's obvious that it was written by people who haven't read the books or played the game, I doubt the reliability of the article and I am led to believe that the article is missing a ton of information, just like this one is, and just like I doubt the fact that either of you have read the books. There is little to nothing in this article that you need to read the books to know. It makes it seem like bots wrote the article, honestly. I just want to add a little more information into the setting and universe section. This guy TheMysteriousShadeHeart just hops through wikipedia making edits that were suggested to him, and lowering the quality of articles. We need to have more information in these books. If you look above, to the Section right above this, I am currently asking to add summaries to the books, with no response so far. Saying, "there are some exceptions to these" like TheMysteriousShadeHeart did, isn't nearly sufficient when there are TONS of exceptions that he is just leaving out. More proof that the people who wrote the article didn't read the books is the fact the tribes were literally in the wrong order from how they were shown in the books. I had to change that myself. Blaze Wolf, you say the info is only important to people really invested in the series, but it does no harm to the people who aren't. I told ShadeHeart to fix the grammar and leave in the information, and he responded by reverting the edit with the exact same one he made earlier, and saying he did not remove any information. I even cleaned up the sentences on my second revision, and then you come along and revert it, Blaze Wolf. Have either of you actually read the series and care about the article, or are you just doing this for a quick edit to put on your record? Also, it is absolutely ridiculous to leave out the fact that some of the tribes live together, because in SIX books that is a very important part of the story. But of course, you don't know that, because you haven't read the books. Please refrain from removing someone else's knowledge of something that you barely even know exists in the future." I think I made this message very detailed, and very clearly told Blaze Wolf to read the whole message, but can you guess what he said in response? He said ""Blaze Wolf, you say the info is only important to people really invested in the series, but it does no harm to the people who aren't" WP:NOHARM, just because something does no harm doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not meant to cover every single little thing about a subject, that's what Fandom is for. See MOS:PLOT, things should generally have out-of-universe importance. Having to read the book series in order to edit the article is not at all appropriate." Now, he is ignoring the fact that what I added is not a "little thing" And I never said you HAVE to read the book series to edit the article, it is just better to do so, because the information will be better. So I responded by saying, "Can you actually respond to what I said? "Also, it is absolutely ridiculous to leave out the fact that some of the tribes live together, because in SIX books that is a very important part of the story." You just completely ignored this part. Go back and re read what I said, instead of the one sentence you chose to respond to." Again telling him that he is incorrect, and the information I added was not a "little thing". He responds by ignoring me again, and saying,"I addressed it in the above sentence. "Wikipedia is not meant to cover every single little thing about a subject, that's what Fandom is for. See MOS:PLOT, things should generally have out-of-universe importance." This is the second time he has ignored me. I respond with "Man you just really aren't listening, are you? Something that is covered by NEARLY HALF THE BOOKS IN THE SERIES is not a "little thing". Do I have to ask you again to READ everything I just wrote? When I look up an article on wikipedia and it's obvious that it was written by people who haven't read the books or played the game, I doubt the reliabilty of the article and I am led to believe that the article is missing a ton of information, just like this one is, and just like I doubt the fact that either of you have read the books." He ignores me for the third time, and goes to report me to an admin....What? Of course, the admin takes his side, and I'm blocked from editing wikipedia forever, within five minutes. I accused both of them of Vandalism, because I thought they were making un-constructive edits. As you can see, I tried to resolve the situation several times, but every time I was ignored. However, TheMysteriousShadeHeart, having been ghosting me this whole time has now responded to my talk page message for the first time. Get ready for this message, because it's long. He said "Hello to you... ^^ I'll try to tackle what you wrote point-by-point - hope it checks out and covers everything.(It doesnt) An article on Wikipedia is meant to provide an in-depth overview of encyclopedia-worthy information on a subject. Expansively explaining minuscule facts (again, this is the fourth time I've been ignored, my edits were certainly not related to a minuscule fact.)within a short introductory overview to the settings of a page's settings and universe section, as I described in my reversion of your edit, the page is unnecessarily hindered by the run-on sentence I cleaned up and you insufficiently reverted.