Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Añoranza (talk | contribs) at 03:05, 9 June 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:User vandalized

Archives
July 2005 – May 2006

Welcome

Feel free to advance any advise you have, always open to suggestions.

AfD notice on 9/11 Scholars

Thank you for readding this notice, I was just about to when I refreshed and noticed it there. --Zer0faults 14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just helping out. No problem.:) Nomen Nescio 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG

Hey. Forgive me if others have asked before. Consider removing the image in your sig per WP:SIG - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, but I don't think it is prohibited. Besides numerous editors use their flag. Nomen Nescio 07:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

a.r.s

Are you the same Nomen Nescio who posts (a lot) to a.r.s.? Or is that an impostor?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs)

What does it stand for? Nomen Nescio 07:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

alt.religion.scientology. So I take it that's not you posting under that name there?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs)

Nope, at least not that I know of, but nevertheless, happy to meet you. Hi there.:) Nomen Nescio 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sig

No probs... :) I have a couple of patients who have heard of this mucoid plaque theory... but I would want people swallowing clay and fasting for days based on what they read on WP. Good AfD. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nomen Nescio 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War Article

copied to appropriate talk page. Nomen Nescio 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

Would you consider changing your signature per this guideline? Or at least make the image smaller? I know its not required, but it would mean a lot to a number of different users. --Hetar 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, would it mean to whom? In other words, I'm skeptical anyone's being harmed by this. Not that I don't think inline images are stupid; I do. But hey, give them all the rope they want to hang themselves, I say. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Sign your posts on talk pages#Imposing signature restrictions and some of the following sections have details on many of the problems that users have with images in signatures. --Hetar 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much bothered about the image, but the superscript annoys the hell out of my browser--John24601 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then your browser must hate a lot of commonly-used things here, like this tag ({{fact}}):

What browser do you use? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited article for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque

I have just done a major cleanup and have made it say that it is a health fraud right after the first name. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque I'm just letting you know in case you wish to change your vote with the addition changes but I do not expect anything. Thanks! --mboverload@ 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorist_surveillance_program#Requested_move

Hi Nescio, You seem to have expressed a clear opinion on the naming of Terrorist_surveillance_program, but FYI there is now a tally at Talk:Terrorist_surveillance_program#Requested_move, if you'd like to add a vote to it. Thanks! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 00:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War article reverts

Your presence is requested at Talk:Iraq_War#Nescio.27s_feeling_of_Undue_Weight regarding your revert. Can you please address the comment on the talk page. Thank you --Zer0faults 16:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by bggoldie

Bggoldie didn't blank the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article. This edit added a cite and didn't erase anything. --Mr. Billion 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did look only briefly, the diff appeared to me as blanking. I was wrong, for that I apologize. Thank you for informing me. Nomen Nescio 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NP at all, thanks to Mr. Billion. Actually I've added two citations and the way I added them split the line. Maybe I should have kept the template include on single line :-) Cheers, Goldie (tell me) 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization

I've proposed a new version for the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article, which is a complete reorganization of the current version. I'd like to replace the current version with the new version (applying all changes that have been made to the current version to the new version, to bring it up to date, ofcourse). I'm interested to hear your views/thoughts on it here. Thanks. Kevin Baas 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War 2nd Paragraph

Please fix the run on sentence you created in the second paragraph. I was going to, but did not want to intiate any bad feelings as your summaries seemed a bit hostile. --Zer0faults 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser

Wist je dat je genoemd wordt op Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs? Aecis 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wat een nonsens, ook nog eens door een IP-adres dat begonnen is met deze edits. Lijkt meer een lastercampagne dan iets anders. Bedankt voor de waarschuwing. Nomen Nescio 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of translating. Sorry if my Dutch is a rough:

You knew that you are called on Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs

What a nonsense, also once more by Ip-adres that has started with these edits. A more calumny campaign seems then something else. Thanks for the warning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.20.59 (talk • contribs)

Can Mr Anonymous (Merecat (talk · contribs)?) refrain from stalking me? Nomen Nescio 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And this time a correct translation: Me: Did you know your name is being mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#User:Mr. Tibbs? Nescio: What a load of nonsense, and from an IP address that started these edits on top of that. Seems more like a smear campaign than anything else. Thanks for informing me. Aecis 06:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on June 2 2006 (UTC) to Haditha incident

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Um, it would have been nice to know if you were warring over the incident/massacre bit; or the blockquotes bit (quite frankly I can't see why you should care so strongly about the blockquotes).

Mr Anonymous, I know you are misrepresenting the facts. Please do not call everything I do a revert. Yesterday! Come on. Nomen Nescio 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Three edits do not constitute a violation of 3RR}} Since 3RR only applies in case of more than three, I ask you to unblock me since I evidently did not violate the 3RR. Please point out the more than three reverts! Also, since this block is incorrect I ask you to remove it from my history. Nomen Nescio 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.220.54 (talk • contribs)

They are as listed on the 3RR page William M. Connolley 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact it is listed by Mr Anonymous should ring a bell, but in any case does not make it true. The first is not a revert. It is a normal edit. Clearly this is a misrepresentation of what I did. Even so, the block was years after I made an edit, please unblock. Nomen Nescio 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The first is a revert. Here is another revert from you from the day before: So this is obviously not a plain edit.

