Misplaced Pages

Decline reason:

Neither in this unblock request nor anywhere else do I see any indication that you appreciate the nature of what you have done, nor any indication that you are unlikely to continue in the same way. Picking out few specific acts which you "vow" not to do, while totally failing to address the overall pattern of disruptive behaviour that led to the block, is not helpful. You also do not help your case by altering the block notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2013 (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 are not free to change your block notice. I have restored it back to how I wrote it. Continued disruption will cause you to lose the privilege of editing this page and likely extension of this block.

Per WP:BLANKING you may remove the block notice after your block expires but under no circumstances are you free to change messages left by others on any talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It was an EC, so it won't occur again. GotR 21:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Toddst1, this caused 3 needless notifications. GotR 23:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the response I alluded to above. It is not a wholesale comprehensive response to Wikimedes' post, but it is a reflection >1 month after most of the events described in the links occurred. 1) Regarding this at what is now List of islands of China, that was a calm, measured (if vague) reply to Wikimedes' own !vote. Yes, he was right, I should have clarified immediately what my concerns were; no one can rationally believe that all editors modifying a page with the result of appearing to push a POV are intentionally trying to push a POV. That was my concern. Nothing directed at a specific editor, and no causticity. 2) There is no evidence (only their word of mouth) to support Wikimedes and Cluckwik's interpretation of this and this. The romanisation of many Asian scripts produces ambiguities where the same syllable can mean many different characters; this is the reason these two cities have to be disambiguated on English Misplaced Pages, but not on some others (Japanese and Chinese, for example). 3) Regarding this flare-up on my talk page, what about this subsequent, similar discussion. Sorry, but that makes Wikimedes' report woefully incomplete and to appear biased, though he tried his best not to. 4) No, if you read carefully, I did not say Underlying lk was solely to blame. I ONLY voiced concern about his "retort", which mimicked my previous post. If he and Wikimedes wish to emphasise my own stupid edit summaries and not watch the development of that deletion discussion, which was already fully about content, they can, but, in my books, that contributes nothing to the discussion, though I can do nothing about it, because "what's done is done". Attempting to lay the blame solely on me, which Underlying lk thankfully did NOT do, bears no rationality. 5) This characterisation is far too simple, far too naïve. "This is a problem issuing from the same content dispute" would have been a far more accurate depiction. By the 6th (Tuesday) I had already long deemed my prior edit summaries as incredibly idiotic. Yes, that was an outright personal attack, and yes, the interaction with Underlying lk at TFD was at times in-civil. Yet the reception at AN/I regarding my interactions with Nero II was less stern, even though my conduct in dealing with him, as opposed to dealing with Underlying lk, was more unacceptable and, to be fair, involved edit-warring. If anything, the block should have occurred at THAT time, not now. Do you see anything in my post-Nero II (that is, after his last contribution) interaction with Underlying lk that rises to that disgusting level? The correct answer is no. GotR 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• You said above that your changing of the block notice was an "EC". Can you tell us what "EC" stands for? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think from constant usage of {{ec}} that it stands for "edit conflict". It occurred when I began at around 14:00 UTC yesterday, with a tab displaying this page still open, to write the request, copying ALL of the source code in a separate document to avoid being caught by peers, and when my first draft was ready some 150 minutes later (I was off to other priorities), I received the edit conflict notification and did not examine closely enough Toddst1's changes, so that's how the accidental change in the block notice occurred. Because of this, and since I had not continued to alter the block notice afterwards, that you mention the initial change in your decline bears no relevance. And it seems much more of your energies may have been focused on the change in the block notice instead of carefully comparing the claims made in my request with the bulk of the allegations against me; I thought I was comprehensive enough, and as I noted, did not want to jump TL;DR. But you move between unblock requests rather quickly (and your editing is not far and few in between as is the case with some sysops), so it is what is/it can't be helped with ease. GotR 13:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And it seems much more of your energies may have been focused on the change in the block notice instead of carefully comparing the claims made in my request with the bulk of the allegations against me; I thought I was comprehensive enough, and as I noted, did not want to jump TL;DR. But you move between unblock requests rather quickly (and your editing is not far and few in between as is the case with some sysops), so it is what is/it can't be helped with ease. GotR 13:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

