| Revision as of 18:21, 11 March 2014 view sourceDr.K. (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers110,824 edits →3RRN block mixup: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:28, 27 December 2024 view source Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,323 edits →Ask for clarification on deleted page of Geert Claessens: Reply User:Claessenskris/sandboxTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | {{NOINDEX}} | ||
| <!-- {{Wikibreak|message=On vacation from October 15 to November 1. I'll be on-wiki much less than usual and possibly not at all. Certainly, don't expect a prompt response to any questions or requests.}} --> | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| <!-- {{Retired|date=June 22, 2020,|reason=due to ArbCom. I may edit once in a great while}} --> | |||
| <!--*After a protracted absence, I returned in the spring of this year, although I'm not sure exactly why. I'm still deeply disturbed by the governance at Misplaced Pages and the WMF, and I doubt that will ever change. I could say more but don't think it's appropriate. --> | |||
| {{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}} | {{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 63 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 10 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Bbb23/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Bbb23/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <table class="messagebox standard-talk"> | |||
| <tr><td>] | |||
| <td align="left" width="100%"> | |||
| *Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on '''this page'''. | |||
| *Please include links to pertinent page(s). | |||
| *Click New section on the top right to start a new topic. | |||
| </table> | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ==Xmas card== | |||
| <div style="{{Round corners}}; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #CD0412; border: 1px solid #0F6E02; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> | |||
| <div style="{{Round corners}}; border-style:solid; border-color:#0C8703; background-color:#CD0412; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 300px;> ]<center><p><span style="color:white"> | |||
| <span style="color:white"> ] ]] ] ] ] <span style="color:white">] ] (] ] ]. ''' | |||
| ===== <span style="color:white">Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year</span> ===== | |||
| ''' <p><span style="color:white">This greeting (and season) promotes ] </center> <br /> | |||
| <span style="color:white">Spread the ] by adding '''<nowiki>{{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}}</nowiki>''' to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding ] in this message! | |||
| </span></div></div> | |||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == |
== Happy Holidays! == | ||
| {| align=center style="{{Round corners}}; font-family:Cambria; border: 3px solid Red; padding: 6px; background: white;" | |||
| |] | |||
| |<font color="Green"> | |||
| :::::'''{{BASEPAGENAME}}, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!''' | |||
| '''I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Misplaced Pages together! Keep rocking on! :)''' | |||
| ::*<span style="15px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">]</span>, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all! | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] (]) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) ] (]) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)== | |||
| You made comments on my editing of Mughal-e-Azam. Pl note that all my editing have been done after talking to the authority on the matter. I have discussed the topic of Mughal-e-Azam with the original producer also the producer of the colour version i.e. Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt Ltd. (Shapoorji Pallonji group) | |||
| Therefore, I would appreciate if do not make derogatory remarks about my comments. And if you still do not believe me, let us jointly send a mail to Sterling Investment and ask them the facts and correct the same. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| There has been some contention from IPs and throw away-accounts over the referenced 2012 end of the world prediction. While I can't find a primary source to back it, I did find one 2013 source from the church seemingly denying it ... ... or rather, they seem to imply that "the other guys" have made a wrong interpretation of a book and "we never said it should be understood that way". Has my head spinning. Look at it at see if I'm synthing here. Just trying to include their pov and hopefully reduce warring. Best, <font face="Eras Bold ITC">] '']''</font> 13:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a contentious article. In fact, it was so hard to make it a well-written neutral article I gave up on it and took it off my watchlist (it was left over from my pre-admin days). The issue of the world ending is one recurring theme, and I tended to revert editors removing that comment, more because of the probable motives than for substantive reasons. In any event, I'd rather just leave it in your hands. Even if your head is spinning, it's still no doubt far more level than 99.9% of the users who edit the article.--] (]) 22:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI -- New user account == | |||
