Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 31 December 2016

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 26 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 92 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 63 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 46 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 105 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 71 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Appeal

This is an appeal of the topic ban I received in early July.

Link=

In the topic ban proposal my behavior in this thread was cited as the reason for my topic ban.

In the future, I will take additional time to seek consensus for the edits I make and, whenever necessary, will post edit proposals on the talk page before adding new information to an article. I will also make more frequent recourse to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Furthermore, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit. Ricky81682 mentioned in the topic ban proposal that I shouldn't use sources that aren't available online, so I will also be using more websites and online articles, which I will make sure to read carefully before citing in a Misplaced Pages article.

As can be seen in my block log, I have never been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages before, and I have a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, so I feel that now my topic ban should be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewers of this appeal should keep in mind:

• a primary reason for TH1980's TBAN was his constant and flagrant POV-pushing over a large number of Japan-related articles, not just Korean influence on Japanese culture
• another primary reason was TH1980's constant WP:IDONTHEARTHAT approach to every discussion he took part in and the tendency to bury discussions in comment after repetitive comment to discourage outsiders from examining the meat of the dispute
• TH1980 has a tendency to make sneaky edits against consensus with false or deceptive edit comments
• TH1980's tag-teaming with CurtisNaito, the other party to this TBAN, and who also tried to get this TBAN lifted recently—very unsuccessfully
• TH1980's TBAN has nothing to do with using offline sources, which are never discouraged—this is a red herring. CurtisNaito tried a similar trick in his appeal. It's very likely they're collaborating off-wiki on the wording of these appeals.

TH1980 and CurtisNaito have caused a lot of editors a lot of grief—many of them gave up editing History of Japan entirely over this mess. Please, please, please don't put us all through this mess again. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey is making accusations about collusion and TH1980's intentions without evidence and should be disregarded here. I don't believe TH1980 has ever acted deceptively. I do agree that TH1980's editing has been problematic in this topic area, and that a topic ban was needed, but let's look at the appeal on its merits. TH1980 recognizes that they repeatedly used sources inappropriately in this topic area. What have they proposed to avoid this in the future? Using the reliable sources noticeboard as a check makes sense, and I'd suggest further that they do this before making edits to the article. They also seek to use online sources that are more accessible to other editors. I don't think this is a red herring at all; TH1980 has sometimes misunderstood source content or integrated it inappropriately into articles. To the extent that this content is accessible to other editors and discussed ahead of time, these problems and ensuing headaches in discussions can be avoided. A major problem with TH1980's past conduct was about failing to seek consensus from other editors about their changes. Naturally, efforts to seek agreement about article decisions in this area would be expected, rather than boldly making problematic edits and getting into more disputes. Finally, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit needs a little more specificity about how they will do this, but I recall that TH1980 sometimes wanted to include claims written from nationalist perspectives that conflicted with more neutral sources. TH1980, can I ask how you will identify sources that are more neutral moving ahead, as this was a consistent issue you had in this topic area? I JethroBT 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT. I would carefully review a source to see if it was presenting facts in a neutral or biased manner, and I would avoid using any material that was biased. On a related note, if I came upon a page that I felt lacked a scholar's viewpoint that merited mention, I would propose edits in the manner I did at the Battles of Saratoga talk page re: whether or not Benedict Arnold was at the front during the first battle. TH1980 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the allegation of collusion. Everything else stands. Don't make us go through these circles again. It's eaten through far too many people's patience already. Have you reviewed the thousands upon thousands of bytes of discussions here and at Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture that led to the two being TBANned in the first place? TH1980's bad faith was extremely well established by several editors—he wasn't TBANned for mere "slips", but for persistently misrepresenting the sources, as well as all the other reasons listed above. Please, I JethroBT—don't don't be an accessory to another three years of this garbage. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I have reviewed these discussions many times over, as I've tried to intervene in these disputes. Yes, I am exhausted, too. My read of those discussions was that TH1980 had consistent problems with sources and how to use them in this topic area. They did not adhere to feedback given by you and other editors in too many situations, and did not seem to understand why their edits were problematic. I agree that it was very frustrating. At the same time, this feedback was usually delivered by you and others in a manner I found antagonistic, threatening, and/or belittling. This kind of conduct probably feels good to say at the time to let off some steam, but it violates WP:CIVIL (which I'll readily admit I have not done the best at enforcing because this community is rather divided on the matter) and it just makes the situation worse regardless of whether the substantive advice is right or wrong. If TH1980 engages in the same behavior in this area (e.g. failure to use RS, making controversial edits without consensus, bludgeoning discussions) as before, I will reinstate the topic ban. But the appeal includes a decent plan to avoid the issues that lead to the topic ban in the first place, and that is what is expected, so I support lifting the topic ban. I JethroBT 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "TH1980 had consistent problems with sources" sounds like a polite way of expressing what I said below. Are you agreeing that TH1980 misused sources? Do you see anywhere that TH1980 has acknowledged that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@TH1980: Do you acknowledge you have misused sources in this topic area? I JethroBT 00:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT, No.TH1980 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Thankyouthankyouthankyou! Merry Christmas & Happy Emperor's Birthday, everyone! I was having a shitty day with my laptop on the fritz, but this so makes up for everything! Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, knock it off. Your mocking behavior is disruptive and absolutely unhelpful in having an actual discussion here. This is why folks take such a dim view of discussions here. TH1980, having read your response above and below, I am primarily concerned that you reject misusing using sources in this area when it was clear that you did misuse them. Whether you intended it or not, the beginning of your response below makes it sounds like I (and others) have misunderstood what the problem was. Let me be clear in saying that your topic ban was justified because you misused sources, applied the content inappropriately, and persistently edited against consensus. If you continue to fight this notion, your topic ban is unlikely to be overturned. I JethroBT 04:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT Yes, I fully admitted that my use of sources needed improvement. The only reason why I was initially reluctant to accept the word "misuse" was because I thought it implied that I had put information in the article that was different from what the sources said. Of course, I never did that, nor was that the reason for the topic ban. I pointed out below just one example of how I should have used a broader range of sources and of how I should have explained on the talk page what sources I was using before attempting to add them to the article. The specific example I gave concerned rice transmission, but all the other disputes were of a similar nature. By not using additional sources from a broader range of perspective, I did misuse sources, and I noted in my initial statement how I intend to improve myself in this regard.TH1980 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT To clarify the above, yes, I admit I misused sources. I would like to qualify my admission by stating I did so not with malice aforethought but due to being confused and bewildered by not only Misplaced Pages rules but also the consistently hostile reaction I kept getting. I thus kept editing when I should have stopped and reassessed the situation, for which I am truly sorry. As you can see from the example I cited at the Battles of Saratoga talk page, I have already been taking steps to better my participation as a Misplaced Pages editor.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Fine, I'll "knock it off", but I also expect you to examine the reasons for the TBAN—which, as several of us have told you, was not over "misusing sources". Deal? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT I understand what you are referring to, though. The problem was that I should have cited a broader range of sources and broader range of information. For example, all the books that I was using, including Rhee, Barnes, Nakazono, Imamura, etc... (as I quoted in the link above) said that rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea, and so I put that into the article. However, as all these books also stated, the ultimate source of the rice was China. Therefore, I should have also put into the article that the rice culture that arrived in Japan through Korea initially came from China. Furthermore, other sources were later found indicating that the transfusion of rice culture could possibly have come directly from China, without going through Korea. Therefore, I should have looked deeper into these other theories in advance and included them as well. In my defense, I did include the alternative theories about direct transfer from China after they were pointed out to me, but I should have consulted more sources and included the information right from the beginning. I should have explained what the books that I was using said about the matter before adding them to the article.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This deflective comment in no way reflects the extraordinarily wide varieties of behavioural issues that led to the block. TH1980 was not TBANned for neglecting to mention that rice came from China. I'm going to say this again: TH1980 was not TBANned for neglecting to mention that rice came from China. Do I need to say it again? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps KrakatoaKatie could tell us if TH1980's comments accurately reflect the nature of the TBAN. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito, Softlavender, Spacecowboy420, Nishidani, and Ricky81682:

@Mr rnddude, Johnuniq, Thomas.W, NeilN, Mackensen, and Begoon:

@Sturmgewehr88, Seth Kellerman, and Wehwalt:—have I missed anyone? The disputes were ridiculously long and spread over several pages and archives. Please add anyone I've missed. Overturning this TBAN is not a light decision to make. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus, KoreanSentry, and Homemade Pencils: were not pinged. Incidentally, this topic ban was only related to the edits on Korean influence on Japanese culture. My edits on the article History of Japan were investigated in excruciating detail by an admin who found that my edits there were not problematic.TH1980 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"you are indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Japan, broadly construed"—KrakatoaKatie's message is still there on your talk page, unlike your your bizarre response, which you buried immediately before opening this appeal. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Only six of the nineteen people who stated their opinion supported topic banning me from all articles related to Japan. The source of the confusion was that member Ricky81682 proposed that I "be topic banned from the Korean influence on Japanese culture". That was actually a page ban, not a topic ban. When other users came in saying that they "support a topic ban", they were referring to the original "topic ban from Korean influence on Japanese culture", which was a misnomer, not a topic ban applying to all Japan-related articles.

The vote was as follows:

• Ricky81682=proposed Korean influence "topic ban"
• TH1980=opposed
• 1=Softlavender=supported Japan topic ban
• Nishidani=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• Homemade Pencils=opposed
• Piotrus=opposed
• 2=Curly Turkey=supported Japan topic ban
• CurtisNaito=opposed
• 3=Spacecowboy420=supported Japan topic ban
• Tivanir2=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• Johnuniq=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• 4=Thomas.W=supported Japan topic ban
• Blackmane=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• KoreanSentry=opposed
• Mackensen=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• 5=Begoon=supported Japan topic ban
• 6=Sturmgewehr88=supported Japan topic ban
• H.Humbert=opposed
• Seth Kellerman=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682

Six out of nineteen does not count as a consensus. In fact, the thread was originally archived because a consensus was not reached, but Curley Turkey reactivated the thread. 1 TH1980 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

*eyeroll* I JethroBT—seriously, man, can you still AGF with TH1980 after this performance? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I'm assuming good faith here, but as an uninvolved editor, I'm not familiar with the context of the dispute. Could you please explain how you chose this list of editors to be pinged into this discussion? AlexEng 09:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

AlexEng—from scanning Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination for non-trivial commenters. This is only one of many such exasperatingly long discussions at ANI, ARBCOM, and many talk pages (particularly Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan) over the last three or more years. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng: I cannot find where I contributed to this discussion. --NeilN 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

NeilN—you're right. Sorry for the false ping. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

AlexEng—note well that the thread linked above gives barely half the picture, as the discussion spilled out into the Korean influence on Japanese culture talk page, where several of those who had been defending TH1980 came to realize what he was all about and returned to ANI to get TH1980 and CurtisNatio TBANned. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• The problem was not related to seeking consensus and so forth—it was because the edits were consistently and persistently slanting the articles towards a certain POV. The topics are obscure and not easily evaluated by editors who have not studied in the area. However, it is easy for anyone to cherry-pick factoids or draw inappropriate conclusions about what sources say, then consistently and persistently slant the articles towards a certain POV. The topic ban is helping the encyclopedia and removing it would be unhelpful. The OP above reads like a how-to WP:CPUSH guide—it is not reasonable that the few editors with knowledge in the area should be expected to battle each factoid and inappropriate conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reasons for the topic ban were many and extensive and longterm, and involved obstructionism, deception, manipulation, tag-teaming/collusion, and endless amounts of IDHT non-collaborationism and POV-pushing. The wording of the topic-ban itself should not be taken at shallow face value; the background for it requires reading of the entire interminable thread starting here: . It hasn't even been six months since the indefinite topic ban was imposed. I honestly think that the accuracy and reliability of the project is at stake if TH1980 goes back to his deceptive, manipulative POV pushing. His appeal request bears similarity to the equally blithe appeal by his tag-team pal, CurtisNaito: . I really think the TBan should stay indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - At this time, I am not convinced that overturning this ban would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but the appeal itself is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - God no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose—the appeal addresses virtually none of the wide variety of behaviour issues that lead to the indefinite TBAN in the first place, and the appeal has misrepresented the TBAN as being related to a single article rather than what the TBAN explicitly states: "articles relating to Japan, broadly construed". Note: while this member of the duo has a clean block log, they do have an an interaction ban handed down a year ago from the Arbs for WP:HOUNDING, relating to articles involving Japan-Korea disputes. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my extensive editing experience with the appealing editor and his statements during this appeal. I originally would've !supported an appeal with probation, but he seems like he'd easily slip back into old habits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass PRODing

All of the nearly 355 articles prodded by user Sportsfan 1234 should be deprodded as mass deletion can never be uncontroversial. It always requires discussion. In the absence of easier/quicker alternatives at removing the PRODs, I would suggest a WP:MASSROLLBACK of the user's edits.

A bigger number of prods were originally added but many were reverted and some expired prods have already been deleted. A list of pages currently carrying the prod tag is at draft:mass sports afd. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

During what period of time did SF1234 prod these articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

About an hour, starting around 00:00 December 24, looking at their edit log. Dragons flight (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct. Sportsfan 1234, was there some sort of discussion before you did this, because on the face of it, this seems disruptive. I note that most if not all have now been reverted. Lankiveil 06:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

That's not correct. It had been going on since 20 December. They haven't all been reverted, Lankiveil. See draft:mass sports afd which lists 355 pages still carrying the PROD tag. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've provided the AN notice that you should have but did not. We need a response here, as this is quite serious. This is borderline bot-like behavior and a complete bludgeoning of the deletion processes. As the IP stated, mass deletions are not uncontroversial. Looking through deleted contributions, there are a good dozen or so articles that I plan to WP:REFUND after this thread concludes which seem along the similar vein. ~ Rob₁₃ 09:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute. Hobit (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess he'd get sick of telling me 100+ times about the prods, as I created many of the xxxx at the 1996 Summer Paralympics articles. I removed the prod from Zimbabwe at the 1996 Summer Paralympics per WP:NOLY (full reason is in the edit summary). I think there's two issues here: 1) Mis-use of the Prod facility ("Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion") and 2) a wider consensus that's needed at WP:SPORT/WP:OLY, etc, to agree the notability of individual countries at multi-sporting events. I've breifly raised this before, but it needs wider input. I think everyone agrees that countries at the Olympics/Paralympics are notable, but then to extend this to the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Pan-American Games, etc, etc. I could start a RfC in the New Year when most people will be able to add their views. Lugnuts 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit: Per WP:BLANKING, removal of content from one's own usertalk page is permitted (with some exceptions) and is an indication that the user has read and understands what was originally posted. I have no concern with Lugnuts' actions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look a bit closely at the edit history of my talkpage for 23rd/24th Dec, you'll see that I DID NOT remove any of the notices, rather it was Sportsfan who removed them as quickly as they posted them. Lugnuts 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

↑ What he said. :) Yeah, it was the original editor who removed it. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit and Lugnuts: My apologies; I misread the edit history. Removing PROD notices like that is certainly dirty pool. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see a consensus above on the abusive use of PROD. Can a an admin or rollbacker please bring down the mass rollback tool on Sportsfan, to remove the PRODs? Is it technically possible? 103.6.159.68 (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, all of the articles that I have proded were duplication of information that existed on another article. "It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct" - that's not true. If an article has literally one-two lines its very easy to read (especially since most are copy and paste with the country name changed). The reason I went through the prod process is it allows for the articles to be improved. For ex. the Indonesian articles at various games were improved to the point a deletion is not necessary anymore. If the articles are not improved it shows its probably necessary to delete. Furthermore, "I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute." - I started an AFD before and Lugnuts had removed the notice(s) and asked for it not be placed on his talk page. I think the issue here is not notability as it has been established. However, the issue I have is the duplication of information, which I am in the opinion of should not exist across multiple articles. Also as mentioned on another talk page, I apologize if this is seen as disruptive, but my intentions were never to disrupt the project, merely to reduce the amount of pages that I felt were duplicating information (granted there are literally hundreds of them). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"I started an AFD before and Lugnuts had removed the notice(s) and asked for it not be placed on his talk page" - I had to do some digging about this, and it goes back to March! I dropped a note on Sportfan's page asking not to list them individually on my talkpage. My main gripe would have been getting a talkpage notification every other minute for the duration of you proding/AfDing them. One grouped notice would have been fine. And pretty much every article I've ever created is on my watchlist, so I would have seen them come in. But that's an aside to what others (including myself) see as a mis-use of the prod function. I would have started some discussion first at the relevant projects to get some sort of consensus on what to do. Lugnuts 15:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've de-proded a ton of these now. You can see the edit summary I used on this example. Some were incredibly poor sub-stubs, such as this one, so I've redirected them. There's still a lot left with the prod tag. I might get time to look at them later, but feel free to chip in, unless the mass-rollback is rolling into town soon. Note that my de-prodding isn't an endorsment of each article's notability. Some of them look questionable. Lusophony Games, anyone?! Lugnuts 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

All the prods on nation pages at a multi sporting event have been removed now. However the Colombia at the 2011 Summer Universiade page for some reason is still in the category. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, although if you two had informed me before that you planned to deprod manually, I would have instead asked to replace them with AfD tags! Anyway, I think a big trout needs to slapped upon WikiProject Multi-sport events for failing to, as of yet, establishing the notability guidelines for the different types of articles. Basically, they all fall in 7 hierarchies, as I have identified at Draft:Misplaced Pages:Notability of multi-sport event articles (Which I'd be obliged if moved to main WP space). The tick presently denote the existence of that category of articles. Although in the longer run, they should be replaced to denote notability, which needs to be established through a series of AfDs and RfCs (Which I don't plan to start myself: I’m too busy). Help from Sportsfan 1234 and Lugnuts will be much appreciated in this regard. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And yeah, those annoying question marks indicate that the existence of those categories of articles haven't yet been checked. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I note that Sportsfan 1234 have turned many of this into AfD nominations (which is fine) but they have not tagged many of the nominated articles. Nabla (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not true (at least the first bit). Please get your facts straight before commenting @Nabla There is only one discussion which had two articles that were proded (the others were added by another user). All other active AFD discussions started by me were not originally proded. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that you PRODed hundreds of articles and were asked here to use AfD instead of mass PRODing, I assumed they were mostly the same. I now proceed to assuming they are different. That is not the relevant issue, the main issue is that you do mass nomination of articles for deletion without taking the appropriate care to advertise the nominations. Nabla (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pechkurov Aleksey Suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Created by a sock puppet of Alex9777777. I am reporting it here because he reverts nominations for (speedy) deletion. --jdx 13:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles

Input on whether these articles are copyvio's

The article AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains (and others like it) are about a list created by an entity based on their subjective criteria. WP reproduces the entire list. The list is copyrighted here . Is republishing the entire list a copyright violation? The list differs from statistical sports lists which can be generated mathematically. These lists seem to be the opinion published under copyright. Thoughts? --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

They would normally be, however, we do have an ORTS ticket that AFI has put these lists into the PD (see that list's talk page for the ticket #). --MASEM (t) 04:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Doh. Didnt see the boilerplate notice. I can't check the actual OTRS ticket but it seems to be addressed. I'll look at a few more similar lists to see if if this is the case as well. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

IP editor votes in RfC and closes it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

192.44.242.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has !voted in this RFC: Talk:North Korea#Should we use juche in the infobox?. The IP is using a proxy and may be a sockpuppet. I am about to leave for an appointment, so I don't have time to investigate and challenge the close. Perhaps someone else could take a look. Thank you.- MrX 11:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The close has been reverted, which is clearly the appropriate action here - the closer isn't uninvolved and the close rationale of "overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox" clearly isn't true (opinion is much more evenly divided than that). Hut 8.5 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. - MrX 12:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Article in an, apparently, abandoned user's sandbox

There's an article in a user's sandbox that's been there untouched for more than two years. I have the feeling that the user has abandoned the article. The article has the makings of an excellent contribution to the Misplaced Pages. However, it needs more inline citations, and I'm willing to take on this task. I've followed the article because it is a subject of much interest to me. Is there anything that Misplaced Pages administrators, or anyone else, can do about this article? I'd like to see it moved to article space. Here's the link to the users sandbox. I posted a suggestion to the user on his / her talk page sometime ago about this article, without response. Also, there is another article Draft:Amistad Research Center, different content about the same topic. This second draft article has not been touched in six months or so and is, in my opinion, not as good as the one in the user's sandbox. Can you resolve this issue or provide guidance? Thank you.......Nolabob (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that another user has submitted the user sandbox draft for AFC review. If you or the other editor want to improve it while awaiting the review you might want to read WP:IBID. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts may also be of assistance. They deal with this type of issue on a regular basis and should know most of the gotchas to avoid. --Allen3  13:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with a CSD Nomination

Progressive Democratic Party (Spain) has been nominated for CSD for a couple days now. I've looked at it a couple of times but I am not sure I am following the rational correctly and out of an abundance of caution I thought I'd ask for a second opinion on this one. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like they want Progressive Democratic Party (Spain, 1879) moved to Democratic Progressive Party (Spain) and Democratic Progressive Party (Spain, 1978) to Progressive Democratic Party (Spain). Asking @Sfs90: to make sure though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying. The article about the Progressive Democratic Party (Spain, 1879) has to be moved to Democratic Progressive Party (Spain) (because the correct translation of "Partido Progresista Demócrata" is "Democratic Progressive Party", not "Progressive Democratic Party") but an article with this name already existed (the article about a "Partido Demócrata Progresista" from 1978, this one that was originally at Progressive Democratic Party (Spain)); that's why I moved the two articles to another name and asked for deletion of the previous names to make space to move the articles to a title with the correct translation (Progressive Democratic Party (Spain, 1879) to Democratic Progressive Party (Spain), and Democratic Progressive Party (Spain, 1978) to Progressive Democratic Party (Spain)). --Sfs90 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no one is objecting and it sounds like you know what you are doing. I have deleted the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've already made the moves to the correct translations, but I'm going to ask you one more thing: if you could delete this color template to also make space to the move, and the title of the template match with the correct current name of the article. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested Move: Steamboat Bill

Please could an admin look at this RM. It has been open for a while now, but no-one has contributed to it for the best part of a week. Note that I have contributed to the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Closed in favor of moving, since consensus was clearly in favor of moving; I also left a stern warning not to impose MOS:JR on non-biographies. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts 18:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That "stern warning not to impose MOS:JR on non-biographies" was highly inappropriate, since all previous RM discussions of such things have closed with consensus to apply MOS:JR even to non-bios. Your closing statement sounded more like an anti-MOS rant than a neutral close. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely inappropriate to use admin status to push personal political crusades. The community expects admins to adhere to the high standards laid out in WP:ADMIN in this respect. Tony (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking back to refresh my memory of past anti-MOS moves by Nyttend, I found his rants at Talk:Harrison–Crawford State Forest#Requested move. I think there have been more, but I'm not sure how to find them. It seems to me that Nyttend should recuse himself from closing discussions involving the MOS, given this strong anti-MOS history of quite a few years. Perhaps a move review is in order (even if it doesn't change the decision, a more sensible closing statement might be arrived at). Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here, very recently, you took a strong position on exactly the topic you just closed: User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing. If that's not WP:INVOLVED, I don't know what is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Threatening one entire group of editors with sanctions just for having an opinion on the matter that the admin does not agree with (or having a discussion the admin is personally tired of and should opt to ignore and go do something else) is a serious WP:INVOLVED failure. Nyttend does have strong views on the topic at issue, expressed in the RfC on it at WP:VPPOL in February , and is thus clearly WP:Supervoting. More importantly, it's beyond the pale for an admin to attempt to suppress future RM discussions about an issue that bothers them for whatever reason. The strong bias is self-evident in this "judicial activism" close, and reaffirmed by Nyttend's comment above. It is not Nyttend's right to administratively declare for (or, more to the point, against) everyone else what a guideline may pertain to; that's a community consensus matter.

  Cases like this particular RM are about "edge" or "grey-area" matters, and require consensus discussion to see how the community wants to apply which guidelines and when. It's a necessary consequence of MoS and the naming conventions guidelines being guidelines, to which exceptions are sometimes held to apply. An argument for an exception necessitates a discussion about the case-by-case merits of such an idea. These normal and expected discussions about article titles essentially only happen when moves are proposed and aired out. Yet the closing admin is unilaterally attempting to forbid any such discussion ever happening again about their pet nit-pick.

  Background: The consensus at WP:RM on the "Jr. comma" has been entirely in favor of removing it, with exceptions only (so far as I have seen) for titles of published works that include the comma and do so consistently (off-WP), which is not the case here. This source consistency requirement is part of all MoS provisions about style variance (MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, etc.), and of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. The on-WP consistency with regard to MOS:JR in particular has been applied to literally everything else in addition to bios, from buildings to ships to organizations to artworks, named for people with "Jr" or "Sr" in their names, as well as fictional characters. Nyttend's wishful thinking that MOS:JR somehow "only" applies to bios is demonstrably false, and was never intended that way to begin with, or this would have been stipulated in the VPPOL RfC – an RfC that Nyttend is essentially trying to undo by personal fiat. Note that Nyttend's comment in the RfC dismissed such consistency as "rule creep" and expressed a desire that such matters be determined on an article-by-article basis. This is essentially an anti-consensus argument against the very existence of MOS, WP:AT, and the naming convention guidelines, which evolved for the principal purpose of restraining the constant tendency of people to continually fight and rehash about such trivia on page after page, day after day, year after year, which would be (and historically was) a tremendous waste of editorial time and source of frustration and stress.

  The closer's advocacy on this trivial matter is a good example of the conflict over meaningless style trivia that ArbCom has warned against repeatedly. The comma in this construction is quite literally meaningless and serves no semantic purpose, being just redundant clutter that some hang onto out of some sense of nationalism and nostalgia (the comma used to be preferred in American publications, but this has not been true since ca. the 1980s, just as the hyphen in "to-day" disappeared by the 1930s, and the circumflex in "rôle" by the 1960s). Fighting to including it against guideline consensus (reaffirmed in a VPPOL RfC!) serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and is a classic example of what "tendentious editing" refers to. It is also counter to WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policies; little camps of editors with a stylistic axe to grind do not get to make up their own fiefdom rules against site-wide guidelines. Otherwise MoS, AT, and the NC pages, lots of other guidelines and policies to boot, would have no reason to exist.

  PS: I think this close should go to WP:MR (if it's not simply retracted or voided, and closed by someone else properly, without having to invoke an additional layer of process). The closer does not appear to have evaluated the merits of the arguments presented at all, but simply done a voting head-count (in the one RM on the matter to date with numbers on the closer's side), and to have given more weight to a pile of WP:ILIKEIT votes than to policy- and RS-based reasoning presented by others.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the closer did not evaluate the merits of the arguments simply because they went against you is highly inappropriate. One could equally say that any argument in favor of deliberately falsifying the title of a well-known film that's spelled correctly in major references like the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, all to adhere slavishly to a style guideline from another WikiProject entirely, is an improper argument and that the closer behaved logically, reasonably and admirably.