• Here are what I believe to be the core issues raised in Wikimedes' comprehensive comment at my AN/I thread]: A) Abrasive (casually abusive) behaviour, mostly disparaging without making an explicit personal attack and less often a direct personal attack. B) Repeatedly removing other users' posts on talk pages. C) Personal attacks based on the editor's origins, the inclusion of which, with very few exceptions, enhances the acrimony.

• Why I failed with A: It seems to me it is often the case that the moment the other party notices abrasive comments, either abusive but not running afoul of WP:NPA or an outright personal attack, (such as sentence 2 in post 1 out of 2), their response (such as ) will be mostly about the off-topic/non-content comments, which is highly unproductive, and this was the case for the TFD I was referring to. So it is clearer to me, more than it was before, that such snide comments contribute nothing to propelling a discussion forward. A better alternative is to take the off-topic comment directly to the user's talk, in a firm, but not berating tone. Also, I know now that addressing the faults of others has the potential to backfire not only at AN/*, RFC/U, or unblock requests, etc. but also in content disputes. So that is not at all a wise course of action.
• Why I failed with B: Because it is a waste of time. Again, if another user's post causes offence, I should elect to raise that post on their talk. If that does not resolve anything, then so well, it others' prerogative to make judgments, not mine or the user I complaining against.
• C, as Wikimedes acknowledges, has ceased a long time ago. No record of name-calling based on editor origin exists since mid-June. As to why it is counterproductive, it is so for a combination of the reasons why A and B are also counterproductive.
• As for WP:BATTLE, that is more of a byproduct of the above factors I cited (i.e. they create the appearance of a battleground approach) than a cause; amending, IMO, the above factors will go a long way in eliminating any WP:BATTLE concerns. If anything, the only scenario where WP:BATTLE even remotely applies is this, namely in terms of the Greater China naming issues. But there already is improvement as seen here, here, and here.

• I will avoid like the plague: removing non-SOCK, non-FORUM talk page posts in the future (for the reasons outlined above), SHOUTING in edit summaries if directed at a specific editor (not only is it stupid, it usually agitates the other party), discussing anything about (good-faith, non-SOCK) editors themselves within an edit summary, making comments about behaviour in all venues except for WP:AN/*, WP:RFC/U, user talk, and the like.
• What evidence exists to suggest I will change? What for nothing does a user who previously had zero interactions with me would say "This is an editor who shows good signs of being capable of learning from harsh experience", which this incident certainly qualifies as? As Wikimedes noted, I am capable of highly productive discussion and have made already made good on one of my promises, and given the unproductive nature of the recent TFD, I am very clear that the uglier side of my conduct will almost always lead to stalled discussion. And I have numerous examples such as these to serve as a guide to approaching disputes.
• This block was enacted at an ineffective time: This characterisation is far too simple, far too naïve. "This is a problem issuing from the same content dispute" would have been a far more accurate depiction. By the 6th (Tuesday) I had already long deemed my prior edit summaries as incredibly idiotic. Yes, that was an outright personal attack, and yes, the interaction with Underlying lk at TFD was at times in-civil. Yet the reception at AN/I regarding my interactions with Nero II was less stern, even though my conduct in dealing with him, as opposed to dealing with Underlying lk, was more unacceptable and, to be fair, involved edit-warring. In light of this, the block should have occurred at THAT time, not now. Do you see anything in my post-Nero II (that is, after his last contribution) interaction with Underlying lk that rises to that disgusting level? The correct answer is no.
• What good will 96 hours do? Term for me begins on the 26th, after which I will be editing at nowhere near the rates I have been. To lose 1/4 of that time will only hurt the project, and if need be, I can go about minding my own business and temporarily disengage as a means of lowering the temperature. That said, the time served already is, for cooldown purposes is more justified, and I have nothing more to say to Underlying lk, nor am I ensnared in any other content disputes. I am willing to accept a ≤6-month topic ban on participation in PRC/ROC move requests to amend matters, and surely I do and always will have better things to do than participate in pointless move requests in the meantime; other than that topic area, I have rarely flared up, and as Wikimedes notes, I am capable of , and my edit count is ~80% mainspace, and in some months eclipses 90%. Suggesting a long-term/indefinite block is moving to the extreme, and think twice before making such remarks: who else will fill my niche? As of right now, no one person.

