Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:12, 16 September 2012

June 2012

Watch them 3RR on Kara Ahmed Pasha. Seems not to be clear vandalism, so the "bright line" rule probably applies here. I warned Bozo1789, so I probably should send you a note too. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Canuck

Nmate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I did does not fall under 3RR per WP:BAN "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban". Furthermore, I correctly noted in edit summaries that my reverts were made under WP BAN. Said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.For more information see: Also, said site-banned user continued to edit Misplaced Pages even after his recent throw away account is blocked. See:->

Decline reason:

As per JBW below. Mere assertion does not cut it, and you already know that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 14 June 2012 (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.

• You may or may not be right about the sockpuppetry, but, even if you are right:

1. Merely asserting that the account is a sockpuppet, without evidence, is dubious justification. You said that it was an "obvious" sockpuppet, in which case it should have been easy to justify your claim.
2. If you really did have enough evidence of sockpuppetry, then you should have reported the fact. Edit warring on such a massive scale as you did without making any attempt at all to get the sockpuppetry issue issue dealt with was not the most constructive way forward. You clearly have far more than enough experience to be able to find your way to either WP:SPI or a relevant administrators' noticeboard. (And, as far as "on such a massive scale as you did" is concerned, I don't believe I have ever come across a case with anywhere near so much edit warring in so short a period of time.)
3. Some of your reverts restored nonsense, which is not justifiable, no matter what. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nmate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I keep reporting his sockpuppets including this one too in vain. But when one of his sockpuppet is blocked, one another is created. Furthermore, I keep beseeching for a Ip rang block for Iaaasi, but the administrators has failed to give one. Therefore, the only way to be stopped Iaaasi is to be reverted every contribution that he makes to the project that does not fall under 3RR following the instructions pursuant toWP:BAN. And considering that Iaaasi has created almost 100 sockpuppets for now it falls under Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse. Also, said user did not even deny that he is a sockpuppet of Iaaas, see:(this does not look like a mere assertion regarding sockpuppetry, Imho.--Nmate (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am now the third administrator to tell you that nothing you have listed in your unblock requests exempts you from edit warring. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:04, 14 June 2012 (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.

Conditional unblock request

I am willing to offer you an unblock with the following terms. Note that the following unblock offer does not find the original block to have been made inappropriately or on false grounds; it is merely a courtesy to allow you to prove your allegations.

1. You are unblocked immediately to file an SPI case on the user User:Bozo1789 to prove your allegations.
2. For the next 72 hours after the acceptance of this unblock (i.e. time equivalent to the original block length), you are only allowed to edit your own user talk page, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations and the subpages of those respective pages. You may not edit any other pages under any circumstances, with no exceptions.
3. If you are found in violation of the above term, any administrator may immediately reblock with a minimum duration of two weeks, but possibly more depending on how you violated the terms.
4. You may not remove this message until 72 hours after your acceptance message (i.e. when the terms of the conditional unblock have expired).

If you wish to agree to these terms, state "I agree" below, and sign your message. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is okay with me if i am also allowd to edit Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ,too, to be possible to prove my assertion.--Nmate (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you have not agreed to the terms of the unblock, and will not be unblocked. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K.--Nmate (talk)

If you agree, please state "I agree to your terms". You need to be explicit about it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree.--Nmate (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Several edit conflicts...) I see that I was mistaken in thinking that you had not filed a sockpuppet investigation report, so I have reduced the length of the block to 31 hours. My apologies for the mistake. However, you provided no evidence beyond similarity of usernames, which is not enough to establish sockpuppetry, and certainly nowhere near enough to justify the actions you took. I suggest that Deskana amend the above offer to read "31 hours" instead of "72 hours", but otherwise the offer seems to me to be reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree to your terms, Deskana, but I have no longer time to edit Misplaced Pages today, so I can return to the issue tomorrow.--Nmate (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Please be careful to not violate the terms, as if you do violate them you will simply be blocked immediately without warning. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see User Bozo1789 has been blocked indefinitely on the grounds that he was a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi. Is there any point in explaining my position and the terms still apply to me?--Nmate (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that, and given that the adjusted block JamesBWatson has placed would've expired by now if I hadn't unblocked you, we can consider the above terms to have ended. You're free to edit. Bear in mind though, the exact same thing will happen in future if you don't actually prove that an account is a sockpuppet before you go on a reverting spree. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• While policy allows reverting of any edit by a banned user, it makes sense to apply a little common sense. For example, it is pretty pointless to revert a change from "an year" to "a year", as you did here. Such editing really is disruptive. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw that comment. I have now seen much more of how Iaaasi blatantly and openly takes the line "never mind about my ban, as long as some of my editing is likely to stick, I will carry on doing it", and I am now of the opinion that the advantage of conveying the message "your editing will not stick" outweighs any disadvantage caused by reverting some edits which might be helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nmate, thanks for notifying EdJohnston about that disruptive editor. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Novi Sad and Zrenjanin

My behavior is good and in equivalence with the wiki rules. Someone come and vandalism the articles, ignore the facts of 2012 and the rubrics and make propaganda. Look again.--Nado158 (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this user try to put this unofficial name since a long time. The name is not the official name. First, the other names of the city are enumerated in the RUBRIC - NAME ok. Second, in Novi Sad ect. is the Serbian population the absolute majority and only one name will mentioned in this case in the introduction, the rest in the rubric NAME.--Nado158 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He don t stop to revert. Its ever the same person, sometimes he change the IP, but is ever the same person with propaganda goals. I write and he reverted. I do not revert anymore. But he continue to revert. Its not my fault if he ever revert me (only he).--Nado158 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the information.--Nado158 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Magyar Nemzeti Tanács

You are right, I'm sorry. Othewrwise I congratulate you for having greatly expanded the article of Csanád Szegedi. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

Hello, Nmate. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Csanád Szegedi.The discussion is about the topic Csanád Szegedi. Thank you. --Omen1229 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Halabor. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 08:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Halabor, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 08:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Halabor, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. When you recently edited Ukrainians in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Valamit kellene csinálni a cikk miatt, csak én nem ismerek itt semmilyen adminisztrátort. Valaki olyan kellene talán, aki magyar és levédené a győri csata cikkét, hogy ezek a hülyeségek ne érjék és ne töltődjön teli a laptörténet. 81.183.47.44 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Látom tettél javaslatot, köszi. Bár ha ez megtörténik, az utolsó két anonos szerkesztést vissza lehetne még állítani. Viszont ne most azonnal, mert akkor megint szerkháború lesz. 81.183.47.44 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Most megint egy román avatkozik be a dologba és jön külföldi történészekkel, akik csak osztrák seregről írnak. Azok a történészek nem is ismerik a csata körülményeit. 81.183.47.44 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabčíkovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm Lone boatman. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Reca without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone boatman (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)