And incidentally the MS:BIO guideline is only for names, anyway ... not movie titles.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit overboard with the warning, but the RM's close was obvious and correct. The film's name contains the comma, it is not a real person but the name of a well-known and honored film, and bringing it back to its obviously real name can only help Misplaced Pages's accuracy. Randy Kryn 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Randy, this is not a place to re-argue for and against the move. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish seems to be doing a good job of that, maybe you can add his name in front or back of mine on your note. Randy Kryn 19:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Absolutely not: if you look through the keep votes, you'll find numerous people rejecting this attempt to apply a subject-specific MOS page to a topic outside that subject; consensus could hold that WP:JR is a model that should be followed here, but this clearly wasn't the case. Other uninvolved parties would do well to observe that we have significant double standards in play here: a small minority demand that their weak arguments be given precedence over the stronger arguments of the majority, they make a big complaint when an uninvolved admin closes the discussion in line with consensus instead of in line with their weaker arguments, they fail to notify the admin in question, and when two people rehash the original arguments at the complaint instead of restricting their comments to the issue at hand, only the stronger majority argument is objected to. This is not good-faith collaborative editing: it's disruptive and tendentious, and it needs to be handled accordingly. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  "This is not good-faith collaborative editing: it's disruptive and tendentious, and it needs to be handled accordingly" sounds like it was written about the WP:TAGTEAM who have repetitively resisted virtually every single MOS:JR compliance move, about bio articles or otherwise, since the RfC, presenting the same already-rejected arguments every single time. I have never in my decade-plus on Misplaced Pages seen this level of repeat forum shopping to try to WP:WIN against an already established consensus. Its a problem, it needs to stop, and it's become even more obviously a problem now that someone with admin bits is involved in it, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Everything had stopped, the comma thing was over. But then someone had to try to extend it to films about fictional people, especially one with such renown and honor. Maybe a bridge too far. I don't know why you, who seem reasonable at many points, would want to 'start this up again' by not endorsing this move, and opening up the same can of worms. Don't blame me. Randy Kryn 22:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Nobody tried to extend it to films. That film had been at the comma-free title since its creation many years ago. There was no need for someone to try to put a comma into it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Disagree with Dicklyon and others arguing in favor of deliberately falsifying a movie title so that it adheres to a WP:BIO style guideline that does not apply to WP:FILM. I don't understand why that's so important to that editor and others arguing, in one case with inappropriate wall-of-text bludgeoning, to not accept the RfC close. Falsifying the title of a well-known film that's spelled correctly in every major source including the Library of Congress' National Film Registry seems extraordinarily non-encyclopedic. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Why would Rotten Tomatoes and this original movie poster "deliberately falsify" the title? Or maybe that's not what they're doing. Maybe they just have different styles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Rotten Tomatoes is hardly a journalistic site, so there it's a matter of sloppiness and low standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be better than that. If you want proper standards, look to the Library of Congress. That's the standard to which we should strive.

  And aside from the fact that the poster is not the movie, most posters do show the comma: , , , . You know why? Because that's the actual, onscreen title. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Library of Congress and the American Film Institute. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

L'honorable - Standard offer request

L'honorable is requesting the Standard Offer.

• L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've transcluded a section from their talkpage below to use for discussion so that they may participate in the conversation. SQL 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

@PhilKnight: much obliged you unblocked me on English Misplaced Pages, for which I am most grateful indeed. Despite protestations by some to the contrary, it seems to me that the stigma of being blocked on one Wiki can cause reputational damage on other Wikis? I can well understand that for really bad eggs, such protective measures provide swift mechanisms to ensure careful safe-guarding throughout Wiki's pages. But, unless I am thoroughly mistaken, this could also provide a mechanism for grudge-blocking, thereby possibly creating vicious circles (or downward spirals), ie. a domino effect?

I hope these general comments avoid immediate recrimination(s), and I can elaborate once I know with whom to liaise in more detail. Perhaps you or someone else in authority on the relevant Wiki could guide me as how to treat Steinsplitter's summary block of me? which provides absolutely no right of reply, incl. Talk Page etc on Wikimedia Commons (I have emailed, but to no avail). Many thanks in advance for your co-operation. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See also : Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable.

PS. perhaps the carry-on of the Commons Admins above (qv. Commons link) could be reviewed, because for me it lacks impartiality and objectivity, otherwise known as nous (given that Steinsplitter is imposing my total block)? I am still dismayed how the uploading of my own OStJ on Wiki Commons, and subsequent contre-temps, could have led to being so summarily banished. All I wish for is a right of reply, and can provide a précis of Commons discussions, should that be necessary.

I would recommend leaving commons matters on commons instead of bringing them here. SQL 01:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@SQL: I wholeheartedly agree with you - but not entirely in that I have been totally blocked from Commons & cannot reply anywhere (which attitude seemingly spreads contagion, qv. Wiki13: U heeft geen bewerkingsrechten: De opgegeven reden van uw blokkering luidt: Sokpopmisbruik). Both of which seem to me highly unreasonable (although more so the Commons block), hence my approach here. I don't want to discuss it here either, but I can't on Wiki Commons for reasons as stated, ie. "account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page". Any help and guidance will be much appreciated. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For fear of being reprimanded, may I make just the small point that there is no way the article about Prince Albert should be a featured article at the moment. It needs further rectification. Sorry, but I don't know what else to say? Best, L'honorable (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Without wishing to make a drama out of a crisis, should it not already have been noted, let me state that I am also blocked (as a result of alleged sockpuppetry) on German Misplaced Pages, whence Steinsplitter hails. I do hope that Wiki has facilities for preventing pursuit of global grudges? Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki as a safe environment

May I also say, further to recently completing a Community Engagement Insights/About CE Insights survey, Misplaced Pages to me does not now feel as if it is providing security when editing, which surely one might expect (from such a reputable global entity)? However tangental may be a reason, I remain in fear of being blocked again - this cannot be good and clearly negates any notion of "community spirit"; furthermore it certainly is a distraction to anyone attempting to provide Wiki with substantive info (attacked ↔ blocked, etc). Please advise further (& if the contrary can be explained, I should be delighted). Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

First step would be to treat others with proper respect and not introducing conflicts of other Wikis (incl. Commons) to ENWP. Act polite and friendly. Treat others with proper respect. Make your edits to the point. Treat others with proper respect. Make sure your edits are relevant to the subject of the talk page you are editing on. Treat others with proper respect. Do not use sockpuppets. Treat others with proper respect. The Banner talk 13:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you feel that you are being harassed, seek help from an administrator and do not respond in kind. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: your advice is helpful - thank you. Can I liaise with an Admin on Wiki Commons via the link you kindly provide above?

The reason being is that my Talk Page on Commons reads as follows (which presently provides me with no right of reply on Commons whatsoever) :

qte

User talk:L'honorable

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Blocked Indefinitely This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Kurdî | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/−

Kindly explain how this was determined as "indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)"? Many thanks. SingSling, 119.73.229.36 19:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Details of the history of this block can be found in the history of this page and in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 62. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

unqte

My initial query simply concerns whether "the stigma of being blocked on one Wiki can cause reputational damage on other Wikis?". Here The Banner, or anyone else for that matter, could be helpful should they so wish. Despite being slightly repetitive, I would not wish to categorise The Banner's intervention above as harassment, but rather to engage his and/or others' support, with a view to my continuing to help improve Wiki's pages (qv. Armorial britannique - clearly more difficult when blocked from Commons).

I can provide much further explanation, as necessary (but suffice to say both blocks arose after uploading of my own OStJ decoration); thus with whom can I liaise ref Wiki Commons whilst being subject to a total block from communicating on that Wiki?

Thanking you in advance for any advice and assistance - looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. in the circumstances, how to petition to be unblocked on Wiki Commons svp?

Prince Albert

Qv. User talk:DrKay : Prince Albert (featured article).

Hi Celia Homeford : I note that you have reverted my edits to the article about Prince Albert, which you reversed & then someone else recorrected you but you persist in reverting to your version of events.

I am afraid to say that your edits are incorrect on all sorts of levels, but let us just take two grammatical ones first, since these surely are beyond dispute!

In the blazon you state : "plume of peacock's feathers" this could be "plume of peacock's feathers", "plume of peacock feathers" or "plume of a peacock's feathers", but NOT what you say.

Under Legacy you state : "All manner of objects are named after Prince Albert, from Lake Albert in Africa to the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan..." ; lakes and cities are never normally described as objects! Reverting back & do let's please work together to perfect this article. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking ahead with hindsight

RSVP re my comments - others are quick to launch volleys of abuse, but not so quick when easily countermanded. If there is an easy answer as to why everyone has gone silent please do share it with me. Many thanks, L'honorable (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: do you realise how this looks from the outside? Please let us both draw a line under this episode. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Return to the source

Please advise a telephone number/email with whom I can liaise directly so as to absolve myself of these present difficulties. Otherwise the arguments keep going round and round in circles. SVP, L'honorable (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Who is this Utilisateur:195.220.105.13 svp?

Under l'Armorial britannique, a mauvais blason has been introduced in the merry-go-round - please advise. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(& sous User talk:Huon:

@L'honorable: I don't have an opinion on what happened over at the Commons. The discussion seems to be old and archived. I would strongly advise you not to raise Commons-related issues on the English Misplaced Pages. Huon (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

Strong advice

Does that equal back down? L'honorable (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• All I wish for is to have a voice as to why I was blocked indefinitely on Wiki Commons. Noone so far seems able/inclined to help provide one. Please advise. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there really such an interminable lack of coherence between Commons / English Wiki / French Wiki / etc? I don't believe so. But, I am at pains being on the outside as to how to bridge the gap? Veuillez nous aviser! L'honorable (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We cannot tell who is editing from a certain IP address, and even if we could we would respect that IP editor's privacy. If you have issues on the French Misplaced Pages, you will need to discuss them over there, for example at the relevant French article's talk page. The English Misplaced Pages, French Misplaced Pages, Commons and whatever other projects the Wikimedia Foundation hosts are separate sister projects, and they should be kept separate. Bringing issues from one project over to another is strongly frowned upon and in fact saw you blocked once already. Huon (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: I agree but am well aware of how to be pushed from one bureau to the other. Simply put, how can I satisfactorily liaise with a Wiki Commons Admin - perhaps you know how? Merci, L'honorable (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I cannot give you any advice on that. Huon (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

De rien : je recherche toujours! Merci, L'honorable (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. qui est l'inconnu : User:195.220.105.13 svp? Huon le connais?

I already answered that question above. Again, this is an issue on the French Misplaced Pages and should be discussed over there (and since I don't speak French beyond the very basics, asking me questions in French is rather unhelpful). Huon (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem on French Wiki, but there is one on Wiki Commons, which everybody seems to want to swerve... You have a Wiki Commons ID. So, much obliged if you could raise the issue yourself? "Why is it that L'honorable was so summarily blocked without any right of reply?"... AND let's see what they say. Be fab if you could help - looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to get involved with that. There was a community discussion about your conduct on the Commons that led to the block; I will not engage in proxy edits on behalf of a blocked user. Huon (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully aware of that community discussion. But, the whole point it wasn't much of a "community" discussing it. I do not know those concerned (do you?), but they seemed to quickly agree among themselves that I was persona non grata. Why? Who knows, but possibly... they didn't want to know...

Question is: in such circumstances what right of reply is there? Please advise. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Armorial britannique

Huon : I now see why you were trying draw attention to French Misplaced Pages. Please see my latest corrections to l'Armorial britannique. It seems to me a sad state of affairs when, having spent a great deal of time and effort to set up an article worthy of reading, one is subject to constant contradiction. How is it that inaccuracies can be introduced (by different IPs) & nobody seems to care who is doing this?

Nonetheless, you may well have done us all a favour? How is it just when such an article as l'Armorial britannique is nearing completion (sic) one who knows about the subject is suddenly blocked from Wiki Commons?

Apart from anything else, I trust that the introduction of Oxford University's arms is welcome sous Universités et sociétés savantes before we treat any other discrepancies? L'honorable (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord Snowdon (formerly Viscount Linley) now bears his father's arms (without GCVO circlet) & Lady Sarah Chatto's are likewise but borne on a lozenge ; Lord Ulster, being first non-royal generation bears his patrilineal arms as commoner, until such time as he may succeed to his father's titles, marshalling appropriately those of his wife's family. L'honorable (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The most important issue at hand is that by having updated this article, it would seem I have now been excluded (from Commons) just at its most critical point. Without the background there would be no article. How can this be (if Wiki wishes to remain properly encyclopædic that is)?

PS. how is it that edits happen without any record (am I missing something)? L'honorable (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

PPS. Please remove the caption Princes consorts britanniques and replace with Prince consort britannique in the article Albert de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha. There has been only one Prince Consort. Merci à vous. L'honorable (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@L'honorable: you are blocked on commons and frwiki, which means that you may not edit, and it is against policy to edit on behalf of a duly blocked user at least on this Misplaced Pages, and I presume all of the others. I am not an administrator on any of the other wikis and I have only very limited experience on commons, et je ne comprend pas vraiment bien en francais. It's up to you to address your block on those wikis, administrators on this wiki can't help you. Please stop asking editors here to deal with your block or violate it on your behalf; if you continue you will be re-blocked.