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=*Here are what I believe to be the core issues raised in at my AN/I thread]: A) Abrasive (casually abusive) behaviour, mostly disparaging without making an explicit personal attack and less often a direct personal attack. B) Repeatedly removing other users' posts on talk pages. C) Personal attacks based on the editor's origins, the inclusion of which, with very few exceptions, enhances the acrimony. :*Why I failed with A: It seems to me it is often the case that the moment the other party notices abrasive comments, either abusive but not running afoul of WP:NPA or an outright personal attack, (such as ), their response (such as ) will be mostly about the off-topic/non-content comments, which is highly unproductive, and this was the case for the TFD I was referring to. So it is clearer to me, more than it was before, that such snide comments contribute nothing to propelling a discussion forward. A better alternative is to take the off-topic comment directly to the user's talk, in a firm, but not berating tone. Also, I know now that addressing the faults of others has the potential to backfire not only at AN/*, RFC/U, or unblock requests, etc. but also in content disputes. So that is not at all a wise course of action. :*Why I failed with B: Because it is a waste of time. Again, if another user's post causes offence, I should elect to raise that post on their talk. If that does not resolve anything, then so well, it others' prerogative to make judgments, not mine or the user I complaining against. :*C, as , has ceased a long time ago. No record of name-calling based on editor origin exists since mid-June. As to why it is counterproductive, it is so for a combination of the reasons why A and B are also counterproductive. :*As for WP:BATTLE, that is more of a byproduct of the above factors I cited (i.e. they create the ''appearance'' of a battleground approach) than a cause; amending, IMO, the above factors will go a long way in eliminating any WP:BATTLE concerns. If anything, the only scenario where WP:BATTLE even remotely applies is ], namely in terms of the Greater China naming issues. But there already is improvement as seen ], , and . *'''I will avoid like the plague''': removing non-SOCK, non-FORUM talk page posts in the future (for the reasons outlined above), SHOUTING in edit summaries if directed at a specific editor (<small>not only is it stupid, it usually agitates the other party</small>), discussing anything about (good-faith, non-SOCK) editors themselves within an edit summary, making comments about behaviour in all venues except for WP:AN/*, WP:RFC/U, user talk, and the like. *What evidence exists to suggest I will change? What for nothing does a user who previously had '''zero interactions''' with me would say , which this incident certainly qualifies as? As , I am capable of highly productive discussion and have made already made good on one of my promises, and given the unproductive nature of the recent TFD, I am very clear that the uglier side of my conduct will almost always lead to stalled discussion. And I have numerous such as to serve as a guide to approaching disputes. *<u>This block was enacted at an ineffective time</u>: is far too simple, far too naïve. "This is a problem issuing from the same content dispute" would have been a far more accurate depiction. By the 6th (Tuesday) I had already long deemed my prior edit summaries as . Yes, that was an outright personal attack, and yes, the interaction with Underlying lk at TFD was at times in-civil. Yet the ] regarding my interactions with Nero II was less stern, even though my conduct in dealing with him, as opposed to dealing with Underlying lk, was more unacceptable and, to be fair, involved edit-warring. In light of this, the block should have occurred at THAT time, not now. Do you see ''anything'' in my post-Nero II (<small>that is, after his </small>) interaction with Underlying lk that rises to that disgusting level? The correct answer is no. *What good will 96 hours do? Term for me begins on the 26th, after which I will be editing at nowhere near the rates I have been. To lose 1/4 of that time will only hurt the project, and if need be, I can and temporarily disengage as a means of lowering the temperature. That said, the time served already is, for cooldown purposes is more justified, and I have nothing more to say to Underlying lk, nor am I ensnared in any other content disputes. I am willing to accept a ≤6-month topic ban on participation in PRC/ROC move requests to amend matters, and surely I ''do'' and always will have better things to do than participate in pointless move requests in the meantime; other than that topic area, I have rarely flared up, and as Wikimedes notes, I am capable of , and my edit count is ~80% mainspace, and in some months eclipses 90%. Suggesting a long-term/indefinite block is moving to the extreme, and think twice before making such remarks: ] ] ] ] ? As of right now, no one person. ''GotR''<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 10 August 