(I didn't "insufficiently revert" anything, when I had to revert his edit for the second time, I fixed the run-on sentence, which of course he ignored.) That is to say, the sentence was a run-on which (1) did not meaningfully contribute anything to the section at hand(it did, in fact, as like I said, the information was very important.), (2) jumps into information within the series that is , and (3) does not have an enyclopedic-enough style. As my clean-up showed, the section's excessively descriptive content could be much better posed in an overview of a summative "[w]tih a few exceptions"(doesn't do it justice) note at the beginning. After all, the actual purpose of stating specific objections to each rule (1) doesn't allow enrichment of any other aspect of the article, and (2) doesn't explain itself as relevant apart from being a detail that could otherwise be explained away in a clearer form - one which I tried to create from your edit.(he could've kept in the information and phrased it differently, but just chose not to) Indeed, there are exceptions to those qualities; but to describe the sociopolitical system, geographical set-up, impact of the conditional arrangement of Wings of Fire, as well as other qualities already assumed understood by the tone of your edit, those underlying aspects would have to be distinguished and discussed first... and they weren't,(just like his reversion of my edit) nor did it make much sense to include those in a revision just as the article currently stands. May I ask how I didn't fix the page up so both the grammar and biographical body of text are up to grade? To respond to your criticisms more directly, I do not hop "...through [W]ikipedia making edits that were suggested... lowering the quality of articles". Rather, it is my intention to (1) ensure that information contained within articles is helpful, logically sound and factually both relevant and insightful enough, (2) of sufficient quality that the average reader could gain a decent understanding of the topic at hand insofar as it would be useful and comprehensively satisfactory, (3) improve the structural, emotional, intellectual and behind-the-scenes components of any piece that is in need of improvement (4) verify the contents of existing information, (5) do my part in constantly learning how to edit Wikipedia to the best of my ability (and then implementing those skills as best I can, constantly seeking to improve myself), (6) act as I would like others to act, and perhaps most of all, (7) try to ensure the best possible experience for all who use Wikipedia (see WP:BETTER). Forget my editing record; I'm not trying to amass anything to my name (and would rather quietly be in the background helping out, regardless of whether or not there was a record) - editors shouldn't be here for any other reason than to write and improve the best possible experience possible. How, as you accuse and I ask, I have lowered the quality of articles is beyond me - and with good reason, since I intentionally haven't and have instead improved with each edit I made, done as best I can (despite the occasional mistake, which I always stand behind and try to learn from). Please do not accuse myself or others of not reading the books. Trust me, I would not have edited either this page or that of Tui T. Sutherland to the extent I have if I hadn't known a thing or two about either one. And trust me, if discussions on this talk page - where deliberate discussion on whether the page should be appropriately expanded a la splitting Warriors (novel series) into individual pages for each arc (ex. Warriors (arc)) - led to a consensus about creating separate pages for each of the arcs/individual titles, I'd be one of the leading writers behind each of those pages.(Trust me, I would LOVE to see that happen - CC8200) It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that I am remarkably well-versed with the series( not as much as me though) - something I do not say lightly. I have revamped up this and Sutherland's pages so as to ensure that a reasonable-length, properly cited, helpful introductory overview of an encyclopedic nature is available for all to use - something which has been inconsistently handled in the past, I'll admit (see revision history). Again, I am not removing information on the series, with previous edits to prove how significantly I have tried(tried and failed) to contribute to both these pages (adding citations, rewriting/reformatting entire sections, cleaning up previous edits, etc.) and in paying attention to both the history of this page (in all its varying lengths) and the series itself, I am fully committed to ensuring the best possible page(s) available for everyone. No exceptions. I fully understand the enthusiasm you might have to write articles up the best way you can. Believe me when I say that I made an early mistake in an attempt to edit one page's biographical overview (2015 section to the Nintendo World Championships) massively. There's a time and place for everything - in the case with your specific edit, it's just not now, and not the right place. I wish you all the best in your time at Wikipedia - really, I do. But I, as with other users, cannot stand behind behavior such as that which you have displayed. Please let any of us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns, would like advice with anything at hand, or are in need of confirmation of any of the aspects of editing within Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you first investigate the community portal, and I suggest you check out the Teahouse in particular - it can prove invaluable to you, and besides, you'll be able to start on the right foot if you decide to stick around and try suggested edits. I sincerely