Revision as of 09:37, 16 February 2013 edit212.183.140.4 (talk) →3RR warning: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:56, 10 June 2024 edit undoWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 edits →Information on removal of email access: Copyedit (minor) | ||
(542 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
|} | |} | ||
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg--> | |}<!--Template:Welcomeg--> | ||
{{archive box|search=yes| | |||
], | |||
], | |||
], | |||
] | |||
}} | |||
== WP:ANI == | == WP:ANI == | ||
Line 70: | Line 76: | ||
==File permission problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg== | |||
] | |||
Thanks for uploading ''']'''{{#if:|, which you've sourced to {{{source}}}.|.}} I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. | |||
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either | |||
* make a note permitting reuse under the ] or another acceptable free license (see ]) '''at the site of the original publication'''; or | |||
* Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to '''''', stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter ]. | |||
== Stop disrupting an SPI == | |||
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to ''''''. | |||
Your actions here are unacceptable. You cannot simply rearrange views like you did to suit your own agenda. Others have contributed in context, and you corrupted the whole sense of the discussion. It is not fair to all those others concerned. ] (]) 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
If you believe the media meets the criteria at ], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ], and add a ] justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. | |||
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following . '''Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no permission-notice --> ] (]) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== 3RR Warning (]) == | |||
== DLS/coordinate lists for motorways == | |||
'''This is a formal ] warning.''' ] (]) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
==SPI== | |||
Hi. In the future, when including coordinate lists, can you use as many parameters of {{tl|coord}} as possible, especially the "<code>name</code>" parameter? Otherwise, we get something like . Thanks, ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
No, it's fine. I was mostly annoyed at his edit summary, which is typical of this person. When I left the note on his page, I knew he'd come back and say that you had moved the comments in the first place so he was innocent etc, so I criticised you in the note as well. I don't have a problem with moving the comments, just with him spouting bad faith all the time. Now that I've left that note, he has specifically not got any permission to move my comments, so he can't do it again. Thanks for the ANI heads up, cheers :) ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Looks good. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:What do you (Bretonbanquet) mean by "so he can't do it again"? I never moved any of your comments, that was Martinvl. I restored them to their original positions. ] (]) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
==File copyright problem with File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png== | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
] | |||
Thank you for uploading ]. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes ] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the '''license''' and the '''source''' of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a ''']''' to the ]. | |||
== Comments at SPI == | |||
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following . | |||
Regarding , why are you even bothering to speak to him? What you're writing will have zero effect on the way the SPI case is handled. You're just wasting your time. You're free to do so if you wish, I just thought I'd point that out. (FYI in England if you think a kid is lying you might say "you're telling porkies" to him) --] ] 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the ]. Thanks again for your cooperation.<!-- Template:Di-no license-notice --> –] (] • ] • ]) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== January 2013 == | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] (]) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I notice that ] has requested that his block be lifted. May I draw to attention the following: | |||
Hi there. We appreciate the effort you are making on the UK motorway articles, good job. One request though. When you enter the distances, can you do so in miles rather than kilometres. The distance measurement on the UK roads is in miles so it should use the same units. ] ] 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
*I did not actually make a fourth reversion during the 24 hour period. | |||
*MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice, just as | |||
:* he failed to notify me that he was on the Fringe Theory notice board, | |||
:*he failed to notify me that he was on the Original research notice board | |||
:*he failed to notify me that he was on the Conflict of interest notice board. | |||
*MeasureIT’s record on this article, such as the tone of language used in had much to be desired, especially when he stated that he was restoring NPOV. | |||
In short, since MeasureIT was doing all that he could to needle me, I was the victim and he the perpetrator. If you see fit to lift his ban I request that mine be lifted simulatanteously.}| decline=This block is not about another user. This block is about you edit warring. You have not substantially addressed this in your unblock request. Please see ] for advice, in particular ]. --] ] 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
== Questions raised over an edit of yours == | |||
Greetings Martin. I had the same problem with distances that towns were from other towns and cities in the UK. suggest you use the following code in your edits which will show the distance initially in miles and automatically convert it to Km's as well. Thus a distance of 3 miles gives.... {{convert|3|mi|km}} -- 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::BTW The second user has been asked by Misplaced Pages to change his logon name, so my responses to his page are no longer available. ] (]) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I have raised questions about your recent edit to "]" in the talkpage section "]". Please, as I have asked you many times before, consider discussing your views there first, and attempting to reach a consensual agreement, ''before'' making further similar changes. Discussion is certainly more likely to be productive than is constant warring. Thanks. ] (]) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for January 22== | |||
:My response to both correspondents has been to point out that I am cataloguing the values that appear on ]. The Highways Agency has published the values for the M25. <ref> | |||
{{cite web | |||
|url= http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/documents/070921-Final_DLS_map.pdf | |||
|title=M25 Road Network Driver Location Signs | |||
|publisher=] | |||
|accessdate=2009-06-09}}</ref> Otherwise I have obtained the numbers from draft of similar documents. By definition, such cataloguing of numbers is verifiable as one need only look at the location marker posts that appear ''in situ''. I also pointed out that introducing miles onto the junction lists would add to the clutter and make them less user friendly. ] (]) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
== References == | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
] A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a ], such as at ]. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. | |||
==]== | |||
