| Revision as of 23:29, 23 April 2007 view sourceGiovanni33 (talk | contribs)10,138 edits →User:Xiaodingjin← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:40, 23 April 2007 view source Pikminlover (talk | contribs)754 editsm User:Wheezy19Next edit → | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
| :Xiaodingjin was warned by John Smith's to look at ] policy, and he was also told to discuss his edits instead of just re-inserting his link. He had a good amount of time to read policy and to heed the warnings, but he failed to do so. If you feel the link is appropriate, then you may add it back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would result in a content dispute later on. ''']]''' 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | :Xiaodingjin was warned by John Smith's to look at ] policy, and he was also told to discuss his edits instead of just re-inserting his link. He had a good amount of time to read policy and to heed the warnings, but he failed to do so. If you feel the link is appropriate, then you may add it back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would result in a content dispute later on. ''']]''' 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yes, but that is the problem. Since John Smith told him, he probably did not take him seriously. I think he deserves a second chance, or there should be more of a community consensus about perm banning him. I also think that protecting the article against anon IP's will take care of a lot of the distruptions.] 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | ::Yes, but that is the problem. Since John Smith told him, he probably did not take him seriously. I think he deserves a second chance, or there should be more of a community consensus about perm banning him. I also think that protecting the article against anon IP's will take care of a lot of the distruptions.] 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello. I'm sorry to hear that you had surgery, and I hope that you have a fast recovery, but I '''really''' need you to ] ]. He is vandalizing, (I caught, reverted, and warned him all 4 or 5 times), and he keeps on giving me barnstars for no reason. Please, can you block him. Once again, I hope you have a fast recovery. ]<sup>]</sup> ] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:40, 23 April 2007
I am currently:
 | This user is currently recovering from surgery. Thanks to all who wished him well. =) |
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive 27. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 | |
| Misplaced Pages ads | file info – show another – #155 |
User: Xiaodingjin
Hi, you blocked this guy for a 3RR vio recently. As I explained on the report, he is the author of the material he is trying to include. However he continues to reinsert the link in question on the Jung Chang page and has ignored all messages I have left on his talk page.
Can you advise me on what I should do? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, John Smith's 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I see you're online now. What are your thoughts? John Smith's 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was led to believe that it was against the spirit of wikipedia (if not official rules) for an editor to insert links to his own websites, articles, etc because it was a conflict of interest - i.e. it is near impossible for him to be neutral enough to decide whether or not the material should be included. Xiaodingjin is the author of the pdf file on the link over which he was banned for edit-warring. Maybe if you're not sure you could consult with some other admins who might know more about this? John Smith's 20:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I had other objections to the link, but not in terms of Xiao's reverts. If you need to know, he is a student from St Andrews University, so may also be using this IP - 138.251.95.1. John Smith's 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Common Cause
Perhaps you need to review the definition of "punitive". Any block, for any reason, is indeed punitive: punitive simply means "serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment". It is not necessarily a negative term. Next time you decline to take action on a rule violation, at least try to stick to words you understand for the explanation. XINOPH | TALK 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- When I said "punitive", I meant exactly what I said. The IP sporadically edits, and the only justification for a block would be to prevent the IP from editing the Common Cause article. They have not violated any Misplaced Pages rules by editing, and that's why the block would go against policy and be therefore deemed "punitive". Perhaps if you had read WP:3RR, you'd know that the IP had not violated policy at all, and no block would ever be placed on the user. FYI, blocks on Misplaced Pages are "preventative", not "punitive". That's the whole point of blocking users. It's not to punish them, but to prevent them from continuing to violate policy. Also, please remember to be civil with other users. Getting angry at other users is not going to do you any good. Also, as I said earlier, read WP:3RR, because your report was clearly not a 3RR violation. You provided diffs of reverts made over the course of a month and a half. 3RR only applies to a 24-hour period. Nishkid64 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it
