This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 19 January 2011 (→Result of your appeal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:11, 19 January 2011 by The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) (→Result of your appeal: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
|
This user is block free - (see my block log here!). |
Vanguard Editor
and is entitled to display this
Unobtainium
Editor Star
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.
Back in one year
I will be leaving for one year. This will be enforced by a self-blocking mechanism through a wikibreak enforcer.
I am quite disappointed that it had to come to this, but since I know that my enemies will game any edit I make to be somehow related to "fringe science" especially considering my normal modes of activity it's not worth the hassle of editing under this absurd and vindictive arbcom enforcement.
When I come back on January 15, 2012, I will be sanction free and return to editing with impunity.
If I happen to see egregious errors in the meantime, I'll be fixing them through anonymous, untraceable, unblocked proxies. They will not be traceable to this account, but I encourage those who dislike me to scour the edit histories carefully to look for my calling card.
I ask my talkpage watchers to remove the gloating by my enemies.
Peace,
jps (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unblock to add enforcer
ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to add the wikibreak enforcer to vector.js Alternatively, could I ask an admin either unblock me, or just add this to vector.js:
Decline reason:
Done. Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2011 (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.
/*** BEGIN WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/
addOnloadHook(function() {
/*** Start editing here ***/
// When you want to end your break?
// no leading zeroes. (example: 7 - correct, 07 - incorrect)
var date = { year: 2012, month: 1, day: 16};
var time = { hours: 0, minutes: 0, seconds: 0 };
/*** Stop editing here ***/
var currentDate = new Date();
var enforcedBreakEnd = new Date(
date.year,date.month-1,date.day,time.hours,time.minutes,time.seconds);
if (currentDate <= enforcedBreakEnd) {
alert("Enforced wikibreak until "+enforcedBreakEnd.toLocaleString()
+ "\n(now is "+currentDate.toLocaleString()+")\n\nBye!");
location = "http://"+location.host+"/search/?title="
+ "Special:Userlogout&returnto=Main_Page";
}
});
/*** END WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/
Result of your appeal
As the closing administrator at Arbitration Enforcement, I hereby notify you of the following result of your recent request:
- The appeal by JPS (formerly known as ScienceApologist) is unsuccessful. The one year topic ban stands as enacted.
If you wish to further appeal this decision, you may contact the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)