| Revision as of 14:46, 2 March 2013 editHumanpublic (talk | contribs)343 edits →March 2013← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:42, 28 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (111 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == October 2012 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page ], because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ], or take a look at our ] about links. Thank you. ]<!-- Template:uw-spam1 --> ] ] 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{tb|Jprg1966}} | |||
| '''This user believes in the project and is disgusted by ]. As a consequence, she sees sock puppetry as justifiable in certain cases.''' | |||
| == Strangesad, you are invited to the Teahouse == | |||
| : Well, this is a quick way to get an indefinite block. <span style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:Purple;">'''''L'''''iz</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ⚫ | ::...and I have so much to lose, you know, the feeling of respect I get from this community... ] (]) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {| style="margin: 2em 4em;" | |||
| |- valign="top" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;"> | |||
| Hi '''Strangesad'''! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Please join other people who edit Misplaced Pages at ]! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ] (]) | |||
| <div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">]</span></div><small><span style="text-align:right;">This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood ] (]) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)</small></span> | |||
| </div> | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| == Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == | |||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for intentional violation of topic ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|ts=] <sup><font face="Verdana">]|]</font></sup> 03:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Your submission at ] == | |||
| <div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> ]Thank you for your recent submission to ]. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.<br> | |||
| <div class="plainlinks"> | |||
| * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at ]. | |||
| * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. | |||
| * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the ], or on the <span class="noprint plainlinks"></span>. Please remember to link to the submission! | |||
| *You can also get . | |||
| :Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 15:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div> | |||
| ==DYK for Echo (elephant)== | |||
| ==WP:RS== | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| Hi, sorry, did not want to get on your nerves, but those websites are not ] in general and also subject to ], so books by good publishers are better. Your statement was, however, correct. But per ] correct means very little and sources rule. I added an RS source anyway, and made it 4 pagars per ]. ] (]) 00:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |type = notice | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| :My sources seem reliable to me. Can you explain what's wrong with them? Yours, which I just found on google books, is about the literary and philosophical treatment of resurrection. Not the definition or actual possibility of resurrection. ] (]) 00:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that scientists observed ''']''' which lasted 65 years?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Echo (elephant)|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Echo (elephant)|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::All the book needs to say is that there are views which say it is impossible. So we actually agree on what there is to say, the question is attribution. www.uniformlaws.org is not RS for sure, given n publisher. NHS.UK is a medical site and using it is ] given no mention of resurrection, etc. And they are all LINKROT items that may change tomorrow. The book I used was about Resurection. You can ask for further views on ] if you like. That is the easiest way. Thanks. ] (]) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope you still check in occasionally. The hook for your article did very well; with its April Fools' Day appearance, plus a little "spillover" the next day, it received over 8000 page views. Thanks again for writing the article which helped to create a successful day for DYK. I'm sorry to see how things have worked out for you here. Hopefully some day you can successfully appeal your block and resume editing. ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 08:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == For your information == | |||
| Discussion of your practices ] (]) 10:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring == | |||
| You are currently involved in heavy edit warring at ]. Five different users have all spoken out against your proposed introduction, nobody has spoken for it. Despite this consensus, you continue to edit war and revert to your suggestion version for the fifth time. Please stop] (]) 16:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===WP:ANI=== | |||
