| Revision as of 19:11, 22 December 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Your block of Gp75motorsports: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:51, 22 December 2007 edit undoGeorgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits →Your block of Gp75motorsports: grossly inappropriate block ; I am unblockingNext edit → | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
| This was a manifestly excessive block of a good-faith user who was not being intentionally disruptive. I have reduced the block to 48 hours; personally I don't think you should have blocked at all, but I don't plan to wheel-war over this. (I apologise for not discussing this first; I did in fact attempt to notify you in advance, but accidentally left the message at ] instead of here, due to confusion.) I'm not intending to attack you, but I do feel the block was inappropriate, given that Gp75 had made a number of bona fide contributions to the mainspace. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | This was a manifestly excessive block of a good-faith user who was not being intentionally disruptive. I have reduced the block to 48 hours; personally I don't think you should have blocked at all, but I don't plan to wheel-war over this. (I apologise for not discussing this first; I did in fact attempt to notify you in advance, but accidentally left the message at ] instead of here, due to confusion.) I'm not intending to attack you, but I do feel the block was inappropriate, given that Gp75 had made a number of bona fide contributions to the mainspace. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Actually, I think that reducing a block length is still undoing an administrative action. Short block lengths don't need to be reduced, and longer ones can be discussed first. Discussing for a bit (maybe even the full two days) and then unblocking as "time served" would have had much the same result. ] (]) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | :Actually, I think that reducing a block length is still undoing an administrative action. Short block lengths don't need to be reduced, and longer ones can be discussed first. Discussing for a bit (maybe even the full two days) and then unblocking as "time served" would have had much the same result. ] (]) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've reviewed the situation following a complaint to unblock-en-l, and I feel that this block was clearly outside established blocking policy and in extremely bad judgement. I am unblocking completely. | |||
| ::Maxim, there is '''very little''' that a user can do regarding "community stuff" (short of personal attacks and so forth) which would be cause for use of admin tools. '''That is not what administrators are here for'''. If you want him to stop creating that stuff get a policy in place and then enforce the policy. Blocking in this manner is grossly inapropriate. ] (]) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:51, 22 December 2007
- My archives can be found here.
- I'm an admin; I can delete pages, protect them, and block users. Those actions are all reversible.
- If you need help, feel free to ask me. WP:HOCKEY members, if you need help with merges, renames, or other admin chorse, or advice how to proceed with a certain article, for example, in regards to deletion, especially feel free to ask me. I've experienced in this field, and I'd be more than glad to help you.
- If you start a thread here, I will reply here. If I started a thread on your talkpage, I'll follow your "rules".
- Handy link: User:Lupin/Filter recent changes
Template:Hockeydb
Hey Maxim, I had to revert your last edit to the template. It was screwing up the bullets in articles- the template would not work within a bulleted list. Feel free to take a look.-Wafulz (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The same thing is happening with Template:Legendsofhockey. The bullets aren't working. See Andre Lacroix (ice hockey) for an example. Flibirigit (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, I think. --Maxim(talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Scrubscard.png
Could you undelete this image? I didn't notice it was put up for speedy before, but I'll add some rationale for it when it's restored. Let me know when you've done it. - Zero1328 Talk? 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I've restored it. --Maxim(talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Wentworth NSW pics swap
Hi Maxim, In Wentworth NSW I swapped around the 'Darling St' picture (in the info box) with the location map (in the gallery), because I think it makes more sense to have it that way. I also added a 'Gallery' heading and subheading. These changes were removed by the bot. May I suggest that you instruct the bot to change them back? cheers Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies on the error, I've reverted to the proper version. Maxim(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Maxim - don't forget the Darling St/Location map swap! cheers Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it... --Maxim(talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On C++ 'vandalism'
err, Hi Ive deleted the part of C++ page you reverted back becouse its factually incorrect, and i think providing no information is beter than giving misleading one. I tried to indicate taht in discussion page (as i dont feel like i could write that part well enough myself - as far as my english is considered). Please remove that part of C++ article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.86.225 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies on the error, I've reverted to the proper version. Maxim(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and Season's Greetings
Thank you so much for notifying me that the info from the Palden Lhamo article has been included in the DYK section today. I hope you enjoyed the reference! All best wishes for 2008. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Undeletion of SR Song Play.jpg
Hello,
May I request that you undelete the image mentioned above from the article "Symphonic Rain"? Firstly, it is merely a screenshot from the game, and secondly, is quite needed to explain how the game engine works alongside the description (if you read the accompanying text).