I'm not angry at you at all, I'm merely correcting you. Correction does not equate anger or negativity. You did misuse "punitive", and still are. I would still contend that any action taken which limits a person's ability to edit is punitive, whether you want to call it that or not. Punitive is not a pejorative, there's no reason not to call it that. Also, for something to be "preventative", you would have to stop it from happening. If you block someone after they commit certain actions, that's not preventative. Furthermore, it's a mystery to me why damaging articles is OK if done over a long period of time but not OK over a shorter period of time, but that's another discussion for another place. XINOPH | TALK 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't believe that is the right correction. See WP:BP. The second line says, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages and should not be used as a punitive measure." That's a term that has been used on Misplaced Pages many times, and it is an essential part of the blocking policy. Perhaps I should have pointed out the policy page earlier to you. Nishkid64 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I can jump in, Nishkid64 is using "punitive" correctly as the term is customarily used in this type of discussion, though that might not equate exactly to how "punishment" is understood in other contexts. Perhaps "punitive only" (that is, not serving any purpose other being punitive) would be a clearer usage. Newyorkbrad 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much a matter of how things are understood as it is how they are defined. The fact is that Misplaced Pages policy is using it incorrectly and Nish is following along with that - both are incorrect. Any restriction taken in response to an action is punitive rather than preventative according to the definition of both words. If someone is being blocked as a reaction to what they've done, it's punitive, whether Misplaced Pages wants to call it that or not - and why they have a problem calling it that is beyond me. I've never considered the word a pejorative. The fact is that most punishments are both punitive and preventative; it's pretty difficult to have one that's solely one or the other. XINOPH | TALK 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I can jump in, Nishkid64 is using "punitive" correctly as the term is customarily used in this type of discussion, though that might not equate exactly to how "punishment" is understood in other contexts. Perhaps "punitive only" (that is, not serving any purpose other being punitive) would be a clearer usage. Newyorkbrad 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for understanding. The anon editor continually edited the article in a disruptive manner, with unsourced claims; I assumed I wouldn't fall under 3RR when reverting his edits. Thanks again. Parsecboy 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
Good evening; I was enquiring if I could join up with the Admin Coaching program? I've always respected your work, and seeing one of your mentorees' RfAs up and running with a current count of 100% (14/0/1 - excluding Neutrals) impressed me.
Drop me a message if you've got any more queries about my activites around Misplaced Pages, or just to notify me if you're full or if (*crosses fingers*) you can take me on!
Kind regards,
anthony 20:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hope
Hope it went ok... and that all is well and getting back to normal for you. Take care -- Samir 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Samuel Adams
Sure he did a lot, but you don't have to mention it all in the intro. Sometimes keeping it short is the best thing. Just see what you can do and summarise it more. You don't need to give his history, just mention the most important things he did. John Smith's 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's better. However if you honestly can't cut any more material, would it be possible to make a third paragraph to break it up a tad more? Sorry to be so pernickety. :) John Smith's 00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3R on Gilad Atzmon
Hi Nishkid, I've just had a 24 hour ban for 3R whilst in good faith preventing a BLP vio (which is still a BLP vio, in my view) and I'm pretty ticked off about it. How could I take this forward?FelixFelix 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hope you're feeling better by the way!FelixFelix 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, like I told Isarig, I wanted you guys to go to the BLP talk page because I wasn't absolutely sure if your edits were really reverts of BLP material. For now, I think that is the best course of action. Also, try to discuss at the talk page, and don't get into edit wars with other users at Gilad Atzmon. Nishkid64 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hope you're feeling better by the way!FelixFelix 16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Joji Obara article
Thanks for taking action on the Joji Obara article. Only problem is, there IS more or less a consensus on the talk page, against the edits made by User:DDRG, User:Vml132f and a few anonymous Japanese users. There is also proof that these users are each others meatpuppets/puppeteers, see Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vml132f. Also, even if you won't block DDRG, could you please, at least give him a warning over his disruptive behaviour (which can also be seen at Asahi Shimbun)?
