Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Rebroad Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:47, 4 March 2007 editNotinasnaid (talk | contribs)13,255 edits I removed some of your additions to Adobe Acrobat← Previous edit Revision as of 09:58, 19 March 2007 edit undoMiss Mondegreen (talk | contribs)3,120 edits Warning in re your page movesNext edit →
Line 61: Line 61:


Please see the talk page under . I contend that the information isn't meaningful in its present form because Acrobat is not one product and each product has different disk space requirements. Please do join in the talk. ] 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Please see the talk page under . I contend that the information isn't meaningful in its present form because Acrobat is not one product and each product has different disk space requirements. Please do join in the talk. ] 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== Warning in re your page moves ==

{{{icon|] }}}Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to ]}}, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{{2|}}}<!-- {{uw-move3}} -->

You are bold in moving pages, which is good in the sense that you are not afraid to move pages. But you unilaterally move pages that you are not involved in without paying attention to what is going on. You move pages without discussion, without reading the ongoing discussion, and sometimes it appears, without having read the article.

The only unilateral page moves that should be done, are unobstructed, uncontroversial moves--unobstructed meaning that it's technically possible for the user to do it, and uncontroversial. Uncontroversial moves are generally small things like capitalization or spelling, and they are rarely name changes. Take a look at ] and look at the uncontroversial moves section (ones that are uncontroversial but need an admin). Pay attention to what gets posted there and what actually gets moved.

Moving ] → ] or ] → ] or the series of moves you did to try and move ] → ] are all controversial moves.

], I understand you thought was incorrect terminology, but it appears you didn't read the rest of the article because you only changed the article name and didn't seem interested in editing the rest of the "slang" out of the article. As it turns out, it's a British English/American English difference and now the article name either needs to be changed back or the article has to be reworked for the new name. Either way, it's additional work, and while it may be well intentioned, you continually go off alone, half-cocked without a full understanding of the topic, and in it appears in this case, without reading the article. Also, this was a factual name change as you thought the article was using slang terminology and yet you did not provide a source.

In an effort to rename ] → ], as Nephology had been a stub since 04, you moved Nephology in order to move Cloud without discussion. You're right, a one-line stub since 04 is bad. But an article about the study of something and the something itself are not the same thing, and moving Nephology in order to move Cloud is incredibly underhanded--you only commented suggesting a move (] once you were unable to complete it yourself, and since the move never went through, that left articles ] and ] redirecting to Cloud with ] redirecting to ].

You moved ] → ], not even spelling philosophical correctly, based on the disambiguation page's description of the article. I'm assuming (good faith) that you did not go to the article and see that it was not an article on philosophy and do this anyway and that you did not go to the talk page and see the numberous name change discussions and do this anyway. You again left behind double redirects, and once again made it impossible for non-Administrators to revert your change.

You have been warned about not moving pages without prior discussion (when you moved ] to ] and only came to the talk page/WP:RM for discussion after the fact.

I think it's great that you come to Misplaced Pages articles and have strong opinions about them and go and make changes. Be bold is a tenant of Misplaced Pages. But avoiding discussion is not. Making bold changes about articles you seem not to have read, and without having read the discussion page is not ok. Making major moves and actively avoiding informing people and discussion is not ok. Making major moves and doing them improperly, leaving behind double redirects and no redirects and orphan pages and needlessly editing moved pages so that those moves can't be undone by anyone other than an administrator is not ok. '''Moving a page is a major edit, that can't always easily be undone and you not only move pages, renaming them without discussion, but you often do it improperly.'''

I'm not warning you so that you never move a page again. But before you do move pages again, please read as the move page suggests you do. You constantly leave behind double redirects or talk pages that don't redirect or edit the redirect page with a minor edit so that nothing can be moved there and if you understand moving pages a little better you won't leave behind the myriad of mistakes you have been. You should also read Misplaced Pages's ] on naming pages.