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=*Here are what I believe to be the core issues raised in at my AN/I thread]: A) Abrasive (casually abusive) behaviour, mostly disparaging without making an explicit personal attack and less often a direct personal attack. B) Repeatedly removing other users' posts on talk pages. C) Personal attacks based on the editor's origins, the inclusion of which, with very few exceptions, enhances the acrimony. :*Why I failed with A: It seems to me it is often the case that the moment the other party notices abrasive comments, either abusive but not running afoul of WP:NPA or an outright personal attack, (such as ), their response (such as ) will be mostly about the off-topic/non-content comments, which is highly unproductive, and this was the case for the TFD I was referring to. So it is clearer to me, more than it was before, that such snide comments contribute nothing to propelling a discussion forward. A better alternative is to take the off-topic comment directly to the user's talk, in a firm, but not berating tone. Also, I know now that addressing the faults of others has the potential to backfire not only at AN/*, RFC/U, or unblock requests, etc. but also in content disputes. So that is not at all a wise course of action. :*Why I failed with B: Because it is a waste of time. Again, if another user's post causes offence, I should elect to raise that post on their talk. If that does not resolve anything, then so well, it others' prerogative to make judgments, not mine or the user I complaining against. :*C, as , has ceased a long time ago. No record of name-calling based on editor origin exists since mid-June. As to why it is counterproductive, it is so for a combination of the reasons why A and B are also counterproductive. :*As for WP:BATTLE, that is more of a byproduct of the above factors I cited (i.e. they create the ''appearance'' of a battleground approach) than a cause; amending, IMO, the above factors will go a long way in eliminating any WP:BATTLE concerns. If anything, the only scenario where WP:BATTLE even remotely applies is ], namely in terms of the Greater China naming issues. But there already is improvement as seen ], , and . *'''I will avoid like the plague''': removing non-SOCK, non-FORUM talk page posts in the future (for the reasons outlined above), SHOUTING in edit summaries if directed at a specific editor (<small>not only is it stupid, it usually agitates the other party</small>), discussing anything about (good-faith, non-SOCK) editors themselves within an edit summary, making comments about behaviour in all venues except for WP:AN/*, WP:RFC/U, user talk, and the like. *What evidence exists to suggest I will change? What for nothing does a user who previously had '''zero interactions''' with me would say , which this incident certainly qualifies as? As , I am capable of highly productive discussion and have made already made good on one of my promises, and given the unproductive nature of the recent TFD, I am very clear that the uglier side of my conduct will almost always lead to stalled discussion. And I have numerous such as to serve as a guide to approaching disputes. *<u>This block was enacted at an ineffective time</u>: is far too simple, far too naïve. "This is a problem issuing from the same content dispute" would have been a far more accurate depiction. By the 6th (Tuesday) I had already long deemed my prior edit summaries as . Yes, that was an outright personal attack, and yes, the interaction with Underlying lk at TFD was at times in-civil. Yet the ] regarding my interactions with Nero II was less stern, even though my conduct in dealing with him, as opposed to dealing with Underlying lk, was more unacceptable and, to be fair, involved edit-warring. In light of this, the block should have occurred at THAT time, not now. Do you see ''anything'' in my post-Nero II (<small>that is, after his </small>) interaction with Underlying lk that rises to that disgusting level? The correct answer is no. *What good will 96 hours do? Term for me begins on the 26th, after which I will be editing at nowhere near the rates I have been. To lose 1/4 of that time will only hurt the project, and if need be, I can and temporarily disengage as a means of lowering the temperature. That said, the time served already is, for cooldown purposes is more justified, and I have nothing more to say to Underlying lk, nor am I ensnared in any other content disputes. I am willing to accept a ≤6-month topic ban on participation in PRC/ROC move requests to amend matters, and surely I ''do'' and always will have better things to do than participate in pointless move requests in the meantime; other than that topic area, I have rarely flared up, and as Wikimedes notes, I am capable of , and my edit count is ~80% mainspace, and in some months eclipses 90%. Suggesting a long-term/indefinite block is moving to the extreme, and think twice before making such remarks: ] ] ] ] ? As of right now, no one person. ''GotR''<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 10 August 