| Revision as of 17:48, 1 May 2010 editChzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users115,894 edits →Vandalism reminder: subst, replaced: {{uw-vandal1 → {{subst:Uw-vandalism1 using AWB← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:45, 4 May 2010 edit undoWtsao (talk | contribs)190 edits removed kangaroo court proceedingsNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at ]. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at ]. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == April 2010 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing, for a period of '''72 hours''', for '''using IPs to edit war and violate ] on ]'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. ] (]) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=IP sock charges are bogus. I would like an investigation to clear the charge and a subsequent apology for wrongful blocking.|decline=I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that | |||
| *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u> | |||
| *the block is no longer necessary because you | |||
| **understand what you have been blocked for, | |||
| **will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and | |||
| **will make useful contributions instead. | |||
| Please read our ] for more information. <font color="darkorange">]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>]</big></font></b><font color="red">]</font> 17:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=What the hell? I didn't use an IP sock for anything - one of the checkuser accounts can clear that up. You have my permission. Please go ahead and check. Also I did not violate the 3RR rule. These are both bogus charges.|decline=It seems rather irrefutable that either you have logged out to make edits to the article, and then covered up that fact by refering to yourself in the third person, or ]. Either way, it doesn't matter because its not our position to determine which of those two happened here. Its clear ONE of those two happened, and since either is equally problematic, that's enough. ]''''']''''' 02:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Sprinkling "irrefutable" and "clearly" doesn't make it true. Your theory is idle speculation, nothing more. In fact, the IP editor isn't even from the same continent as I am. From where I'm standing one of two things happened: 1) an anonymous editor decided to support my position (unlikely) 2) This was all just an elaborate fraud of an experienced Misplaced Pages manipulator. SamJohnston brought in an editor that has never edited the cloud computing article to continue his edit war then enlisted an IP editor to discredit my position by smearing the sock charge on it. If that's what he did, it seems to have worked. This is disgusting.|decline=Oh yes, Cloud Computing is such a controversial topic that ] are stooping to ]-like activities to subvert you personally. Call ] when your block expires shortly. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 10:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 01:45, 4 May 2010
COI Reminder
Whether or not this is the result of a conflict, you have a clearly stated bias and should also be careful withWP:V and WP:NPOV. Promoting the questionable criticism section to the top of the article was particularly problematic. -- samj insup>out 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The cloud computing article is not neutral. Being critical of that isn't COI. According to your blog, you work for a major stakeholder in "cloud computing". That's COI. You should avoid calling the kettle black and avoid interfering with neutral third parties. Wtsao (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTCOI - citing WP:COI without associated policy violations can be considered a personal attack and calling yourself a "neutral third party" when you have a clearly stated bias is disingenuous at best. -- samj in 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism reminder
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to cloud computing, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- samj in 00:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mass reverting changes made in good faith is vandalism. You calling me a vandal, that's hypocrisy. Wtsao (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Cloud computing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- samj in 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- samj in 11:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The consensus process
Following up on the listing at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to be sure that you understand the consensus process on Misplaced Pages, since you seem to be a fairly new user. Your edit summaries suggest that you are not familiar with this policy, particularly when you state here: "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote from the consensus policy, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." This cycle is so common that there is a common acronym for it: BRD, "bold, revert, discuss." The discussion stage is crucial.
While I know it is distressing to have somebody else come in and undo your hard work, it's important to try to put aside your feelings about it to see if there is some merit to their concerns. If you find yourself unable to reach consensus with another contributor (or group of contributors), you may pursue dispute resolution to get input from uninvolved contributors. Meanwhile, your work is not lost, but remains in history to be restored if consensus should find it appropriate. But even if you are strongly convinced that the other person is wrong, you can't simply keep restoring your preferred version. When another editor reverts you, this is not vandalism in Misplaced Pages's definition. To quote that policy, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Restoring your preferred version is therefor not exempt from WP:3RR. And even if you don't technically cross the threshold of 3RR it may constitute edit warring.
At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at Cloud computing. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)