Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 28 March 2015

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Misplaced Pages Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your thoughtful, poetic contribution about learning chemistry, and the value of informative categories in science. You have my respect. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating the 'recent changes' pane for WPMed. Wonderful! LT910001 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table You've done a whole damn lot for our project. You've actually made it better. Please keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For turning the trivial names of groups table in the periodic table article into a visual feast for the eyes Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For repeated improvements on templates used in phonetics articles. Particularly admirable is the combination of seeking out explicit consensus and dutifully carrying out necessary changes once it is reached. — Ƶ§œš¹ 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		You're the hero of the day on this pickle of a problem. Thanks for the insight. VanIsaacWS 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your amazing work with the graph. It appears now better than what I thought of it to be before! With your learning ability, you're all up to be an awesome graphic designer, in addition to your template skills! Thanks, man R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for all your suggestion and opinion (as here or here) which are really very helpful. Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

March 2015

note to self: harassment, acknowledged trespassing. -DePiep (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC) mm. DrChrissy -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

First things first: indeed I should not have used the two opening words, and I understand that I'm not supposed to do that in the future. Will strike that on first occasion. Second, about the now remaining part of the diff'ed post. I think the blocking editor did not took this (not too extensive) context into account.

Clearly, it was in a subthread I started (Breeze in a teacup). In that, I noted the introduction of words like "cudgel" and "weapon" (even in the section title). I explained that the "lol fix" editsummary was misread by the OP'er. I noted that a immediately preceding 2-reverts was involved, both in the article as in the ANI post. I noted that the OP'er had removed content (plain arguments) from another editor's (my) talkpage post. This was my first response in this ANI. These errors in the OP misrepresented the situation, put me in a bad light, and already less-investigative editors (admins) had taken it for truth and judged upon it. OP'er responded without any correction to the points made. There was not even a connection made to the errors pointed out, bascically evading responsibility.

Then an other editor came in with a sensible post , to which I responded sensibly (well, IMO of course) with some disagreement and with a confession. So far, I thought this would lead to a closable result. (Noteworthy, this reply was not used ever by the OP'er, and not by other editors in the ANI).

Next, OP again adds a contribution evading my points, hammering a hobby horse --as is their habit bolded-- . Introducing gratuit accusations not backed up: "more wikilawyering distraction" --bold is the new uppercase shouting?--.

It was after this that I rephrased my objections to their misjudgements: the "weapon"-titling I call warmongering, repetitively not connecting/correcting points I write I call illiterate as in 'I did not see that'. I noted that the size of the issue was made disproportional (also but not solely by wrong facts), and that the OP did not take responsibility for their wrong judgements. Since the OP did not correct themselves, I state that they are 'false' (not just mistakes any more), and that this constitutes smearing me by bad associations. Up to this moment of writing, the false accusations are still in there, up for everyone to be abused. I maintain I have a right to defend against this bad portraying.

Unresolved for now must be that once again I have to note that the ANI process is lacking in maintaining a sound discussion quality: anything goes. This is an underlying issue (in other words: I have no option to get false accusations removed form the discussion, nor 'force' judging admins to read carefully. So be it).

Concluding, I maintain that the subthread was me seriously engaging in the ANI issue, and was met with unreasonable and evading responses. I am pushing back against false statements and tentative negative associations. And as the ANI page says (or used to say?): "be prepared to be scrutinised yourself when posting here". DePiep (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The problem isn't just the first two words. PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2015 (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.

PhilKnight -- I do not see an answer. What exactly do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your unblock request begins with "First things first: indeed I should not have used the two opening words", and the problems run much deeper than the first two words. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I read your response. Then I expected a response to the rest of my reasoning provided. Anyway, I think it should be by new template so I did. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

PhilKnight's response is not clarifying. Does not address my request. What am I supposed to not do? Does it mean that I am not allowed to push back against wrong statements? DePiep (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon 14:24, 28 March 2015 (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.

"... because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons": useless, unspecific. See Bishonen's block notice above. Again, the question remains: what is missing?

From Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_appealing_blocks:

1. State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. Y see "First", "Second"
2. Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block). Y
3. Give evidence. Y (not that brief though, I preferred be careful).

Useless. Does not connect to my first unblock request. Am I forbidden to defend against incorrect statements, then? Jpgordon. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In unblock requests? Basically, yeah. --jpgordon 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

re In unblock requests? - No, that is not in the request. The request is about that. Didn't you read it? -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock I am going to "trespass" again here. DePiep, you didn't link to your response to Formerly, which is here. I didn't see the promise to not do it again at the end of that, where you wrote: " Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again" I admit that I stopped reading that remark before I got to the end (tl/dr). Hopefully, you meant that. I am sorry that I didn't see that and respond to it. Jytdog (talk)