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=*Here are what I believe to be the core issues raised in at my AN/I thread]: A) Abrasive (casually abusive) behaviour, mostly disparaging without making an explicit personal attack and less often a direct personal attack. B) Repeatedly removing other users' posts on talk pages. C) Personal attacks based on the editor's origins, the inclusion of which, with very few exceptions, enhances the acrimony. :*Why I failed with A: It seems to me it is often the case that the moment the other party notices abrasive comments, either abusive but not running afoul of WP:NPA or an outright personal attack, (such as ), their response (such as ) will be mostly about the off-topic/non-content comments, which is highly unproductive, and this was the case for the TFD I was referring to. So it is clearer to me, more than it was before, that such snide comments contribute nothing to propelling a discussion forward. A better alternative is to take the off-topic comment directly to the user's talk, in a firm, but not berating tone. Also, I know now that addressing the faults of others has the potential to backfire not only at AN/*, RFC/U, or unblock requests, etc. but also in content disputes. So that is not at all a wise course of action. :*Why I failed with B: Because it is a waste of time. Again, if another user's post causes offence, I should elect to raise that post on their talk. If that does not resolve anything, then so well, it others' prerogative to make judgments, not mine or the user I complaining against. :*C, as , has ceased a long time ago. No record of name-calling based on editor origin exists since mid-June. As to why it is counterproductive, it is so for a combination of the reasons why A and B are also counterproductive. :*As for WP:BATTLE, that is more of a byproduct of the above factors I cited (i.e. they create the ''appearance'' of a battleground approach) than a cause; amending, IMO, the above factors will go a long way in eliminating any WP:BATTLE concerns. If anything, the only scenario where WP:BATTLE even remotely applies is ], namely in terms of the Greater China naming issues. But there already is improvement as seen ], , and . *'''I will avoid like the plague''': removing non-SOCK, non-FORUM talk page posts in the future (for the reasons outlined above), SHOUTING in edit summaries if directed at a specific editor (<small>not only is it stupid, it usually agitates the other party</small>), discussing anything about (good-faith, non-SOCK) editors themselves within an edit summary, making comments about behaviour in all venues except for WP:AN/*, WP:RFC/U, user talk, and the like. *What evidence exists to suggest I will change? What for nothing does a user who previously had '''zero interactions''' with me would say , which this incident certainly qualifies as? As , I am capable of highly productive discussion and have made already made good on one of my promises, and given the unproductive nature of the recent TFD, I am very clear that the uglier side of my conduct will almost always lead to stalled discussion. And I have numerous such as to serve as a guide to approaching disputes. *<u>This block was enacted at an ineffective time</u>: is far too simple, far too naïve. "This is a problem issuing from the same content dispute" would have been a far more accurate depiction. By the 6th (Tuesday) I had already long deemed my prior edit summaries as . Yes, that was an outright personal attack, and yes, the interaction with Underlying lk at TFD was at times in-civil. Yet the ] regarding my interactions with Nero II was less stern, even though my conduct in dealing with him, as opposed to dealing with Underlying lk, was more unacceptable and, to be fair, involved edit-warring. In light of this, the block should have occurred at THAT time, not now. Do you see ''anything'' in my post-Nero II (<small>that is, after his </small>) interaction with Underlying lk that rises to that disgusting level? The correct answer is no. *What good will 96 hours do? Term for me begins on the 26th, after which I will be editing at nowhere near the rates I have been. To lose 1/4 of that time will only hurt the project, and if need be, I can and temporarily disengage as a means of lowering the temperature. That said, the time served already is, for cooldown purposes is more justified, and I have nothing more to say to Underlying lk, nor am I ensnared in any other content disputes. I am willing to accept a ≤6-month topic ban on participation in PRC/ROC move requests to amend matters, and surely I ''do'' and always will have better things to do than participate in pointless move requests in the meantime; other than that topic area, I have rarely flared up, and as Wikimedes notes, I am capable of , and my edit count is ~80% mainspace, and in some months eclipses 90%. Suggesting a long-term/indefinite block is moving to the extreme, and think twice before making such remarks: ] ] ] ] ? As of right now, no one person. ''GotR''<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Mozarts 31st

