User talk:HelveticaBold

Chill out. In fact, you have a week long block to do so.

You were warned NOT to inject your hatred of Ghostbusters 2016 into the page itself, but you couldn't help yourself, especially after being warned, so I blocked your account for a week from editing (you can still leave a talk page message here) until you can calm down.

I'll level with you, I don't like it for reasons very similar to yours, but the main page for the work is to trope OBJECTIVE FACTS ONLY. You can save your personal feelings for the YMMV page, and even then you need to source that OTHER PEOPLE besides you have that feeling of disgust you obviously have, and even then you need avoid turning things into a rant.

It's a subpar movie if you ask me, but it's not worth spewing sulfur over, and I'd like to think you are more mature than to keep breaking rules just to spew hatred over it.

You've been a good editor up until now, but you have just defied a principle of this site that even we admins are not supposed to defy, and I must enforce this rule on you like it would apply to me should I have broken it.

Once the block is over, if you really want to vent, go ahead and leave a review of the movie on the reviews page (with the site rules in mind of course), but cool your jets on the main page and keep what I said on the YMMV page in mind, are we clear?

P.S. - If you have anything to add in response, you can leave a reply, and depending on your response, the block MAY be shortened, pursuant to admin discretion.

Following up, I've just reverted your changes to The Bechdel Test. The phrases "Thus the test's stupidity" and "but mostly you shouldn't bother" do not belong on a Useful Notes page - or, in fact, on any page here outside the Reviews namespace.

For that and the changes to Meet Joe Black, I've extended the ban to a month. And we'll be reviewing your edit history to see if we've missed anything else along these lines.

Since it seems you have a history of politically charged edits, I feel the need to take a sterner note.

We are not here for the spread of propaganda. Even the GamerGate page is one we carefully curate to try giving both sides as fair a shake as possible without injecting our opinions, and since I wrote it to begin and I'm pro-Gamergate, that should tell you something.

I already threw one idiot out on his ear for purposely BSing on pages to win internet arguments by ideological editing, I have no objection to adding another one if you resume the same pattern after your block expires, and if the other admins want it to be permanent then, I will not stand in their way should you not keep your nose clean.

I understand that, as we have a much smaller admin cadre than the other wikis, we may not have the resources to monitor wiki activity proactively and thus have to be reactive to misbehavior after the fact (potentially long after), but crawling through someone's edit history to look for misbehavior is what Wikipedia would call a witchhunt. It's one thing to look for and revert bad-faith edits that might have been missed, but I would argue that the review shouldn't be used to inform a decision to extend the block any further -- HB's already been told to cool it (and given some enforced time to do so), so I don't see much point of making it even longer, since whatever bad-faith edits you find will have been made quite some time ago (and apparently did not attract attention at the time).

I guess you could decide that HelveticaBold's contributions are, on review, so negative that he shouldn't be allowed to return to editing at all, i.e. that the block should be made permanent, but if the model of governance we're going for here is that we're trying to focus on improving the wiki and keeping it healthy, then probably the best way to use blocks is to keep to the principle of protecting the wiki (by permanently blocking spambots and persistent vandals, and occasionally enforcing brief cool-off periods for editors who get a little hot-headed) rather than punishing editors with lengthy (edit: but impermanent) blocks.

tl;dr: block briefly or permanently, and in a timely fashion; a multi-month block delivered months after the fact probably isn't going to rehabilitate anything.

I'd find that a more persuasive argument if I hadn't seen this:

Topic:Tbtclcw1mmxjtpqq

Wishing death on people for their choices in media is a very bad thing we don't tolerate, and I think a month to contemplate the error of his ways is reasonable. If he is truly penitent and is willing to apologize for his errors and fly the straight and narrow, then it may possibly be shortened, but only if we concur that is prudent to allow.

Notabene: Witchhunt? No. Regardless of what we find, there'll be no more extension of the ban, at least by me. But some of these edits approach vandalism level, and we do need to make sure there were no such changes further back that we missed because we trusted him to be even-handed in his editing before now.

As a matter of fact, I've just finished reviewing his edits all the way back to late June, and to be absolutely fair to Helvetica the kind of stuff that got him tempbanned is almost all of a recent vintage -- the last month or so. I did revert a couple things, and there's maybe a half-dozen more that I want a second opinion on, but the vast majority of his edits are perfectly fine. And we will trust that the vast majority of his future edits will continue to be that way.

lol what

This page is not linked to the main Recap page for ST TNG, has no categories, or templates.

Please fix this and use the drop down menu templates for pages when creating pages from now on.