Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 20 June 2006

{{unblock}}

curses are not real

Just to be clear, Ste4k, there is not actually such a thing as a "curse", as you seem to believe in your persistent insertion of a weird story about a "cursed newsgroup". Please stop adding this silliness to an otherwise fine article. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Sdedeo, and I appreciate your further comments on the Talk:Curse about the rephrasing of the section to avoid such an interpretation in the future: "Congrats on rephrasing the paragraph so as not to claim the existence of a real live internet curse. -- Sdedeo (tips) 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on June 19 2006 (UTC) to Curse

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Thank you Mr. Connolly, for bringing this matter to my attention. I am sorry that you hadn't the time to read the discussion in Talk:Curse or check to see that the revisions made had changed the content. I have taken the time that you set aside for me to become more familiar with the 3RR. I have also become more aware of the purposes of the Talk pages. Thanks again. Ste4k 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But you have also leapt straight back into reverting, so you get another block: 24h this time William M. Connolley 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the revert was made to prevent vandalism, and proper procedure for preventing vandalism

was followed. Ste4k 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am new and unfamilar to the wiki environment. I am reading about how all of this works, but

am still unclear on whether your reference to "discussion" earlier meant e-mail, the talk-page of the subject,

your talk-page, or this-page here. I haven't any idea how you are properly notified to discuss this issue or

where exactly such discussions normally take place. Please allow some patience. Ste4k

I suggest, if you're new, you apply WP:1RR until you're settled in. And perhaps beyond. Discussion refers to the talk pages of the article. Its boilerplate text in my block message, though William M. Connolley 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of the vandalism as well as full justification for the addition to the article

is discussed and was further appended this morning in the talk-pages of the article.

In this particular revert today, two instances of blanking were reverted, one of a person

whom does not have a talk-page to discuss. The other person was advised on their talk-page

about blanking. Per the person that only has an internet address, they were invited on the

talk-page of the article to participate. I appreciate your reference to 1RR and will read

that shortly. Thanks. Ste4k 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that you also please notice the repetitive vandalism on the page CURSE by the person at 88.105.251.105. This person has ignored attempts to discuss their reverts, and their reverts are simple vandalism (Blanking). The times listed in the history are:

20:18, 19 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

08:26, 19 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

20:22, 18 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

09:11, 18 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

07:55, 17 June 2006 88.105.251.105 (→Cursed News Groups)

Four of the revisions which I made that you counted for my violation of the 3RR rule were to revert the simple vandalism by this person. I did not, however, at the time know how to revert using the actual instructions by using an old version, but had reapplied the edits by hand. I was also unaware of the "Edit summary" box and how it is correctly used. Thanks. Ste4k 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be taking an overly legalistic appropach to this situation, let me simplify it for you: If I see you edit warring on this or any other article in the future in a manner similar to the disruptive way you edit warred on Curse, I will block you for much, much longer than William M. Connolley has. I strongly agree with William's suggestion that you try adopting WP:1RR as your personal policy until you are settled in. Nandesuka 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock

{{unblock|another user requesting a review of this block}} admins, please look at this

I've protected Curse and would like for all involved edit warriors to have an opportunity to discuss the article. While I think this block was appropriate given the circumstances, blocking should be preventitive, rather than punitive, and there is no need for this user to be blocked whilst the article is protected. Unblocking now. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)