User talk:Doctor Kaiju

Welcome!

Hello, Doctor Kaiju, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of giant-monster films has been reverted.
Your edit here to List of giant-monster films was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://kaiju.wikidot.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to stop adding links to your website and yet you keep doing it. ([1], [2], and [3]) These have been removed. Please stop adding them. Helpsome (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helpsome, a bot removed a link, of which I was told to feel free to revert if it was an error. I did so, as instructed. My links are for my non-profit, educational website that catalogs all giant movie monsters. They are relevant and belong on the wikipedia page. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links do not belong on the Wikipedia pages, please do not continue to add them, or they will again be removed and you will potentially be blocked from editing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick; they do belong on the Wikipedia pages; at least as much as (if not more than) the broken links that they are replacing. I can't be blocked for adding relevant links, especially when they are replacing broken ones. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Helpsome (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link is not inappropriate and is not advertising. It is a link to giant monsters referred to in the article and is not an effort to increase search engine rankings. We can discuss this further in the "talk" page. Please also note that this link that you have deleted twice actually contains more relevant data to the page than the links that you choose to let remain (Atomic Monsters and Stomp Tokyo). As an editor your goal should be to improve a page, not detract from it. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Helpsome (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I am not spamming! You may be blocked yourself for your deletions, Helpsome. As noted prior, you are leaving links less relevant to the subject that you don't consider to be spam for an unknown reason. This is unhelpful, and is not good for the page! Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because.... 1. My site is not a fan site or a blog, it is an encyclopedia of giant movie monsters. There is no advertising or social aspect or anything about me whatsoever, it's all about the monsters. 2. A link that includes all of the giant monsters included in the "giant monster movie list" is not disruptive or damaging to wikipedia in any way, as 99% of these monsters are too minor for Wikipedia to cover individually. It is most certainly not SPAM, and definitely, without doubt, more suitable for the page than links to privately-owned, not official websites with movie reviews (as it has currently). 3. Links back to Wikipedia on EVERY PAGE of my giant movie monster encyclopedia (often more than one), so this is obviously not an effort to lure Wikipedians. 4. Please note on every occasion but one this link was placed to replace broken links that were no longer functioning or were in Portuguese. 5. Please note it is not SPAM to include a link showing all of Godzilla or King Kong's many movie incarnations on one page (with links back to Wikipedia for more details on every film appearance). 6. Please note everything at my encyclopedia is covered by Free Use, just like Atomic Monsters and Stomp Tokyo that you already link to (which also have monster pictures and movie posters, and which are also privately owned). 7. Please note I could have chosen a different user name and removed this "conflict of interest" aspect handily, but I chose the route of honesty. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned multiple times to stop canvassing likes to your site. You chose to ignore the warnings, hence the block. Regardless of what you call your site, it does not meet our reliable source criteria. No one cares if you link back to Wikipedia; that is of no concern here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 15 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, I chose to ignore the warning of another editor like myself, because that warning was not based on fact. I can tell this by looking at the other links on the page that they let remain. It definitely meets our reliable source criteria (if Atomic Monsters and Stomp Tokyo do, my encyclopedia certainly does). I respected the warning of admin on the Godzilla page (as that was the only page he addressed). "No one cares" is an inaccurate statement on your part, as at most you speak for yourself. What should be of concern to you is the absurdity of you blocking me for adding a working link to replace broken ones. And so you know, my site doesn't receive "likes." It's an encyclopedia with no social aspect. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

if you wish to continue to edit here you will have to accept decisions made by admins, and you are advised to pay attention to advice given to you by editors having much greater experience than you. Ignoring repeated warnings is almost guaranteed to get you blocked. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is the collective opinion of the Wikipedia community which governs here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:12, 16 July 2014 (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.

