User talk:Megainek

Welcome!

Hello, Megainek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Miss America 1994 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ann Moore

Miss America 1999 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stephen Schwartz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Megainek. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Night of the Comet. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of POV

Because of this and your decision to just not listen to warnings by disregarding us as 'vandals', you're on your last warning. The edits you reverted are not WP:NPOV-violating and are now rolled back. Any further disruption will definitely lead to a block...and @Premeditated Chaos: and @Tamzin: are not mere editors, but adminstrators whose job it is to understand what a violation of POV and PEACOCK are. And communication on a talk page is required. Nate • (chatter) 08:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)N[reply]

I would second what was written by @MrSchimpf: as what is now a fourth uninvolved administrator. Please do cease this type of edit as it is unconstructive and most definitely disruptive and into edit war territory. If you believe that the terms should be covered, you must gain consensus via an RfC and advertise that RfC on noticeboards as it is particularly big. Only with that consensus in hand can MOS be modified and this behaviour continue. In the meantime, please heed our warnings. If you do continue without that, you will end up blocked. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries when updating articles

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of administrators' noticeboard incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Closing your thread on AN; wrong venue. Nathannah • 📮 01:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long-running

(originally posted on the talk page for Sluggy Freelance, but this is actually more general so I've moved it here to discuss with you)

I am unclear why you think this phrase is POV, this is one of the longest running webcomics ever, if not the longest. Also, it seems like you're kind of on a campaign to mass-remove this phrase? Is this something that's been agreed on? I don't see that anywhere in any guidelines. If not, maybe you could ask for a wider opinion first? Esp if you're going to be reverting when people disagree with you 142.105.69.34 (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been, multiple times, advised that removing "long-running" etc. from articles is not a WP:POV issue and is in fact disruptive, and you have been warned previously that calling edits that are not vandalism "vandalism" can be considered a personal attack, but you have continued to do both. These are the reasons why you are blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 2 August 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not deserve an indefinite block. That's rather harsh. My edits were always helpful and backed by the site policies and style guides. In the most recent instance, someone was wrongly reverting my helpful and explained edits and gave no solid reason for doing so. Usually along the lines of "why not?" Subjective phrases in the intro sentences are against POV guidelines and do not improve articles. Megainek (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to take on board the criticism by The Bushranger above. PhilKnight (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Will try again, as the request was closed rather hastily and my appeal per UTRS 2 was closed since I can still edit my talk page. I have edited for years with over 3,000 edits. I will refrain from editing the pages in question. It's not worth it. I'll look for other areas to improve on the site. I've been a good faith editor for many years and had never been blocked prior. I believe a permanent block is excessive. Megainek (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked indefinitely, not permanently - you'll be unblocked as soon as you manage to convince an administrator that the behaviour that led to your block will not reoccur if you are unblocked. I am not convinced, and so I will not unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2025 (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.

Pointing to a long editing tenure and number of edits does not address the fact that your conduct has been, in a word, unacceptable. You have been advised and warned multiple times about your editing, but have not only continued on with it, you have brought other editors who contest your inappropriate edits to ANI for contesting them. You also have repeatedlly called edits vandalism that are not, an action that is considered a personal attack, continuing to do so after being given explicit final warnings about it. The fact that you have done this, that you continue to do this despite multiple, and final, warnings about it, makes it clear that you have no intention of changing your behavior, and that is why you are indefinitely blocked - it is clear that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable, but either way, it still doesn't justify a permaban. Especially since I had never been blocked before. Megainek (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a block, not a ban, and indefinite is not infinite. It is, however, necessary when there is a long-term history of disruption and personal attacks from someone who has been warned multiple times and not just ignored the warnings but actively dismissed them while making those same personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]