| Revision as of 03:26, 2 August 2012 view sourceOverlordQ (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators27,368 edits →Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012: +com← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:52, 2 August 2012 view source Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits →Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012: declineNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=My edit comment and the comment on the talk page show that I was acting under the belief that WP:BLP beats out WP:3RR. Is this how you like to ] new editors who act in good faith? ] (]) 12:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | decline=I agree with Ed. You invoked BLP only on the fourth revert ... to me some sort of ] principle applies at that point as a BLP vio would have been obvious from the beginning. — ] (]) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed | 1=My edit comment and the comment on the talk page show that I was acting under the belief that WP:BLP beats out WP:3RR. Is this how you like to ] new editors who act in good faith? ] (]) 12:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | decline=I agree with Ed. You invoked BLP only on the fourth revert ... to me some sort of ] principle applies at that point as a BLP vio would have been obvious from the beginning. — ] (]) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)}} | ||
| {{unblock| |
{{unblock reviewed|1=Keep in mind that the block came through while I was sleeping, and I only had a minute to protest it in the morning. I've since taken the time to study the record and reconstruct the timeline and my thinking. It turns out that, even if you ignore the fact that my last edit was made under the earnest belief that 3RR did not apply to reverting BLP violations, I flatly did not exceed 3RR and should therefore have this block immediately lifted. | ||
| According to ], "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Look at the diffs carefully and you'll see that the first two ''reported'' reverts are just the two halves of a single one. The first cuts "both praised and" in the middle of the sentence, while the second cuts the end of the sentence, "that had been previously raised by others". | According to ], "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Look at the diffs carefully and you'll see that the first two ''reported'' reverts are just the two halves of a single one. The first cuts "both praised and" in the middle of the sentence, while the second cuts the end of the sentence, "that had been previously raised by others". | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
| What was listed as my third revert (but was actually my second) was a re-removal of the end of the sentence after it was restored, and what was listed as my fourth revert (but was actually my third and last) rolled back both the praise and the end of the sentence at once, as well as a bunch of other BLP issues generated by the original editor. Again, this means that I simply did not violate ]. At the time I made my last edit, I was aware that I was on the border of 3RR so I invoked BLP, just in case, but it wasn't necessary. | What was listed as my third revert (but was actually my second) was a re-removal of the end of the sentence after it was restored, and what was listed as my fourth revert (but was actually my third and last) rolled back both the praise and the end of the sentence at once, as well as a bunch of other BLP issues generated by the original editor. Again, this means that I simply did not violate ]. At the time I made my last edit, I was aware that I was on the border of 3RR so I invoked BLP, just in case, but it wasn't necessary. | ||
| If I'd had a chance to research and respond before the block, I would have pointed this out and there would not have been a block. Therefore, I am asking you to remove my block before it expires. If you're wondering why I'm arguing over a few hours, ask me and I'll explain. ] (]) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)}} | If I'd had a chance to research and respond before the block, I would have pointed this out and there would not have been a block. Therefore, I am asking you to remove my block before it expires. If you're wondering why I'm arguing over a few hours, ask me and I'll explain. ] (]) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)|decline=Even assuming for the sake of argument that the first two edits count as one revert, you were still edit warring. ] (]) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)}} | ||
| : Looking at your edits to ] you seem to have no problem citing policies and guidelines, so trying to hide behind ] is a bit ]y. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | : Looking at your edits to ] you seem to have no problem citing policies and guidelines, so trying to hide behind ] is a bit ]y. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:52, 2 August 2012
Welcome
|
Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse!
|
Hello! StillStanding-247, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Misplaced Pages for new editors to ask questions about editing Misplaced Pages, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! |
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! Sarah (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How to abuse a talk page.
In a recent post, Lionelt outlined a simple plan to get rid of me:
- Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Misplaced Pages. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Not coincidentally, when I cleared my talk page, the person he was writing to immediately reverted my wipe. I think it's painfully obvious what's going on here.
I have nothing to hide; I'm proud of my small achievements here and I fully expect that some people will be unhappy with them. However, this talk page is not going to serve as a sewer for these people to fill with bogus notices intended to create the illusion of a pattern of disruptive editing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
War on Women: "redefining rape"
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Still-24-45-42-125. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
FYI
You have been mentioned here – Lionel 03:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My edit comment and the comment on the talk page show that I was acting under the belief that WP:BLP beats out WP:3RR. Is this how you like to WP:BITE new editors who act in good faith? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with Ed. You invoked BLP only on the fourth revert ... to me some sort of estoppel principle applies at that point as a BLP vio would have been obvious from the beginning. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Keep in mind that the block came through while I was sleeping, and I only had a minute to protest it in the morning. I've since taken the time to study the record and reconstruct the timeline and my thinking. It turns out that, even if you ignore the fact that my last edit was made under the earnest belief that 3RR did not apply to reverting BLP violations, I flatly did not exceed 3RR and should therefore have this block immediately lifted.
According to WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Look at the diffs carefully and you'll see that the first two reported reverts are just the two halves of a single one. The first cuts "both praised and" in the middle of the sentence, while the second cuts the end of the sentence, "that had been previously raised by others".
Both parts had been added as a unit, with the effect of violating some combination of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE by whitewashing the overwhelmingly negative global response to Romney's Olympic gaffe. I noticed that change while walking through the history, decided it was necessary to revert, and thought I removed all of it. A few minutes later, I noticed that I had somehow failed to, and immediately fixed my error. In the interim, a bot walked by and dated a tag added previously, but no user edited it.
What was listed as my third revert (but was actually my second) was a re-removal of the end of the sentence after it was restored, and what was listed as my fourth revert (but was actually my third and last) rolled back both the praise and the end of the sentence at once, as well as a bunch of other BLP issues generated by the original editor. Again, this means that I simply did not violate WP:3RR. At the time I made my last edit, I was aware that I was on the border of 3RR so I invoked BLP, just in case, but it wasn't necessary.
If I'd had a chance to research and respond before the block, I would have pointed this out and there would not have been a block. Therefore, I am asking you to remove my block before it expires. If you're wondering why I'm arguing over a few hours, ask me and I'll explain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the first two edits count as one revert, you were still edit warring. T. Canens (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Looking at your edits to Talk:Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 you seem to have no problem citing policies and guidelines, so trying to hide behind WP:BITE is a bit GAMEy. Q 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)