And if you want to change the name of the article, make a move that isn't minor--you think it is misnamed or needs a better one, or doesn't acurately reflect the contents of the article, then before you move anything, stop and take a look around. Read the article and the talk page. Is there a current move discussion? If so, weigh in. Has this been discussed before and decided? If so, it's probably best to move on. If you're reaching fresh territory, bring it up for discussion informally, or propose it formally at ]. Do the latter especially if the article doesn't get a lot of traffic, because that will get people to weigh in. Get consensus first, and this will keep your moves from being reverted and you from looking like a vandal.

You're an experienced editor. You know how to use a talk page, you've posted at WP:RM before. Your edits may be well-intentioned, and you're avoidance of the system might be too--but it looks like you're trying to force your edits on others. Either way, you've been warned more than once now and been provided with tools that should help you and if you have any questions, you can always ask. '''] | ] &nbsp; 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)'''

Revision as of 09:58, 19 March 2007

Old stuff moved to User talk:Rebroad/Archive 1 --Rebroad 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

12 February 2007

You've been blocked for violation the three-revert rule. The edits in question are:

Atlant 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Please read my comments below and give WP:3RR a good read before editing again.

Request handled by: BigDT 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this one for a more experienced admin to handle, but I do count four reverts:

  • 14:26, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 105809910 by Vsmith (talk) 576,000 google results say otherwise - see talk page)
  • 14:27, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 107562401 by Atlant (talk) - Refer to talk page - there is an ongoing dispute.)
  • 14:45, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (until the dispute is resolved, do not delete this tag, as per wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. any further deletions shall be reported.)
  • 15:52, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 107570999 by Atlant (talk) - actually, this is the 3rd)

That said, an involved admin shouldn't have blocked you. --BigDT 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, BigDT. Thanks for taking a look. In the four reverts you mentioned above, the first one was a revert of different material. Of the reverts for the NPOV tag, there were just the 3 you mentioned above. As I understand it, reverts for different content aren't grouped together. Please let me know if I'm incorrect here though. Thanks, --Rebroad 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

Note that it says nothing about different material. Enjoy your time out. Vsmith 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith. Wow. You are indeed correct. This is the first time I'd realised this - I had originally thought they had to be the same revert, so it seems I did indeed perform 4 reverts on that article within 24 hours. I apologise for this, and can say that it certainly won't happen again now that I understand the 3RR more clearly. As the 3RR rule is to prevent edit wars, and I now have a better understanding of the rule and promise not to breach it, please could I be unblocked? Many thanks, --Rebroad 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I had already started typing this message and then got edit conflicted. In addition to the passage referenced by Vsmith, please note, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'". Obviously, there are some cases where it is necessary to revert a good faith non-vandalism edit ... but it's a better practice to stay completely away from 3RR. When your revert is reverted, don't revert again - discuss the issue. There is no deadline so if it takes a little time to get it right, that's ok.
Since you were unaware that 3RR applies not just to the same revert, but to any revert, I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and since you understand the issue now, there's nothing to prevent. (See WP:BP - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages and should not be used as a punitive measure.") Please, though, be very careful to tread lightly and when in doubt, discuss the issue. (To any other administrator looking at this, please feel free to reverse me, but make sure that your reason is that there is something to prevent and that it isn't just a punitive block.)--BigDT 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 87.113.75.24 lifted. That's almost comical ... you were unblocked, but your autoblock survives ... go figure.

Request handled by: BigDT 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I completed an editor review of you. YechielMan 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution move

Hi! I've replied there. Sorry if I was slightly upset - just we had had a major discussion about the possibility of the move... not all that long ago, and come to the conclusion that it was bes where it was, so a move needing an admin to revert is slightly annoying, without a little consensus building first. =) Adam Cuerden 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed some of your additions to Adobe Acrobat

Please see the talk page under . I contend that the information isn't meaningful in its present form because Acrobat is not one product and each product has different disk space requirements. Please do join in the talk. Notinasnaid 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning in re your page moves

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

You are bold in moving pages, which is good in the sense that you are not afraid to move pages. But you unilaterally move pages that you are not involved in without paying attention to what is going on. You move pages without discussion, without reading the ongoing discussion, and sometimes it appears, without having read the article.