Comment Unlike yourself, Helpsome is an experienced editor who has been active since 2010, and as such, understands Wikipedia's policies regarding external links and conflict of interest. Any such user may issue warnings, and Helpsome was correct in doing so. You "can tell this" because an admin blocked you as a result of you ignoring the warnings, and that another admin (myself) declined your unblock request. If you take the time to read WP:RS, you should understand why your site doesn't not meet our reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also unlike myself, Helpsome has been involved in a few edit wars and received warnings for them, and unlike myself Helpsome isn't really concerned about the page itself (which he hasn't contributed to other than deleting). He obviously does NOT understand Wikipedia's policies if he deleted the link to my encyclopedia and let Stomp Tokyo and Atomic Monsters remain, which is unfortunate... just because Helpsome has some admins he chats with to support him does not make him (or you) right. The "conflict of interest" page would apply if there was any sort of self-promotion involved, but fortunately for me, there is not. It is all about the monsters. Lastly, WP:RS does not apply here. We're talking about an outside relevant link. Just as you can link to IMDb at the end of every Wikipedia movie page (even though it is officially not a reliable source for an article according to WP:RS), you can certainly link to a giant monster encyclopedia that lists every giant monster on the giant movie monster page. It's illogical not to. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I will be appealing this decision to arbitration. I do not think group think should rule wikipedia, and that rules as posted should actually be followed, rather than mob rule. The reasons I will be appealing are: 1) Initially my link was deleted as spam. As it is not spam and a relevant link, I started a conversation about this on the Talk page, as I'm supposed to. Helpsome decided to ignore the advice of the Wikipedia community that governs, and act independent of such advice by ignoring the discussion on the Talk page and instead blocking the link again. Mind you, the link he deleted was a working link, and the links he decided were more relevant and better for Wikipedia included a Portuguese movie review blog and a broken link to Stomp Tokyo. I don't see why I should follow the warnings of someone who clearly demonstrates refusal to follow the guidelines they should defend. 2. Upon getting admin involved, I left the link that was removed from Godzilla (as the admin saw fit) to discuss on the talk page. Helpsome continued to ignore the Talk pages for discussion on the giant movie monster list, and deleted the links, again ignoring the advice of the Wikipedia community. 3. The Admin said the reason my link was excluded was copyright issues. This not being the case (Fair Use) he put the topic up for discussion. 4. I am then instructed after banning (for replacing broken links with a working one that is relevant, mind you) by OhnoitsJamie that the reason for the link exclusion is self-promotion, yet there is not one example of self-promotion on the link provided; it's all about the monsters. OhnoitsJamie then asserts that it's because my link is not a relevant source, even though I'm not using it as a source! I realize that when someone who has been here a few years makes a decision, your initial reaction is to back them up, but I hope arbitration will prevail and my link for my Giant Movie Monster encyclopedia will at least be included on the Giant Movie Monster List page, since it includes every big movie monster from that list (while Wikipedia does not, nor should it). Thank you for your time. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:42 pm, Yesterday (UTC 1)

Decline reason:

I am declining your appeal because it indicates that if unblocked, you are likely to continue the behaviour for which you were blocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 17 July 2014 (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.

