| Revision as of 02:41, 30 August 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,126 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Slakr/Archive 21, User talk:Slakr/Archive 22) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:01, 30 August 2015 edit undoSlakr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators33,695 edits →Please revisit: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| I noticed you closed ] as "declined". I think that result is invalid, as in not a valid option in view of the request. I explained myself there. Originally I changed the result myself to "closed without administrative action", which is a valid result in this case, but after a ] from an editor I respect very much for many years already, I undid that, and now ask you to make this change. ] (]) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) | I noticed you closed ] as "declined". I think that result is invalid, as in not a valid option in view of the request. I explained myself there. Originally I changed the result myself to "closed without administrative action", which is a valid result in this case, but after a ] from an editor I respect very much for many years already, I undid that, and now ask you to make this change. ] (]) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :{{Ping|Debresser}} Thanks for the heads up. I've double checked the action, and you might be right. It could be argued that the close was wrong and what needed to happen was to actually block ''you'' for edit warring, even though you haven't violated the three revert rule, because you seem acutely aware of the policy against doing so yet proceeded nonetheless make multiple reverts. In fact, you were so confident in your understanding of the policy that you'd go so far as to (which, I might add, is sort of ironic on an edit warring noticeboard), while the other editor was given no significant, direct, standard warning (e.g., {{tl|uw-3rr}}) about the policy against edit warring and thus has benefit of the doubt. Is being blocked a more desirable choice for you, or would you rather take the warning and seek ] instead of continuing to edit war? We added that option to the template {{tlx|AN3}} template, by the way, because it happens so frequently: {{AN3|nb}}. The way ''I'' see it, of course, is that I'm hopefully right in my interpretation of the ] in that the spirit of it is to block ''neither'' of you in this instance, which is why I felt the most appropriate close (for now) was to perform decline the report. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now, even if you disagree with it. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:01, 30 August 2015
|
slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi? |
Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.Click here to start a new talk topic
| Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | |
|
Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :)Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)".If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I responded to your post
However,
"The Internet is the last bastion of true free speech. Misplaced Pages embodies free speech at its finest. I think it does a better job at filtering fact from fiction than real life ever could. Seriously, how often can you slap a tag on someone's nonsense? How often can they slap one on you back? How often are they actually verified? Even better, we don't have to worry as much about corporate interests, liberal/conservative bias, and/or campaign contributions. Everyone keeps everyone else in check-- without guns, bombs, white ghost costumes, or other attacks. I like to learn, and I wish more people did too." -slakr
Where am I deferent from you. I only brought fact to fiction. The world said "who is the other guy on the cover, it looks like IVERSON" , but it's me.
I'm the only one who got blocked from playing in the league because I served my country. I am a victim of conservative bias. And, in trying to correct it I was told I was wrong. If you know about what Ed Obanon did so that former NBA players could be paid for use of likeness, imagine what I'm facing when I'm on the cover and DIDNT play in the NBA. That's my fight right now. I have to fight the system to be heard and I thought wiki was the place where truth gets posted and is able to stand. I'm not fully trying to use wiki as a weapon, however the more people who can FREELY ATTAIN the truth, will break down these barriers. Kaoszulu (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Also while there are several credited sources on the page, they all reference blog posts, magazine articles, but no actual people involved. Until I posted. Nick said I have to show a credible source. Slakr, who's more credible than the guy we know Is not doc or mike, and, if it was Allen we woulda just put his jersey on the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaoszulu (talk • contribs) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Kaoszulu (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure who to ask
Slakr, I'm not sure who to ask so I thought I would ask you as you have closed a number of edit warring notices. I posted one here ]. I've seen a number of other edit war notices get closed but I've seen no review of mine one way or the other. Is there a way to know if the complaint is being reviewed? If there is a problem with the structure of the complaint can I know what it is? If this should be an ANI for disruptive editing instead of edit warring again is there a way to find out? Thanks Springee (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
DS alert American Politics,
Thanks for the alert, although I followed the Arb Comm proceedings and was aware of the findings, the reminder is welcome. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
200.83.165.120
Do not block my IP for no reason. Send a message on the talk page and discuss.
Please revisit
I noticed you closed Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Benjil_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_declined.29 as "declined". I think that result is invalid, as in not a valid option in view of the request. I explained myself there. Originally I changed the result myself to "closed without administrative action", which is a valid result in this case, but after a post on my talkpage from an editor I respect very much for many years already, I undid that, and now ask you to make this change. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Thanks for the heads up. I've double checked the action, and you might be right. It could be argued that the close was wrong and what needed to happen was to actually block you for edit warring, even though you haven't violated the three revert rule, because you seem acutely aware of the policy against doing so yet proceeded nonetheless make multiple reverts. In fact, you were so confident in your understanding of the policy that you'd go so far as to revert my close (which, I might add, is sort of ironic on an edit warring noticeboard), while the other editor was given no significant, direct, standard warning (e.g., {{uw-3rr}}) about the policy against edit warring and thus has benefit of the doubt. Is being blocked a more desirable choice for you, or would you rather take the warning and seek dispute resolution instead of continuing to edit war? We added that option to the template
{{AN3}}template, by the way, because it happens so frequently:
Nominating editor blocked. The way I see it, of course, is that I'm hopefully right in my interpretation of the edit warring policy in that the spirit of it is to block neither of you in this instance, which is why I felt the most appropriate close (for now) was to perform decline the report. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now, even if you disagree with it. --slakr 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
