Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nergaal/dead: 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:Nergaal Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:27, 4 May 2014 editLfdder (talk | contribs)14,867 editsm →May 2014← Previous edit Revision as of 17:55, 4 May 2014 edit undoNergaal (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers48,094 edits →May 2014Next edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 102: Line 102:
::: Yes, whereas, refusing to unblock him on the suspicion that he will continue to move war is AGF. He should've been unblocked a few hours later (and after a talking-to), and if he continued to move war (doubtful), reblocked. Blocking him for 2 days right from the start is incomprehensible. — ] 16:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ::: Yes, whereas, refusing to unblock him on the suspicion that he will continue to move war is AGF. He should've been unblocked a few hours later (and after a talking-to), and if he continued to move war (doubtful), reblocked. Blocking him for 2 days right from the start is incomprehensible. — ] 16:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
*Nergaal, do you intend to continue the move war? If so, you won't be unblocked. ] (]) 14:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC) *Nergaal, do you intend to continue the move war? If so, you won't be unblocked. ] (]) 14:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if I had intended to continue it seems that by now that will not be necessary anymore. It was quite surprising to me that I have been blocked for 2 days over something that it does not seem the blocker even cared to investigate beyond reading the ANI message. Why wasn't the page protected from moving instead? I sincerely shocked by the rationale of the decliner. If this is the sort of respect I get from admins after all the contributions I've offered to wikipedia during these years it is really hard to even care anymore. ] (]) 17:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:55, 4 May 2014

User talk:Nergaal/dead/top

GA status

Nergaal, I would happily nominate those two articles for GA status but you would have to do the review because I am currently busy. Jessy (talk) • 21:27, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Psilocybe cyanofriscosa

Hello, Nergaal. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Psilocybe_cyanofriscosa.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could PH2 b Be Potentially Habitable - Or Not?

Copied from Talk:PH2 b#Could PH2 b Be Potentially Habitable - Or Not:

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

?

Why is my IP (188.24.179.6) labeled as an open proxy? I've been using this IP for years

(Unblock request removed as this account is not blocked). I have asked at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests#188.24.179.6 for this to be looked into. See also WP:WikiProject on open proxies/Help:blocked. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the message I was getting was not very clear about what to do. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Motorway map

Hi, regarding your suggestions about the map, I disagree with removing some of the routes displayed and I consider the map should represent the planned network for the long term (as in the map of the planned numbering system). I strongly disagree with changing the graphical layout of the map, as that would result in a lack of consistency and too many (rather unnecessary) line styles (the current layout it is reasonable in making a difference between planned, under construction and completed sections). The tendered sections, once the tender is complete and the contract is signed, can be drawn with dashed lines. I agree that the route between Buzău and Galaţi should be added too. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Post-transition metals

Did you discuss the move & its consequences somewhere? -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

More precise: please revert. Undiscussed, "OR" for a grouping page title, sloppy effects all around, calling Al a post-transition metal is, well, disputed. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Calling them other metals is well, at least unprofessional. I don't care about what name will be chosen as long as the qualifier is not "other". Other refers to not-a-category which is well explained in the title. Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Then propose that before moving. You know where, why & how. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It's controversial. Please revert &tc. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Continue at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Move edit warring the metals. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive move-warring, as you did at Other metal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This 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 (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am pretty sure I have the right to defend my actions and to answer to dubious allegations made on the ANI noticeboard. Nergaal (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Although you have no "rights" so to speak, this block is due to a community evaluation of your edits. If you wish to be unblocked, please read WP:GAB and WP:AAB to help you to compose your request (I recommend NOT starting at a point of "it's dubious"). If instead you wish to contribute to the ANI thread, you may start a new section below, call it "My comments to ANI", state your exact comments, then use {{helpme}} and ask for them to be copied over the panda ₯’ 09:56, 4 May 2014 (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.

@DangerousPanda: can you tell me what the point of keeping him blocked is? Blocks aren't meant to punitive -- whether you like it or not. — lfdder 12:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Such a bizarre statement, and wholly non-AGF. Yes, punitive blocks are abhorrent. However, as per Drmies question below, until the community is convinced the move-warring won't continue, the block remains. This is the key element of WP:GAB, after all. If his unblock request had addressed the issues, and ensured the behaviour wouldn't continue, he'd already be unblocked - by me. the panda ₯’ 15:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, whereas, refusing to unblock him on the suspicion that he will continue to move war is AGF. He should've been unblocked a few hours later (and after a talking-to), and if he continued to move war (doubtful), reblocked. Blocking him for 2 days right from the start is incomprehensible. — lfdder 16:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if I had intended to continue it seems that by now that will not be necessary anymore. It was quite surprising to me that I have been blocked for 2 days over something that it does not seem the blocker even cared to investigate beyond reading the ANI message. Why wasn't the page protected from moving instead? I sincerely shocked by the rationale of the decliner. If this is the sort of respect I get from admins after all the contributions I've offered to wikipedia during these years it is really hard to even care anymore. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)