| Hello Bbb23, I saw that you deleted ] as ] and thought that you should be aware that ] was created by me through the ] process under ]. I'm keeping an eye on the account, and figured you ''might'' like to as well. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}}</span> <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'd prefer you lock the stub as that is policy for BLP violations (there are many noted and none disputed there are issues). Proposed neutral additions should be on talk. Protecting an attack page (in which the current form, it is) is not a good practice. I didn't blank the article, I stubbed it per ] policy of a notable person with a skewed BLP article. Regardless of the AfD discussion, policy (and decency) requires a stub. ''If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person.'' --] (]) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm trying to add biography information, including an entire section on his impressive list of positions held. How can we make that happen? I was in the middle of those changes when the lockdown occurred. ] (]) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sandbox is preferred while stubbed. ] to BLPs. --] (]) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your opinion is noted, I'd rather hear what Bbb23 thinks. ] (]) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I think the article is very negative, but that doesn't make the statements in it BLP violations. Generally, an obvious BLP violation is a negative statement that is unsourced or unreliably sourced. Obviously, there are instances where there are what I would label BLP problems that make may the article less BLP-compliant, but not violations sufficient to administratively remove them (consensus can do so, of course). As for adding material that would make the article more notable - and apparently in Sportfan's view more balanced - as I said in my comment, you can do that through protected edit requests on the article talk page or by listing them on the AfD page. The closing administrator - and other editors in the deletion discussion - will no doubt take that into account.--] (]) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's policy. "Very negative" doesn't sound "fair". It may have gotten a little better but the the person's main notability isn't the negative material expressed in the article. Just being sourced does not alleviate the burden of NPOV. The burden is on the person claiming it is not a BLP violation to show how the current version is neutral and fair. ''The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Misplaced Pages article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies '''must be fair''' to their subjects at all times.'' It should be stubbed and the process you outlined above for adding material should be followed. --] (]) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The article's lede – both sentences of it – are rather problematic from a BLP standpoint. Saying that a scientist with a lengthy career is "known for" something that, as far as I can tell, he has never published a peer-reviewed journal article on raises a red flag. (The statement is supported by two not-very-good sources: a column by ], an outspoken climate change denialist; and a column from an Australian tabloid. Neither source discusses Salby's career in a broader sense; both are grounded in a conspiracy theory over his firing, and both authors have their own personal axes to grind on climate change issues.) Juxtaposing the first sentence of the article (which ends with mention of Salby's firing) and the second sentence (talking about how he is "known for" his particular stance on anthropogenic CO2) creates a very strong but very badly-supported suggestion (an implied ]) that Salby's firing and his recent opinions on certain aspects of climate change are a) related; and b) the only significant and important aspects of his career. That sort of suggestion shouldn't remain in a BLP at all, and particularly not as its entire lede. | |||
| :The bulk of the rest of the article focuses predominantly on the blogosphere-stirred conspiracy theories over his firing. His career prior to moving to Macquarie University in 2008 is missed (save for two books from a three-item bullet list of publications), eliding three decades of work at UC Boulder. As I noted in one of my comments on the article's AfD, this problem comes as no surprise; the article started out as a vehicle to relate the conspiracy theories about Salby's firing, and it is very difficult to fix such ]s without stubbing and starting from scratch. I hope this clarifies the glaring BLP issues, and that you will revert to the short stub version pending a rewrite of a WP:BLP-compatible article. ](]) 04:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * There is a pending edit on ] which might help here. I think his two textbooks could be expanded on, and I'm not sure how to address the hundred + scientific journal articles. Many of them are highly cited. ] (]) 04:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* maybe separating the recent-ism with his overall career? Really he has to pass a legitimate climatologist with peer-reviewed work to be notable as a sceptic. There's lots of deranged persons we don't have bio's listed that are sceptics. The case for "why him" needs to be made. --] (]) 05:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Bbb23, everyone seems to agree that the current viewable version is largely negative, and I have done as instructed and made an edit request on the talk page to rectify what is undeniably a BLP