User talk:Shakla

Welcome!

Welcome to the Audiovisual Identity Database (AVID), Shakla!

Let's get started, shall we?

Site Rules

The dos and don'ts of the site. Please follow them.

Tutorials

Learn the proper formatting guidelines for writing articles.

Site Staff

Meet the Site Staff, including Mods, Admins and Crats.

Page Requests

Write articles on these undocumented audiovisual identities to help the site out.

FAQ

Answering some of the most commonly asked questions about AVID.

Happy editing! -

-- New user message (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello I never met you before but it seems you removed the editor's note section on some articles and most content had also been removed. I revert them some articles. Blue2000 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Shakla, you reverted my edits without telling me why and if you do this again you will be blocked from editing. Blue2000 (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The word "short-lived" is not a redundant term it's been used for other articles on this wiki. Now please stop doing this or you will be blocked the next time you do it. Blue2000 (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are seem to be disruptive editing. If you disruptive this wiki again you will be blocked from editing. Blue2000 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You will be blocked the next you disruptive AVID. Blue2000 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

All of the articles had to be reverted becuase of your disruptive editing removing words that are allowed on this wiki. I told you to stop but you didnt. Blue2000 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You disobeying the warning that Logohub said to you. Don't you dare revert my edits ever again! Because your edits are actually disruptive editing after all! Blue2000 (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Shakla. It appears you are engaging in an edit war at Group W Productions. This is when users disagree over the content of an article and repeatedly revert each other's edits. This type of editing is disruptive and unproductive. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page before editing further. Thank You. Logohub (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly reverting other people's edits as you have been at Northern Lights Entertainment. Your behavior is considered edit warring and will result in a block if it continues. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you even mean by "unfounded reviews"?

I'm pretty sure the Legacy section works like YMMV on TV Tropes, where if it is just the editor's sole opinion or overtly gushy or complaint it gets cut, while writings on reception with consensus that are written neutrally can stay. There is basis to the legacies on Traveller's Tales you cut, I have seen many people even outside the logo community consider the later logo a downgrade. I even remember a tweet with over 1000 likes labeled "name a bigger downgrade" with both of the logos. I really do not like your "cut every legacy about reception to a logo I come across even if it may possibly be valid" approach. The wiki has become significantly less colorful and more bland and boring to read because of what you've done, and TV Tropes proves a balance is possible. I especially dislike how you do all this, yet keep nicknames and FX/SFX sections that describe the logo intact, which I think are more serious and should-be-prioritized issues than the reception based legacy sections (nicknames make us look far more childish than any legacy section, while the deluge of FX/SFX describing the logo is redundant). I confess I will likely never agree with you, but please, explain yourself. If other people like the admins can chime in to further explain which of us is in the wrong here that would be great. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding recent talk page edit

Hello, I have reverted your recent edit to your talk page for now, as it removed talk page messages from other users and without a given reason, which is forbidden per our rules on talk page conduct. In the future, please do not remove talk page messages from other users unless they fall under one of the listed exceptions given in the Rules page unless you have permission from an administrator. If you are okay with answering, why did you remove these messages from your talk page? HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Shakla is asking that their block be reviewed.

Shakla (block log • active blocks • global blocks (for IP users) • contribs • deleted contribs • change block settings • unblock • filter log)

---

Request reason:

I never received a warming on my talk page. I was not rude to anyone. My edits were all within guidelines and helpful to the pages.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and notify an administrator as soon as possible.
• Make sure that your unblock request will help your case. Try to provide sufficient sound reasoning as to why your block should be appealed. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=I never received a warming on my talk page. I was not rude to anyone. My edits were all within guidelines and helpful to the pages. | 3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I never received a warming on my talk page. I was not rude to anyone. My edits were all within guidelines and helpful to the pages. | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I never received a warming on my talk page. I was not rude to anyone. My edits were all within guidelines and helpful to the pages. | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Shakla (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Expect you did get warnings and was disruptive. You’re pretty much one of those users that don't what's going on yet others do. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Sorry, Shak, but rules are rules. We all witnessed you being rude to several of us. You have to accept your block. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC) IAmThe789Guy

This blocked 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Shakla (block log • active blocks • central auth (for registered users) • global blocks (for IP users) • contribs • deleted contribs • change block settings • unblock • filter log)

---

Request reason:

I never received a warning on my talk page. I was not rude to anyone. My edits were all within guidelines and helpful to the pages.