To address your commons block, please start with commons:Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block.

You actually don't appear to be blocked on the French Misplaced Pages, as far as I can tell, so you should be as free to edit there as you are here, subject to policies and community norms which differ between different Wikipedias, so I really can't help you there either.

Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: sort of proves my point - people are quick to assume I'm blocked on something when I'm not & they're queueing up to block me again (or is that not what your message was meant to suggest). In other words, once you've been sent down rehabilitation ain't easy, no matter what the initial cause. Anyway I have just deleted your incorrect assertion that I am blocked on French Wiki - I hope that does not lead to a sanction? (In any event, had you taken the time to read carefully : There is no problem on French Wiki, but there is one on Wiki Commons, which everybody seems to want to swerve... you presumably would not have issued such inappropriate warnings)?

You keep reading me my rights : you are blocked on commons, which means that you may not edit, and it is against policy to edit on behalf of a duly blocked user at least on this Misplaced Pages, and I presume all of the others. I am not an administrator on any of the other wikis and I have only very limited experience on commons, et je ne comprend pas vraiment bien en francais. It's up to you to address your block on those wikis, administrators on this wiki can't help you. Please stop asking editors here to deal with your block or violate it on your behalf; if you continue you will be re-blocked. (Why do you put this in bold, unless to try to look clever and attract others' attention when I already know it?)

I am only too aware of my rights now & I am scared stiff of doing anything just in case somebody takes exception... BUT, this is not the way. I invite people (like Alphabeta & Clindberg who are helpful), to take a look at my contributions in aid of enhancing Wiki (& I so wish that much less time could be spent arguing one way or the other)... My question was & remains that when one is blocked in totality from one Wiki (in this instance of course Wiki Commons - it has been described by another as a grudge block), how on earth is it possible to remedy matters?

You referred me to : Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block. But this is absolutely useless in my case because I am not allowed to edit that site. On top of that, you intimate that by bringing this up on this Wiki I will get blocked... Comment?? Please be more helpful (unless that is you are angling to exclude me). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a sorry state of affairs when one cannot even seek guidance from fellow Wikipedians without being reprimanded or scalded with the suggestion that sanctions may follow, if I continue to ask such questions...

Please could someone read carefully my question & answer accordingly? Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've offered a link to the information you need to read, in which are detailed your options for appealing a block when you can't edit the site (to quote: "Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator.") By "another administrator", they mean a Wikimedia Commons administrator, not an administrator on a separate wiki such as this one. Each Wikimedia project is separate and independent, with its own policies and administrators. Nobody on English Misplaced Pages can appeal the block on your behalf, nor can we email anybody on your behalf. This is the best answer anyone here can give you, and this is not the first time this answer has been given to you.

I'm not trying to warn you off from addressing your commons block, I and others are only trying to point you in the right direction. If you won't accept this response then that's only on you. However, I am warning you for the final time that if you continue to inquire on English Misplaced Pages about your Commons block without taking any of the advised action to address it yourself, after now having been given a link to address it and being advised by multiple editors that there's nothing more we can do for you here, you are being disruptive and will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: many thanks indeed for your helpful advice above which is crystal clear. Rest assured I have no intention to enquire again here about a commons matter; however, I should just point out, solely so you can get an understanding as to how things look from here, that I have now sent 4 e-mails over the past four weeks and the only reply I have received is one saying that he can't deal with it... Looks like I'm a bit stuffed! Anyway, really do appreciate your help - much better liaising with those who are trying to help (than people who delight in stitching one up). Many thanks again. Best, L'honorable (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Other people's talk page posts should not be changed, added to, or have words amended or removed. It is disruptive to the discussion, regardless of reason. (Re this and this.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I knew this which is precisely why I clarified it - you noticed, thanks - whilst editing... Still doesn't alter the fact that no-one has so far addressed my concerns as raised above. What to do? L'honorable (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot disagree with those who have pointed out that these are different wikis, different communities, and you need to adress the issue yourself within the other wikis. You can request an unblock at Commons via the link provided above, even if your talk page access has been removed (which I don't know if it has, but you said you cannot edit the website), since their unblocking procedure has an email option, but in any case it looks like you have been explicitly asked not to bring up your issues at Commons here. It is also not very strange if people thought you were blocked at fr.wiki when you asked editors to make specific edits there. It would seem much more constructive to use your volunteer time at en.wiki to deal with en.wiki articles. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, L'honorable, but under no circumstances is it allowed to alter edits from somebody else. Even the correction of grave mistakes is not allowed.

By the way, you state that the Commons page about appealing your block is useless as you are not allowed to edits there (Did you manage to get your talk page blocked too?). But is still gives you an option: Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator.

But please, stop bringing your Commons-conflict to ENWP. The Banner talk 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there - I seem to be like a punch bag. I have no intention of bringing any Commons issues here at all. The only thing I want to know is how to approach Wiki Commons when I have been issued with a total block. Had this been answered in the first instance there would have been no need to have mentioned it further. Anyway looks like e-mail is the only possible option, although I have already tried this & have received no reply for several weeks now. So, in the spirit of co-operation, if anyone could advise a recommended e-mail (re Commmons) that would be much much appreciated. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization and overlinking

Please don't capitalize words mid-sentence or overlink common terms. You were told not to do this at least twice before in January 2016 and October 2015, but you are persisting in doing it again. This wrongheaded stubbornness is rapidly taking you towards another indefinite block. DrKay (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please give over, Dr Kay. I have made some valuable edits to Wiki, and I can appreciate no-one likes to be contradicted (nor do I!), but it just seems to me that I should bury my head in the sand because clearly I am on everyone's watchlist & the moment I overturn someone's else's edit I get it in the neck. I am going to sign off now because I have had enough, but please reflect on why you insist on calling David Cameron's elder (not older) brother as Allan when he is in fact called Alex??? I am quite dumbfounded & certainly seem to be the target of a heck of a lot of abuse for simply wanting matters to be correct. I suppose by your now stating in writing "This wrongheaded stubbornness is rapidly taking you towards another indefinite block" is a way of your starting to orchestrate this process? If enough people follow your lead & momentum builds...

I have stated more than once that we should work together. Why not? L'honorable (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. you even now lecture me about The Prince Consort and revert the edits which were supported by another. This is clear bias against me. Review that article yourself & you should easily be able to see that it is not worthy of being a so-called "Featured Article" in its present state. Morever, why do you inject such a tone of hostility in your dealings with me, when I am sure if we both take a deep breath we'd get along just fine.

If you bothered to investigate the matter you would easily discover that his name is Allan as well as Alex and he is an older and an elder brother. But that is beside the point. It is my comment. You must not edit other people's comments. You have been told this multiple times, even in the section above this one twice. If I choose to say Allan or choose to say older instead of elder it is not for you to alter my comment. You even went beyond altering the name and adjective by introducing links, words, and tense changes. You even altered the meaning of my comment by changing "may" to "will", which changes the meaning from implying that it is not certain but only one possibility to indicating definite certainty, something I did not do. You must not edit other people's comments. You must not change their meaning. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: why adopt such a grumpy tone with me? You of course may choose what you wish to state on Wiki, but please defer to those who have facts and knowledge at their fingertips and also desist from insulting me further as you have done in your opening gambit above.

Moreover you have swerved my offer of working together. Why? L'honorable (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. to me it looks like you are simply spoiling for a fight - which by the way I shall swerve. Thank you.

Blatant hostility from a fellow Wikipedian (much to my disappointment)

To say that I am cheesed off by all of this is an understatement, since could have been foretold by under the section Prince Albert (above) but you can read beneath all the flagrant name-calling, abuse, accusatory behaviour, a full explanation (following which I implore whoever has the power for this bullying to stop svp). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Albert, Prince Consort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a strange feeling this is what you are angling for - why, oh why DrKay? Do you really want to see the back of me? Anyway doesn't alter the fact that the article needs correcting. L'honorable (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no Talk Page about The Prince Consort so are you trying something funny?

JUST SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IN ADVANCE, DR KAY IS DOING HIS BEST TO LEAD ME TOWARDS BEING BLOCKED. (You will all be delighted to note, that I shall take no part in such a miserable exercise, even if it does leave the article about Prince Albert worse off - sorry. And it dismays me to see that fellow Wikipedians - far grander than me - wish to spend more time knocking spots off each other than actually getting on with improving Wiki's content. Oh well, c'est la vie, I suppose).

Could someone other than me review what Kay is playing at re Prince Albert : Reverted edits by L'honorable (talk) to last version by DrKay - I'm not prepared to risk getting blocked because all the danger signs are writ loud (despite however correct my edits may be). Not good behaviour by Kay, but hey-ho. L'honorable (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have made this point at the top, but is it really the case that people like me, having been blocked previously, are considered soft targets among the community? If so, this effectively renders me a second-class member, since such as in this instance, I shall give way to a more aggressive editor (despite their contributions being clearly inaccurate). Furthermore, it also seems to me that the more the likes of Kay sling mud at me then others will buy into it (which presumably is his strategy). Not good. Let me just remind you that Kay still reckons David Cameron's elder brother goes by the name of Allan! Enough said. Over & out, let him get on with it. L'honorable (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not Dr Kay leading you towards a permanent block. It is the stubborn, not listening, dead horse pulling L'honorable who is leading L'honorable towards a permanent block. You got help and advise enough about how to behave, but you keep whining and bashing. It is just that behaviour that is leading you to the exit. And it is all of your own making.

So again: stop bringing your Commons-conflict to ENWP, stop whining, read the advice regarding a block appeal on Commons and act upon it and treat other editors with respect. The Banner talk 08:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: I think you want rid of me - is that correct? I hear no compliments for anything I have done on Wiki's behalf (please note that it is in no way benefiting me - in fact it is reducing my street-cred, self esteem, etc. that is if one buys in to what my detractors - which seem to grow in number by the day - say about me on Wiki). So let's please get this straight : I only wish to impart info about which I know a great deal, ie. heraldry & genealogy (to make a broad brushstroke of a grouping) but I am subject to incessant hostility. I must be absolutely bonkers to want to put up with this sort of treatment, but the same applies elsewhere as to why people would want to subject others to this type of treatment, rather than endeavouring to work together. It is a great pity that I seem to be Public Enemy No.1. But what can I do about that, apart from become a mute. There remains a great deal of inaccuracy on Wiki's pages about heraldry & related matters (some of which had previously been corrected)... Anyway, we surely should all try to enjoy the experience of imparting good knowledge, rather than persecuting each other (for a slight difference in how things should be phrased or whatever the latest complaint is). My sole intention is to improve Wiki's quality and hopefully you can attest to this, once you look at my substantive edits (rather than all the argy-bargy). Ciao, L'honorable (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am no longer bringing any commons matters to this Wiki - already dealt with above. So please don't keep perpetuating it (& read the latest first).

Such is my lack of confidence in Wiki procedures, I trust you won't mind my having launched a RfC, qv. "Personally I cannot see how direct threats to have me blocked can be viewed as like a "toddler whose ice cream fell on the floor" etc...". Such action has never been my style, but despite having absolute confidence in my own knowledge of the subjects I provide edits on Wiki, I now realise that I won't last long unless I too become more assertive. L'honorable (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we all try to work together? All I want to do is make Wiki a superlative reference source, and just so you can appreciate something about the accuracy of my contributions, it wasn't till recently that Wiki stated that Prince Albert was Great Master of the Order of the Bath (rather than Grand Master)... I do not like being vilified for being accurate. All best wishes & let our next liaison be a pleasant one svp. L'honorable (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not want to get rid of you. I just want you to behave like an adult and not like a toddler whose ice cream fell on the floor.

It is your own behaviour that is hurting you. The Banner talk 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, I am glad you confirm that you do not want rid of me, just a shame that couldn't be said without making yet another sly remark, nor your answering my question : Why don't we all try to work together? L'honorable (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I and several others asked you explicitly not to link common terms. What did you do? Linked the word "city". I and several others asked you not to capitalize words that are not proper names mid-sentence. I explained (in an edit summary) that direct quotations should not be altered.. What did you do? Altered the quote from Pinches and capitalized nouns mid-sentence. And, no, there is absolutely no need to capitalize nouns in blazons. I even linked to a page in Boutell where you can read blazons: https://archive.org/stream/heraldryancient00avelgoog#page/n311/mode/2up. Are any words in the blazons capitalized? No. Any person with a true knowledge of heraldry would know that it is not necessary to capitalize any words in the blazon. I personally choose to capitalize the colors to distinguish the heraldic color Or from the grammatical conjunction, but it is not a requirement and many heralds choose not to. What did you do? Ignored the evidence and broke the reference so that the article became defaced by two error messages: "Harv error: link from #CITEREFBoutellAveling2010 doesn't point to any citation." and "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAvelingBoutell1890." Anyone who incorrectly claims that the Titles Deprivation Act regulates heraldry, as you did, is clearly not an expert on heraldry.

What other edits did you make? Bolding the name of the article in an image caption. We don't do that per MOS:BOLD. Linked the words "The Prince Consort", which redirect back to the article. We don't do that per WP:OVERLINKING.

