| Revision as of 21:15, 29 December 2012 editHex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators25,363 edits →Minor edits, again: Blocked from editing for 24 hours.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:41, 29 December 2012 edit undoSpideog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers27,510 edits →Minor edits, again: This is utter bollocks.Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *Explain. Give reasons for the change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made.}} | *Explain. Give reasons for the change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made.}} | ||
| and consider how you ought to have described the addition of textual content to a page. — ] ] 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC) | and consider how you ought to have described the addition of textual content to a page. — ] ] 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Unblock request == | |||
| {{unblock|reason=I have been accused incorrectly of not complying with edit summary "policy", but it is not a binding or mandatory policy, as a proper reading of ], particularly the section that says, "This is an information page" and "it is not a policy or guideline". The page itself is filed under ], not ]. The possibility of making edit summaries compulsory has been discussed in the past, but for now it is optional. In addition, if the block is not removed shortly, I shall instigate a formal complaint against the administrator, ] for petty harrassment and belligerence. A different administrator should review this. My editing history shows I almost always supply edit summaries ''even thought they are not required''. Most of my summaries are also self-evidently meaningful. When I cited, above, an example of Hex's failure to abide by his own standard, I was incorrectly and attacked for "talking the piss". I demand that this accusation be withdrawn because it is untrue and is an utter misreading of my position. ] (]) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 21:41, 29 December 2012
Minor edits, again
I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but this is not an appropriate use of the minor edit label. Likewise, the edit summary you specified was completely insufficient. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The "RK" in the edit summary stands for "Rüdesheimer Kaffee". Please revert if the edit is wrong. — O'Dea (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. A cryptic acronym of content you've added to an article is not a valid edit summary. Please familiarize yourself with the correct use of the feature. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Something really helpful like this, perhaps? Go here – which you should have already done, by the way – and learn about edit summaries and then come back if you want my help. — O'Dea (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Touch a nerve, did I? Keep taking the piss and see what happens. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The nerve touched was yours, wasn't it? Because pointing out your hypocrisy is not "taking the piss". Go read the edit summary information then come back and tell me precisely what part of it you think I violated (hint: not any of it). Then we can have a discussion. — O'Dea (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Touch a nerve, did I? Keep taking the piss and see what happens. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Something really helpful like this, perhaps? Go here – which you should have already done, by the way – and learn about edit summaries and then come back if you want my help. — O'Dea (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. A cryptic acronym of content you've added to an article is not a valid edit summary. Please familiarize yourself with the correct use of the feature. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, time out.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
You can take this break from the editing to study the part of Help:Edit summary that says
- Summarise. Summarise the change, even if only briefly; even a short summary is better than no summary.
- Explain. Give reasons for the change, if there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear as to why it was made.
and consider how you ought to have described the addition of textual content to a page. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request
Spideog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused incorrectly of not complying with edit summary "policy", but it is not a binding or mandatory policy, as a proper reading of the suggestions shows, particularly the section that says, "This is an information page" and "it is not a policy or guideline". The page itself is filed under Category: Misplaced Pages information pages, not Category:Misplaced Pages policies. The possibility of making edit summaries compulsory has been discussed in the past, but for now it is optional. In addition, if the block is not removed shortly, I shall instigate a formal complaint against the administrator, Hex for petty harrassment and belligerence. A different administrator should review this. My editing history shows I almost always supply edit summaries even thought they are not required. Most of my summaries are also self-evidently meaningful. When I cited, above, an example of Hex's failure to abide by his own standard, I was incorrectly and attacked for "talking the piss". I demand that this accusation be withdrawn because it is untrue and is an utter misreading of my position. — O'Dea (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)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 been accused incorrectly of not complying with edit summary "policy", but it is not a binding or mandatory policy, as a proper reading of ], particularly the section that says, "This is an information page" and "it is not a policy or guideline". The page itself is filed under ], not ]. The possibility of making edit summaries compulsory has been discussed in the past, but for now it is optional. In addition, if the block is not removed shortly, I shall instigate a formal complaint against the administrator, ] for petty harrassment and belligerence. A different administrator should review this. My editing history shows I almost always supply edit summaries ''even thought they are not required''. Most of my summaries are also self-evidently meaningful. When I cited, above, an example of Hex's failure to abide by his own standard, I was incorrectly and attacked for "talking the piss". I demand that this accusation be withdrawn because it is untrue and is an utter misreading of my position. ] (]) 21:41, 29 December 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=I have been accused incorrectly of not complying with edit summary "policy", but it is not a binding or mandatory policy, as a proper reading of ], particularly the section that says, "This is an information page" and "it is not a policy or guideline". The page itself is filed under ], not ]. The possibility of making edit summaries compulsory has been discussed in the past, but for now it is optional. In addition, if the block is not removed shortly, I shall instigate a formal complaint against the administrator, ] for petty harrassment and belligerence. A different administrator should review this. My editing history shows I almost always supply edit summaries ''even thought they are not required''. Most of my summaries are also self-evidently meaningful. When I cited, above, an example of Hex's failure to abide by his own standard, I was incorrectly and attacked for "talking the piss". I demand that this accusation be withdrawn because it is untrue and is an utter misreading of my position. ] (]) 21:41, 29 December 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=I have been accused incorrectly of not complying with edit summary "policy", but it is not a binding or mandatory policy, as a proper reading of ], particularly the section that says, "This is an information page" and "it is not a policy or guideline". The page itself is filed under ], not ]. The possibility of making edit summaries compulsory has been discussed in the past, but for now it is optional. In addition, if the block is not removed shortly, I shall instigate a formal complaint against the administrator, ] for petty harrassment and belligerence. A different administrator should review this. My editing history shows I almost always supply edit summaries ''even thought they are not required''. Most of my summaries are also self-evidently meaningful. When I cited, above, an example of Hex's failure to abide by his own standard, I was incorrectly and attacked for "talking the piss". I demand that this accusation be withdrawn because it is untrue and is an utter misreading of my position. ] (]) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}