You honestly think Arbitration is going to accept a case about adding a link to your own user-created site? Good luck with that. Let me save you some time: if you really want to be unblocked, you'll need to agree to (1) stop attempting to add links to your own site and (2) heed warnings and use article talk pages to hash out disagreements. On a side note, if I see other accounts created for the purpose of trying to add that link, I won't hesitate to add it to our spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Just think about it... if Helpsome had used the article talk page to hash out disagreements (like he's supposed to), we wouldn't be here. I will agree to stop "spamming" (i.e. adding a relevant link to an article) my link to replace broken links when arbitration tells me too, as the encyclopedia is relevant to the article in question, and the link is acceptable per linking criteria posted. I have proven my willingness to work with admin; however, I do not follow commands from "edit warriors" like Helpsome. And on a side note, if someone else adds a link to my page in the future against admin, it's not me, and I can prove it, so save your threats for somebody else. You really have no business blacklisting my site because someone else adds it; one can see why they would think it is relevant. After all, it is full of giant movie monsters... people might think it's relevant to a list of giant movie monsters and all, especially a list already with links to other private websites with less giant movie monsters (probably added by their authors, except they changed their Wiki account name). Keeping that in mind, blacklisting my site because someone else adds it as a link stretches the credulity of your good intentions. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to submit a request to arbitration, feel free to do so. But it is only fair to say that in my personal opinion they will not agree with your point of view, if only because your point of view does not accord with wikipedia policy. You did not receive a command from Helpsome, you received a sensible and correct warning. I would seriously suggest that you accept Wikipedia policy as stated, which you appear so far to have declined to do, say so here and move on. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, Anthony, but I don't agree with it being against Wiki policy; especially since the policies quoted to me have not been relevant. I'm hopeful that Arbitration is more familiar with the policies as a whole than has been demonstrated so far, and perhaps they can explain to me the reason for the link being denied in the actual context here. Just repeating "spam" is insufficient, or inaccurate statements (copyright infringement, we don't accept private websites, self-promotion, reliable sourcing, etc.) I accept Wikipedia policy; however, I do not accept Helpsome's interpretation of it, or the group think support of Helpsome. So far, it seems to me this link would gladly be accepted if my user name were different. That doesn't seem right to me, and I'm hoping that arbitration agrees; and Wikipedia policy does also; my link should be included per point 3 of what should normally be linked and point 4 under links that should be considered; it could only be vaguely excluded by point 11, but once you read the definitions of "fan site" and "personal web page," you'll see that point 11 actually does not apply in this case, either. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not argue; indeed, have not done so. But I do feel that this is a point which you will not carry and, as such, it would be better for you personally were you to accept that and move on. A clear acceptance of this would, I feel, lead to a high chance of being unblocked. If you feel unable to do this, what will you do if arbitration finds against you, which I have to say is what I would expect? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I really love the subject of giant monsters, and I've been working on the giant monster list at Wikipedia for almost a year, adding movies to it and editing. I built my link hand-in-hand with the giant monster list, sharing my "discoveries" with Wikipedia along the way. I know it's an appropriate link for that page, because it was built with it, and Wikipedia won't ever show every monster, nor should it! It's also superior to the other links already provided in regards to the giant monsters specifically (which is the sole focus of the link). So, since its inclusion would be a complement to Wikipedia and what is best for Wikipedia, I feel someone in arbitration may note that. However, if no one agrees or they refuse to hear it, I must abide by their decision; and I will instead wait to defend the link when one of the many providers at the forums who have contributed to it include it. And, of course, add to the Giant Monster Movie List... and add a Death Kappa article when I can figure out the formatting. Which someone will also probably delete. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I have absolutely no personal animus against you. But there comes a time when it is appropriate to move on.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony. Arbitration request denied; but I gave it my best shot. I won't post the totally relevant link; the readers lose (those who were referred from Wikipedia spent a long time at the link reading about monsters, averaging 20 minutes), Wikipedia loses a link that covers the entirety of the topic, and my site loses 0.01% of its hits. But Helpsome won! So that's nice. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no winners or losers here. If you were to post a new unblock request, accepting the arbitration decision, there is a good chance of being unblocked; you could then move on. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer blocked, that was just for 31 hours. What I wanted to contest with arbitration was the exclusion of the appropriate link and the use of the block as punishment (as I no longer added the link where admin removed it, from the Godzilla page). Although I disagree with Admin's decision, (and I think I've made my case pretty well here as to why) I will of course no longer post the link, though I will bring this up for discussion in the appropriate talk pages (as Helpsome should have done initially per Wikipedia policy). So... should I put back up the Portuguese movie blog that hasn't been updated in 6 years that my link replaced? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Kaiju, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Doctor Kaiju! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of giant-monster films, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete pages as we are in the midst of discussing them. Reliable sources have been cited. Please add more references if you would like instead of just deleting stuff. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Film Barnstar
	It seems you've put in quite a bit of work throughout the history of List of giant-monster films, whether it be adding to its content or defending its goals, and I thought someone should congratulate you for it. Cheers! –Matthew - (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! It's amazing what long and convoluted arguments you can get into adding giant monster movies to the giant monster movie list. Who would have thought? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning before block

