| Revision as of 02:05, 21 July 2007 editCO (talk | contribs)11,199 edits →Hornetman16: ++← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:24, 21 July 2007 edit undoGiovanni33 (talk | contribs)10,138 edits →Protection on US State Terrorism ArticleNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| Hello, you locked the article to the wrong version. Please read the talk page and the first archived page. Consensus was for the Japan section to be included, and the deletion of this material never achieved consensus. Here is the last consensus version. Could you please restore it to this version? We need a Administrator Referee there too. Thanks. ] 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | Hello, you locked the article to the wrong version. Please read the talk page and the first archived page. Consensus was for the Japan section to be included, and the deletion of this material never achieved consensus. Here is the last consensus version. Could you please restore it to this version? We need a Administrator Referee there too. Thanks. ] 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :]. And administrators aren't "referees", because content is non-enforcable. I'd suggest you try the ]. ''']''' 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | :]. And administrators aren't "referees", because content is non-enforcable. I'd suggest you try the ]. ''']''' 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| The only problem is that it protected the results of the vandalism, blanking of an entire section (Japan) that was well referenced and the work of many editors on both sides of the POV fence, and added with consensus. Vandals came and blanked it, and now its protected with the section mising. If it can be established that this was indeed vandalism, then I take it an admin can restore that section while its protected? What is the procedure to have this validated? This is not a matter of a content dispute, but of vandalism. How to proceed? Thanks.] 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:24, 21 July 2007
User:Daniel/Userpage/Header/Icons User:Daniel/Userpage/Header User:Daniel/Userpage/TalkLayout
Sydney FC players
Hey. I am currently working on getting List of Sydney FC players to FL status, but have come accross some problems, mainly getting references for intenational caps. I've seen some of your outstanding work on Aussie football, and was wandering if you could give some help with this if you have the time. Thanks, Mattythewhite 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha, I was doing the same thing at User:Daniel/Sandbox/List of Sydney FC players :) Feel free to hack out any information you like from there and copy it over (just mention my name in the edit summary if it's a direct copy), and I'll try and get some stuff for the players section. Cheers, Daniel 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hornetman16
Hi Daniel, just notification that Hornetman16's been blocked again, as I thought this might interest you. --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- ...and it seems he might be autoblocked at wikiquote as well. --Dark Falls 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just like magic? --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the appropriate response is: sigh. Thanks for letting me know, both of you :) Daniel 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think he is blocked at wikiquotes. See block log. ~ Wikihermit 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the appropriate response is: sigh. Thanks for letting me know, both of you :) Daniel 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just like magic? --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Protection on US State Terrorism Article
Hello, you locked the article to the wrong version. Please read the talk page and the first archived page. Consensus was for the Japan section to be included, and the deletion of this material never achieved consensus. Here is the last consensus version. Last Consensus Version Could you please restore it to this version? We need a Administrator Referee there too. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- m:The wrong version. And administrators aren't "referees", because content is non-enforcable. I'd suggest you try the Mediation Cabal. Daniel 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that it protected the results of the vandalism, blanking of an entire section (Japan) that was well referenced and the work of many editors on both sides of the POV fence, and added with consensus. Vandals came and blanked it, and now its protected with the section mising. If it can be established that this was indeed vandalism, then I take it an admin can restore that section while its protected? What is the procedure to have this validated? This is not a matter of a content dispute, but of vandalism. How to proceed? Thanks.Giovanni33 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)