| Revision as of 07:05, 7 March 2016 editStarship.paint (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,914 edits →Removal of reliable sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:18, 7 March 2016 edit undoPotguru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,102 edits bullys cause good people to want to go away, stop bullying me.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for disruptive editing and casting aspersions on other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}. ]] 05:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for disruptive editing and casting aspersions on other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}. ]] 05:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | ||
| :In particular, I'm referring to your conduct in a number of places like ANI (e.g. , ) with specific editors () and on articles related to Donald Trump (as described in ). ]] 05:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) | :In particular, I'm referring to your conduct in a number of places like ANI (e.g. , ) with specific editors () and on articles related to Donald Trump (as described in ). ]] 05:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock|1=Jethro single handedly decided that the personal attack on me by another editor where the other editor stated, in no uncertain terms, that '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' should be allowed to stand as I guess) an accurate description of my contributions. He did this in reaction to a long series of events that he did not review completely. He, wrongly, defended the other editor against me suggesting that my complaint that the editor stated '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' was insufficient to allow the continued discussion I brought up and he universally closed it (prematurely). Then he closed a heated discussion unilaterally suggesting that the only conclusion was to redirect my article to a poorly written article about the same subject, strange since the conclusion was to merge the articles,. Buy redirecting the better article into the lesser article he is attempting to cover up some of the most interesting work on wikipedia so far this year. The issue is drumpf. Major press picked up the article. The conclusion by the community was CLEARLy to merge the two articles yet he acted unilaterally and blanked and redirected instead. Then he archives the discussion, prematurely... without noting the actual vote conclusions which wa clearly to MERGE. Then he blocked me for 72 hours so I would be relegated to telling my story only on my talk page which they try to bury the important (and well cited )( information I presented in an article that is one of the most edited article in wikipedia today. | |||
| 1) the discussion of delete/merge/keep was not over, it needs to continue or be reviewed to come to an actual consensus... the norm around here I thought. | |||
| 2) he unilaterally booted me for 72 hours even though my disruptive period was EXTREMELY SHORT and ended more than a day ago. Per the section I thought the norm was "But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes." That is what Jethro read a full day before blocking me. The only edits I made between the heated period and the block were all HIGHLY CONSTRUCTIVE and well researched. (I was fighting to keep the image of drumpf on the page and 4 editors came in and removed it without first reading or contributing to the important section on the talk page. | |||
| 3) he closed my complaint against Muboshgu after telling me "You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive." I refuse to listen to anyone who accepts the unreasonable statement that MOST of my contributions were non-constructive. If you don't see that as a personal attack you should probably head back to grade school because even on a playground such words are mean and unwarranted. Yes, I demand an apology.... or to be freed from the jail the user incorrectly single handedly put me in without doing necessary research to determine that MOST of my edits are EXTREMELY constructive, useful and well cited. Block Moboshgu or release me... don't punish me just because you don't like the article I wrote. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114. And allowing the drumpf article to stand, merged with my work is just wrong. Please unarchive the users unwarranted actions. | |||
| I CANNOT believe a single user can do SO MUCH damage by blanking and redirecting... ALL the comments from 4 days of work by more than 60 editors is because of JethroBT's poorly considered actions. Not really a suprise that wikipedia has a hard time hkeeping good editors around with such powerfully misguided bully editors as Muboshgu & JethroBT running around.<ref>https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126871/wikipedia-dying</ref> --] (]) 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| . | |||
Revision as of 15:18, 7 March 2016
Donald Drumpf: A Funny Label, but is it Fair? listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Drumpf: A Funny Label, but is it Fair?. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Drumpf: A Funny Label, but is it Fair? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kill it, was just trying to be helpful. --Potguru (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Removal of reliable sources
Please stop removing reliable sources from the Donald J Drumpf article. When you remove sources, it comes across that you are trying to further qualify your delete !vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf. At the very least, when removing text from the article, as you have continuously been doing, move the sources to the Further reading section. Please take this request seriously, rather than blanking this message. North America 16:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- What reliable source did I delete? My last deletion was designed to remove extraneous notes... not facts. --Potguru (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. North America 16:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Many of those edits (most?) are two part edits where I move a section to another section. Showing that I cut things is not really fair. In some of the cases you pointed to I cut sections and moved them to another page entirely. My edits are quite fair. Now that we've finally moved that