| Revision as of 23:09, 29 July 2017 editBerean Hunter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,802 edits →July 2017: hope for quick response← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:44, 30 July 2017 edit undo2.25.45.251 (talk) removed idiotic dithering and insults. just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits, and to recognise that the block was an extreme violation of policy. but you don't even have that.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == July 2017 == | |||
| ] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been ]. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> ] <font color="SeaGreen">]</font> 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ::Clearly, you did not read or comprehend the text that I removed, or the explanation that I gave. ] (]) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop your ]. If you continue to ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| :Don't be stupid. My edit clearly could not under any circumstances be construed as vandalism. ] (]) 00:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{anonblock|sig=] <sup>(])</sup> 00:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock|reason=I have absurdly been accused of vandalism for making a necessary, indeed essential change to an article. If one knows anything about astronomy, one knows that the IAU assigns names to objects, and no-one else. The 'catalogue of named galaxies' has no relevance to any Misplaced Pages article. And if one knows anything about Misplaced Pages policy, one knows that my edit could not under any circumstances be described as vandalism, and the overenthusiastic administrator who blocked me four minutes after I made the edit should not have done so. They are now vandalistically undoing '''all''' of my contributions for no reason - this is absolutely outrageous. ] (]) 00:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| This "administrator" has made less than 200 edits this decade. 30 of them are today, attacking me. Seems to me their account has probably been hacked. ] (]) 00:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :It would perhaps be better if you politely ask {{u|Winhunter}} why they view your edits as vandalism and then discuss.<br /> — ] ] 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::And how am I supposed to do that when blocked? If you're not going to review the block properly, what is the use of the unblock template? ] (]) 15:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::He was notified when I pinged him in my statement above. I have done a review and we are awaiting his response.<br /> — ] ] 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I've been blocked for no good reason, I'm very annoyed about that, and it is obvious that the block was not correct or necessary. Don't tell me to have patience. Given that the user has edited less than 200 times in the last decade, waiting for their response is not an acceptable option. ] (]) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: And why were you telling me to ask the user things when plainly that is impossible and you'd apparently done the asking anyway? ] (]) 16:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::: See also ] in case you are not familiar with it, ] for discussion of the things I was editing, and the fact that most of my edits were subsequently restored by someone else. And yet you somehow think that blocking me for vandalism was not an obvious error? ] (]) 16:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hmmm. You might have been correct and I was entirely prepared to undertake that position but I really need to follow protocols per ]. I don't see a consensus anywhere that the block was wrong and I don't edit these articles so in my eyes I see a content dispute where it is possible that you might be right. Had I thought otherwise, I would have declined your unblock request. I was going to advocate your position from an administrative perspective but since you didn't take my suggestion to have patience and are apparently unhappy with my approach, I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case. .<br /> — ] ] 17:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This block was utterly dishonest and in violation of the blocking policy. Content dispute? There is obviously no content dispute! There's just an '''obviously''' false claim of vandalism and a block that '''obviously''' violates the blocking policy. Do you feel that you've done a good job by taunting me as you have instead of dealing with the policy violation? ] (]) 18:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Very amusing how you link to the protocols you say you must follow, but ignore the clear mandate they give you to unblock this insulting and clearly unjustifiable block. ] (]) 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Well, what a joke. Working hard to improve articles just gets you insults and jerkoffs playing games. Fine, goodbye. ] (]) 19:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Berean Hunter}} I have notified the blocking admin that the version he prefers has been discussed by the community, which decided not to use it. This appears to make the accusation of vandalism untenable.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 22:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Good. I do believe that WinHunter should respond as I favored the IP's appeal...I'm not sure if the IP was so angry that he didn't recognize someone trying to help and let the first admin have it (me). Whether we may have gotten off on a wrong foot, I would like to see that his concern is addressed. There is more to this than meets the eye possibly.<br /> — ] ] 23:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC) | |||