If a screenshot of a game that is beneficial to helping people understand its system constitutes as a violation of "fair use" rules, you might as well remove all the selections under "Licensing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephillim (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- If I undelete it, will you fix the rationale? --Maxim(talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: WP:RFPP
- Moved from WP:RFPP by Deskana in order to keep the discussion on topic. Redrocketboy is referring to this
Explain how it is trolling. And also how moving a page to a logical place is nonsensical? Thanks, Redrocketboy 17:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
RFA:Russell777
It shows on this page that you supported a user in his Rfa, is it true, becuase the page history only shows an IP adding it. Please see it here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Russell777, thanks!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
WWE No Way Out
Thanks for protecting the above article. However, the wrong version has been protected. Could you possibly rollback and protect the article to this version. Cheers, Davnel03 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Davnel, Maxim asked me to explain to you why the article's version will not be changed until the content dispute is resolved. Administrators do not selectively protect articles in a specific version upon request, as that would not be neutral, nor fair to the parties in dispute. Per the page linked: "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." Thus, articles are protected in whatever version they happen to be in when the protection is implemented. Please take a look at m:The wrong version, which is a humorous explanation that an article is protected in whatever version is currently up, and all disputes need to be worked out on the talk page. (That page should be read fully understanding it is a facetious essay). I hope that helps you understand! Ariel♥Gold 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a legitimate formatting problem in the article here. The last few edits before that were IP vandalism, hence why I need it reverting back. Cheers, Davnel03 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I took a look at the IP edits done prior to the protection, and they amount to this. This is removal of a bit of information, and the addition of an improperly formatted wiki-link. Not something that is a huge issue, but I will leave this message on Maxim's page as well, and if he feels it is a valid reason to remove it, he can. (copied from a note left on my talk page) Cheers!Ariel♥Gold 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a legitimate formatting problem in the article here. The last few edits before that were IP vandalism, hence why I need it reverting back. Cheers, Davnel03 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
WWE No Way Out
While i agree with your protection of the page you should have removed the ec match. We dont include spoilers on this site according to the wrestling project guidelines. Will you remove it?LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Lifestroke, Maxim asked me to explain to you why the article's version will not be changed until the content dispute is resolved. Administrators do not selectively protect articles in a specific version upon request, as that would not be neutral, nor fair to the parties in dispute. Per the page linked: "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page." Thus, articles are protected in whatever version they happen to be in when the protection is implemented. Please take a look at m:The wrong version, which is a humorous explanation that an article is protected in whatever version is currently up, and all disputes need to be worked out on the talk page. (That page should be read fully understanding it is a facetious essay). I hope that helps you understand! Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Your block of Gp75motorsports
This was a manifestly excessive block of a good-faith user who was not being intentionally disruptive. I have reduced the block to 48 hours; personally I don't think you should have blocked at all, but I don't plan to wheel-war over this. (I apologise for not discussing this first; I did in fact attempt to notify you in advance, but accidentally left the message at User talk:Metros instead of here, due to confusion.) I'm not intending to attack you, but I do feel the block was inappropriate, given that Gp75 had made a number of bona fide contributions to the mainspace. Walton 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that reducing a block length is still undoing an administrative action. Short block lengths don't need to be reduced, and longer ones can be discussed first. Discussing for a bit (maybe even the full two days) and then unblocking as "time served" would have had much the same result. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the situation following a complaint to unblock-en-l, and I feel that this block was clearly outside established blocking policy and in extremely bad judgement. I am unblocking completely.
- Maxim, there is very little that a user can do regarding "community stuff" (short of personal attacks and so forth) which would be cause for use of admin tools. That is not what administrators are here for. If you want him to stop creating that stuff get a policy in place and then enforce the policy. Blocking in this manner is grossly inapropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)