| Revision as of 17:06, 2 September 2009 editNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,317 edits →Asgardian and the Red Hulk article: Discussion.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:07, 2 September 2009 edit undoNightscream (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,317 edits →Asgardian and the Red Hulk article: ceNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And ] is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | :I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And ] is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February |
::See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February--It's in the portion of ) and what did Asgardian do? He reverted the article. When confronted, he stated that there was "no clear consensus" on the matter. He even reverted ''blindly'', and in knee-jerk fashion, because he not only changed the disputed content, but even a valid edit in which I . He also appears to have for some reason, and others in the discussion appear to be losing their patience with him, as seen in . I locked the article down to prevent further reversions by him (and to avoid the option of blocking him) until we can get confirmation by the others that there is indeed a consensus. What are we supposed to do if you won't intervene as you said you would earlier this year? ] (]) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Can you unblock me? == | == Can you unblock me? == | ||
Revision as of 17:07, 2 September 2009
Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Leave a new message.
Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!
Asgardian and the Red Hulk article
Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Asgardian seem to be having an edit conflict again, as seen here. I tried leaving a message on his Talk Page explaining my rationale, and suggesting that we start a consensus discussion. Instead of agree to that, or even responding to my message at all, he went and reverted the article again, which is against WP policy regarding edit conflicts. I've started a consensus discussion on the conflict on Red Hulk here. I request that you monitor the situation so that if he continues to revert without discussion (the offense for which he was blocked previously), you can offer your assistance. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And WP:ANI is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. Mangojuice 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February--It's in the portion of this discussion beginning on 2.13.09) and what did Asgardian do? He reverted the article. When confronted, he stated that there was "no clear consensus" on the matter. He even reverted blindly, and in knee-jerk fashion, because he not only changed the disputed content, but even a valid edit in which I formatted two mentions of the same source with the ref name tag. He also appears to have edited my post on the article's Talk Page to delink my signature for some reason, and others in the discussion appear to be losing their patience with him, as seen in this other page. I locked the article down to prevent further reversions by him (and to avoid the option of blocking him) until we can get confirmation by the others that there is indeed a consensus. What are we supposed to do if you won't intervene as you said you would earlier this year? Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you unblock me?
I have now an account here at Misplaced Pages (the same as the one on the Swedish wiki "Hollac16"). Can you unblock me? /Hollac16 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Knight Prince - Sage Veritas
This guy looks like a disruptive SPA to me. I suggest not unblocking him or a perma ban on Barbera and ethnic realted articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also must object to any unblocking of Knight Prince - Sage Veritas, I spent time and effort to try and help this editor understand that edit warring and personal attacks were against Misplaced Pages policy, and after his first block and my detailed explanations, not only did he persist in edit warring and attacking Rlevse - he still attempts to play the innocent card. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuice 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's quite clear. A total 1 month ban from the Barbera article and talk page, and from edits regarding the ethnicity of people in general. As for the argument on Joseph Barbera, I don't know that he will accept it, and I don't think it's necessary for him to do so, I just think it's necessary for him to engage appropriately about it... once you guys have had a reasonable period away from it. Mangojuice 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuice 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)