- Thanks, but... DDRG does not WANT the page to be unlocked. It's locked at the version he has kept reverting too. I suspect it's not a good incitement to tell him that you won't "unprotect the page until I see discussion and some progress towards consensus from all parties involved". Over at the 2ch (Japanese BBS) thread he is coming from (), locks are celebrated as "victories". Mackan 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I may, I came across a Time article that says Mr. Obara is Japanese and says nothing about a Korean ethnicity. To back this up, I found a couple other articles that say he is of Japanese descent and say nothing of a Korean descent as well. Perhaps until this can be confirmed one way or another, the article could read "of Eastern Asian descent". Just one editor's three cents. - SVRTVDude 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, hope you get well soon :) - SVRTVDude 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I may, I came across a Time article that says Mr. Obara is Japanese and says nothing about a Korean ethnicity. To back this up, I found a couple other articles that say he is of Japanese descent and say nothing of a Korean descent as well. Perhaps until this can be confirmed one way or another, the article could read "of Eastern Asian descent". Just one editor's three cents. - SVRTVDude 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Brownwood Amateur Radio Club
I'm a little concerned with my first entry. It was "immediately deleted" at first. Which really is confusing, since a computer cannot readily determine "importance".
Although the article was short in nature, it should in no way reflect the "unimportance". When, at the directions of the system, I used the "hangon" tag, it was shortly dismissed as "inappropriate".
Now I'm really confused. An article about a local Amateur Radio charitable organization should not be ever classified as "inappropriate", as I'm confident that there are other organizations such as the ARRL, Red Cross, and so forth who accomplish similar community services on a larger scale, and are promptly reported in the database.
Please help!
-- Matthew
- There are notability guidelines for articles on Misplaced Pages. They must meet those guidelines, or they will be subject to speedy deletion. Your article seems to be a local amateur radio club that has no real notability in a larger sense, and that's why it was open for speedy deletion. If you can show me as to why it is notable, then I will undelete the article and keep it here on Misplaced Pages. Judging from the List of amateur radio organizations article, I don't see how some other amateur radio organizations have their own articles, since they appear to be non-notable. Anyway, just show me links demonstrating the notability of the club, and I'll possibly reconsider my decision. Nishkid64 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Xiaodingjin
I noticed that you perm banned this user? I think it is a bit hasty. He is a new user and is not familiar with the rules completely. He emailed me with answers to objections John Smith raised and said that he did nto want to answer John Smith directly as he regards him as unreasonable. In anycase, there is a dispute about content pertaining to the link, which he appears to be the author of (this is not established--he could simply have registered under this name), however he is not alone in the edit waring regarding this quite appropriate link containing this noteworthy book review, which has been picked up in the press. Also, there are other anon IP addresses showing up to support John Smith's version, always their first edits and always to support his version, on this article and others. What I propose as a better solution it to lock the article for anon accounts, leaving it open to only already established, registed users. This will take care of a lot of the distrupting influences of these anon IP's (possible meat puppets or socks), which we don't want to block anyway as some are using dynamic school IPs. Thanks.Giovanni33 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Xiaodingjin was warned by John Smith's to look at External Links policy, and he was also told to discuss his edits instead of just re-inserting his link. He had a good amount of time to read policy and to heed the warnings, but he failed to do so. If you feel the link is appropriate, then you may add it back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would result in a content dispute later on. Nishkid64 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is the problem. Since John Smith told him, he probably did not take him seriously. I think he deserves a second chance, or there should be more of a community consensus about perm banning him. I also think that protecting the article against anon IP's will take care of a lot of the distruptions.Giovanni33 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Wheezy19
Hello. I'm sorry to hear that you had surgery, and I hope that you have a fast recovery, but I really need you to block User:Wheezy19. He is vandalizing, (I caught, reverted, and warned him all 4 or 5 times), and he keeps on giving me barnstars for no reason. Please, can you block him. Once again, I hope you have a fast recovery. Pikminlover Ⓧ 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)