Hi,

I was not engaged in 'drive by' tagging. As can be clearly seen the article is entirely based off one 48 year old book. That is not good enough and there has to be some more recent scholarship on the subject. The purpose of adding that tag was to alert readers (Just in case any of them could be bothered to contribute.) to that fact while I looked for more material to expand the article.Graham1973 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

China provinces infobox

Hi Guardian of the Rings! I'm not always a fan of {{Infobox settlement}} but I think its use as part of Template:Infobox Province of China (PRC) makes it an improvement over the previous, customised template. The previous version did not include a field for population references, or for the area, and instead it transcluded a fixed list of statistics, which in some cases were several years out of date. Additionally it did not support the {{Coord}} system for geolocation, and the various official languages were awkwardly bunched up together (though I noticed that you tried to fix this). For these reasons, I think it's better to continue to develop the template as a customised wrapper. Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. You see, {{Infobox U.S. state}} does not ascribe to {{Infobox settlement}} because they use Latitude and Longitude ranges, something we have no reason not to include for the PRC and will not fit in the template. {{Coord}} is not appropriate within the infobox for this reason. Secondly, {{Infobox settlement}}'s treatment of language transcriptions means that the one-character abbreviations are lumped together with the full native names, which is not ideal at all.

And you need to discuss on the template talk page first, instead of blindly reverting as if you had no functioning brain. GotR 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Blindly reverting as if you had no functioning brain? Of course the decision on whether or not to revert any changes is debatable, but what's with all the hostility? (Besides, you went on to revert every single one of my edits. Is the irony of that lost on you?)--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already agreed to cease for the time being. Now if you wish to pretend dumb and not admit that you reverted my non-infobox related changes (collateral damage), be that way. It will only damage yourself; playing victim will only make you look more irresponsible. GotR 12:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked my contributions log and that was indeed the case. Sorry about that. Still, that's no excuse for spewing venom at me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

I partially reverted your edit to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. My reasoning is that every location has the country, the name of the place (usually wiki-linked except the most obvious - like Chicago), and a map coordinates. It is pretty easy for someone to find out more about a location using several methods. In my view, just the single name of the place keeps the list simple to look at. Adding the US state abbreviation creates an unwarranted difference in the list between US locations and other places, and not everyone is familiar with the US state abbreviations anyway. However, out of curiosity to see how it looked, I did try adding the full state name but there just wasn't room for it in the column. Astronaut (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue against the fact that most places on that list are not well-known nationally so it would be better to not force the reader to second-guess the subnational division or have to needlessly navigate to a link to do that. Some of these names are even non-unique/primary topic within their country. GotR 20:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CMA Weather

CMA does provide mean, record high and record low temperatures for Chinese cities although they aren't always presented in an internet friendly manner. So, I ain't sure why you feel it is necessary to remove those information when people managed to lay their fingers on them. 1.36.33.7 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For the extreme high and low temperatures listed by CMA, they are the extremes within 1971–2000 or 1961–1990. So this period of record is not at all lengthy enough for stations that have started keeping meteorological records since 1960 or before, such as 1932–present for Xi'an. Unless all-time extremes are present, the data you entered is rather meaningless. And please read {{Weather box/doc}} GotR 13:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

I have revoked talk page access for the duration of this block since you continue to misuse the privilege. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Replies to your email and to messages on this page

Thank you for your email. I saw it yesterday, but I was busy at the time, and did not wish to answer hastily, without time to properly look into the matter. I would have replied by email, but I see that you have disabled email access, so I am posting here instead.