problem. The edit request is uncontroversial material to help add some balance to the article. Could you take a look and consider making the requested changes? Thank you in advance. ] (]) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Folks, if we were talking about an article that was not at AfD, I would not have locked the article. However, although I understand TOAT's comments about the lead, I don't see this as a major issue while the AfD is pending, whereas I believe a wholesale slashing of the article (stubbing it) is unwarranted and problematic for the purpose of the deletion discussion. If the article were really that bad, it would have been speedily deletable as a ]. It was originally tagged for deletion as an ] by DHeyward, which clearly it is not. However, if I had thought it was a G10, even though it has not been so tagged, I would have deleted it on that basis. | |||
| I have no problem with the article being edited to make it more notable and/or more BLP-compliant, but given the rather fervent and passionate views by the two editors involved, I would need to see a consensus for the changes. Otherwise, I'm the one making a decision about controversial content changes, and I don't want to do that. I thought about blocking the two editors for edit-warring rather than effectively prohibit other editors from touching the article, but I suspect DHeyward would have raised BLP as an exemption, and we would have gotten nowhere.--] (]) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Bluntly, you're applying the wrong test. When determining whether or not to remove biographical content from an article, you are not required to personally make a final determination on your own. For the initial removal, ] requires immediate action when faced with any reasonably-expressed good-faith concern that the content may violate the policy. While there obviously isn't universal agreement, it is certainly clear that a number of competent, experienced editors have expressed exactly those concerns. | |||
| :It is then policy to allow as much time as necessary for a consensus to be reached on whether or how to present the challenged content in a WP:BLP-compliant manner. We don't carve out exceptions to WP:BLP for ongoing AfD discussions. (If someone wants or needs to link back to a dubious version of the article in the AfD, it is easy enough for them to do so. As well, the ongoing protection is probably more harmful to the AfD process than stubbing, as it ''prevents'' any meaningful improvements or additions to the article during the week or so it runs.) The process called for by WP:BLP is emphatically ''not'' to protect the article with the challenged material in place while waiting for a consensus to revise or remove it to develop on the talk page. | |||
| :Finally, you seem to have overlooked an alternative administrative approach. As you've already noted, blocking DHeyward wouldn't have 'gone anywhere' because he would have raised the BLP exemption to WP:EW in his defense—and that's the way that BLP is ''supposed'' to work. Since you're aware that DHeyward had made a plausible, good-faith assertion under BLP, you presumably would have known not to place an expected-to-be-immediately-overturned block on him, and blocked Sportfan5000 for edit warring and violation of WP:BLP—thereby stopping the edit war. Frankly, you could have just warned Sportfan5000 that continued reverts violating BLP would not be tolerated; if he paid attention than neither blocks nor protection would have been required at all. | |||
| :As far as I can see, the administrative action you need to take with respect to this article is either stubbing the protected article to comply with the very clear instructions in WP:BLP, or lifting the page protection so someone else can do it for you. If there's a third option that complies with the very non-negotiable terms of WP:BLP you're welcome to it, of course, but it is not readily apparent. ](]) 04:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually making the edit request sitting on the talk page since the beginning of the protection would immediately resolve the alleged concerns. The negativity is all sourced, and isn't overly negative. As has been noted, a few word choices would make the difference needed. In any case a more neutral version has been proposed and despite many requests no one is doing much but arguing about other controversies tied to the person. Seems to me we can do the obvious first, make some tweaks if needed, and allow regular processes take place. DHeyward was being overly antagonistic, and has worked to get the article deleted, that effort seems to be failing. I was in the middle of bringing the article into compliance when the lock went down. Sobeit. Let's now make the uncontroversial edit asked for that everyone seems to agree should take place so things can more easily move forward. ] (]) 05:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| We seem to be going in circles here. I have nothing of any great significance to say that I haven't already said. Just a small comment about TOAT's apparent inference. I said that DHeyward would probably raise BLP as an edit warring exemption. I didn't say I agreed with it a as a defense: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If a report was filed at ], putting aside the AfD issue, different administrators would react in different ways as we have discretion to do.