silly section to it's own place in the article where people can debate what year Drumpf became Trump your accusation is, to be frank, off base and wrong and it makes assumptions that you are not supposed to make... that is that I am not doing things for the betterment of the community. Kindly take your misguided notions elsewhere. --Potguru (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- This edit you performed is certainly not "fair", particularly while the article is being discussed at AfD. Please slow down. North America 16:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and redirect is (usually) perfectly acceptable and, as I said, I'm trying to end the stupidity in favor of moving forward. To your suggestion of slowing down I am moving at a sloths pace... none of you can keep up with my normal lightning fast maneuvers. --Potguru (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- This was intended for you and relevant to your above comment. By the way, I'm not American and also, I think Kasich would be a better candidate than Trump. starship.paint ~ KO 07:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and redirect is (usually) perfectly acceptable and, as I said, I'm trying to end the stupidity in favor of moving forward. To your suggestion of slowing down I am moving at a sloths pace... none of you can keep up with my normal lightning fast maneuvers. --Potguru (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- This edit you performed is certainly not "fair", particularly while the article is being discussed at AfD. Please slow down. North America 16:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Many of those edits (most?) are two part edits where I move a section to another section. Showing that I cut things is not really fair. In some of the cases you pointed to I cut sections and moved them to another page entirely. My edits are quite fair. Now that we've finally moved that silly section to it's own place in the article where people can debate what year Drumpf became Trump your accusation is, to be frank, off base and wrong and it makes assumptions that you are not supposed to make... that is that I am not doing things for the betterment of the community. Kindly take your misguided notions elsewhere. --Potguru (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. North America 16:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Twitterdrumpf.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Twitterdrumpf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. I, JethroBT 05:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- In particular, I'm referring to your conduct in a number of places like ANI (e.g. , ) with specific editors () and on articles related to Donald Trump (as described in the ANI thread). I, JethroBT 05:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=Jethro single handedly decided that the personal attack on me by another editor where the other editor stated, in no uncertain terms, that MOST of my edits were non-constructive should be allowed to stand as I guess) an accurate description of my contributions. He did this in reaction to a long series of events that he did not review completely. He, wrongly, defended the other editor against me suggesting that my complaint that the editor stated MOST of my edits were non-constructive was insufficient to allow the continued discussion I brought up and he universally closed it (prematurely). Then he closed a heated discussion unilaterally suggesting that the only conclusion was to redirect my article to a poorly written article about the same subject, strange since the conclusion was to merge the articles,. Buy redirecting the better article into the lesser article he is attempting to cover up some of the most interesting work on wikipedia so far this year. The issue is drumpf. Major press picked up the article. The conclusion by the community was CLEARLy to merge the two articles yet he acted unilaterally and blanked and redirected instead. Then he archives the discussion, prematurely... without noting the actual vote conclusions which wa clearly to MERGE. Then he blocked me for 72 hours so I would be relegated to telling my story only on my talk page which they try to bury the important (and well cited )( information I presented in an article that is one of the most edited article in wikipedia today.
1) the discussion of delete/merge/keep was not over, it needs to continue or be reviewed to come to an actual consensus... the norm around here I thought. 2) he unilaterally booted me for 72 hours even though my disruptive period was EXTREMELY SHORT and ended more than a day ago. Per the section I thought the norm was "But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes." That is what Jethro read a full day before blocking me. The only edits I made between the heated period and the block were all HIGHLY CONSTRUCTIVE and well researched. (I was fighting to keep the image of drumpf on the page and 4 editors came in and removed it without first reading or contributing to the important section on the talk page. 3) he closed my complaint against Muboshgu after telling me "You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive." I refuse to listen to anyone who accepts the unreasonable statement that MOST of my contributions were non-constructive. If you don't see that as a personal attack you should probably head back to grade school because even on a playground such words are mean and unwarranted. Yes, I demand an apology.... or to be freed from the jail the user incorrectly single handedly put me in without doing necessary research to determine that MOST of my edits are EXTREMELY constructive, useful and well cited. Block Moboshgu or release me... don't punish me just because you don't like the article I wrote. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114. And allowing the drumpf article to stand, merged with my work is just wrong. Please unarchive the users unwarranted actions.
I CANNOT believe a single user can do SO MUCH damage by blanking and redirecting... ALL the comments from 4 days of work by more than 60 editors is because of JethroBT's poorly considered actions. Not really a suprise that wikipedia has a hard time hkeeping good editors around with such powerfully misguided bully editors as Muboshgu & JethroBT running around. --Potguru (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.