hope that this can be a positive experience for you; I give every user (and person) the benefit of the doubt and truly believe every user can contribute something to this large project (and get something out of it in the long run). P.S. You specifically refer to a game(no, I am referring to the "Minecraft" article where I was also ignored about a year ago) - presumably the Scholastic Home Base and not the shoot-em-up game on the Scholastic forum which most FanWings post-2018 would have no knowledge of. Lacking knowledge of either of these in particular does not make one ineligible to be considered as "knowing the series" (I agree, but I wasn't saying that, simple misunderstanding) (which I do) - the two endeavors are non-canonical, storyless and minuscule aspects which add zero weight to your accusation. P.P.S. There is no rule on ordering the tribes a specific way (ex. in the order introduced in the series). Believe me, I have no objection to having it be written any way at all so long as this listing itself is accurate. (Agreed) P.P.P.S. The fact that the RainWings and NightWings live together is a justifiable fact to include in a more comprehensive version of the page, or as Blaze Wolf writes in a Fandom article. Somewhat arbitrarily throwing it into a run-on sentence without any contextualization is - I hope others can agree - quite unsensible if not poorly executed. (Yeah, true, this is why I FIXED the run-on, which he did not notice) P.P.P.P.S. My initial efforts have also been to ensure this and Sutherland's page are cleared up insofar as the respective talk pages are concerned - and I fully look forward to seeing whether expansion is decided upon or not out of notability and necessity. P.P.P.P.P.S. I write ^^ as a sign of politeness, good intention and cordiality; it's not to signify anything other than a respectful sign along the lines of, this is my contribution, and whether it is good or not, I hope you can understand it was done with the good faith and the best of hopes for the future of this page. ALright, well thats basically it. Please unblock me from editing. And please, PLEASE, do not ignore me like I have been ignored five times by other wikipedians. Thank you, if you read the whole thing.CC8200 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. That's approximately 3400 words. Do you seriously expect people to read that?!? Try again in no more than 150 words. Yamla (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

CC8200 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alright fine, I'll shorten it down. I made an edit, it got reverted, I reverted it back, he reverted it again, I fixed it and reverted, he reverted again, I tried to resolve things on the talk page, got ignored five times, and got reported and banned. Their edits were de-constructive and removed important info. CC8200 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are a long way from convincing me or any admin that you understand how to resolve disputes without edit warring, nor have you convinced me you understand WP:NPA or WP:BATTLEGROUND. I also see the replies to your comments and don't understand how you feel "ignored"; I think you might be confusing the lack of comments similar to yours as "ignored"- yes, others are trying to avoid getting drawn into a knock down drag out fight over your edits. You need to learn how to be civil when in a dispute and nothing I see here convinces me you will. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note from blocking admin: There was no checkuser use involved in this block; the IP range I mention is obvious if you look through the editors contribs and the edit history of the related articles.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

CC8200 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added important information to the article, and they removed it for the reason that is was messy and that it was a "minuscle fact". I disagreed on the small fact part, so I cleaned it up and reverted, so now the only reason they were reverting it was for the fact that it was fancruft. However, I argued that it was not fancruft, and that the information I added was a MASSIVE part of the storyline in Wings of Fire. If you go back in the talk page, you can see they never respond to me addressing this.CC8200 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. User has decided to take the low road, is no longer interested in an unblock and plans to violate WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK to actively harm the project. Yamla (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"If you go back in the talk page, you can see they never respond to me addressing this" No, you simply just refused to accept my explanation. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, I told you that the information was important and how it was important, and you responded with "Wikipedia is not meant to cover every single little thing about a subject, that's what Fandom is for.", ignoring the fact that I specifically told you that the information was not a "little thing", and actually a huge part of the story. CC8200 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I then responded to you AGAIN by saying "Man you just really aren't listening, are you? Something that is covered by NEARLY HALF THE BOOKS IN THE SERIES is not a "little thing". You never responded to this. CC8200 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You then proceed to ignore me again by saying "much to the annoyance of those who absolutely must have every little detail recorded in the article) but it's not always easy." AGAIN you call it a "little detail". This is just annoying because first of all, having not read the books, you have no idea what is or isn't a little detail, and second of all, you are ignoring someone who's knowledge on the subject far exceeds yours. CC8200 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what a "figure of speech" is. It doesn't matter whether or not it's covered in half of the books, not everything belongs in a Wikipedia article. For example, I could say that the BMW M3 GTR from Need for Speed: Most Wanted has appeared as a purchasable car in multiple games after it's debut, and that would still be WP:CRUFT despite having been in more than one game. