Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 29 July 2017

July 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Contemporary Latin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. KNHaw 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Clearly, you did not read or comprehend the text that I removed, or the explanation that I gave. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at NGC 523, you may be blocked from editing. WinHunter 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Don't be stupid. My edit clearly could not under any circumstances be construed as vandalism. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. WinHunter 00:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have absurdly been accused of vandalism for making a necessary, indeed essential change to an article. If one knows anything about astronomy, one knows that the IAU assigns names to objects, and no-one else. The 'catalogue of named galaxies' has no relevance to any Misplaced Pages article. And if one knows anything about Misplaced Pages policy, one knows that my edit could not under any circumstances be described as vandalism, and the overenthusiastic administrator who blocked me four minutes after I made the edit should not have done so. They are now vandalistically undoing '''all''' of my contributions for no reason - this is absolutely outrageous. ] (]) 00:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have absurdly been accused of vandalism for making a necessary, indeed essential change to an article. If one knows anything about astronomy, one knows that the IAU assigns names to objects, and no-one else. The 'catalogue of named galaxies' has no relevance to any Misplaced Pages article. And if one knows anything about Misplaced Pages policy, one knows that my edit could not under any circumstances be described as vandalism, and the overenthusiastic administrator who blocked me four minutes after I made the edit should not have done so. They are now vandalistically undoing '''all''' of my contributions for no reason - this is absolutely outrageous. ] (]) 00:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have absurdly been accused of vandalism for making a necessary, indeed essential change to an article. If one knows anything about astronomy, one knows that the IAU assigns names to objects, and no-one else. The 'catalogue of named galaxies' has no relevance to any Misplaced Pages article. And if one knows anything about Misplaced Pages policy, one knows that my edit could not under any circumstances be described as vandalism, and the overenthusiastic administrator who blocked me four minutes after I made the edit should not have done so. They are now vandalistically undoing '''all''' of my contributions for no reason - this is absolutely outrageous. ] (]) 00:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This "administrator" has made less than 200 edits this decade. 30 of them are today, attacking me. Seems to me their account has probably been hacked. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It would perhaps be better if you politely ask Winhunter why they view your edits as vandalism and then discuss.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

And how am I supposed to do that when blocked? If you're not going to review the block properly, what is the use of the unblock template? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

He was notified when I pinged him in my statement above. I have done a review and we are awaiting his response.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been blocked for no good reason, I'm very annoyed about that, and it is obvious that the block was not correct or necessary. Don't tell me to have patience. Given that the user has edited less than 200 times in the last decade, waiting for their response is not an acceptable option. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

And why were you telling me to ask the user things when plainly that is impossible and you'd apparently done the asking anyway? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTVAND in case you are not familiar with it, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#CMG_-_.22Catalogue_of_One_Thousand_Named_Galaxies.22 for discussion of the things I was editing, and the fact that most of my edits were subsequently restored by someone else. And yet you somehow think that blocking me for vandalism was not an obvious error? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. You might have been correct and I was entirely prepared to undertake that position but I really need to follow protocols per this. I don't see a consensus anywhere that the block was wrong and I don't edit these articles so in my eyes I see a content dispute where it is possible that you might be right. Had I thought otherwise, I would have declined your unblock request. I was going to advocate your position from an administrative perspective but since you didn't take my suggestion to have patience and are apparently unhappy with my approach, I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This block was utterly dishonest and in violation of the blocking policy. Content dispute? There is obviously no content dispute! There's just an obviously false claim of vandalism and a block that obviously violates the blocking policy. Do you feel that you've done a good job by taunting me as you have instead of dealing with the policy violation? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Very amusing how you link to the protocols you say you must follow, but ignore the clear mandate they give you to unblock this insulting and clearly unjustifiable block. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, what a joke. Working hard to improve articles just gets you insults and jerkoffs playing games. Fine, goodbye. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I have notified the blocking admin that the version he prefers has been discussed by the community, which decided not to use it. This appears to make the accusation of vandalism untenable.--Anthony Bradbury 22:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Good. I do believe that WinHunter should respond as I favored the IP's appeal...I'm not sure if the IP was so angry that he didn't recognize someone trying to help and let the first admin have it (me). Whether we may have gotten off on a wrong foot, I would like to see that his concern is addressed. There is more to this than meets the eye possibly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock