User talk:Petergriffin9901

If you have reason to leave a comment, question or suggestion, please click here and start a new section.

Thanks for stopping by. PS. I find it funny when editors address me as "Call Me Nathan". That's not the point! You're supposed to call me "Nathan".

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Just noticed your edit here indicating retirement. If this is true, then know that you'll be missed. I know you haven't been very active for a while either way in quite some time, but would hate to see you officially leave the site. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it's never good to close the door completely. I prefer the "semi". It's good to hear from you buddy and glad to see you still thriving. Sometimes when I start editing I'm reminded of how toxic the climate here can be, so its unfortunate. I'll always definitely be around to watch out for my Mimi ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief! I'm still thriving for sure. Sorry about any toxic climate, but it's good to know you'll still be around. Mimi and her articles do need your care, especially the more recent material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Emancipation of Mimi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
One more revert on any of those Mariah Carey articles and I'll block you myself. This is ridiculous. Katie^talk 15:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at The Emancipation of Mimi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Katie^talk 22:38, 21 August 2017 (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).

Petergriffin9901 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't apologize for my reverts. I am well within my right to revert when I am protecting an article from clear vandalism as seen on The Emancipation of Mimi. We also have fans from the Rihanna "Navy" and other Madonna fans who decide to tear down sourced information. I think Katie is mistaken in her rush to spill needless blood and think a week is excessive. There is no reason information sourced from The Daily Telegraph & The Guardian & Billboard should be tossed away. That is vandalism through and through and I question Katie's involvment because of the apparent Canvassing by User:Marcus88. I don't believe she can or this can be impartial.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appears to be a content dispute, and it is most certainly not vandalism. Right now, I don't care who's correct. I care about the disruption stopping. More than the edit-warring, I'm concerned by the tone of both your edit summaries and your unblock request. Calling someone a nut or moron, as you did in your edit summaries, is unacceptable. Your focus on the blocking administrator rather than your own actions is also concerning. Feel free to re-appeal your block with a clear explanation of how you'd handle this moving forward if unblocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 22 August 2017 (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.

@BU Rob13: I have been here for almost 10 years, so I understand the drill. I, as you can see, don't edit often for years now, so when a barrage of stans come for articles I wrote years ago from scratch that are GA or FA, yes, I definitely offed my top a bit. Quite simply, moving forward, I won't revert to warring. I'll be very frank on talk pages and I assure you the outburst won't continue. I request if you can please make this a 24 Hour block. I hope that you can understand being here so long and having invested so much into the article and content, you definitely grow attached (OWN etc.) and guard them. So yes, again I was floored when multiple pages of Carey's were being vandalized. And yes, I see your point of that, but there is no reason to remove reliably sourced information. Perhaps they should consider taking it to the talk page and seeing where consensus lies. Cheers and I hope you can take this frank but honest message to heart.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reduced the block. I recommend following the steps at WP:Dispute resolution once the block expires, including talk page discussion and possibly an RfC. Present your sources in a calm manner for the best results. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: I appreciate the "watered down" block, but not much is different. All that changes is possibly to talk. Again, 24 Hr is usually for edit warring. I think a week is excessive. I gave you my word as an editor since February 2009 that the problem will not continue and was due to prolonged absence etc and I honestly can't be more frank about how I'll be chill and non confrontational or combative. If you could please consider dissolving the block after 3 days since it began and not 7 days I would appreciate it.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:21, 22 August 2017 (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).

Petergriffin9901 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Because it's excessive and unwarranted plain and simple. Not to mention the Administrator in question was being canvassed by editors, thereby raising questions about her impartiality. And No Katie, removing sourced information without replacement for the hell of it is indeed vandalism.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; multiple unblock requests open at once. Please add information in comments below the unblock request if one is open. There's no need to open multiple at once. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 22 August 2017 (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.

@MPFitz1968:@MPFitz1968: if you are a fair editor you will actually do the research first instead of jumping to revert. You are reverting an edit that restores reliably sourced material that as recently removed. Tell me a good reason you think it's appropriate for you to remove information as such? Just because you feel like empowering yourself amidst a conflict?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera:@Carbrera: Well mate, I think you honestly could have just fixed the syntax error yourself. As for your reservations on just one source, I'm fairly certain The Telegraph, The Guardian & Variety should be enough to satisfy.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]