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the information belonged in the article, as it was very important. You are comparing this to something no one cares about, like a BMW appearing in video games. I completely understand that not everything belongs in a Wikipedia article, but I believe that this does. Having not read the books yourself, it is unjust for you to automatically assume that you know better than I do. It's a very important piece of information that isn't fancruft, it's just an important piece of information that belongs in the article. CC8200 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You are comparing this to something no one cares about, like a BMW appearing in video games" actually you'd be surprised just how many people care that this specific version of the car has appeared in multiple games, but that's besides the point. Yes I haven't read the books, however I've dealt with a lot of fan cruft in the 2 years I've been here. Specific details or examples like what you added are completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Let's take part of your edit for an example. You added "(save the NightWings and LeafWings, who both were in hiding until "The Dark Secret" and "The Hive Queen", respectively.)" while removing "With a few exceptions to each rule". "With a few exceptions to each rule" already covers the information you are wanting to add without going into complete detail so that if the reader is that interested they can find other places to find the specific information. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said several times, "With a few exceptions to each rule" does not do it justice, as there are way too many exceptions. Saying "With a few exceptions" is almost never enough to cover information. You again suggest that the information is not important by saying "If the reader is that interested". Keeping this information in just adds more detail to the article and again, is important information that I think should be left in. it does no harm to anyone, and adds correct and important information to the article. The original reason it was reverted was for messiness, which I fixed, and then you come along and revert it. Clearly you did not go back and see that I had corrected my mistakes. If you had only left a message on the talk page the first time you encountered my edit instead of reverting it, we could have avoided this and come to a compromise. CC8200 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it does no harm to anyone" I've already told you this, just because something doesn't do any harm does not mean it should be added. I reverted solely because it is excessive information that does not belong in the article. This will most likely be my last response to you since I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. The nutshell of WP:CRUFT says this: "In-universe topics must demonstrate out-of-universe notability." and further expands on the concept of CRUFT saying "The use of the term implies that an editor does not regard the material in question as encyclopedic...because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." I also suggest you read WP:DETAIL as well as WP:UNDUE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, talking to you gets me nowhere, as you choose to only respond to one or two of the several things I bring up in each message. You continuously regard the information as excessive and non-important. Let's get something straight. You have not read the books. You are not paying attention to what I am saying. You know nothing of the subject. Your knowledge is far below mine. You do not get to choose whether the information is important or not. Hopefully in the future you will talk to people who actually know what they are doing before you act like an idiot and revert someone's edit for no reason, without bringing it up with them beforehand. Now, I know my unban request will either get ignored or declined, so I'm just going to block evade and vandalize several wikipedia pages under the radar, with minor changes that will make the article incorrect and lead to people being offended at wikipedia and getting wrong information. I've said it once, and I'll say it again. It is unfair idiots get to control the information people are getting. I'm going to make several alt accounts with different ips in different locations, and try to vandalize wikipedia as much as possible. This is gonna be real fun CC8200 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun getting all your socks blocked then! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun finding them! CC8200 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, we're not as stupid as you seem to think we are. We will find them and we will block them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Yamla (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]