| Revision as of 15:02, 8 November 2007 editAlice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,878 editsm →Blocked: correct typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:22, 8 November 2007 edit undoPerspicacite (talk | contribs)6,334 edits yeah gloat nowNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| PPS: And don't worry - if you can't cope with advice from me right now, just delete it in your usual manner and I won't think any the less of you. ] 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | PPS: And don't worry - if you can't cope with advice from me right now, just delete it in your usual manner and I won't think any the less of you. ] 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| When you're banned, and you will be, I will thoroughly enjoy it. So gloat all you want for now. ] 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:22, 8 November 2007
Archive
Blocked
I have blocked you for 24 hours due in large part to your meritless 3RR complaint, latest in a series of complaints you have made; these appear to be forum shopping and look like attempts to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Most of the diffs you supplied in your 3RR report are simply edits, only one is a revert, and your reverting to your own text looks a lot like trying to take ownership of the article. So, everyone else gets a breather for 24 hours, and when you come back I would ask that you make more of an effort to work with others rather than simply fighting for your own preferred version of an article. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Perspicacite (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Alice.S reverted four times to an article within 24 hours as clearly shown by the diffs provided. This block is punitive. JzG removed the 3RR report from the noticeboard rather than letting an administrator confirm or reject it. Last time I checked that's never done.
Decline reason:
JzG is an admin. He obviously confirmed it. Alice.S's actions are not relevant as to whether or not you have violated WP:3RR. — Yamla 14:58, 8 November 2007 (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.
Alice.S has now made a fifth reversion, restoring the anonymous user's vandalism, on Rhodesia within a 24 hour period. Someone explain this to me. Perspicacite 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably not the best person to attempt an explanation, but I'll try.
Firstly, User:JzG probably is an administrator - or they would not have been able to block you.
Secondly, what you call a revert, many would call a normal edit.
And thirdly, just because somebody has not logged on/created an account does not inevitably indicate that their contributions are likely to be vandalistic.
I appreciate that you have a different viewpoint to my own, but hopefully when you return we can discuss this in a civilised and collegiate manner at Talk:Rhodesia. One of the wonderful things about Misplaced Pages is that we don't have to agree on "The Truth" - just make sure that we adequately and in an unbiased manner try and fairly represent and summarise authoritative sources - that's why I've tagged quite a few statements as needing citations.
I've also taken the liberty of preparing for your return by placing some guidelines to reverts and reverting on the controversial article's talk page.
I really do hope that you would impose a self-denying ordinance on yourself NOT to use the revert button (physically or in your psyche) for one week after you return but instead improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Please do not continue to revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Alice.S 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: One useful therapeutic trick you might try is to leave dialogue on your talk page for, say 1 day, before you remove things that you don't like. Then you could perhaps build up your tolerance threshold to one week in small 12 hour increments. That would also send a signal to the people that engage you in dialogue that you value and will carefully consider their contributions rather than dismiss them out of hand.
PPS: And don't worry - if you can't cope with advice from me right now, just delete it in your usual manner and I won't think any the less of you. Alice.S 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
When you're banned, and you will be, I will thoroughly enjoy it. So gloat all you want for now. Perspicacite 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)