1. I see that Toddst1 did indeed revert changes to some talk page content that you had posted, which had received replies before being altered by you, leading to a misleading impression of the context in which replies were made. It is true that, in the course of doing so, he/she also removed content which you had put in the place of content that had been replied to, and there might have been a case for re-adding that content. I will restore the removed content for you, for what it's worth.
2. As for your request for Toddst1 not to post on your talk page, you are of course free to make such a request, but you cannot decree that an administrator make no edits to a page relevant to administrative action they have taken. It also seems to me doubtful whether an edit summary is the best place for such a request, as it may well be overlooked.
3. Exactly what constitutes unacceptable use of talk page access while blocked, justifying removal of that access, is, of course, a matter of judgement. I don't know what aspects of your editing Toddst1 regarded as unacceptable, but I can see several things that may be relevant. My guess is that your continuing battleground approach to other editors is likely to have been a significant factor. Remember that this approach was largely responsible for the block in the first case, so continuing the same problematic editing while blocked would be very likely to lead to loss of talk page access.

While I am here, I may as well also respond to a couple of other points, not relating to your email.

1. Naturally I am aware that "EC" is often used as an abbreviation for "edit conflict", and I would have taken it for granted that you meant that, had it not been for the fact that your edit took place over three hours after the previous edit, and it did not occur to me that you might have posted an edit after leaving it in an editing window for that long, so I thought you must mean something else.
2. My decline of your unblock request took place 17 minutes after my last previous edit. I wonder how long you think I ought to have spent checking the relevant editing history before coming to a conclusion. I wouldn't get much administrative work done if I spent substantially longer than that on each administrative decision. I also wonder what makes you think this particular case is so complex that it would take longer than 17 minutes to assess its intricacies. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Replies to your email

I also received an email from you yesterday. I believe JamesBWatson pretty much nailed the issues and answered the questions you asked in your email to me.

A couple of important points are worth noting:

• I have never been in any type of conflict or even interacted with you before dealing with your WP:BATTLEGROUND issues that were repeatedly raised on ANI. I have been and remain completely WP:UNINVOLVED.
• As James pointed out, you cannot arbitrarily declare that you don't like one or more WP:UNINVOLVED administrators and prohibit them from taking administrative action related to you, nor can you prohibit or restrict them from commenting on their administrative actions (past, present or future).
• One of the more tendentious aspects of your behavior recently is your request that I not post on your talk page, then following it with an email to me demanding I answer your questions.
• Making statements along the lines of "I have rarely flared up" is indicative that you believe your behavior has been acceptable. That is far from the truth. You need to understand that.

I strongly urge you to take a step back and adjust your pattern of interaction with all editors here. You are approaching the expiration of your current block and have the opportunity to move to a much more constructive pattern of interaction.

Despite what you think (and stated above), Misplaced Pages does not need you. If you continue with this battleground and/or tendentious behavior, you will be reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also received an email, and I have no idea why. My only previous interaction with this user that I can recall was a self-requested block some time ago. I have nothing to add beyond what my colleauges have already stated here, and I have revoked your access to the WP email system for the remainder of the block. You may contact WP:UTRS if you want to appeal further. Beeblebrox (talk)|

GOTR, UTRS would not be appropriate while there is an active, unanswered {{unblock}} request on this talk page. One unblock request at a time is plenty. I think Beeblebrox is giving you this info for your benefit in the likely event that your current request will be declined. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)