You know all about capitalization on wiki and overlinking already because you are aware of the guidelines. However, you deliberately choose to continue with these edits anyway. I see no point in trying to engage you further in discussion: you are incorrigible and regardless of how many times an editor will try to educate you or point you at sources or point out guidelines or ask you to stop, you will carry on and carry on and carry on in the same way that you've always done until you are eventually banned. DrKay (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Others have mentioned to me that English Wiki is unnecessarily argumentative & aggressive, and on current form I can't say that I disagree. Kay has just spent quite some time presenting a case basically accusing me of not adhering to Wiki's guidelines. Let me succinctly set down the reasons why (in the hope that much more time does not have to be wasted on such diversions) :

1. Linked the word "city". I linked the word city because I had just rephrased "All manner of objects are named after Prince Albert,..." to "Prince Albert's name is associated with ...", and it follows that a city is an example of the types of place so associated with him... I don't know what anyone else thinks, but to describe a city as an object (which is what the present article does) seems mighty odd to me?
2. with regards to your attempt at rubbishing me on the matter of heraldry, if you could pause your indignant slights just for a moment, you should of course state tincture in reference to Or, not color : Silver & Gold (alias Argent & Or) are not colors/colours in heraldry, being metals. You probably know this, and it was just a lax mode of terming when writing in a vexed state. No worries, let's both get on side, and the bottom line is this : I was capitalising the charges (which you call nouns!) in the blazon following your lead by capitalising the tinctures - you have kindly explained your thinking and now you know mine too, so surely better already, to understand each other, rather than being at loggerheads, n'est-ce pas? When you say "it is not a requirement and many heralds choose not to" (with regards to how blazons are written), this is purely your opinion; in actual fact, heralds (ie. the ones who have legal authority, namely those appointed by the Crown) do not choose, as you say : heralds must follow the prevailing strictures of the day which are set by the senior King of Arms, be it Garter or Lord Lyon. Having worked at the College of Arms (clearly rendering me a nincompoop on heraldic matters!), I can clearly recall when Colin Cole was Garter, Conrad Swan was Clarenceux and John Brooke-Little was Norroy, and all three Kings of Arms had differing opinions on how best to write blazons! BUT, they all followed Sir Colin Cole's lead, no arguments and that was that all Tinctures, Ordinaries and Charges are capitalised. By way of evidence I have just randomly Googled Grant of Arms image and find the following : https://thurman.org.uk/arms/5.jpg but feel free to try this for any other recent Grant of Arms and you will see that it proves my point, that all Tinctures, Ordinaries and Charges are capitalised. So here is the nub of it, it is all well and good to provide references such as Boutell, but he was never a herald thus what he says (although brilliant as a writer about heraldry - I am a big fan of his) is not authoritative (in a legal sense) and therefore Boutell's blazonry is not cast in stone and should be regarded as an indication (& very helpful ones too I might as well add). And, in any event, Wiki's whole raison d'être is to write fluently and accurately in as modern a style as possible; and, surely this should extend to heraldic blazoning custom? The blazon I wrote conforms to present heraldic custom as decreed by Thomas Woodcock, the present Garter. I hope this disabuses anyone who could possibly believe that I am not worth listening to when it comes to matters of heraldry (note: I did not say adhere to, but listen to!) thus in direct contradiction of Kay's inferences that I am a buffoon on heraldry which brings me on to the next slur...
3. "Anyone who incorrectly claims that the Titles Deprivation Act regulates heraldry, as you did, is clearly not an expert on heraldry." Look at the link and I did say not that ... totally putting words in my mouth. Anyway, I have no wish to see Kay sanctioned for bandying around such slander, so allow me to continue. This whole bit could, in my view, be dropped from the article about Prince Albert, because it is really referring to how the British Royal Family de-Germanized itself during the First World War, culminating in the Titles Deprivation Act. Please advise so that this can be tidied up... It is really is desperate when one has to defend oneself against things that one did not even say in the first place, don't you think?
4. the next one : I bolded the caption image because what it currently says is incorrect and I wanted to make clear what is correct and that is that Prince Albert's coat of arms was not granted by the College of Arms. One should properly say it was granted by Garter King of Arms, or one could say that it was granted at the College of Arms.... but not by the College.... Not fussed which version chosen, but needs correcting...

The bottom line is this : I made various improvements (ie. corrections) to the Prince Albert article which seems to have caused DrKay to blow his top. Rather than working together, he simply reverts my edits in their entirety, makes all manner of accusations about me (which I really don't appreciate), tries to lead others into ganging up on me, all of which could have been avoided had he paused for thought, taken on board the veracity of my corrections and then worked together to tidy up the end result. However, what there has been is a lot of mud slinging and the article is still not correct. He has not even addressed the other corrections which I made (and which he has intentionally or inadvertently wiped out). Totally baffled as to how this can possibly be the most efficient way of improving Wiki and merely reinforces my initial point that once blocked (seemingly) always a second-class citizen (there to be bullied). This cannot be right. Anyway enough & I sincerely hope my points above can be taken on board thereby refuting the unfounded comments unhelpfully expounded by DrKay, as well as countering the smears of being so-called stubborn or whining as others have alleged. This really is a fine how-do-you-do and it would please me no end if we could get back to a level playing field. Any ideas as to how this could be achieved (what if DrKay were to reverse his reversion of my edits to Prince Albert and whilst doing so make whatever amendments he so wishes? Surely better than completely wiping out the corrections)?

Also let me repeat yet again that I always seek to work together to improve Wiki's pages - hopefully this sort of detailed analysis of reasoning is of help? L'honorable (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. the current text of the Prince Albert article reads : "The arms are unusual, being described by S. T. Aveling as a "singular example of quartering differenced arms, is not in accordance with the rules of Heraldry, and is in itself an heraldic contradiction." Prior to his marriage Albert used the arms of his father undifferenced, in accordance with German custom." I introduced the last sentence, but was cut short before being able to provide a more balanced assessment of Prince Albert's COA than I believe the current text provides. Where the quotation states : "is not in accordance with the rules of Heraldry, and is in itself an heraldic contradiction", this could easily be solved by amending it to read : "is not in accordance with the rules of Heraldry, and is in itself an heraldic contradiction". Can explain further, if really necessary! Thanks.

PPS. this clearly shows that I have no wish to edit war (as DrKay was quick to put forward) and rather makes it appear that it is he who is rather more inclined to do so. Nonetheless further strife can be avoided if he can reply in a considered manner. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking ahead

So as to be mindful of all potential pitfalls (or indeed traps), please note that DrKay made an edit to Mary Foley-Berkeley, 17th Baroness Berkeley subsequent to my reviewing the article about Anthony Gueterbock, 18th Baron Berkeley. It should be more than evident that his contribution was minimal, and that the article about her is in need of much improvement. However I am just flagging this up in advance, since I am wondering why Kay did not actually improve the article himself, but might simply be trying to set down a marker so as to launch another volley of abuse at me at a later date. Unfortunately I don't think it is worth the risk of my trying to improve the Lady Berkeley article. Hope you can understand why!

To be honest, how Wiki can let itself get into this impasse, where contributors, like me (who know the subject inside out) become so scared stiff of putting the slightest foot wrong that Wiki fails to get the decent enhanced info that it so richly deserves? This is an anathema to me. All I ever receive is abuse and complaints. The odd compliment or two wouldn't go amiss. Haha...

Should I be brave (or foolhardy) enough to continue editing the Berkeleys (after finishing the necessary improvements to Tony Berkeley)?! L'honorable (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As a point of order, were I to revert DrKay's reversion of my corrections qv. Albert, Prince Consort: Revision history would that constitute violating 3rr? Whilst that would be interesting to know from a technical viewpoint, why doesn't an Admin step in at this point just to give a once-over. I say this only because I am so terrorised by whatever technical flaw(s) in my editing DrKay may yet uncover that all I wish to know is whether there is any possible way my edits could be construed not to be made in good faith and/or not to the benefit of Wiki. I know that I make all edits in the best of faith and solely for Wiki's benefit (but that seems to count for nothing), so what do you think? Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord Berkeley

Please advise what all this means with regard to Anthony Gueterbock, 18th Baron Berkeley :

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "1 = 100px?" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "honours" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "motto" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "arms" (this message is shown only in preview).

Your help would be very much appreciated - how anyone is supposed to have expert knowledge about history, heraldry & all that, as well as being totally up to speed with the computer jargon above beats me. They are two completely different skill sets.

I don't know what goes through your mind when updating a character such as the present Lord Berkeley? But, for me, who is he? what does he do? what was his OBE awarded for? how does he connect with the ancient Lords Berkeley (if true) etc? The last comment is made, simply because there ar fake titles around, although Lord Berkeley's is genuine although technically he does sit in the HoL as Lord Gueterbock, which is perhaps something Wiki readers might like to be appraised of? Anyway, I do hope I can garner some support rather than constant argy-bargy (which quite obviously reduces the amount of time one has to introduce good info to Wiki's pages).

Await yours & many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No reply (when you need it) - anyway I discover that the Infobox was corrupted by someone else ! & I just hope and pray that having gone to these lengths to improve the article, I now do not receive my usual bashing from the usual suspects. The article is a great deal better than it was, but is by no means perfect, and I would much appreciate some input from those who know better than me before tidying it up. Much appreciated. Best, L'honorable (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. the Infobox layouts are a bit of a nightmare, don't you think? All connected up to various other internet media - very clever - yet almost impossible to convey accurately the correct data within them (huh?)...

All I wish for is to feel secure in editing (so long as I am providing useful & factual info ofc!) without fear of attack from those who dislike me for whatever reason(s), which seem to change day-by-day, so let's call them my detractors.

Simply put, a feeling of security, not threatened by ambush, nor by vulgarity or by downright aggression etc would be much appreciated. L'honorable (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. DrKay (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello too, and thank you for advising me. However, I think you will find that there has been no violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. My edits about the Prince Albert article have been explained more than amply on my Talk page and in such detail that no-one could be left in any doubt behind my thinking or rationale. DrKay has been invited to co-operate but so far has made no effort to work together and is clearly attempting to have me removed from Misplaced Pages (for reasons best known to himself). Best, L'honorable (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that you are trying to game the system but it's still edit-warring even if there aren't three reverts in 24 hours. You can avoid being blocked by undoing your last revert and raising individual issues on the talk page. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback : I tried to do as DrKay suggests but "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits". Please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. I am well behind the curve as Wiki procedures, but can simply reiterate what I stated on my Talk Page, namely that my sole aim is to help improve Wiki's content. L'honorable (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

When you see the message "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits" there is a link shown (highlighted in blue: "done manually"). That link will take you to a page explaining how to do it. DrKay (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming more obtuse by the minute. L'honorable (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. since you clearly know Wiki procedures far better than I do, could we please pick this discussion up again when you have done that (original statement deleted : ie. manually revert) & then we can just work together on the factual substance of the article. This would surely be a much better way forward? Thank you. L'honorable (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am now logging off giving time for everyone to pause for thought. This is no way for Wiki to reach amicable and considered decisions, for the project's future progression. Let's liaise again tomorrow. Best L'honorable (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

qte

@DrKay: you are right about that - the discussion has spread like wild fire and as you attest boils down to whether or not I am Mabelina. I am not, but I am glad that we have at last got to the bottom of why you are so keen to see me blocked (nonetheless I am not so naïve as to think this is the last I will hear about this). When will my divorce ever end? L'honorable (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

unqte

Robin's Heraldry mock-ups

This is the heraldic achievement of Philip May and de jure matrimonii of PM Theresa May too.
I've also added it to the list @ Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This Armstrong-Jones heraldic lozenge applies to daughters of the Earls of Snowdon. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robin, are these heraldic images available yet on Commons?

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, DrKay, but why are you repeating a SPI that is already done? See: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina/Archive. The Banner talk 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-burn heraldry edit war. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded slow-burn heraldry dispute

I do not dispute that a slow-burn heraldry dispute has been caused by DrKay - he has seemingly been doing his utmost to entwine me in any Admin noticeboard so as to achieve my riddance from Wiki. He has attempted to conjoin edit-war & socketpuppetry to make me look in the wrong. Please adjudicate in good faith - many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You're fired!

Naturally I am dismayed to receive such an avalanche of criticism. This, in my view, has been cooked up without a clear vision of what to pin on me, hence edit-war / socketpuppetry / etc : hoping that some mud sticks. I can't say that I wasn't forewarned either, because it was predicted that I'd "blocked again soon" immediately upon my unblock : this to me sounded like a threat.

I made the point at the top that once blocked, always more likely to be reblocked seems to apply on Wiki, as indeed now proves to be the case. Would you mind if I were to remind you that I am not Mabelina - never have been, never will be - the fact that I even deigned to make such enquiry as to whether I was falling victim of bullying &/or intimidatory tactics for being associated with my previous socketpuppetry block (qv. Mabelina), would surely have been particularly foolhardy if indeed I were Mabelina ???

All I can glean is that : you don't like me, my face doesn't fit and therefore, you're fired!

I put it like this because it is clearly too late to blather on about technicalities (and obviously my contributions aren't good enough!), simple? L'honorable (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. my edits made always in good faith & for Wiki's encyclopædic advancement... (no way to run an encyclopædia, just in my view)....

Qv: Arms de jure matrimonii of Theresa May, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, 2016– (before my contribution & after - worthwhile?)

I am now excluded from participating in English Wiki but let me just give an example as to why one person might wish that to be so : I don't have access to Pinches at the moment, but I've decided to make this edit anyway: it's three feathers not three peacocks and "peacock" here is an adjective (qv. Prince Albert) - answer GUESS WHAT (I can no longer take part because DrKay does not like me anymore - oh sorry, he never did & was waiting for a technical chance to pounce, namely reigniting socketpuppetry, edit-war, etc)..... I'm definitely persona non grata (according to the whole Wiki community?)....... since this is not edit-warring per https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=768735844&oldid=768721217 I shall repair all the damage - so why am I now blocked?

