Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 18 July 2012

This page has been edited.

Blatant violation of the rules.

You have taken to deleting other editor's comments from article talk pages. This is a flagrant violation of WP:BLANKING and can lead to you being blocked on its own. I have also monitored the usual sarcastic edit summaries from you. It is clear that you have failed to heed the warning left on your talk page by an administrator. I have thus initiated the procedure to re-open the RfC against you and to request administator intervention. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? Let's see what others think. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's only your (biased) opinion that one of the comments was off topic. I completely disagree (and so, it would seem does User:Andy Dingley). The other comment that you blanked was a legitimate response to an editor other than you who thought the switch was invented around the year 2000, so it wasn't even any of your damned business. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? You do read English, don't you? You must read English, you've called yourself an authority on English usage at least once. Did you read the sentence in the switch talk page?

Somewhere around Y2k, as part of researching the history of telegraphy and early electrical communication, I did an extensive Web search using all available search engines in a quest to identify the inventor of the first electrical switch.

How did you interpret that as saying the switch was invented in 2000? Do you know what article talk pages are for? And profanity is against the rules, too, isn't it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Wtshymanski, this block is a reaction to your repeated removals of the comments of others from article talk pages, in violation of WP:TPO, when you must have known that this would incite controversy. Please read again, and take under consideration, the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski. Further combative conduct on your part is likely to result in a lengthy block. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and contributors are expected to conduct themselves in a collegial manner.

This is in reaction to a request for assistance on my talk page by DieSwartzPunkt (talk · contribs). DieSwartzPunkt - and I am also copying this to your user page - your attitude is also unnecessarily aggressive and has likely contributed to the present escalation. In particular, you have made comments, that - while not so crass as to justify their blanking - were unnecessarily aggressive and fell far short of our required standards of collegiality (, . Please tone it down and engage with Wtshymanski, if necessary, in a strictly professional manner.  Sandstein  17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

* Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

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=The block is in error. WPL:TPO says in part that acceptable reasons for removing (not editing) other's comments from article talk pages include <blockquote> * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. * Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. </blockquote> It seems arbitrary to quote the talk page guidelines as a reason to block me when in fact the talk page guidelines expressly list the above cases of acceptable reasons to delete off-topic and abrasive material from an article talk page. It's also a well-established custom that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not carrying on unrelated disputes. ] (]) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (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=The block is in error. WPL:TPO says in part that acceptable reasons for removing (not editing) other's comments from article talk pages include <blockquote> * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. * Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. </blockquote> It seems arbitrary to quote the talk page guidelines as a reason to block me when in fact the talk page guidelines expressly list the above cases of acceptable reasons to delete off-topic and abrasive material from an article talk page. It's also a well-established custom that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not carrying on unrelated disputes. ] (]) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (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=The block is in error. WPL:TPO says in part that acceptable reasons for removing (not editing) other's comments from article talk pages include <blockquote> * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. * Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. </blockquote> It seems arbitrary to quote the talk page guidelines as a reason to block me when in fact the talk page guidelines expressly list the above cases of acceptable reasons to delete off-topic and abrasive material from an article talk page. It's also a well-established custom that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not carrying on unrelated disputes. ] (]) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The user in question has a seemingly random dislike of me. The user in question has not been terribly collegial either, in several recent edits. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles and not for harassing other users. I'm disappointed that some editors canvass to raise a posse against those who have a legitimate difference of opinion. But this is the way Misplaced Pages runs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock