| Revision as of 21:30, 29 October 2014 editRm w a vu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,583 edits →October 2014: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:43, 29 October 2014 edit undoDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →October 2014: +cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''36hrs''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. 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.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''36hrs''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. 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.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | ||
| :I've been editing Misplaced Pages for about 10 years now. In all of my time, I've never seen the addition of any content on the basis of a bold edit being the instrument resulting in a ban. Furthermore, I only reverted three times, not four. Finally, the onus of consensus is for the first person making the reversion, hence my listing of the 3RR taking place. I intend on taking this matter forward for arbitration unless you can clearly explain why upon a third reversion I've been banned, when a sockpuppetry of two users who between them reverted four times is the supported side? An edit for which, I might add, adds encyclopaedic value to the article in question. As I said, I would like a clear explanation, as it seems like ] and poor judgement is at play here. No one editor, nor even group of editors "owns" any page, and as such just because someone makes an edit that one person doesn't like, doesn't mean that its merit is any less. Furthermore, as Adamston said "Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way." That's an ironic statement, because its reasons for removal were wishy washy and only indicated a willingness to maintain the status quo, rather than to accept a view that it could be an acceptable addition. Open mindedness is supposed to be a core tenet of Misplaced Pages, otherwise there would never be any growth. --]] 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | :I've been editing Misplaced Pages for about 10 years now. In all of my time, I've never seen the addition of any content on the basis of a bold edit being the instrument resulting in a ban. Furthermore, I only reverted three times, not four. Finally, the onus of consensus is for the first person making the reversion, hence my listing of the 3RR taking place. I intend on taking this matter forward for arbitration unless you can clearly explain why upon a third reversion I've been banned, when a sockpuppetry of two users who between them reverted four times is the supported side? An edit for which, I might add, adds encyclopaedic value to the article in question. As I said, I would like a clear explanation, as it seems like ] and poor judgement is at play here. No one editor, nor even group of editors "owns" any page, and as such just because someone makes an edit that one person doesn't like, doesn't mean that its merit is any less. Furthermore, as Adamston said "Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way." That's an ironic statement, because its reasons for removal were wishy washy and only indicated a willingness to maintain the status quo, rather than to accept a view that it could be an acceptable addition. Open mindedness is supposed to be a core tenet of Misplaced Pages, otherwise there would never be any growth. --]] 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :: You're not ], you're ] - that's a huge difference. ] does not require you to cross the ] - it's just that 3RR is what's called a "bright line". Now you're also in very bad faith accusing 2 editors of being ]? If you've been here for 10 years, then you must know ] like the back of your hand - "encyclopedic" or not, consensus trumps all. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Don't dream it's over 2.jpg== | ==Orphaned non-free image File:Don't dream it's over 2.jpg== | ||
Revision as of 22:43, 29 October 2014
Peer review volunteer
Hey, I noticed you on the list of peer review volunteers; I think I might need some points on where to start if I want to build Runaways as a GA. Think your willing? Thanks in advance!
Orphaned non-free image File:Everythinginbetween.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Everythinginbetween.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Wertz album notable
I have done Weights & Wings by Matt Wertz, so that you can actually see what a notable article is on this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- You could work on Under Summer Sun, which is notable because it has two reviews here and here, and it charted at No. 127 on The Billboard 200 for the week of October 4, 2008. In addition, you could work on Heatwave, which is notable because it was reviewed here, and it charted at No. 12 on the Folk Albums and No. 49 on the Independent Albums charts for September 14, 2013. I am truly sorry about your other ones, but they did not meet our requirements as apart of this encyclopedic project.HotHat (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I suggest that you take my example and run with it in order to create his other album articles, but it might need a few minor tweaks in terms of genre for other albums he has made that are notable.HotHat (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I feel a little bit condescended, especially given I've contributed to dozens of GAs and FAs. Notability is not defined by the article, it's defined by the subject matter. And as I pointed out, I don't have the time to go through adding it all. An encyclopaedia is more valid from having better entries, but less content in one doesn't make its content any less notable. Having said that, I'll have a look over the release history and do what I can. --rm 'w avu 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I completely understand where you are coming from, and I want to encourage you to read over MUSICBIO because it is what NALBUMS is all about. See, those other albums need at least two reviews to prove and satisfy GNG, or at least one charting somewhere on something to advocate for Notability.HotHat (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I feel a little bit condescended, especially given I've contributed to dozens of GAs and FAs. Notability is not defined by the article, it's defined by the subject matter. And as I pointed out, I don't have the time to go through adding it all. An encyclopaedia is more valid from having better entries, but less content in one doesn't make its content any less notable. Having said that, I'll have a look over the release history and do what I can. --rm 'w avu 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I suggest that you take my example and run with it in order to create his other album articles, but it might need a few minor tweaks in terms of genre for other albums he has made that are notable.HotHat (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Twentythree places.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Twentythree places.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Mattwertzsomedays.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Mattwertzsomedays.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
First New South Wales rugby league team
Hello. Regarding your edit to the above. This is not merely an arbitrary list. This is a team, with the backs (numbered 1 through to 7) and forwards (numbered 8 through to 15) listed in that order, so should not be divided four columns. I will clarify this on the article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. the panda ₯’ 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've been editing Misplaced Pages for about 10 years now. In all of my time, I've never seen the addition of any content on the basis of a bold edit being the instrument resulting in a ban. Furthermore, I only reverted three times, not four. Finally, the onus of consensus is for the first person making the reversion, hence my listing of the 3RR taking place. I intend on taking this matter forward for arbitration unless you can clearly explain why upon a third reversion I've been banned, when a sockpuppetry of two users who between them reverted four times is the supported side? An edit for which, I might add, adds encyclopaedic value to the article in question. As I said, I would like a clear explanation, as it seems like WP:SOCK and poor judgement is at play here. No one editor, nor even group of editors "owns" any page, and as such just because someone makes an edit that one person doesn't like, doesn't mean that its merit is any less. Furthermore, as Adamston said "Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way." That's an ironic statement, because its reasons for removal were wishy washy and only indicated a willingness to maintain the status quo, rather than to accept a view that it could be an acceptable addition. Open mindedness is supposed to be a core tenet of Misplaced Pages, otherwise there would never be any growth. --rm 'w avu 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're not banned, you're blocked - that's a huge difference. Edit-warring does not require you to cross the three reverts - it's just that 3RR is what's called a "bright line". Now you're also in very bad faith accusing 2 editors of being the same person? If you've been here for 10 years, then you must know WP:BRD like the back of your hand - "encyclopedic" or not, consensus trumps all. the panda ₯’ 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Don't dream it's over 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Don't dream it's over 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
