User talk:Keimzelle/Archives/2020/December
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keimzelle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
December 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions, you may be blocked from editing. Additionally, when citing a source, please provide a link. Thanks. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Furthermore, it appears to me that you do NOT understand WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so please think before you cite Wikipedia itself. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for content in an article
See WP:UGC for details. Another Wikipedia article may include references that you can also use in the article you're editing, but you cannot cite that other wikipedia article directly. Stop adding a wikipedia article as a reference. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd:, the thing is that he asked for a source. Because the source is literally one click away I helped him to grasp that simple matter by introducing a link to the relevant Wikipedia page. Dealing with idiots is hard and should by a highly paid job.--Keimzelle (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The ref is for the readers, not other editors. If you can't provide a reliable source for your edit, don't make it. But don't cite wikipedia as a source. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The reliable source was already there. It was just one fucking click away. --Keimzelle (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The ref is for the readers, not other editors. If you can't provide a reliable source for your edit, don't make it. But don't cite wikipedia as a source. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Keimzelle/Archives/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wrong person blocked. Aggressive and non-constructive behavior by somebody who requested a LINK to the source, and when he was not happy, he still insisted on reverting my edit. Keimzelle (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, so you were in the wrong. Most importantly though, you edit warred, which isn't the correct response. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2020 (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.
- (edit conflict) I have blocked you for the edit warring and comments which are personal attacks in your edit summaries at List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions. Citing Wikipedia directly is not the way to support something in an article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source details more about this. Even if the source you are citing is in the article, you should cite that source. Regardless of the content of your edits, you have broken the 3 revert rule and edit warred over it. I suggest that you wait this week long block out and then come back in a better frame of mind. Edit warring, even if you think you are right, is wrong. Breaking the 3 revert rule should only be done under specific circumstances which you did not meet here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz:, the crucial thing is that lots of other annotations on that articles aren't sourced either, presumably with the expectation that the Wikipedia user can click on the movie title on the left, and find out what happened regarding the remake. He asked me for a source, and so I added a reference which pointed to that source. His wish was granted, but yet he still complained. Furthermore, I have no reasons to assume that the other involved person can order me to edit an article in any specific way. Anyway, 14 years being a regular contributor on the German Wikipedia cannot prepare me for what happens around here...--Keimzelle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keimzelle, regardless of the merits of your edits, its the edit warring which is the problem. I will be willing to unblock you early if you understand why I blocked you and commit to not edit war further. Citing Wikipedia is not a good idea at all. In my opinion, citing Wikipedia is no par with no source, as it can change at any point and is itself not reliable. On another point, I would also say that your argument about other things not being sourced is an example of "other stuff exists": just because other parts of the article is un-sourced doesn't mean that you can add more unsourced information or information cited to Wikipedia. You should have disengaged from this, but you instead made 11 reverts to the article to restore your addition in less than 12 hours. This is way over the 3 revert limit for a page every 24 hours. The other involved person cannot "order" you to edit the article in any way at all. In fact, they should have also disengaged from this too, but that is a matter for them. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dreamy Jazz, citing Wikipedia was a method to direct Call me when you get the chance to the source, and of course he was not happy with my solution. It's my stance that my edit does not need to be sourced, as the relevant information can be found in the article - which is a simple click away, and will be found by interested readers anyway. And as all articles should be written by consensus, I don't see any way he can force the sources to be added, except by adding them by himself. I judged the continued reverts to be an attempt to force his way.--Keimzelle (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Edit warring was the issue here. Ideally they should have gone to the article, found the source and replaced it with that Wikipedia source instead of edit warring with you. However, you should have cited the source and not the Wikipedia article. You should have also not commented about the other user in this way here and here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm on Wikipedia because I have an inherent motivation to share knowledge. Because nobody pays me I'm inherently unwilling to following orders - like his crass and aggressively portrayed demands to introduce sources. All I did was help him find the source so he could be convinced I didn't invent what I wrote. As I believe the other guy has still some residual editorial competence left, I trusted that he could grab the source from the article, and add it himself if sources are something that delivers much-needed, sexual-like pleasure. Now I kindly ask you to unblock me so I can
restorework on my contributions.--Keimzelle (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) / Later edit --Keimzelle (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm on Wikipedia because I have an inherent motivation to share knowledge. Because nobody pays me I'm inherently unwilling to following orders - like his crass and aggressively portrayed demands to introduce sources. All I did was help him find the source so he could be convinced I didn't invent what I wrote. As I believe the other guy has still some residual editorial competence left, I trusted that he could grab the source from the article, and add it himself if sources are something that delivers much-needed, sexual-like pleasure. Now I kindly ask you to unblock me so I can
- Edit warring was the issue here. Ideally they should have gone to the article, found the source and replaced it with that Wikipedia source instead of edit warring with you. However, you should have cited the source and not the Wikipedia article. You should have also not commented about the other user in this way here and here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dreamy Jazz, citing Wikipedia was a method to direct Call me when you get the chance to the source, and of course he was not happy with my solution. It's my stance that my edit does not need to be sourced, as the relevant information can be found in the article - which is a simple click away, and will be found by interested readers anyway. And as all articles should be written by consensus, I don't see any way he can force the sources to be added, except by adding them by himself. I judged the continued reverts to be an attempt to force his way.--Keimzelle (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- To any administrator reviewing this unblock request, if they present a good unblock request which addresses the edit warring and a commitment to not edit war, then you have my full support and approval to unblock early. If they do not, I trust your judgement as an administrator on what the best action is. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keimzelle, regardless of the merits of your edits, its the edit warring which is the problem. I will be willing to unblock you early if you understand why I blocked you and commit to not edit war further. Citing Wikipedia is not a good idea at all. In my opinion, citing Wikipedia is no par with no source, as it can change at any point and is itself not reliable. On another point, I would also say that your argument about other things not being sourced is an example of "other stuff exists": just because other parts of the article is un-sourced doesn't mean that you can add more unsourced information or information cited to Wikipedia. You should have disengaged from this, but you instead made 11 reverts to the article to restore your addition in less than 12 hours. This is way over the 3 revert limit for a page every 24 hours. The other involved person cannot "order" you to edit the article in any way at all. In fact, they should have also disengaged from this too, but that is a matter for them. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz:, the crucial thing is that lots of other annotations on that articles aren't sourced either, presumably with the expectation that the Wikipedia user can click on the movie title on the left, and find out what happened regarding the remake. He asked me for a source, and so I added a reference which pointed to that source. His wish was granted, but yet he still complained. Furthermore, I have no reasons to assume that the other involved person can order me to edit an article in any specific way. Anyway, 14 years being a regular contributor on the German Wikipedia cannot prepare me for what happens around here...--Keimzelle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)