| Revision as of 19:45, 15 March 2015 editBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:46, 15 March 2015 edit undoBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] (]) 08:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] (]) 08:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm currently banned so I can't say anything in my defense, once my ban expires I'll take a look and see what the concern is.] (]) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:46, 15 March 2015
Your 8,000 merger proposals
Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Misplaced Pages, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving Content Forking where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Misplaced Pages, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin.
- You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a Randy from Boise argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Bryce Carmony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
5 albert square has refused to assume good faith, he says that I am WP:POINTY but doesn't say which edits are disruptive he just uses the ambiguous claim. I request that future bans come from a different admin since 5 Albert square bans for personal reasons instead of what is best for Misplaced Pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Please note that as per WP:REMOVED you cannot remove declined unblock requests regarding a block that's currently active.--5 albert square (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks 5, I misunderstood when it said "you can change your block at any time" and didn't realize that meant unblock requests that have been ruled on must stay. I appreciate your feedback, moving forward I'll keep themBryce Carmony (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- These blocks are truly irrational. You ball-less wonders are truly and inescapably afraid of a little bit of criticism. Shrivel up. Go ahead and block me in Bryce's name. He has the right to be wrong. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --5 albert square (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm currently banned so I can't say anything in my defense, once my ban expires I'll take a look and see what the concern is.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)