So, even though the protagonist has withdrawn his damaging statements as to my credibility, AND that the article which I edited in good faith remains for the most part in tact, L'honorable is STILL SUBJECT TO WHAT I SAW COMING, NAMELY the aggressive pursuit of hounding me out of Wiki. PLEASE ADVISE. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent

Je m'excuse! I did not mean to say five times (but clearly unless someone can help, I am on my way out!) :

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Unsorted < Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

User talk:L'honorable

My future on Wiki has so gravely recently been cast in doubt by such unwarranted blocks as to my alleged previous socketpuppetry and by so many Admins on different wikis, I should imagine that it is now impossible for me to prove my innocence (partially to blame), worthiness, usefulness, eagerness etc? Either way I have been compromised by being associated with my ex-wife's User name & after the WP STANDARD OFFER not much seems to have changed : we still seem to be associated. Could this now cease once & for all, please? (Perhaps, by way of brevity, could you see that some in the Wiki word detection unit might describe such phrases as being standardised English? Jaja!!) I have noticed that one Wiki cites to another about "such" a transgression (ie. socketpuppetry or non-socketpuppetry as the case may be), can treat one (ie. me : L'honorable) without prejudice, thus when requested (or in modern parlance, challenged!), the other Wiki states they have "nothing to do with one another"! Admin guidance please - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

re Thomas Scott-Ellis, 8th Baron Howard de Walden, Paul Gore-Booth, Baron Gore-Booth, Baron Berners, David Brewer (broker), heraldry etc...

My future on Wiki has so gravely recently been cast in doubt by such unwarranted blocks as to my alleged previous socketpuppetry and by so many Admins on different wikis, I should imagine that it is now impossible for me to prove my innocence (partially to blame), worthiness, usefulness, eagerness etc? Either way I have been compromised by being associated with my ex-wife's User name & after the WP STANDARD OFFER not much seems to have changed : we still seem to be associated. Could this now cease once & for all, please? (Perhaps, by way of brevity, could you see that some in the Wiki word detection unit might describe such phrases as being standardised English? Jaja!!) I have noticed that one Wiki cites to another about "such" a transgression (ie. socketpuppetry or non-socketpuppetry as the case may be), can treat one (ie. me : L'honorable) without prejudice, thus when requested (or in modern parlance, challenged!), the other Wiki states they have "nothing to do with one another"!

Admin guidance please - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Naughpo: qv. Sir Mark Warby, svp. L'honorable (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, being disruptive until somebody got sick of it.

You have been warned that it is only your own behaviour that brings you into trouble. But still you go on with the grace of a heavy tank. Change your ways, my friend, and do it quick!

Ow, and side note: during a block you can use your talk page only and only to discuss your block. Nothing else. And that means nothing else. Not even a chat about the dodgy behaviour of Dr.Kays, Commons, Heraldry or "Albert, Prince Consort". Not allowed. The Banner talk 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(You noted that I made an accidental removal: yes (if it was me it was def accidental) what did I remove in that instance?) I am so fully aware that folk on Wiki do not like me that I do not know where to begin. BUT, Wiki's aim is to be an info service, surely (& all this ping-pong does not suit me, unfortunately for me that is!)? L'honorable (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. what does "Ow, and side note" mean? Thanks. L'honorable (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PPS. as a result of asking for Admin guidance or something else svp? There's always another bash : You have been warned that it is only your own behaviour that brings you into trouble. But still you go on with the grace of a heavy tank. Change your ways, my friend, and do it quick!
PPPS. @The Banner: if anyone of my detractors had previously said anything so kind I am sure that it would not have come to this! so when you say "my friend" is that for real? For me, grace & heavy tanks don't fit together, so I can only assume that I'm being merrily led up the garden path again! Haha.

Nope, being disruptive until somebody got sick of it. Que? - to all other people out there, seemingly I have been advised not to do anything other than discuss what is on this page - so please interject quickly, because a) I need some support here, b) my self-proclaimed "friend" is yet to do me any real favour & b) is this really how Wiki conducts itself (ie. to be threatened that if one strays off this page one will be doubly punished?)...

I feel utterly lost with this type of carry-on - no friends or support - but I still can't help thinking this is not the right way to run things. Please advise - many thanks indeed. Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Redemption (following SPI)

Proposal of peace accord : you all know that I have been "tarred with the brush" of socketpuppetry on :

WikiCommons
Nlwiki
Enwiki
Dewiki

It seems to me pointless to keep rehearsing the same old points : I have explained about my ex-wife and whilst not wishing to go over the same ground repeatedly, if there are those who seek to have further explanation please declare yourselves now :

• . JcB
• . Wiki13
• . Future Perfect at Sunrise
• . Kurator71

I trust that my contributions to Wiki are helpful (enquire as necessary) but should there be no possibility of redemption (despite the SPI), please categorically advise accordingly so that we all do not waste more of anyone's time. Many thanks.

Best, L'honorable (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there an RFC on your talk page? I'm removing the RFC header. Do not add it back. RFCs are to resolve content disputes on article talk pages. If you want to be unblocked, post an unblock request. If you want to appeal to the community, ask me to post a request to WP:AN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes please post a request to WP:AN. Many thanks, NinjaRobotPirate, much appreciated. L'honorable (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. if I am not wrong, no point to be unblocked on one Wiki only for others to say "ah he's blocked there so he must be bad, so let's block him" & so it goes mindlessly on...

Are you sure? Because it looks like you haven't tried to post an unblock request here yet. But I can post something there if you want. Is there anything in particular you want me to post? If I just say, "L'honorable wants to be unblocked", people will probably ignore it. You should probably look at WP:GAB, think about it, and craft a message that you think will convince people you should be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the first person who seems to take an interest for me to be unblocked (& what I mean by that is, just) on English Wiki (but would still leave me subject to being blocked again "because I am blocked on other Wikis"). This I don't understand : either Wiki is joined up, or it isn't. To put it simply & I can provide quotes from all the other Wikis concerned, they see that I am blocked on one so feel fearful (I suppose) of unblocking me on the other. Noone seems to have stopped for one moment to suppose "socketpuppetry" (being a joint account) applies across the board (of Wikis). So as it stands one Wiki references another by way of justifying itself (seemingly). Yes, I should much like to be unblocked, but I should also like it to be explained across all Wikis (right now Wiki Commons, Dutch Wiki, German Wiki & English Wiki) that I am L'honorable & there will be no interference from Mabelina ever more. AND, therefore, assuming a clean slate is applied, there can be no further blaming one upon the other & vice versa etc... However, without such a clean break it seems to me this constant merry go-round will be set to continue (although not so merry for me!). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about your case, though I saw your name come up at some administrative boards. One thing I can say is that what happens on other wikis generally doesn't affect what happens here. There are exceptions, of course. Sock puppetry is one of the cases where people do get a bit suspicious. I can't really help you on any other wikis, as I'm only an administrator here, and I'm not very involved in projects outside of English Misplaced Pages. From what I can tell, you got into trouble because you were edit warring. That seems like a good place to start if you want to make an unblock request. The problem is that you were apparently operating on a "last chance" unblock before, and the blocking admin seemed to think you blew your last chance. So, my advice would be to say something about that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey hey hey - this is where I am really confused. Take a look at Albert, Prince Consort & you will note that the guy who launched the edit warring has had to retract it - because it was not edit warring. It seems more than clear to me (maybe not to others) that those who do not feel confident in their own abilities rely on others to back them up, and resort to such tactics .... Qv : since this is not edit-warring per https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=768735844&oldid=768721217 I shall repair all the damage . However the damage is done! Kay doesn't like me; he has got me blocked - WHY? God knows (well I do actually - I contradicted him once & that annoyed him). But what can I now do about it.. I am a leper in the Wiki colony - nobody believes me (or at least not many of the active Admins do) so .... que pasa? I am blocked. L'honorable (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should be as bold and downright rude as others on Wiki, but this has never been my style (& I don't see why it should be)? However, being correct doesn't always seem to get one everywhere! Please advise. Best, L'honorable (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. Wiki should not be held up in its progression by such contre-temps (in a perfect world)!

Well, it's true. Being correct doesn't always win arguments on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes you're right, but you still end up blocked. Or the content you proposed doesn't get added to the Misplaced Pages article. Or maybe your content gets removed. Part of being on a collaborative project means that you have to compromise and settle for something that's not quite what you wanted. If you can stay calm and respectful, that does count for something, I think. Compromising is just as important as being polite, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem with that: ie. being correct (factually) simply because I enjoy seeing Wiki develop (most often by ways of putting things which I would not have thought of - that's because I'm stick in the mud!!!), does not necessarily see my wordings put in place - but I'm not bothered about that. How can Wiki progress when inaccurate info remains in place, please?

@NinjaRobotPirate: you may well have put your finger on it? namely that I was operating "last chance" unblock, thereby pretty much inviting bullies (& I don't mind saying so, because that is effectively what the likes of DrKay are) to block me the instant I make an edit contrary to their dream. Now, just look at their dream.... Nonetheless, where does all this leave me? In tatters - blocked on 4 Wikis...

you mention about being polite - and I am much obliged to you for having taken such time with me - but I fear that the way I phrase myself is in fact too soft : for instance...

.

Redemption (following SPI)

Proposal of peace accord : you all know that I have been "tarred with the brush" of socketpuppetry on :

WikiCommons
Nlwiki
Enwiki
Dewiki

It seems to me pointless to keep rehearsing the same old points : I have explained about my ex-wife and whilst not wishing to go over the same ground repeatedly, if there are those who seek to have further explanation please declare yourselves now :

• . JcB
• . Wiki13
• . Future Perfect at Sunrise
• . Kurator71

I trust that my contributions to Wiki are helpful (enquire as necessary) but should there be no possibility of redemption (despite the SPI), please categorically advise accordingly so that we all do not waste more of anyone's time. Many thanks.

Best, L'honorable (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, after this latest experience I cannot see how any more shilly-shallying can do anyone any good, unless you can tell me to the contrary? I should much like to help improve Wiki's pages & I have the ability to do so. Obstacles preventing the improvement of Wiki to be are interminable procedures (willingly enacted by various) but not always in Wiki's best interests.

(It's tough to reply when you're constantly posting to the talk page and causing edit conflicts.) Being blocked isn't necessarily the end. You can still get unblocked, though it may take a while. The standard offer requires six months of not editing Misplaced Pages. Since you already got that, you might have trouble getting it again. Still, it never hurts to try, especially if you can address the issues that got you blocked in the first place. Or I could copy something to WP:AN, like I said. I'm not sure what to copy, though, and I think that what you've written so far probably wouldn't work out very well for you. Maybe think about it for a little while, try to come up with something concise (around 100–200 words) that addresses the reasons you've been blocked, and what you'd do differently if you were unblocked. Remember, I don't think you should say anything about bullies or bullying. It's just a bad idea, and it goes against WP:NOTTHEM. I'm going to sleep now, but I can check back later to see if you want something copied. I don't know if I can really answer an unblock request myself; I've given you some advice here about doing them, and I don't really know much about your situation, either. So, I would probably leave that to someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks for the offer of support - much appreciated. Best, L'honorable (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. bottom line is that should the stigma of alleged socketpuppetry remain, this is MOST DEBILITATING. If Wiki really is joined up, surely there must be someone in authority who can give satisfactory answer(s) to this point (multi-Wiki)? Looking forward to hearing SOONEST, best L'honorable (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Armorial britannique, perhaps you could also explain how edits are made to the text without any reference showing up on its revision history? L'honorable (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Wiki" is not "joined up", as you put it. Each Misplaced Pages is fully and completely independent. Several editors have explained this to you before. As for sockpuppetry, you explained the circumstances of your use of the Mabelina account before, that you shared it with your former partner, and we accepted your explanation. But then you kept doing the things that led to Mabelina being blocked, so we blocked you again. None of this has anything to do with what you or Mabelina did on any other Misplaced Pages project, nor with any "stigma of sockpuppetry" following you around. The behaviours that led to you being blocked (as Mabelina, then again as L'honorable) are given a pretty good summary in this discussion. But I'll summarize even further: you insist that your way is the only way, you will not accept the outcome of any discussion you don't agree with, and you disrespect the community by ignoring everyone who tries to give you advice. You cannot participate in a collaborative project if you will not collaborate; that's your problem, not anybody else's. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: thank you & I state below that nothing would please me more than collaborating with other editors - very much so. Too few such collaborations have been allowed to take place, before I get threatened. But, I am totally committed to improving Wiki and should much like to develop good relations within the Wiki Community. Since it is so easy to paint me as a bad boy, I should be most grateful for any help I can get in this regard, were I to be unblocked after pause for reflection. Many thanks for your understanding. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Only for discussing your current block