Even assuming that "years" was figuratively speaking: How fast do you expect these things to happen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.220.54 (talk • contribs)

Mr Anonymous, I do not know what your reason is for misrepresenting the facts, but this has a strong reek of Merecat (talk · contribs). Since the first edit is just that I again ask to be unblocked. Nomen Nescio 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting any facts. You did (at least) one revert yesterday and four today. Why would the first revert today not be a revert?

No, I'm not Merecat. I once used a regular username, but I can't remember ever meeting you before yesterday at Haditha. This is no tit-for-tat. --217.235.220.54

Could William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) look into this matter and confirm the first edit was NOT a revert. And can he also confirm that at the time of him blocking me I had not made any edit to the page for some time, so blocking seems a bit superfluous. Nomen Nescio 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I get you on the time issue. Of course you didn't do any reverts then, because I followed 3RR and you had no reason to revert again. --217.235.220.54

I stopped editing since I had made THREE reverts, therefore I had to stop. Mr Anonymous you did your job, childishly made a false report and now you got what you wanted. Please stop visiting my page unless you are now making a request to unblock me. Nomen Nescio 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, your first edit listed by anon is not a revert, but the "previous version reverted to" is: William M. Connolley 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I thought the block was inappropriate. I commented to that effect on the referral page. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the three revert rule please note that it says you are not entitled to three reverts. Any edit warring or disruption can be blocked. However, if you would agree not to continue edit warring, I'm sure you could be unblocked early. As a side note, you might want to take that image out of your signature; the signature guideline has recently been changing from discouraging images to stating that images are no longer allowed. Thanks! Shell 11:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the signature guidlines. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. Shell 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the entire policy page, specifically, the section called Intent of the policy which I referred to earlier. If the administrator feels you are engaged in an edit war and a short block will stop said war, they may block regardless of the actual number of reverts. Personally, I find it more helpful to avoid reverting anything but vandalism, and discuss any concerns I have about changes made to an article. Shell 11:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, but in reviewing this you might have noticed that at the time of blocking I was no longer working on that page. I find it disturbing that an admin blocks someone without considering that it is more likely (as evidenced by my edit summary) he will not revert again. In my mind this block was in violation of WP:POINT Nomen Nescio 11:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand, but unfortunately we cannot read minds. I'm glad you moved on to work on something else and hopefully in the future you can find other ways to resolve editing differences. Also, if you have a 3RR posted and have stopped editing, you can make a note on the 3RR report to that affect and the admin reviewing the situation will take that into consideration. Shell 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He can not read my mind, but he can read my edit summary, and notice that the anon suggested my first edit was a revert while it was not, and he can try and think about why a block is necessary (15:12h) according to Mr Anonymous when no revert has occured in a long time (14:30h). Nomen Nescio 11:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am not interested in arguing with you over the situation. I'm sorry you felt unfairly blocked and I've tried my best to explain ways to avoid it in the future by not even appearing to be edit warring. I hope that helps; happy editing! Shell 11:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:AN3:

• Premature block in my opinion too. User:Nescio is an experienced editor with a positive history of contributions. While the block is within policy, would have been good if there was discussion with Nescio prior to block. -- Samir धर्म 11:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, first of all I never asked for a block anywhere. I was surprised that you got one, but assumed that it would be just procedure. I agree that a block is a disproportionate reaction.

However, the case stands as decribed.

You say that you did only three, not four reverts and claim that the first change quoted in my report is a normal edit. There is no basis for this claim. Your change did not create a new version of the article in question but reverted to a version which existed before. This is made perfectly clear by your changes to the same formatting made in the two days before. It was your fourth revert.

You say that you was blocked "years" after the fact. Actual it's 43 minutes, and I think this a perfectly good time frame. You can't expect every editor to know the procudeures for 3RR by heart, and you can't expect admins to stand by in seconds.

You say that you made clear that you would stop editing in your comment. There are two answers to that: First, I a can only assume you refer to the phrase "my 3rd". Now assuming this could easily be interpreted as "I will abstain from editing in the future", why would anyone believe this if in fact this was your 4th revert? Second, just going away would be no help. If I had reverted the article then I would have broken 3RR myself. So some measure was required; I didn't ask for a block but (on the original report) to "revert to pre-3RR state and tell him to use the discussion page".

You accuse me of misrepresenting facts, making false reports and even lying. Now of course since I'm anonymous you can libel and slander me with impunity, that, however, doesn't make it true. I never lied, I made no false reports and I never misrepresented any facts. (I made procedural errors though.)

Again, I think a block is disproportionate and was surprised about what then seemed to be the standard response. (In fact, admin-revert to blockquotes and a pointer to the discussion would have been more useful.) --217.235.239.71

Thanks

Apparently not every editor is as enthousiastic as William M. Connolley, as evidenced here. Thanks for the support, your comments are exactly what I was thinking. There was no reason to react like he did without even reviewing the accusation, which he later admitted was false. Nomen Nescio 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

van Bergen

Cpied to relevant page. Nomen Nescio 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

As a user you know, too, refuses to solve conflicts reasonably, I would like to ask for your comment. Añoranza 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)