Revision as of 18:48, 6 April 2013 editVanishedUserABC (talk | contribs)78,528 edits misclick← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:36, 9 April 2013 edit undoSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,106 edits ArbCom unblock appeal declineNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cot}} | |||
==March 2012== | ==March 2012== | ||
] Thank you for your interest in editing Misplaced Pages. Your edit to ] was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the ''']''' instead. Please take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-test1 --> ] (]) 02:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) | ] Thank you for your interest in editing Misplaced Pages. Your edit to ] was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the ''']''' instead. Please take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-test1 --> ] (]) 02:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
Line 151: | Line 152: | ||
:That was abusive and not in line with policy. Making a case on one's own behalf on one's own Talk page is not Talk page abuse, DoRD stated on his Talk page that Minorview is entitled to a second appeal, and no warning was given here that Talk page access might be revoked. ] (]) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | :That was abusive and not in line with policy. Making a case on one's own behalf on one's own Talk page is not Talk page abuse, DoRD stated on his Talk page that Minorview is entitled to a second appeal, and no warning was given here that Talk page access might be revoked. ] (]) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
{{cob}} | |||
==ArbCom unblock appeal== | |||
After independently examining the technical evidence the Committee has decided to decline the appeal. | |||
For the Arbitration Committee. ''']''' ''']''' 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:36, 9 April 2013
Extended content | ||
---|---|---|
March 2012Thank you for your interest in editing Misplaced Pages. Your edit to Introduction to genetics was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I just asked a question. Your article has been moved to AfC spaceHi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Minorview/Robin Holcomb has been moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creationThank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Speedy deletion nomination of Robin Holcomb
A tag has been placed on Robin Holcomb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creationThank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Robin HolcombThanks for message. It's not just the references
She may well be notable, but the deleted article gave no indication of why Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I don't know what you consider notable. The first thing I see at that link you gave is that notability is not enough to "speedily delete" something. She's notable enough for the German Misplaced Pages: http://de.wikipedia.org/Robin_Holcomb It's kind of insulting to be told I wrote "fan babble." It also says: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). I documented both of those in References and Discography. questionCan I re-create the article? Your submission at Articles for creationThank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
I understand your passion for the artist. Try citing inline references to substantiate notability. Before you re-submit, feel free to send a message to one of us to review the article. Cheers. Txcrossbow (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Moving the location of the citation doesn't increase documentation of notability. It just changes where it is. The artist meets the notability requirements, and that is documented in the article. Failing it because of notability is wrong. Period. I don't actually know how to do "inline citations". Minorview (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) I just read your latest comment on my talk page, particularly directing me to "STOP BLACKING THE ARTICLE". Heads up, I only declined it once. You did not RE-SUBMIT, which is why my decline is at the top of your page. Secondly, being confrontational with reviewers will not change the status of your article. I was respectful and tried to be helpful when I addressed you; please reciprocate. If you don't know how to do in-line references, you could have simply asked. The declination was not a personal attack on you. Txcrossbow (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC) A little honesty goes a long way. I did not "direct" you to "STOP BLOCKING THE ARTICLE." What I actually wrote was "Would you please stop blocking the article?" Your denial of the article is wrong. The crieria for notability are straightforward, and the subject meets them. You made a mistake, and I am asking you to fix your mistake. Minorview (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creationThank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Removal of sourced content, March 2013In this edit you removed sourced content with WP:RS sources. You have provided no sources of your own to justify said deletion. I suggest you self-revert to avoid a revert cycle, given that the material is fully sourced and pertains to the subject of the article. If you cannot provide WP:RS sources that justify your statement about weight, your edit will have to be reverted, and should you revert again, that will be WP:Disruptive editing given that you are performing deletion of sourced content with no sources to justify your own actions. History2007 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
March 2013: Repeated removal of sourced contentIn this edit you again removed fully sourced WP:RS content without having any sources of your own. Tell me why his is not WP:Disruptive editing given that:
Please explain here in very clear terms why this is not Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it, given that you have "zero sources" of your own, and just delete scholarly material, key historical references and, and even page numbers at will. This must stop. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
Minorview (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: It is physically impossible that checkuser found anyone else shares my computer. Nobody else has access to the only computer I use for Misplaced Pages, and I recall only 1 instance of using a public computer recently. That was in a different city a few months ago. Minorview (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: You state that nobody else has used the computer you are editing from. That confirms that the edits do indeed come from one person, which is exactly the reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2013 (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.
But you know, even without seeing a CU report, when one looks into the obvious edit evidence, the link between these accounts is clear when one considers that:
The "it wasn't me" claim here seems very strange indeed. History2007 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Minorview (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I live/edit 120 miles from that IP. There is no way the IP logs can show that I edit from that computer. I do get down to the university 3-4 times a year (last time was in February) and could edit from a public computer there a very infrequently. History2007's comment that I “showed out of nowhere” to support Humanpublic neglects the fact that Humanpublic's editing of Jesus was the subject multiple ANI/AN threads. I came across their editing the same way most of the community did, by seeing the debates and taking an interest. Minorview (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: Cutting through the verbiage; this is a checkuser block and will not be overturned by an admin without CU privilege.--Anthony Bradbury 14:40, 5 April 2013 (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. Something is wrong with the template. Anyway, I am trying to request a second CU opinion. How do I do that? Minorview (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Without spending undue time here (again per WP:OWB items 3/4) let me just say that this whole Humanpublic editing from a library and does not have computer/internet at home, etc. just seem unusual, because his last edit was at 13:26 today which is about 6:20am on the westcoast/Oregon. So he gets up at 6:20 in the morning and types on his talk page... History2007 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In line with WP:OWB point 3, talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. Enough time has been spent on this, which is going nowhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
|
ArbCom unblock appeal
After independently examining the technical evidence the Committee has decided to decline the appeal.
For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)