What do you not understand from the statement "Only for discussing your current block"? Discussing other things will certainly lead to your talk page access being revoked (it is a courtesy, not a right). Please, only discuss your current block. The Banner talk 11:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable, if I may interject, your current block did NOT occur because of any sockpuppetry. It was your behavior after your last unblock that precipitated the reblock. If you want to be unblocked, you're going to have to address the issue of your disruptive editing practices. Ironically, one of those practices is your constant bringing up of past issues or issues on other wikipedias, even AFTER being told they need to be dropped. You are continuing that behavior here on this talk page. If you ever want to be unblocked, you need to take on board the advice you've been receiving. You need to stop changing the wording of direct quotations such as here where you change a direct quote in several ways. If your edits are reverted, instead of re-adding them, you need to go to the ARTICLE talk page and discuss the merits of the edits WITHOUT discussing or mentioning other editors or other wikipedias. You need to stop mentioning other editors in edit summaries (such as As usual, you are completely blind to reason (unmarked reference to L'honorable)) You need to stop linking common terms such as "city". You need to stop editing other editors talk page comments (or "accidentally" losing them). You need to accept that you must supply reliable sources that support the edits you make when the information you add is challenged. You must stop doing things like removing the FA star out of process. You need to stop capitalizing words that should not be capitalized such as where you change "royal assent" to "Royal Assent". You need to stop engaging in WP:OR. And you need to acknowledge ALL of these issues and pledge to stop doing them before any admin should consider unblocking you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: thank you for interjecting & I do much appreciate your advice. I have felt very insecure ever since the socketpuppetry allegations - but you are right, let's move on - because others seem to bandy around various reasons for blocking me (to all manner of things). I agree with absolutely everything you say above (except and I sincerely trust that you may forgive me if I am wrong, but City (with a capital C) as referenced above, at least in my view, is a proper noun). I would dearly love to forge a good relationship with other editors on Wiki, but somehow this seems to be gargantuan task (and it is others, not me, who have initiated mention of my status on other Wikis - eg. "Note: Your account is currently blocked on 4 wikis" - the dropping of which statements into Wiki correspondence is therefore, I presume, frowned upon?). Nonetheless, Ealdgyth, I much appreciate your understanding & shall unhesitatingly abide by your advice if and when I may be unblocked; but, let's perhaps first allow time for the dust to settle? Many thanks again & till soon. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsuitable material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes it is true - I am thoroughly depressed that I have been taken to be some sort of recalcitrant by Wiki folk & it is beyond me what to do about it. If anyone could think of anything positive to say about me then please say so. Many thanks, L'honorable (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC) eg. You need to stop linking common terms such as "city". I have made best endeavours to contact JcB on Wiki Commons. You can't tell how this makes me feel. I have rung his given tel no. at Groningen etc but this is making matters worse because he is rejecting me. Best is to get rid of me - what to do? Please advise without delay (& if it is a total block no worries!) but this half and half is no good at all. All I want is for somebody to care FULL STOP L'honorable (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PS. ways to unravel this mess : delete all mention of "Note: Your account is currently blocked on 4 wikis" ... tks L'honorable, if I may interject, your current block did NOT occur because of any sockpuppetry (GOOD are you sure?). It was your behavior after your last unblock that precipitated the reblock (YES my behaviour after being accused of edit-war was not satisfactory). If you want to be unblocked (YES but only if there is a way of preventing those such as DrKay ((Redacted)) who belatedly picked up on the fact I am blocked elsewhere to use this as an excuse to try block me - only because I was correcting him), you're going to have to address the issue of your disruptive editing practices (YES I have too many enemies). Ironically, one of those practices is your constant bringing up of past issues or issues on other wikipedias, even AFTER being told they need to be dropped. You are continuing that behavior here on this talk page. If you ever want to be unblocked (YES I do - more so as a matter of honour than anything else), you need to take on board the advice you've been receiving (I am not always good at building relationships). You need to stop changing the wording of direct quotations such as here where you change a direct quote in several ways (only did so in the case of an heraldic blason - and would be happy to provide double blazonry, ie. Boutell + College of Arms where necessary - although this seems cause for a right royal argument which is where we are at right now!). If your edits are reverted, instead of re-adding them, you need to go to the ARTICLE talk page (there was no Talk Page) and discuss the merits of the edits WITHOUT discussing or mentioning other editors or other wikipedias. You need to stop mentioning other editors in edit summaries (such as usual, you are completely blind to reason (unmarked reference to L'honorable)) You need to stop linking common terms such as "city" (I am so careful about that mantra of non-c & c : but in the instance picked upon it was to do with the City of London). You need to stop editing other editors talk page comments (or "accidentally" losing them AGREED : I hate any conflict & would prefer my edits be taken in good faith - I have/had/never will have any intention to wilfully delete others' edits). You need to accept that you must supply reliable sources that support the edits you make when the information you add is challenged (AGREED - the only reason I don't get to doing so is because a war starts & it becomes imposs). You must stop doing things like removing the FA star out of process (MY FAULT - no expert on procedure but Prince Albert article was not good enough at that time to be featured - just in my view, that is - I think I need a mentor because I am not clued up as to Wiki procedures). You need to stop capitalizing words that should not be capitalized such as where you change "royal assent" to "Royal Assent" (NO PROBS - that is similar to City of London etc - so only where it is a proper noun). You need to stop engaging in WP:OR (again similar to not being distracted by alleged edit-war & spend far too much time arguing than inserted relevant refs). And you need to acknowledge ALL of these issues and pledge to stop doing them before any admin should consider unblocking you. You should be able to see above enough reason to keep me away from Wiki editing! although if Wiki is insightful enough it will see that my edits are/have always been in good faith, and decide to « block me globally » in perpetuity (as one did suggest - hence I raise it) or « unblock me globally » (so that such a stain does not remain on my character). Either way I'm Wikis' servant & please advise what is best for both Wiki and me. Many thanks and looking forward to concise advice without much further delay. Without ambiguity, I should also like to be able to contribute accurate info to Wiki. Yours, L'honorable (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PS. how to resolve? Wiki needs to see this treatment of me (& not for it to be suppressed) whatever the consequences may be (for me) User:L'honorable In spite of having been warned many times, L'honorable keeps on removing deletion request templates from some of his uploads (lately File:OStJ.jpg), even if he's perfectly aware of where the discussion takes place: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable. Could an admin ask him to refrain from doint it again? Best regards --Discasto talk 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done I have given the user a last warning, since the previous warnings came from you, and the user was clearly upset about you. Please let us know if there are any more DR removals. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @Yann, Jcb, Clindberg, Jameslwoodward: I thought this might be your game Discasto. It begs the question, though, why on each and every occasion when you have unilaterally reverted my upload of OStJ you have failed to respond to my messages to you. I even ventured to suggest that you were angling to get me in trouble. This is an utterly poor show. This image has every right to be uploaded by me & I shall have no difficulty in proving so if it comes to that. BUT more to the point, why do you want to drag me into an Admin situation - I already made clear that I have just been released from a block on English Wiki, so it would appear to me that you, for reasons totally unknown, wish to cause trouble for me. The problem here though is that the image you persistently delete is my Decoration, my Photo & my Upload. So, if you have your way, you can bully me out of town just because you have taken exception to me. But why, you haven't even corresponded with me - until just now wherein you stated : "You actually asked for it --Discasto talk 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)" - NO, I didn't ask for IT (whatever that may mean) - but this for sure looks like victimisation. OStJ.jpg I shall co-operate fully with the Admins & trust that sense can prevail. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @L'honorable: Please be careful in the case of edit conflicts. You removed my resolution above, which should not have happened. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Honestly I am getting it from all angles here & I sincerely did not mean to do that - didn't even know that I had done so - this is a cooked up attempt to get me blocked & it is working well. But why? L'honorable (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC) What I did was upload an image of a decoration which was bestowed upon me by HRH. L'honorable (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Blocked 3 days for blanking the entire DR. I didn't want to throw the book at him, hoping a few chapters will do. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I think there is a real question of whether or not L'honorable's modest contributions are worth the vast amounts of Admin time he has consumed with his long rants on several talk pages at once (see my archives, as well as those of Discasto and Jcb) and at the DRs. Perhaps the block should be indefinite? However, in fairness I point out that for File:OStJ.jpg he claims "own work". As Yann has pointed out at the DR, the image is very small and has no EXIF, but it doesn't show up in a Google search, so maybe it is in fact "own work". As Yann suggests, he could answer the question by uploading a larger version of the file with the EXIF. However, the question is moot because we have a variety of much better images of the medal at Category:Insignia of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, so File:OStJ.jpg should be deleted as "not useful".. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC) James is correct in any case but let's give the user a benefit of doubt. I hope they won't return to the same behavior next week. Happy editing. Wikicology (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with Wikicology. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but my next block would be indefinite. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Continues his disruptive editing, indef worthy insult @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=230435711&oldid=230434151 - I'd like this version to be supressed, better the whole talk page. I ask for an indef block with removal of email and talk page access. Copying his Commons-talk to enwiki. Asking for block there as well. Nothing good will ever come out of this, he's just a giant time waster. Is emailing Wiki UK to teach them about copyright. m( Probably a global lock would be better. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC) @Jcb: Thanks for your fast reply. Could you clean the talk page from his insulting rant (starting at rev230434151)? Thx, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @JuTa, Jianhui67: Removal still needed, starting at rev230434151. Shall I do that myself? Any Objections? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hedwig, why you wanna hide those versions? I dont see a hard PA nor other reasons for it. Might be cause I'm coming from de: where there are realy strict rules about hiding versions or I, as a non-natve speaker, do not understand enough of it? --JuTa 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Implying a medical condition is a hard PA in my book. Got him blocked in the first place. Schmeiss den Satz mal in den Google Translator. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC) are u of sound mind = impliziert Geisteskrankheiten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ... kommt aber in Text nicht vor. --JuTa 06:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Ehrlich, ich denk das sollte ein native speaker beurteilen. Bin also hier raus. --JuTa 06:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Give me a call as soon as troll shit can be reverted. Until then Commons is not my project anymore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I blanked the userpage - no need to have this kind of attacks on the talkpage. Good block Jcb! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I blocked Mabelina because it is his old account/sock (blocked on multiple wiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I know that this was entitled Only for discussing your current block so therefore I am risking my whole credibility by posting this..... IF YOU DISSECT THE ABOVE LANGUAGE PLEASE ADVISE ME HOW THIS CANNOT BE IN ANYWAY CONSTRUED AS OFFENSIVE? RSVP. L'honorable (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC) It is downright rude, offensive, etc... Even the most passive native English speaker can understand : "ich denk das sollte ein native speaker beurteilen". Que faire? L'honorable (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PS. obviously to those Germans who require an obtuse retort : I TOTALLY AGREE, Monsieur! L'honorable (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC) For discussing my future block(s) Please list here: OStJ Further requests by me (or anybody perceived to be associated with me) for unblocking on German Wiki (ie. unwarranted) I could be blocked forever, before I've even been unblocked! should the above rant in Deutsche not be justified. My credibility on Wiki Commons must be restored? L'honorable (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC) This is what I got "done for" on Commons Thanks for your fast reply. Could you clean the talk page from his insulting rant (starting at rev230434151)? Thx, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @JuTa, Jianhui67: Removal still needed, starting at rev230434151. Shall I do that myself? Any Objections? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hedwig, why you wanna hide those versions? I dont see a hard PA nor other reasons for it. Might be cause I'm coming from de: where there are realy strict rules about hiding versions or I, as a non-natve speaker, do not understand enough of it? --JuTa 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Implying a medical condition is a hard PA in my book. Got him blocked in the first place. Schmeiss den Satz mal in den Google Translator. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC) are u of sound mind = are u of sound mind was my last comment to the above rants : however, I can provide much more detail should you so wish? L'honorable (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Good block JcB! Sounds good, the way that this was handled? L'honorable (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa L'honorable and others In the absence of any instruction at Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block - how do you want to deal with unblock requests from L'honorable and other users (such as Reguyla, if/when it happens) where e-mail and talk page access has been disabled ? We don't have a UTRS type system or mailing list which can be used, so these blocks are now essentially permanent as they have no appeal mechanism. I'm not advocating unblocking either named party, but I do think we should have a process in place to allow an appeal to take place. Any thoughts ? I'm only asking in the event you've already thought about this and have an idea already. Nick (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC) I think we should have some process in place for such cases, but on the other hand I would not give it much priority. At this moment such users can contact an admin via a different project and if the admin thinks that an unblock should be considered, he/she can post it to the AN. In case of L'honorable, before he got blocked here, he was already blocked at other projects, including NL-wiki. Although I was not involved in his block at NL-wiki, he contacted me to request being unblocked there. I reached out to an admin at NL-wiki, who explained to me why L'honorable would not be unblocked at NL-wiki. Later he got blocked at Commons and later got his talk page access removed because of abuse. After that he has pinged me several times from a range of sister projects. It's still possible for him to ping one of us from a sister project. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Only for discussing your current block THE ABOVE inter alia indicates that Wiki regards its projects as being connected (despite what has been represented above). I blanked the userpage - no need to have this kind of attacks on the talkpage. Good block Jcb! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I blocked Mabelina because it is his old account/sock (blocked on multiple wiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC) So we have to go back to square one I am not Mabelina Round & round in circles it goes, so let's rid of such Wiki prejudice as socketpuppetry : WikiCommons : Jcb Nlwiki : Wiki13 Enwiki : The Banner Dewiki : Kurator71 Poly efharisto Future Perfect at Sunrise, L'honorable (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Response to The Banner What do you not understand from the statement "Only for discussing your current block"? Discussing other things will certainly lead to your talk page access being revoked (it is a courtesy, not a right). Please, only discuss your current block. The Banner talk 11:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC) I have never felt more under the cosh than after you mentioned the above ; in other words I have felt insecure : lacking in credibility : constantly harassed & if I'm not wrong YOU WILL BE THE END OF ME. L'honorable (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Please review your inaccurate comments but sustained hostility ever since I made an edit to Viscount Hereford. How bonkers are you to hound me out for making edits (which wre slightly out of flunter with your perceived way of doing things)? 07:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PUT ME DOWN OR RESURRECT ME - but clarity would be much appreciated. Many thanks, L'honorable (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If have told you this many times before: it is your own behaviour that gives you trouble. Chance your attitude (and do it in a credible way) and there will be a chance on an unblock (not my decision). But when you persist in this behaviour, this page can be closed and you are out. For ever and ever.