Decline reason:

1. You were given two previous warnings on this talk page for edit warring and one previous warning for removing talk page messages without a given reason or administrator permission.
2. You blamed AlmightyKingPrawn on User Reports for starting an edit war when a Request for Comment that allowed "favorite of many" or other similar statements regarding consensus within the logo community to be exempt from removal from Legacy sections passed and she was trying to enforce that exemption, and you were told by her and Logohub on User Reports that the RfC in question had passed and that those kinds of statements were exempt from removal. You additionally claimed that she made a "condescending" edit summary towards you when it appears that there are no such edit summaries from her made with that intention.
3. In spite of the RfC's being approved by community consensus and passing, you continued to remove the aforementioned exempted Legacy sections, engaged in edit warring on PBS Kids and Sentai Filmworks over these sections and recently removed talk page messages again without administrator approval. Taking these incidents into consideration, I have decided to reject this appeal. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Shakla is asking that their block be reviewed.

Shakla (block log • active blocks • global blocks (for IP users) • contribs • deleted contribs • change block settings • unblock • filter log)

---

Request reason:

Would like another admin to review this. The 2 previous earnings were from an unrelated incident weeks ago. In the first one, the other user was banned for reverting my edits and harassment. I also do not appreciate SuperMax124 currently blindly reverting many of my good previous edits. The edits I made helped the pages with excess white space, pov and spelling. Now they look worse. Please have this user stop.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and notify an administrator as soon as possible.
• Make sure that your unblock request will help your case. Try to provide sufficient sound reasoning as to why your block should be appealed. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2= Would like another admin to review this. The 2 previous earnings were from an unrelated incident weeks ago. In the first one, the other user was banned for reverting my edits and harassment. I also do not appreciate SuperMax124 currently blindly reverting many of my good previous edits. The edits I made helped the pages with excess white space, pov and spelling. Now they look worse. Please have this user stop. | 3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed | 1= Would like another admin to review this. The 2 previous earnings were from an unrelated incident weeks ago. In the first one, the other user was banned for reverting my edits and harassment. I also do not appreciate SuperMax124 currently blindly reverting many of my good previous edits. The edits I made helped the pages with excess white space, pov and spelling. Now they look worse. Please have this user stop. | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1= Would like another admin to review this. The 2 previous earnings were from an unrelated incident weeks ago. In the first one, the other user was banned for reverting my edits and harassment. I also do not appreciate SuperMax124 currently blindly reverting many of my good previous edits. The edits I made helped the pages with excess white space, pov and spelling. Now they look worse. Please have this user stop. | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Shakla (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• not a mod, but the fact that you're labelling these unnecessary edits as "clearing POV" is beyond comprehension to me. SuperMax124 is doing right by your mistakes, and the fact that you fail to see this and still think that you're a white knight fighting against the "POV" highlights why the admins blocked you in the first place. (name change coming soon) 09:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  The rollbacks just make the pages worse. Adding back white space, blank editor's notes, overdescription, pov phrases. A real lack of common sense. Shakla (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Still doesn't defend the needless removal of Legacy sections. Also, if you look closely, you'll notice that the warnings from months ago are for the same behaviour you've been blocked for now. The admins have been debating on discord whether to extend your block if the defense of your actions continues, so I'd avoid trying another appeal when this inevitably fails if I were you (name change coming soon) 10:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  They were not needless. Pretty much every one removed was a personal review, repurposed scare factor or other low-quality input. And the person who started the edit warring a few months back was blocked for harassing me. I am a good editor who made this site better. Shakla (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  "I am a good editor who made this site better"

  You attacked a guy for trying to uphold the current rules. I don't think that can be classified as "making the site better". (name change coming soon) 10:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just stop and accept the block. You did something wrong, accept it. Besides, you just got a week block, I have been through 1 month before. (• USER TALK! •) 15:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Basically, the statement you said "I am a good editor who made this site better" makes me start believing your CreecregofLife from Wikipedia, an editor who has that similar disruptive behavior as you. However, IP addresses might be different so who knows. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop editing in bad faith

There is nothing wrong with the word "ultra" in "ultra short-lived". It's been that way for years, and it's not gonna change. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

yeah nah Shakla was right on this one (name change coming soon) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Final Edit

It's clear I'm not wanted. Did more good for the site than bad, but not everyone is on the same page. Not worth the time or hassle. I'll log out for good after this. Shakla (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Dude, don't think you are the villain. We got way worse than you (PBSA, DVD Haas, Ngozekial, etc). You don't gotta rage quit the wiki because you got blocked twice from your own doing. This is basically a Blue2000 case (only lighter). (• USER TALK! •) 03:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)