--] (]) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Likewise, I considered raising your page protection issue at ANI and decided not to but before that I put it on BLP noticeboard where I specifically asked for other eyeballs to prevent an edit war. You would have blocked me after I requested help which would be quite unheard of. I obviously disagree that a block would have been warranted. I tried multiple methods to hide the information (including hatting), and not being an admin I can't delete history. I considered G10 but the information is all sourced and BLP says to stub otherwise notable people, not delete them, if the article is not balanced or fair. The only other route was notability from consensus. I don't think it's obvious that he wasn't an A7 with the state of article (no claims of any significance, just a fired prof that lectured about his own views on global warming) and I don't think the article will ever present him as an above-average professor meeting . The notability criteria listed at AfD are not why he was added to WP. Personally, I believe he was created so that he would meet the blue-link criteria for the List of Scientists that Oppose Mainstream consensus on global warming (bio created 3 days prior to addition by same author). Had the list not required blue links or not existed at all, this article would never have been written. That is indeed the essence. AGF prevents me from raising that as a concern, but as a BLP it's history should be at least understood and the article watched to make sure the notability reasons he is here make up the bulk of his artcle, due weight and all. --] (]) 06:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == I roll with the MLA == | |||
| "To indicate a dash in typing, use two hyphens, with no space before, between, or after. (Some word processors have a dash, and you may use it instead of hyphens.)" {{cite book|last=Gibaldi|first=Joseph|title=MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xn1UAAAAMAAJ|year=1998|publisher=Modern Language Association of America|isbn=9780873526999|page=73|chapter=Dashes and Parentheses}} ] (]) 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|Drmies}}, as you know, Misplaced Pages generally doesn't give two hoots about outside style manuals. Instead, we have our own often unintelligible MOS. Take a look at ] and see what you make of it. The only thing I'm ''fairly'' certain of is we're not supposed to use two hyphens instead of a dash, but whether we should use an emdash or an endash, and whether there should spaces around it is not something I've studied or want to study. All that said, do whatever you think best with ]. It's a nit, and I won't question your judgment. I hope everything is well otherwise. Best.--] (]) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Things are fine, thanks, except that I had to have my home PC redone after a Vista crash. I now have Windows 7, but lost all my software and passwords. At least I kept my data and don't have to retype everything when I file my taxes. I hope you and yours are well as well. ] (]) 01:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If it's any consolation, Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista.--] (]) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes it is, but not much, haha. ] (]) 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Dumb question, but could 10.4.1.126 actually BE the bot? == | |||
| Hi, I saw , then and when I did a geolocate on 10.4.1.126 it looked it was one of those IP ranges that could actually wind up being an internal IP or something. I don't think I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense, but I wondered if the IP actually IS the bot, but somehow it's been logged out or there's some other behind-the-scenes Misplaced Pages business that has resulted weird, though presumably legitimate edits? Regards, ] (]) 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{U|Cyphoidbomb}}, I'm guessing you haven't seen ] or ] or ] or ... Well, I'm sure you get the point... "known" issue. ;) — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}}</span> <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 03:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|Technical 13}} Oh dear GOD no! I would never pollute my mind with Administrators' noti--aw never mind. Just trying to help amidst what I interpreted as confusion. I shall go back to monitoring SpongeBob vandalism... I am sorry one and all. {{template:pistol to own skull}} ] (]) 03:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Syrian civil war sanctions == | |||
| I thank you for your warning. I've given up on the issue, hoping some other editor or administrator would be able to make that other editor follow Misplaced Pages policy on unreliable sources and POV pushing. And I am not going to be involved in the dispute any longer. I apologise if my actions caused trouble and will be more careful in the future to not let the situation get out of hand as it did. Once again, I apologise! ] (]) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|EkoGraf}}, I meant to respond to this earlier, but ... It speaks well of you that you acknowledge the problem and intend to be more watchful in the future. The Syrian civil war articles are a minefield (no pun intended), and it's easy to get carried away, despite the existence of the sanctions. Thanks for your message.--] (]) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Why you deleted ] article page == | |||
| Why you deleted Saeed Shad article??reason?] (]) 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There may be other criteria that justify speedy deletion, but I deleted it because it was a copyright violation.--] (]) 17:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Article's been recreated by ] (i.e. Balochi tamur socking in the most blatant way possible). I'm too involved to touch it, but a couple of blocks wouldn't go amiss. ] ]‍] 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Block extension of ] == | |||
| Had to extend ] block for an extra week. He has been evading the block through several IP addresses and continued posting to ] and ]. -- ]<sup><i>]</i></sup> 12:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, {{U|Alexf}}. Feel free to make the block indefinite now or later. It's conventional to block a sock master for a few weeks on the first block rather than indefinitely, but if the master is disruptive enough, the block can be longer or indefinite.--] (]) 14:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indef was considered but having talked to him in his talk page before I felt originally he was a young misguided ] editor with a lot to learn. After extending the block I learned more about the socking, including block evasion in several IP addresses which I also blocked. Decided to leave him as-is and wait for his answer or next action. Invited him to comment on his user talk page. No doubt one more transgression will earn an indef. -- ]<sup><i>]</i></sup> 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Trying to develop a wikipedia page for user CoronaMonroe who is a real person with a biography and no different than Top Cruise, so why did you delete the total of two paragraphs that I submitted this morning? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :It's been deleted twice (first by another administrator and then by me) as having no credible claim of encyclopedic significance. Although I didn't use another basis for deletion, it's also promotional, which is subject to speedy deletion based on ]. Are you Corona Monroe?--] (]) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Seeking clarification == | |||
| {{Archive top|result=We're going in circles. Enough.--] (]) 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Since I don't want to get blocked for 3RR ever again, will you please explain what constitutes a revert? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border: 3px solid #01902a; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border: 2px solid red; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| Re: Are you equating copyediting with reverting? Is , IYO? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! | |||
| Re: , but per ]: "Reverting means completely reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." So how does this support your position that any ''changes'' to existing text constitute a reversion? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] is an essay. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the essay and the policy, obviously the policy trumps the essay. I don't actually see much inconsistency except that WP:RV introduces the notion of a "partial reversion" (which you omitted from your quotation of the essay definition). If you still don't understand, talk to another administrator because I haven't been able to get through to you, and I don't think spending any more time on the issue is going to help.--] (]) 22:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is , or a copyedit IYO? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ec}} I wouldn't count that as a revert in an edit-warring report. Not sure copy edit is the best label to ascribe to it, but it's not particularly important.--] (]) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is a revert or a copyedit? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both. I wouldn't count it, though.--] (]) 22:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why do you say that I reverted four times, but refuse to name those specific diffs? I thought that was a requirement for blocking based on ]. At my talk page you said that was a revert. Will you please explain how this is a revert? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| {{Archive top|result=Nohing more to do on this page.--] (]) 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Your position on this seriously confuses me, and I don't think we've ever gone around on circles for this. I use what some people consider to be an excessively strict definition, in that I don't care whether the editor intentionally undid a previous edit or how long ago the previous version was, if I can identify a previous version of the article that used the wording that the edit created, that edit is a revert. That's still a long way from what you seem to be using. Can you explain to me how you define a reversion, and what your policy basis for that definition is?—](]) 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If an earlier editor or editors wrote something in the article, a change to that material constitutes a revert per the definition in the policy. That doesn't mean, however, that administrators don't have discretion not to count what technically constitutes a revert. Obviously, context matters, and, perhaps less obviously but not suprisingly, administrators may disagree on how to exercise their discretion.