The clarity you can find in the advice fro many visitors to this page. Adhere to that advice. The Banner talk 08:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have hatted the endless ramblings above. You were warned that talkpage access would be revoked if you didn't concentrate on a legitimate unblock request. You now have one more chance of submitting one – brief, to the point, accurate, preferable in no more than one paragraph. If you continue ranting as before, this page will be closed down for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

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

 Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: the rant above contains what appears to be an attempt to personally identify an editor, which I have redacted, and as such I have revoked talk page access. Or, if you prefer, talk page access is revoked because I twice warned the user not to bring his Commons dispute to this wiki, as have several other users, yet the rant above contains a copy-paste of the administrative thread from Commons.

@L'honorable: you may no longer edit this page. If you wish to make a constructive unblock request, please visit WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17803 was submitted on Mar 17, 2017 00:30:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Email contact

Just to log that L'honorable has contacted me via email to try and get his block overturned. I have replied saying that the Misplaced Pages:Standard offer is his best option, at this stage.--Salix alba (talk): 05:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no confidence that he will adhere to the conditions of the standard offer. The Banner talk 13:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the SO will not be an issue for another few months, I suggest it is unnecessary- indeed, unprofitable- to try and pre-empt what the community will decide. Cheers — O Fortuna 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to get rid of the hostility?

An enquiry as to whether L'honorable might now be allowed back into the Wiki fold? And, if so, how to wipe the slate clean in all languages (given that this is seemingly a cause of future/continued difficulties)? 217.169.51.41 (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You will most certainly not be unblocked as long as you keep evading your block, as you did with the above IP. Sockpuppetry is the most secure way of making your block permanent. For a WP:Standard offer, at least a year completely free of block evasion is among the minimum requirements. Do not post here again; your only legitimate way of requesting an unblock is going to be via WP:UTRS. But don't try that earlier than in one year's time from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No probs Fut.Perf. – perhaps this is a forlorn task, as I suspected? However, just so as to explain myself, you will no doubt be pleased to note that I refrained from editing Misplaced Pages well beyond the recommended time period, and since starting to edit again, albeit recently, I have not been bombarded with complaints or hostility which I was familiar to receiving; rather the opposite, it would seem that my edits have been quite well received, thereby surely indicating that I can be a responsible, informative, helpful & civil editor? I should sincerely hope that Misplaced Pages is not ruled by the mob, despite that being what it came to feel like for me (when editing under the banned names, ie. on watchlists). And, as to the charge of sockpuppetry – a seemingly overwhelming consideration by many Wiki Admins, I repeat that the original account of Mabelina was most definitely that of my ex-wife and that I did not hide from that association when setting up under a new account name of my own, viz. L’honorable.

Am I wrong to be sceptical about the Wiki community’s ability to offer redemption – in view of the treatment meted out to me so far? I should hope I am wrong, but you are better placed to advise. Many thanks. Best, 86.142.255.25 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC) aka L’honorable.
PS. I note you blocked me from yesterday, why? (Please allow me the right of reply)...

Block evasion

As noted above, the user has been evading their block using IPs; since January they have been using 217.169.51.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit. This is disruption of the same kind that got the user blocked in the first place (addition of unsourced information, including changing the spelling of the subject's name contradicting both sources). This means there is a lot of extra work to be done for the rest of us, checking their other edits. Some seem to be ok, some include the kind of overlinking that has been discussed a lot above, and unfortunately none of the "spelling corrections" here I've spot checked agrees with the sources given. (The names in question are from well before English spelling was standardised, and it was common at the time to have variant spellings of the same name. That is not a reason to go against the spelling that's used in both sources.) Just to correct any misunderstanding about the block evading edits being constructive and welcome. --bonadea contributions talk 06:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Help: Speakers of the House of Commons

Dear L'honorable

Recently I have attempted to create an article listing the heraldic achievements of speakers of the British House of Commons, based on similar articles about the armorials of various heads of state and government. The draft has twice been turned down by administrators. As a significant contributor to articles relating to heraldry, your assistance would be most valuable.

Yours,

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Capt Loxley's Little Dog.jpg

The file File:Capt Loxley's Little Dog.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No context: this book is not discussed anywhere on the Gerald Loxley article. And the file is a 2014 machine-generated cover, giving it no independent historic/artistic value.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wikiacc (¶) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Meta Discussion

@SQL: the transclusion doesn't seem to have worked. Err, just noticed that it was empty. Sorry! ansh666 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging SQL to note that this transclusion will need to be substituted after the discussion is closed to prevent losing the archive of it. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored from archive. Discussion isn't closed. SQL 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

More dab hijacking

Sigh. This is another case of a disambiguation page being hijacked for a completely different article, and it follows the pattern of my first two recent reports (the first one here and the second here).

In this case, User Aneetir moved the disambiguation page Shaara to Freddie Lee Figgers, then retargeted the leftover redirect to one of the entries on the previous dab page, Michael Shaara. The dab page and its history need to be restored at Shaara.

In both the last two cases, the illicitly created article was deleted one way or another. I haven't even looked at this one, but it should probably be deleted as well, just because of the way it was made. But I leave that up to the admins who take care of this mess. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed/blocked/deleted/salted. Thanks for reporting. Should we consider if an abuse filter is possible for this pattern? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth looking into; it's easy enough for an admin to fix once detected but it takes close watching to see it happen. Good work User:Gorthian in finding these. Lankiveil 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC).

Special:AbuseFilter/657 catches external links added to disambiguation pages, which should monitor this issue, assuming the highjacking includes at least one link (even as a reference). Unfortunately it didn't see this one because the original page wasn't tagged as a dab. Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That account was created in February but inactive until now; probably too old to investigate for socks. Mackensen (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Never too old to investigate, only too old for CheckUser. If I can find the other two reports here I'll create a case, or Gorthian might be in a better position to do it themselves. Ping me if help needed. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, the case is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. This is a known tactic to add spam articles evading our usual filter mechanisms. I'm updating the case shortly. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Is this spamming behavior documented somewhere? I looked at the Highstakes00 case when it was called out in response to my first report, but couldn't find anything. I've observed some details that I could add. And I could swear I originally posted this at ANI...? — Gorthian (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess there's not a detailed description there, just links from the archive to past instances. If you'd like to add anything, please do. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Important page creation

Hi, i am contacting today regarding the creation of a page for Kuei Kuei. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8302108/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.162.150 (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You should probably go to Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Film, radio and television and make your request there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Village pump discussion about allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions

Admins, the discussion Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC has started. It proposes allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Plastikspork broke InternetArchiveBot

User:Plastikspork made an edit to User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links.js that IABot uses. It's fed into PHP's JSON encoder which doesn't support comments, and thus has broken the bot. If any admin could please quickly undo the edit.—_Chat:Offline 02:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the heck you just said. But I've reverted the edit since PS doesn't seem to be around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Is there a reason why the content model of that page is still wikitext? Plastikspork was trying to fix the bogus categories, maybe the content model is incorrect? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It's in my .js file so I would think the content model would adjust accordingly. I don't know how to change it.—_Chat:Online 12:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: The content model of the page right now is JS. With that content model the templates are still parsed, resulting in bogus categories. Admins can change the content model of the page, say to JSON (seeing as you said that the bot encodes the JS into JSON). Then the bogus categorization doesn't happen anymore. Check User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/sandbox and its history to see what I mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool, so how do I change content models?—_Chat:Online 12:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: You ask an admin. Beforehand though, the admin (me in this case) will ask whether changing the content model of the control page will break the bot, to make sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Should work, thanks.—_Chat:Online 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And done it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Um. Seems like changing the content model of the page has removed the automatic protection that User.js pages have. I've fully protected the page under the assumption that the point of putting the control page under the .js title was deliberate to trigger the protection; I'll remove it again if that was incorrect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, can you reduce it to template?—_Chat:Online 13:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Seems like I protection conflicted with Xaosflux, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry was trying to fix the other prob - TEP seems fine. — xaosflux 13:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account

I just blocked Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as apparently compromised. The account was making the same "OurMine" edits to the Barack Obama and Donald Trump articles as we had with the compromised admin accounts a few weeks ago. Just an FYI, I suppose: be on the look out (and enable 2FA if you can and haven't already!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen has unblocked after getting confirmation that Scjessey is now back in control of his account. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect

I am requesting administrative attention to the title of this page, to its lede sentence, and to its content in general. There is a history of Requests for Comments and Requested Moves, concerning whether the subject is a dialect of Punjabi, a language variety of Punjabi, a language, or more than one of these at the same time. It appears to me that some of the participants in these conflicts have difficulty in stating their position and difficulty in understanding policies and procedures in the English Misplaced Pages because their command of English is limited. I became aware of the conflict on 13 December when one of the editors filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_145#Saraiki_dialect. Discussion was difficult, and eventually the DRN thread was closed on 21 December as resolved by a previous RFC. Since then I have received requests on my talk page for assistance, but I have difficulty understanding them. I see from the template at the top of Talk:Saraiki dialect that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available, presumably under India-Pakistan arbitration. I haven’t researched the status of Saraiki in detail, but I see that language scholars have discussed its status on the dialect continuum in depth without a final resolution. (Thanks to User:Paine Ellsworth for a thoughtful closure.) My own thought is only that the lede sentence should agree with the title rather than contradicting it, and that the controversy should then be dealt with (as it is) in the body of the article. The lede currently states that it is a language, although the title characterizes it as a dialect.

Administrative attention is requested, but administrators should be aware that some of the editors seem to have extreme difficulty in communicating in written English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW the "some accounts" are all just one prolific sockmaster. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. I've been handling that socking for a while now, as has Bbb23, the page is under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions and the talk page has been tagged as such. At this point, after semi protecting the talk page, the discussion is between good faith editors. I don't think any admin action is required at this point unless it's to block any fresh socks. —SpacemanSpiff 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism at the industrial psychology article page

There is an editor called Iss246 over at the industrial psychology article aggressively deleting great swathes of sourced text, without any discussion on the talk page of the article. Can an administrator take a looksee, and maybe roll back to before they started their hack job. POV?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a major rewrite of the article, not vandalism or something else that ought to be treated aggressively. Some of the deletions I checked were for seemingly good reasons: for example, this removed a misinterpretation of the source, this removed a paragraph that didn't make much sense, and this removed something that was being greatly over-emphasised. Please note that pro-and-con sections are not normally appropriate, and what you've restored sounds like someone wrote it for a poor-quality school assignment, so deleting it was definitely the right thing to do, and putting it back was quite unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked over their spot editing again, and yep, it does seem to be some decent edits, but deleting whole sections like this without talking about it first, seems unhelpful. At least four major sections were deleted, either totally or mostly. I think it's all now taken care of.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, how is deleting this whole section today, with lots of reliable sources helpful. This is just another example. It looks well written to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Their other spot editing is good, and the issue has been dealt with.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Article creation, but topic ban for contributions.

I created an article Specified Bank Notes, which I am improving , I have been imposed with topic ban notice,by User:SpacemanSpiff under the pretext that I have been disruptive, if content forking and creation of new articles comes under disruptive, this is highly discouraging as a contributor to wikipedia, .Junosoon (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note that this is a Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBIPA topic ban for six months wrt articles related to the Indian economy (including currency, taxation) based on the continuous failure to take in feedback from multiple editors and continuing the same behavior. The topic ban is for a short duration and limited in scope. —SpacemanSpiff 04:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment,User:SpacemanSpiff please clarify what you intent to claim continuing the same behavior!? , do you find article creations disruptive, or spin off content.?, Kindly justify your ban with evidence,!, Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Your talk page, your prior discussion at ANI and numerous other interactions with other editors at various places. My hope (though I'm losing it now) is that in six months you may be able to understand things better. —SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • What you are claiming , to impose a ban, has to be answered in terms how Misplaced Pages has been disrupted, or harmed by my contributions and not just by accusations of being disruptive and imposing a ban!. Junosoon (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
      • If you can't understand the numerous warnings you've received then there's no point in my rehashing that. You have been disruptive in various different ways. At this point I wouldn't be opposed to an indefinite block owing to WP:CIR issues. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• There's also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Persistent_vandalism_to_disrupt_article_Narendra_Modi.E2.80.99s_demonetisation_policy —SpacemanSpiff 04:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Looks justified to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Assuming the user intends this as an appeal of their WP:ARBIPA topic ban from the Indian economy, I would decline it. EdJohnston (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Going by the history of the contributions of the user, the action looks entirely justified.Light 12:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Request review of non-admin closure of RFC

See Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment - Article Rewrite

Winged Blades of Godric has closed an RFC with what I regard as an unnecessary barb aimed at the RFC creator. I created the RFC to establish the wiki norms that should be used in an article rewrite not for authorization to rewrite it. In addition, the RFC has only run for approximately 15 days instead of being allowed to run for 30 days. I note from his talk page that this is not the first time he has prematurely closed an RFC see User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#closing RfCs.

Requesting an uninvolved admin re-open the RFC. WCM_email 10:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reply -- Well, my closing statement ( later modified at two steps) pretty well said that he was entirely free to use the secondary sources per the prevailing consensus.Not sure, why would he ask for a review!Going by his comment, here,I feel strange at somebody opening RFCs to establish the wiki norms that should be used in an article. Secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources and we don't need an RFC to establish that.And well, inspite of the credible secondary sources, rewriting(which I mean as a complete overhaul) is too strong a word in these conflict prone articles.Light 12:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog