Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 19 October 2013

re: userpage

It doesn't need undeleting. Just edit it and click save to create it again. S.G. _ping! 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I was just following instructions that said, "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page...please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." Holdek (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries :) S.G. _ping! 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Would you please be so kind to explain this edit?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my error. I started trying to fix the redirects from the earlier merge and I reverted this by mistake. I'll revert and make a note of it on 79.246.185.176's talk page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Holdek (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

I agree with Ymblanter. Removing non-controversial text of public knowledge is disruptive. Please stop. I have marked the challenged paragraphs with a cn templates. I am pretty sure someone will find the sources in a couple of days, if not I will do it myself. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP: Verifiability, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (Bold in original.)

That said, I'll allow a couple more days for cites to be provided. Holdek (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, you do understand that the material that I removed had been cn templated for over a month, right? You could have just reverted. Did you even look at the edit history of the article? Holdek (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, assuming nobody would proper fill the requested citations earlier I would do it over this weekend. Most of the challenged positions are really public knowledge (like Moscow is a federal subject but its head is named Major not Governor) it should be referred to documents like Constitution, etc. None of the issues looks like an urgent matter, really Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that the vast majority of the readers of English Misplaced Pages would not recognize certain information as obviously part of the Constitution of Russia (for example, there seems to be a governor of Moscow Oblast and a Mayor of Moscow, but it's unclear to the uninitiated what the differences between these two positions are, if they have overlapping jurisdiction, if they have the same degree of power, etc.), so I thank you for citing the info, over the weekend or when you have time, if someone else doesn't. I would do it myself, but I only know a little about certain aspects of these things. I just didn't want it to sit uncited in perpetuity. Holdek (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

EliteXC: Primetime

I closed your AFD because you withdrew your nomination and said you would be merging this article with Elite Xtreme Combat. Now instead you are just redirecting the EliteXC: Primetime article without discussion. You should bring any merge or redirection up for discussion on the article's talk page before creating a redirect that removes so much material. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing really to merge; almost all the material is unsourced. Hence the redirect. However, I'll post a notice on the talk page soliciting discussion if you want. Holdek (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it's obvious that there's at least one other editor with objections, that might be a good idea. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Holdek (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PrankvsPrank

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PrankvsPrank. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You have been blocked for 1 month for long-time disruption, per these ANI threads. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

• P.S. I don't think you were alerted about the ANI thread here. If you want to say anything there, please post it here and I'll move it to ANI for you. (Assuming I'm awake.) Bishonen | talk 20:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC).

I'd like to be unblocked from editing the ANI thread so that I can respond there. I don't think it's fair that I have to wait for you to wake up to have my comments added piecemeal to an ongoing discussion about my blocking. Holdek (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not technically possible to unblock you from editing one particular page. The discussion can hardly be described as "ongoing", but very well, I've unblocked you on the understanding that you don't edit anything other than that ANI thread. Be careful of that, because you'll be in big trouble if you do. When the ANI discussion is closed, your one-month block will be reinstated. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

Holdek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The first ANI thread referenced was not acted upon presumably because it was frivolous. In the second, of which Bishonen is correct I was not notified about, I reverted an edit by an editor with whom I've had content disputes before on a couple of Russian topic articles (e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=565324845&oldid=565222270#User:Holdek, Talk:Alexander_Dovzhenko#Merger_Proposal, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=569620326&oldid=569540498#User:_Ymblanter). The reversion was to restore a citation needed tag to a caption, per WP: Verify: "All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material," (emphasis mine), and then to remove an erroneous category listing from the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moscow_mayoral_election,_2013&diff=prev&oldid=577421683. This is a content dispute that does not rise to the level of a one month ban simply because the other user doesn't like my editing Russian topic articles that he edits as well. Holdek (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've checked the pages that you and Bishonen linked, reading anything I could find that was relevant to you. Concerns expressed by uninvolved users, such as the one by DGG at the end of Bishonen's first link, make me doubt that an unblock is a good idea, especially because your words make me think that you're confusing "verifiable" with "verified". Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 19 October 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.

• This is under active discussion at ANI so the decision should probably be made there. Ryan Vesey 04:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly all right for the call to be made by an uninvolved admin here in response to the unblock request, Ryan. There's really nothing to the current "discussion" on ANI. It's mostly about ANI notifications, and I very much doubt it'll get enough input about the block as such for any consensus to be formed. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

Holdek, I just wanted to let you know that I've nowikied your unblock request — since you're not currently blocked, it's confusing for this page to appear in Category:Requests for unblock. I didn't want to decline it, since would reflect poorly on any future unblock requests, and I also didn't want to accept it, since that would override Bishonen's intention to restore your one-month block. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I misunderstood the situation and have removed the nowiki tags. I'll review your request and answer it, unless someone gets in ahead of me. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)