--] (]) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tps}} If consensus has been established, the "revert" would actually be of the ''revert'' of the ''new'' change. It is not a revert to change the prior text of an article. ] ] 02:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only definition I can find for "revert" is in ], and that uses the word "reverse". It used to have a definition much closer to mine, but someone seems to have simplified it. Regardless, not all changes are reversals. Are you using some other policy as the basis of your definition?—](]) 03:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, I use the definition in the box: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The word "undoes" is also used in the lead (not "reverses"). That said, I don't think the complete sentence with the word "reverses" ("A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.") is any different in meaning from the sentence in the box and in the lead. BTW, I'm going off-wiki shortly and so will not respond to further comments.--] (]) 03:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We'll need to take this up later, then, because it appears to me that you are way off the reservation. Neither "undo" nor "reverse" would support the concept of "any change". "Any change" makes no distinction between reverts and edits, and we certainly distinguish between edit warring and editing.—](]) 03:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}The underlying question is whether GabeMc should have been blocked at all. I think it was a good block as he had personally attacked an editor with whom he was edit warring, calling him a meatpuppet, and he had disruptively filed an edit warring notice. So there was edit warring with some arguable number of reverts, a personal attack, and a disruptive notice filed. It was a good block. ] (]) 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{u|Binksternet}}, is one time calling someone a meatpuppett really more derogatory and disruptive IYO than ''repeatedly'' calling someone a bully? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't looked at the block, and I'm not quibbling with it. This is just a part of the underlying reasoning that appears to be wrong and to have the potential to set some bad precedent.—](]) 13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You did both, see ]. You also referred to ''multiple'' editors as meatpuppets in , just for disagreeing with you. '''] <small>]</small>''' 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Like I said, if calling someone a meatpuppett is a personal attack then the policy should not be named ]. How is anyone going to cite that guideline without committing a PA? Had I called you a "f---ing jerk" there would be no issue, right? I think that mislabeling a good-faith edit as vandalism, as is as bad as accusing someone of meatpuppetry. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.'' | |||
| * Bbb23, you said I made four reverts, but my first and last series of edits are copyedits that introduce new material that wasn't in the article before, so can you please explain how and are reverts? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div></div> ] (]) 08:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*When I decided our dialog was unproductive, I suggested you find another administrator who might be able to communicate more effectively with you. You apparently are now taking advice from another editor (not an admin) while you're also discussing the possibility of an ]. My view that any further dialog beween us would be unhelpful hasn't changed. After I leave this comment, I'm going to close this part of the discussion as I did the one above, so please don't comment here anymore. Good luck to you.--] (]) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| == Happy holidays! == | |||
| == Arbitration request motion passed == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:golden; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| '''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] (]) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Joeypike2021 == | |||
| An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk) | |||
| Hey, Joeypike2021 you blocked but they are using their talk page inappropriately afterwards so may need a talk page revoke. Cheers ] (]) 21:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The motion reads as follows: | |||
| :I did so about 8 minutes before your post here. I was eating lunch during all the "excitement".--] (]) 22:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help ]ing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. ] (]) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You as well. Honestly, I think your work is harder, and you're very good at it.--] (]) 23:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holidays == | |||
| * By way of clarification, the issued by ] was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of ] will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated. | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, --] (]) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Sphilbrick@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Sphilbrick/MM_BLP_Special_enforcement&oldid=598838210 --> | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| == Requesting for restoration == | |||
| |} ] (]) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Socking at Moorgate tube crash == | |||
| Sir, | |||
