Editing User talk:Shivertongue

== Block ==

It seems that I(mbg) have been blocked for the reason of "''Specifically, going against the Coppermind administration and policies, disregard for the style guides, and creating a divisive atmosphere. The administrators of the Coppermind have been made such for a reason. They have final say on policy, and should''"

Considering that this we are part of the cosmere, I'll say gently that the administrators should learn from 'the way of kings':
* Discussion is not going against policies. (and administraros even if they disagree with a person, should be moderating discussion from sliding to personal levels).
* User cannot disregard none existent policies. The Coppermind "Comprehensive Style Guide" include 6 entries none of which dealt with the topic and no response to my request for documentation were given.
* Administrators have final say on policy and Should enforce it. However their intentions shouldn't be inferred from their actions. Communication is the key, if the there is an issue it should be addressed at the user talk, especially when it regards none written rules. (I or any regular user like me, don't and shouldn't follow every change made on the wiki)
* Edit waring is juvenile, especially when it is done by and admin(content not policy).
* have fun, I hope you get somewhere someday. --mbg


----


I doubt you will see this, as the end of your poorly-structured, grammar-devoid, and horribly misspelled message indicated that you would not be returning. As far as I understood and had seen, communication WAS established, and discussion WAS had, and the end result was your complete disregard of the wishes of the administration because you believe that your way is better. It doesn't matter if you think that your way is better, it is not the way established by the administration. Additionally, much of your edits consists of poor spelling, grammar, and inaccurate information. These were what I was referring to.

It is not edit-warring if an admin does it. An aspect of administration, be it wiki or otherwise, is keeping content to a standard. You do not meet that standard. If you change something, and the administration is not happy with your changes, we will revert it to the previous version. This is especially true in regards to templates, for which a lot of thought and discussion have gone into.

My intention with the IP blocking was not to drive you away. It will expire in three days. Once those three days are up, you will be allowed to edit again, and I hope you will be more willing to work with the administration and it's standards. If not, we shall suffer no loss but your enthusiasm.

As a side note, your reference to Way of Kings made no sense whatsoever.

~Shiv, 17thShard Administrator.


----


Like I said Communication is the key, which is why I contacted [[User:Fbstj]] on issues I encountered or disagreed with. Which is relevant to this case as well, if you or any of the admins(or users) have concerns about "Behavior towards editors" or "disruptive editing" or should indeed raise those concenrns to the user involved, here is  [[User_talk:Mbg|communication page]]. As for the rest:

* I assume that you refered to my suggestion, on the welcome page discussion page. I posted that suggestion, because it would change current structure and was looking for input on possible solution to issues and pro/cos of the systems, from people who has more hands on experience with current system. A suggestion I haven't acted upon and have no intention to until a proper documentation will be provided. (Which is where I intended to take that discussion, which slide to personal nature, without any moderation on part of the admins) My only disregard was to "I like it better.." comments and those of personal nature.

* The only additions I made in relation to categories, were standard sub categorization as part of the current system. Same as other users has done in this time period.(if you make private plans, don't expect the other to know what they are ).
* Additionally, Admins should add notes on their user pages, so that they are recognize. Like so many other issues I noted, we are not mind readers and cannot be expected to know who is an administrator, because the people who have been here for years do.(I just found out that Chaos2651 is an admin as well as Fbstj).

* While admins can do what they want, it is considered smart or common courtesy if you wish, to leave edit summaries when you undo another person changes. To avoid similar mistakes in the future, by other users on this and other templates. Besides I know that with reverts(no confirmation), sometimes people hit it by mistake. Which is why I try to resolve the issue through discussion ([http://coppermind.net/wiki/User_talk:Fbstj#Revert User_talk:Fbstj#Revert]) and was ignored. 

* As for standards, I consider communication to be part of it, not bulling people because it is your way and everyone should know it.

As a side note, Like I said on that other page I always found adhominem arguments to be a poor man tool, especially when a person starts his argument with it. --Mbg
Latest revision		Your text
Line 28:		Line 28:


−	Like I said Communication is the key, which is why I contacted [[User:Fbstj]] on issues I encountered or disagreed with. Which is relevant to this case as well, if you or any of the admins(or users) have concerns about ~~what you consider~~ "Behavior towards editors" or "disruptive editing", ~~you~~ should indeed raise those ~~concerns~~ ~~with~~ user involved, here is [[User_talk:Mbg\|my communication page]]. As for the rest:	+	Like I said Communication is the key, which is why I contacted [[User:Fbstj]] on issues I encountered or disagreed with. Which is relevant to this case as well, if you or any of the admins(or users) have concerns about "Behavior towards editors" or "disruptive editing" or should indeed raise those concenrns to the user involved, here is [[User_talk:Mbg\|communication page]]. As for the rest:

	* I assume that you refered to my suggestion, on the welcome page discussion page. I posted that suggestion, because it would change current structure and was looking for input on possible solution to issues and pro/cos of the systems, from people who has more hands on experience with current system. A suggestion I haven't acted upon and have no intention to until a proper documentation will be provided. (Which is where I intended to take that discussion, which slide to personal nature, without any moderation on part of the admins) My only disregard was to "I like it better.." comments and those of personal nature.		* I assume that you refered to my suggestion, on the welcome page discussion page. I posted that suggestion, because it would change current structure and was looking for input on possible solution to issues and pro/cos of the systems, from people who has more hands on experience with current system. A suggestion I haven't acted upon and have no intention to until a proper documentation will be provided. (Which is where I intended to take that discussion, which slide to personal nature, without any moderation on part of the admins) My only disregard was to "I like it better.." comments and those of personal nature.