| Your continuous edit-warring is discussed at WP:ANI .] (]) 11:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Good luck. :-) You made the point about religion vs. principle very well. ] (]) 15:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Strangesad, your editing style is giving me some cause for concern. You are oppositional and confrontational and seem to be positively enjoying the conflict. Your proposed ban for Jeppiz was the height of silliness. You have rejected warnings and requests from other people because they are involved, or not administrators. Well I'm an uninvolved admin and I'm letting you know that I find your editing style disruptive. If you continue in this vein I will block you. Learn to collaborate, or you editing privileges will be revoked. ] ] 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Who are you? Do you know what you're doing? You have never talked to me, never participated in any of the numerous threads, made no attempt to hear all sides that I'm aware of. Back off. My proposed ban for Jeppiz is a good idea. Just about every description of our dispute that he has given is a distortion. He is forum shopping, resurrecting issues that were just closed on ANI less than week ago, in the hopes of ensaring an admin just like you. Your comment above gives no diffs, and as far as I can tell, your different opinion about my proposed topic ban is not a rule-grounded basis for threats of blocks. If you disagree with the proposal,state your objection in the discussion. I don't care about your threats. ] (]) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's up to you whether or not you heed my warning, but this is not a topic for discussion. Edit more collaboratively or don't edit at all. ] ] 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| ::::::I'm afraid it's not you who gets to decide whether or not your style is collaborative. Here are some diffs, as requested. (And by the way, this is not an invitation to a blow-by-blow rebuttal!) | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::That's just what I found in the first page of contribs. None of these on their own is blockworthy; as a group, these edits define a combative and uncollaborative editing style. I'm sure there are even better examples, but the fact that more than 50% of your recent edits have distinct deficits is a telling point. ] ] 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You've made no effort to be even-handed, and the diffs above show nothing. You now seem to be searching around solely for diffs that confirm your bias. You are also violating AGF rather horribly. Go away. ] (]) 02:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hohum, sipping tea and mellowing out now... just an observation that if you had done nothing and let the ANI threads wind down, as other admins were doing, I probably would have spent the last hour returning to work on an article I've started. Instead, you made a bunch of accusations and threats, and I felt compelled to defend myself and complain about unequal treatment Just an observation about how admins influence where editors expend their energy. ] (]) 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2013 == | |||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' |
||
| :Enough. You can't keep inserting material into the article when a clear consensus on the talk page is against it. You've been warned several times about this. Don't re-add the material until there is a consensus to do so. --] (]) 19:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I should be unblocked because this block isn't supported by the rules. I've made one edit to the article in the last week. It is true that I've tried to add the basic text in question several times. However, it was initially supported by the only other editor on the article, History2007. The only disagreement we had was regarding sourcing, not the basic idea of the text itself. History2007 then changed his mind about the text itself without comment on Talk, so I didn't know the consensus had changed. Around the same time, other editors showed up and reverted the my edit. I've tried to reinsert the text--in different forms--three times in a period of 10 days or so since I realized there wasn't a consensus. The discussion on the Talk was ended by others. I made the last two comments on Talk, responding to others, waited a couple of days for a response, and when no objections were made to my most recent points, tried re-adding the text. It was merely checking whether the comments in Talk had been accepted, since nobody had responded to them. Blocking for 1 edit in the last week, after discussion in Talk, is not supported by the rules ] (]) 01:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC) | decline=This block is indeed fully supported by our ]. You've inserted your material at least six times into the article, and it has been meet with resistance from several editors. You must gain a clear consensus to insert the material now that you're well aware that many other disagree with you. A brief pause in a long conversation on the article's talk page is not a consensus. Please limit yourself to that talk page until such time as you have support for your position; there are many other avenues for dispute resolution if you feel you have reached an impasse. ] ] 13:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| You must be kidding. Admins are incompetent. That description above of the facts is completely wrong. Yeah, SS added the material 6 times, and yeah her edits were met with the resistance. The resistance was not always to the material: it was to sourcing, and to the location in the lead. Several of those edits were merely responses to those concerns. Where did this come from anyway? ] (]) 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :"Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." | |||
Latest revision as of 03:42, 28 February 2023
This user believes in the project and is disgusted by the community. As a consequence, she sees sock puppetry as justifiable in certain cases.
- Well, this is a quick way to get an indefinite block. Liz 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs)
- ...and I have so much to lose, you know, the feeling of respect I get from this community... Strangesad (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Echo (elephant)
 | On 1 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Echo (elephant), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that scientists observed an echo which lasted 65 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Echo (elephant). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you still check in occasionally. The hook for your article did very well; with its April Fools' Day appearance, plus a little "spillover" the next day, it received over 8000 page views. Thanks again for writing the article which helped to create a successful day for DYK. I'm sorry to see how things have worked out for you here. Hopefully some day you can successfully appeal your block and resume editing. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)