| just before an hour of deletion, another admin. advised me to edit the content to meet wiki rules and assured me to request for undeletion of the page ] if I try for proper edit and I have started the job leaving a note on the talk page. So would you please reconsider me giving some time to work on the article by restoring it . | |||
| ] (]) 01:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I won't restore it, but I'll ] it for you if you wish.--] (]) 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| sir, Thanks for your brilliant gesture. I would like to gladly concede your view for moving the article to user subpage.2. | |||
| ] (]) 01:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The article is now at ]. You had a page by that name, but there wasn't much in it, so I figured you wouldn't mind if I replaced yours with the article before it was deleted. I strongly suggest you submit the article through ] once you think it's ready.--] (]) 03:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Sir,I must thank you for maintaining neutrality throughout the process. | |||
| ] (]) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| At I see only one user - {{useranon|81.111.22.107}} - expunging the term "motorman", but one revert by yourself with the edit summary "revert sock". Who are they a sockpuppet of? --] 🦌 (]) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Ping pong at WP:ANEW == | |||
| :It says who in the block log.--] (]) 14:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible sock? == | |||
| The longest dormancy period by this IP was from 01:23 on the 5th to 00:48 on the 8th, or nearly 48 hours. Are you we ought to simply wait for more disruption to occur before taking action? Are you using me as a ping pong ball to be whacked between two players (AN/I, where there already is a discussion and AN/EW)? The reason those on AN/I have been hesitant to conclude the IP's edits are disruptive independent of edit warring is due to the lack of (not naming names) WP:COMPETENCE in editing climate data; if they had at least much competence as I had or were meteorologists, this would have not been protracted, and a push to block such IPs <u>''on sight''</u> would have already been made. Instead there is this willingness, sickness, in fact, to be complacent with IPs. <small>"My master, ], bids thee</small> ]!" 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Not sure if this would be prefer to have a new SPI page created or not, but I've stumbled across the account '' which (at least to me) appears to be similarly-named to the blocked account ''. Along with that, both have a similar, "I am ______ and joined Misplaced Pages on _______" opening intro, Harold's on the userpage and Jake's on their talk page. It also that Harold attempted editing Untamed1910's talk page, which Jake has previously edited. | |||
| == Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez ... again == | |||
| I also decided to report it here rather than make an SPI page as I see Jake's block is for sockpuppetry, but from what I'm seeing, it's not to avoid a block on another account (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Further to ]: he is back and makes new variations of the article title by moving the acute accent, this time ]. Will you deal with ] and ]? Two of the three socks have user pages copied directly from User:Ubiquity. Best, <font face="Eras Bold ITC">] '']''</font> 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Also looking a bit more into it, there appears to be both a '' and '' account. Also not 100% sure here, but looks a bit similar to ... so maybe it is a possible block evasion case altogether? Unless my mind is playing tricks on me at 5am, lol. ] (]) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::If you haven't already, you should look at that tortured conversation I had with Jake on his Talk page. I've blocked Harold as a sock of Jake, but I see no point in blocking the other accounts, even if they're obvious socks, who haven't edited in a while - that would include the two Knowledgeseeker accounts. However, if you're interested in finding more, you could file an SPI and request a CU. It's highly unlikely I'll find them on my own because I don't pay any attention to the articles they edit. Feel free to come here, though, if you see a new one. Thanks! --] (]) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Both you and {{ping|Gogo Dodo}} have deleted this page only for it to be recreated again .... can you review it again and if (as i think it does) still meet the A7/G11 then can you delete it and ] it (since this is the 3 creation). (x-posted to Gogo Dodo). <font face="Lucida Sans">'''] ]'''<sup style="margin-left:-4ex">]</sup></font> 06:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an action which you performed. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:XRV-notice--> ] (]) 16:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|LGA}}, I've deleted and salted it, but I have a few comments. First, I generally don't speedy delete an article I've speedy deleted before. I let another administrator handle it. Second, you should have retagged the article for speedy deletion. That said, I made an exception to my "rule" and deleted the article even without a tag. The article contained large amounts of copyrighted text. The editor is clearly a ] and is here only to promote this person. I've left warnings on the user's talk page about the copyright and promotional issues (he deletes stuff from his talk page, but the history will be there).--] (]) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Ask for clarification on deleted page of Geert Claessens == | ||
| Dear Sir, | |||
| Our recent attempt to add an entry for the not-for-profit hospital Skiff Medical Center in Newton, Iowa was deleted. The reason listed was promotion/advertising. However, as you can see on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_hospitals_in_Iowa), a great many Iowa hospitals have their own pages. How can a page be created for Skiff in line with these organizations, including Grinnell Regional Medical Center and Mary Greeley Medical Center? ] (]) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed that the page Geert Claessens was deleted. I was still editing it in my sandbox and was in the process of adding external references to the text to underpin what was written. Kindly ask why it was already deleted. Thank you for your clarifications. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RRN block mixup == | |||
| :{{tpw}}The link is ]. ] (]) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Since you are a 3RRN admin, I bring to you a rather odd event, which imo has resulted in the block of the wrong editor: {{u|Pinkbeast}}. I understand this is simply a mistake but since {{u|Callanecc}} appears to be offline, I bring it to your attention so that it can hopefully be resolved. ]. Thank you very much. Take care. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:28, 27 December 2024
Happy Holidays!
.jpg)
Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ekdalian (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ Maliner (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Joeypike2021
Hey, Joeypike2021 you blocked but they are using their talk page inappropriately afterwards so may need a talk page revoke. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did so about 8 minutes before your post here. I was eating lunch during all the "excitement".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help Whac-A-Moleing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. KylieTastic (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You as well. Honestly, I think your work is harder, and you're very good at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help Whac-A-Moleing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. KylieTastic (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! |
|
Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Abishe (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Socking at Moorgate tube crash
At Moorgate tube crash I see only one user - 81.111.22.107 (talk) - expunging the term "motorman", but one revert by yourself with the edit summary "revert sock". Who are they a sockpuppet of? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It says who in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Possible sock?
Not sure if this would be prefer to have a new SPI page created or not, but I've stumbled across the account 'Harold19289' which (at least to me) appears to be similarly-named to the blocked account 'Jake18288'. Along with that, both have a similar, "I am ______ and joined Misplaced Pages on _______" opening intro, Harold's on the userpage and Jake's on their talk page. It also appears that Harold attempted editing Untamed1910's talk page, which Jake has previously edited.
I also decided to report it here rather than make an SPI page as I see Jake's block is for sockpuppetry, but from what I'm seeing, it's not to avoid a block on another account (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also looking a bit more into it, there appears to be both a 'Knowledgeseeker2828' and 'Knowledgeseeker1928' account. Also not 100% sure here, but this looks a bit similar to this... so maybe it is a possible block evasion case altogether? Unless my mind is playing tricks on me at 5am, lol. Magitroopa (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you haven't already, you should look at that tortured conversation I had with Jake on his Talk page. I've blocked Harold as a sock of Jake, but I see no point in blocking the other accounts, even if they're obvious socks, who haven't edited in a while - that would include the two Knowledgeseeker accounts. However, if you're interested in finding more, you could file an SPI and request a CU. It's highly unlikely I'll find them on my own because I don't pay any attention to the articles they edit. Feel free to come here, though, if you see a new one. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. The thread is I just followed the instructions on https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review and it listed the request for Administrator Action Review on that page. This is with regard to you blocking me over what I perceive as a content dispute, your refusal to discuss matters or comply with Misplaced Pages's principles even on request, your revocation of TPA, and disparaging statements / personal attacks (from my perspective) you made during content consensus discussion and on my talk page.. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Ask for clarification on deleted page of Geert Claessens
Dear Sir,
I noticed that the page Geert Claessens was deleted. I was still editing it in my sandbox and was in the process of adding external references to the text to underpin what was written. Kindly ask why it was already deleted. Thank you for your clarifications. Claessenskris (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)