Per WP:USERTALK, I'm asking you to stop leaving messages on my talk page about your website. As I said in the last edit summary, feel free to take your concerns to arbitration or whatever other forum you believe would be sympathetic to your dilemma of not being able to add links to your own website. If you restore your messages to my talk page again, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying. The link was added by another editor. Please explain why you are abusing your admin privileges and lying. We are supposed to attempt to settle this between us before arbitration, as you well know. This is my attempt to do so. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spelled out the sequence of events plainly in the spam report. There's nothing controversial about adding a site to the blacklist that does not meet WP:RS criteria and thus would never have the need to be added to Wikipedia. I'm telling you for the last time that I'm not interested in commenting on this matter further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well the link isn't being used as a SOURCE, and you lied about the link being added to the kaiju page by me. How do you justify abusing your power? You're supposed to take part in this conversation, that's another abuse of power. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you apologize for lying and abusing your power and revert the link, provided by ANOTHER EDITOR, to the kaiju page? I haven't added the link since our dispute. Can't you take the link off of the SPAM page, and block me instead? You're SUPPOSED to do that before blacklisting. You are abusing your power, please stop and have some respect for your position and the rules. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternatively, can you state your position without deliberately lying? (link was never used as a reliable source, when blacklisted link was added by me. Those are both lies. Try to state your position without lying). Doctor Kaiju (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of giant-monster films. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You know...in a vacuum I was really trying to work with you and assume good faith regarding your contributions, but looking at your colorful Talk page raises serious questions about your intentions in general. I invite you to continue participating in discussions if you can trouble yourself to focus on content rather than your fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd actually read anything you'd see what my intentions are... raising encyclopedic knowledge of the subject at hand. Just leave me alone, I don't want anything to do with you. Is that okay? Delete everything you want. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks without evidence and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:24, 22 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

NeilN states I did not have evidence, while IGNORING the first point of evidence and deciding he didn't want to hear anymore. Unreal, and he's in arbitration? "no need to hear evidence, block" seriously?

Decline reason:

You were blocked for making WP:personal attacks against other editors, which you really did. That is what you should be talking about in this request. See: WP:NOTTHEM. If by "evidence" you refer to this, that I agree with the blocking admin totally. You were accusing other editor of being a "lier" repeatedly, without any real evidence. Such behavior is unacceptable. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2016 (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.

For reviewing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mediation_request_for_ohnoitsjamie_admin_removal_re_admin_tool_abuse --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:35, 22 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

How is an admin allowed to REPEATEDLY lie when making decisions and still be an admin? And why would NeilN condone such behavior in an admin?

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, but a personal attack against other editors. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2016 (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.

"It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." The reason for your fury is obviously that we won't let you promote your website here. Deal with it. Doc talk 07:39, 22 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Don't dare to declare what my motivations are. Stop using your imagination to resolve disputes. That's why I didn't add it, it was added by SOMEONE ELSE in JULY. Deal with that and stop obfuscating.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2016 (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.

You've got 3 unblock requests pending now for the same block. You might want to rethink that strategy. Doc talk 07:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can just talk this way? Sorry. Let me add, since I was banned before all of the many items of BLATANT FALSEHOODS could be presented, that that is another claim by OhNoitsJamie that's a BALD-FACED LIE. I did NOT add my link to ANY pages after I was banned for it by him for easily demonstrably false reasons that he stated over and over. And that's what you're backing up, a serial liar. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Oh, dear. I'm afraid that calling him a "serial liar" is probably going to result in talk page revocation. Cheers... Doc talk 07:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is right there. It's a LIE to say that I added the link to ANY page after banning. He's stated that (and other lies) more than once. He's a serial liar and an admin. It's your playground, that's what you like that's what you'll getDoctor Kaiju (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of serial killers, but serial liars? I think either "compulsive" or "pathological" is more often used to describe a possibly habitual liar. Don't you agree? Doc talk 08:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you're right. He's a habitual liar, who has demonstrably switched between his lies, and he lied 2 years ago, and he lied today. I'm willing to provide access to my computer to someone of integrity to prove I did not add my website after I was banned by OhNoitsJamie. I couldn't wait for his threat hammer of banning the site should ANYONE add it to fall any longerDoctor Kaiju (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, that threat by him to blacklist the site should ANYONE add it, and then follow through with that, is ALSO a CLEAR abuse of power by an admin and further evidence of his unsuitability. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, no. I've been here a long time, and this admin has been an admin for as long as I can remember. You're absolutely, 100% certain to fail in this endeavor. If I were you, I'd cut your losses and refocus your efforts into something beyond your website. Doc talk 08:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now he lies. That's not a personal attack, that's what he does. Today he said I added my link to the Kaiju page, that's a lie. He threatened to blacklist the site should ANYONE provide it, then did so when someone did. That's an abuse power. He applied rs rules to an external link. That's absurd. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if I were you, I would NEVER back up an admin who just lies and lies and lies. What good is that? That's not what an admin is supposed to do, just blatantly and repeatedly lie and blacklist stuff on a whim and ban members for reliable source rules applied to external links. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:LINKSPAM? Doc talk 08:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I NEVER added the site after being blocked for it. OhNoitsJamie lied today, blacklisted the site, and now I'm blocked because NeilN thinks evidence is yucky or something. Does anyone have any integrity here? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, and now Vanjagenije is lying in his block reviews, saying I'm calling OhNoitsJamie a liar without evidence; meanwhile, on Earth, OhNoitsJamie said I added the website to kaiju; I did not. That's one reason to call him a liar. THE LIE. Does anyone have any integrity here, anyone at all? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. If you have to ask that question twice, you're better off finding an appropriate vehicle to promote your website. Cheers ;> Doc talk 08:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty sad, that you would back an admin for repeatedly lying two years ago, and again today. The reasons for you doing so are unknown, but you should ponder this. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC) AND, I did NOT promote the website. The website was added by SOMEONE ELSE. Why do you keep saying that? The only reason I came back here is because I saw I was GETTING HITS FROM WIKIPEDIA. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to call other editors "liers" without any evidence (and that is the reason of the original block), I decided to extend your block to 1 week and to revoke your talk page access. Vanjagenije (talk)

