| Revision as of 07:53, 31 January 2013 editNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,383 edits →The correct use of talk pages: Blocked for ban violation← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:21, 31 January 2013 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | ||
| This block is being levied for your violation of an interaction ban at ]. Given your complaint to Drmies that Elvenscout was violating an interaction ban by editing this page, you were plainly aware that he had edited it, and your awareness that he had been blocked for the issue means that it's quite equitable for the same to be done in your case. As long as this ban is in place, you are required to heed your own words: be "careful to avoid any article previously edited by the other party". ] (]) 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | This block is being levied for your violation of an interaction ban at ]. Given your complaint to Drmies that Elvenscout was violating an interaction ban by editing this page, you were plainly aware that he had edited it, and your awareness that he had been blocked for the issue means that it's quite equitable for the same to be done in your case. As long as this ban is in place, you are required to heed your own words: be "careful to avoid any article previously edited by the other party". ] (]) 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock|reason= I first edited ] on Nov. 25, prior to the imposition of an interaction ban on Dec. 9. Elvenscout, on Jan 16, violated the terms of the ban by first editing the article . When he was cautioned for doing so and his edit was reverted by Administrator Drmies , I was under the impression that I was then free to continue editing an article that I had first edited. My edits on ], with regards to content and timing, have all been offered in good faith, as a review of those edits will demonstrate. If I somehow violated the interaction ban by renewing work on an article I’d first worked upon, then my violation was inadvertent and due to my misunderstanding ''not of the terms of the ban'' but of the caution offered to Elvenscout and the reversion of the prior edit made by Drmies. I understand that a 24 ban on editing is a minor imposition but I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to ''five separate articles'' that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed.] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 18:21, 31 January 2013
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Prosimetrum". Thank you! EarwigBot 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tristan! Not meaning to be confrontational, but I'm concerned that our little dispute at Prosimetrum won't get anywhere until a volunteer assesses the Dispute Resolution request. I am given the impression that it takes longer (or may not even happen) if one of the opening comments is more than the requested 2,000 characters in length. Under these circumstances, your comment here is a bit long. You began by saying you would keep your comments to a minimum, but you are actually the only one of the four of us who exceeded the 2,000 characters. For future reference, it is the un-wikied text one types in, not the text that appears on the actual page, that is counted. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note to alert you to the fact that discussion has now been opened at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Prosimetrum. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I've placed my comments at dispute resolution already and will wait for further discussion or queries from the volunteer referee or moderator before determining if it is useful to contribute more.Tristan noir (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The correct use of talk pages
Tristan noir, I have noticed that you have a habit of using article talk pages and WP:ANI, WP:AFD, AP:MFD, etc. in order to address my "behaviour" in general, and rarely address article content directly. If you have a problem with something I post on an article talk page, or on someone else's user talk page, or in my own user space, it's okay to post on my user talk page; in fact that is the only appropriate forum. It is very difficult for me to edit the broad range of articles I work on, when I have to be aware that at any time you may post your opposition to my edits on a completely different page. If you have a particular proposal for a particular article, please use the talk page of the article in question; if you have a problem with my behaviour in general, please use my talk page. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This block is being levied for your violation of an interaction ban at Mokichi Saitō. Given your complaint to Drmies that Elvenscout was violating an interaction ban by editing this page, you were plainly aware that he had edited it, and your awareness that he had been blocked for the issue means that it's quite equitable for the same to be done in your case. As long as this ban is in place, you are required to heed your own words: be "careful to avoid any article previously edited by the other party". Nyttend (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Tristan noir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I first edited Mokichi Saitō here on Nov. 25, prior to the imposition of an interaction ban on Dec. 9. Elvenscout, on Jan 16, violated the terms of the ban by first editing the article here. When he was cautioned for doing so and his edit was reverted by Administrator Drmies here, I was under the impression that I was then free to continue editing an article that I had first edited. My edits on Mokichi Saitō, with regards to content and timing, have all been offered in good faith, as a review of those edits will demonstrate. If I somehow violated the interaction ban by renewing work on an article I’d first worked upon, then my violation was inadvertent and due to my misunderstanding not of the terms of the ban but of the caution offered to Elvenscout and the reversion of the prior edit made by Drmies. I understand that a 24 ban on editing is a minor imposition but I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this edit to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to five separate articles that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed.Tristan noir (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I first edited ] on Nov. 25, prior to the imposition of an interaction ban on Dec. 9. Elvenscout, on Jan 16, violated the terms of the ban by first editing the article . When he was cautioned for doing so and his edit was reverted by Administrator Drmies , I was under the impression that I was then free to continue editing an article that I had first edited. My edits on ], with regards to content and timing, have all been offered in good faith, as a review of those edits will demonstrate. If I somehow violated the interaction ban by renewing work on an article I’d first worked upon, then my violation was inadvertent and due to my misunderstanding ''not of the terms of the ban'' but of the caution offered to Elvenscout and the reversion of the prior edit made by Drmies. I understand that a 24 ban on editing is a minor imposition but I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to ''five separate articles'' that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed.] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I first edited ] on Nov. 25, prior to the imposition of an interaction ban on Dec. 9. Elvenscout, on Jan 16, violated the terms of the ban by first editing the article . When he was cautioned for doing so and his edit was reverted by Administrator Drmies , I was under the impression that I was then free to continue editing an article that I had first edited. My edits on ], with regards to content and timing, have all been offered in good faith, as a review of those edits will demonstrate. If I somehow violated the interaction ban by renewing work on an article I’d first worked upon, then my violation was inadvertent and due to my misunderstanding ''not of the terms of the ban'' but of the caution offered to Elvenscout and the reversion of the prior edit made by Drmies. I understand that a 24 ban on editing is a minor imposition but I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to ''five separate articles'' that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed.] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I first edited ] on Nov. 25, prior to the imposition of an interaction ban on Dec. 9. Elvenscout, on Jan 16, violated the terms of the ban by first editing the article . When he was cautioned for doing so and his edit was reverted by Administrator Drmies , I was under the impression that I was then free to continue editing an article that I had first edited. My edits on ], with regards to content and timing, have all been offered in good faith, as a review of those edits will demonstrate. If I somehow violated the interaction ban by renewing work on an article I’d first worked upon, then my violation was inadvertent and due to my misunderstanding ''not of the terms of the ban'' but of the caution offered to Elvenscout and the reversion of the prior edit made by Drmies. I understand that a 24 ban on editing is a minor imposition but I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to ''five separate articles'' that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed.] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}