The only unilateral page moves that should be done, are unobstructed, uncontroversial moves--unobstructed meaning that it's technically possible for the user to do it, and uncontroversial. Uncontroversial moves are generally small things like capitalization or spelling, and they are rarely name changes. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves and look at the uncontroversial moves section (ones that are uncontroversial but need an admin). Pay attention to what gets posted there and what actually gets moved.

Moving Person → Person (philosophical) or Telephone jack → Telephone socket or the series of moves you did to try and move Cloud → Nephology are all controversial moves.

Telephone jack, I understand you thought was incorrect terminology, but it appears you didn't read the rest of the article because you only changed the article name and didn't seem interested in editing the rest of the "slang" out of the article. As it turns out, it's a British English/American English difference and now the article name either needs to be changed back or the article has to be reworked for the new name. Either way, it's additional work, and while it may be well intentioned, you continually go off alone, half-cocked without a full understanding of the topic, and in it appears in this case, without reading the article. Also, this was a factual name change as you thought the article was using slang terminology and yet you did not provide a source.

In an effort to rename Cloud → Nephology, as Nephology had been a stub since 04, you moved Nephology in order to move Cloud without discussion. You're right, a one-line stub since 04 is bad. But an article about the study of something and the something itself are not the same thing, and moving Nephology in order to move Cloud is incredibly underhanded--you only commented suggesting a move (Talk:Cloud once you were unable to complete it yourself, and since the move never went through, that left articles Nephology and Nephology (to be deleted) redirecting to Cloud with Talk:Nephology redirecting to Talk:Nephology (to be deleted).

You moved Person → Person (philosphical), not even spelling philosophical correctly, based on the disambiguation page's description of the article. I'm assuming (good faith) that you did not go to the article and see that it was not an article on philosophy and do this anyway and that you did not go to the talk page and see the numberous name change discussions and do this anyway. You again left behind double redirects, and once again made it impossible for non-Administrators to revert your change.

You have been warned about not moving pages without prior discussion (when you moved Evolution to Evolution (biology) and only came to the talk page/WP:RM for discussion after the fact.

I think it's great that you come to Misplaced Pages articles and have strong opinions about them and go and make changes. Be bold is a tenant of Misplaced Pages. But avoiding discussion is not. Making bold changes about articles you seem not to have read, and without having read the discussion page is not ok. Making major moves and actively avoiding informing people and discussion is not ok. Making major moves and doing them improperly, leaving behind double redirects and no redirects and orphan pages and needlessly editing moved pages so that those moves can't be undone by anyone other than an administrator is not ok. Moving a page is a major edit, that can't always easily be undone and you not only move pages, renaming them without discussion, but you often do it improperly.

I'm not warning you so that you never move a page again. But before you do move pages again, please read meta:Help:Moving a page as the move page suggests you do. You constantly leave behind double redirects or talk pages that don't redirect or edit the redirect page with a minor edit so that nothing can be moved there and if you understand moving pages a little better you won't leave behind the myriad of mistakes you have been. You should also read Misplaced Pages's guidelines on naming pages.

And if you want to change the name of the article, make a move that isn't minor--you think it is misnamed or needs a better one, or doesn't acurately reflect the contents of the article, then before you move anything, stop and take a look around. Read the article and the talk page. Is there a current move discussion? If so, weigh in. Has this been discussed before and decided? If so, it's probably best to move on. If you're reaching fresh territory, bring it up for discussion informally, or propose it formally at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves. Do the latter especially if the article doesn't get a lot of traffic, because that will get people to weigh in. Get consensus first, and this will keep your moves from being reverted and you from looking like a vandal.

You're an experienced editor. You know how to use a talk page, you've posted at WP:RM before. Your edits may be well-intentioned, and you're avoidance of the system might be too--but it looks like you're trying to force your edits on others. Either way, you've been warned more than once now and been provided with tools that should help you and if you have any questions, you can always ask. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)