After looking at the totality of Doctor Kaiju's edits, it's very understandable why the good doctor has been labeled a spammer. And... they clearly have no problem inserting their own original research into articles. But when an editor repeatedly accuses multiple administrators of lying and/or being "unfit", there's an extra special layer of incompetence. I actually looked into this claim: "Thousands of references to said giant monsters can be found in hundreds of reviews in writing with Roger Ebert alone."[4] I didn't find thousands of references. Doc talk 10:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk) I expect an apology for you for your incompetence; please note that dear OhNoitsJamie said on this very page "As I said in the last edit summary, feel free to take your concerns to arbitration or whatever other forum you believe would be sympathetic to your dilemma of not being able to add links to your own website." As I did NOT add the link to the website in June (only years ago, which I was penalized for and have no longer done), and I know this because I inhabit my body, OhNoitsJamie is making totally unfounded, baseless accusations, and is, by definition, a liar. My apology, please. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding incompetence, my mentor Doc is a shining example. Yes, you found the one misstatement I made, I should have said "hundreds of reviews" instead of "thousands." I can admit my mistakes. Sadly, you are defending an ADMIN who's proved staggering levels of incompetence; not only is OhNoitsJamie the antithesis of wp:admin, he ignored the rules for wp:blacklist out of spite, applies wp:rs to wp:el, and penalized me for not hashing out things on the talk page years ago, while of course defending an editor who never used the talk page for reverts and himself ignoring the talk page. Truly, an embarrassment. Last of all, he declared the link "not relevant".... fortunately for me, Google is actually competent, and puts the 3-year-old website edited by one person right below your big old wiki. Because of people like you, and your stifling of encyclopedic knowledge, Wikipedia and its always shrinking pool of editors (who wants to work with admins like you two?) can't keep up with one person on the subject of giant monsters. So, yeah, incompetence, indeed. You should be ashamed of yourself. And if you need help finding the Ebert references, let me know. You can find the links to the appropriate rogerebert.com reviews at my "not relevant" website, of course, at your leisure. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Doc talk "After looking at the totality of Doctor Kaiju's edits, it's very understandable why the good doctor has been labeled a spammer"? Only if you're an idiot. I added hundreds of entries to what was the "Giant Monster Movie List", many of them with appropriate references. I added a link with photos of all of those monsters to Godzilla, Kaiju, and what was the Giant Monster Movie List page. The COMPETENT admin at Godzilla page put it in talk page whether it should be included and that was that. The INCOMPETENT admin (i.e. OhNoitsJamie) didn't follow the rules, overtly and repeatedly misapplied rules, and promised that should anyone add the link in the future, he would blacklist it, again breaking the very rules on wp:blacklist for its application when someone does add the relevant link 2 years later. I know, I know, this is all over your head, but not a spammer at all. I never included it, or edited, after I found out abusive, lying people like OhNoitsJamie are tolerated as admins. For a tiny IDEA of of what I would have included here at Wikipedia were it not for incompetent, deceitful adminship (as I used to update Wiki and the site simultaneously), please see the blacklisted site. Just type "giant monster movie" in google, it's right on the first page... because it's relevant to giant monster movies, don't you know. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "kaiju". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 July 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning kaiju, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

August 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling another editor (who wanted to help you) an "idiot" just after your previous block has expired is not a good idea. It is obvious that you are not able to edit Wikipedia without insulting others. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that I was his "mentor". I blame my own incompetence. Doc talk 08:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16281 was submitted on Aug 05, 2016 08:55:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I visited this page to argue against the indefinite length of Doctor Kaiju's block, but upon reading that he had called another editor an "idiot", I would like to know the location of the incident in question before arguing on his behalf. –Matthew - (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally could care less that he called me an idiot. I almost said something about the length of the block, too. But, the good doctor seems to have learned nothing, and is content to hurl around accusations of incompetence and deceitfulness and idiocy at basically everybody. All because of his list of giant monsters. Sigh. I don't think unblocking him is a particularly great idea. Doc talk 01:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having been a favored target of his at Talk:List of films featuring giant monsters, I'm inclined to agree, at least until such time as he's willing to knock off the personal attacks and show more interest in working collaboratively than in attacking other editors. DonIago (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a headache after reading his arguments there. How did you deal with it? Doctor Kaiju should have been blocked long ago. When I think of a "giant monster movie", I think Godzilla, Rodan, Mothra, etc. I think that most other people do, normally. To add "Bruce" to any list of "giant monster movies" shows a very serious lack of competence.[6] Doc talk 06:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concluded WP:NOTHERE around the time we were discussing specific inclusion criteria for that article, and when I flat-out asked what criteria the Good Doctor felt would be appropriate (and we'd discussed several specific points of concern), they vacillated and instead bemoaned what they saw as our evident crusade to make the list as minimalist as possible. I don't believe DK understands that being encyclopedic doesn't mean including anything that could possibly qualify for a list article in the broadest possible sense. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor cannot reply here so can we please stop discussing him here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. My apologies. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to his off-wiki list on the user page and replaced it with the appropriate template. There is no legitimate need to link to that list. Doc talk 06:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]