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that they ] the page or have a copy emailed to you.<!-- Template:Db-repost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per ]. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to ''suppress'' such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! ''']''' ''']''' 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:The article was unanimously deleted ] only 3 months ago, like others have said. There hasn't been any improvement (no addition of reliable sources, etc.) so the TOTSO page ought to have been deleted. I userfied it, however, and it's located at ] for your reference. If you wish to overturn an AFD deletion decision, the best place to take it is ] (not simply recreating the page). Do note that people will probably not be willing to overturn the decision or relist at AFD unless you prove that it can be an encyclopedic and ] topic. ]''']''' 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::There are a few comments on ] for you as well, and I just want to make sure you see them. -- ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
*The original article has been moved to ]. There is no additional content in the history. In particular the article was never placed in any categories. ] (]) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Credit card! (sorry) == | ||
Hi, sorry - sarcasm doesn't travel well and I should have been clearer! Apologies. All I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't say it's a credit card when it isn't, if only because it will upset sad people with OCD, i.e. me! I agree that a fifteen-paragraph explanation might be a bit excessive, on the other hand ... oh, I really don't know. Do you think there is some concise form of words that makes it clear somehow but doesn't actually say it's a card. Does "plastic card" work?? Sorry - not good editing from me. Cheers ] (]) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
This has been transferred to the Martinvl talk page from Dieter Simon's talk page | |||
:Actually, on reflection I think that your ''second'' version with quotes around it pretty much does that. I might just shut up now! :) Cheers ] (]) 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! ] (]) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Ha! Yes, it's a good sharp image. :) Nice one. Cheers ] (]) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Mandatory Notice == | |||
Dieter=, a few days ago you added a "facts" flag to the article ]. This was subsequently changed to a "Citation Needed" flag. I used Google Earth and within five muinutes I was able to verify the statement concerned. Do facts of this nature really need a citation? If so, where does one find these facts? Please be a little more careful when asking for citations. I have removed this flag. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Hi Martinvl, I don't know about being careful asking for citations. Are you saying that all those editors adding references (in the "Reference" section) whenever they add any text are wasting their time, then? When in fact we are being exhorted to do exactly that? See ]. The sheer fact that it hasn't been done more often, and that at a flick we can obtain those facts from Google, is neither here nor there. An encyclopaedia creating text, should always cite its sources, not ask readers to go somewhere else to verify facts in order to believe what has been written. No, we should always source our statements, it is not a big deal, espececially if we know where to find these fact. ] (]) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::When I have some time, I will revisit this entry and add a reference consisting of "This can be viewed using for example Google Earth. The coordinates are: East end - xxxx; West end - xxxx; Viewed dd-mmm-yyyy". Would this be appropriate, or do you think that teh citation should have some other format? ] (]) 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::To be honest, I don't know, you can try and enter it the way you think. Though I have done editing for a number of years I have never come across it. Perhaps you can put a section into the Talk:Expressway page to see what others say for present and future purposes. Let me have a look and see if there is an external source I can find. ] (]) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Copied to Martin's talk page. ] (]) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Actually, Martin, there is an article on the ] and an external source cited in it: . Shall I leave it to you? If you enter "E. C. Row Expressway" (with quotes) in Google or Yahoo! you'll find quite a few websites. ] (]) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you, Martinvl, great job, your source works brilliantly. ] (]) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
==Communication== | |||
Hi, Martin. When you commented on ] today , you included namecalling and bad faith assumptions: ("''Was this an act of vandalism?''", "''monolingual script kiddy''"). Things like these can make the community less pleasant and discouraging to any user that comes across them. | |||
*Hi Martin. Well, we've been through this drill before.... ]] 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Your use of the term "monolingual script kiddy" in your reply to Wavelength, to say a probability the reason their addition was changed is the user was one of those, was a violation of our ]. | |||
== February 2013 == | |||
Also, your suggestion to Wavelength that the first thing they should do is check the userpage of the editor who removed or changed their addition (in this case, me), then undo that change, as a monolingual script kiddy vandalising'll probably never notice and change it back, broke our rules on ]. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, it's important to avoid jumping to accusations or assumptions of thoughtlessness, or searching for a reason to brush off any concerns raised. Instead, focus on the merits of the content, which stands on its own. These policies/guidelines, also known as ] and ], are important core principles of the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] ] 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Talkback== | |||
I hope that the explanation above was clear to you. If not, I'd be happy to explain further, here. | |||
{{talkback|Arctic Kangaroo|ts=08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
I'll watchlist your talkpage for a couple've days in case. Thanks, and happy editing. –] 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)<br />P.S. I notice you've replied there since. I'll continue any content-related discussion there. | |||
] ] 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:On the same subject, ... see M25 Talk page! – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
←Okay, now replied to any content-oriented parts there. The same points above relate to your second—made before I posted here on your talkpage—. In general: be collegial, personal remarks even those the target doesn't see are undesirable; and, in the absence of clear evidence of ill intent, assume good faith. Be well. –] 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Invitation to participate in discussions == | |||
== ] == | |||
Rather than reverting, whinging and throwing about bad faith accusations please come to these talkpages and discuss your continual insistence of adding unencyclopaedic content to these metric system related articles: | |||
Looking over the article again, I think you have a strong case for getting it renamed. Go ahead and propose it at ]. Once complete, it may be worth turning the Relief of Ladysmith page into a list linking to all of the battles. Good luck! ] (]) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
] (]) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I've requested page protection at SPI. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Litre == | |||
::Thank you Garamond ] (]) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Why not "much less common"? I challenge you to find a use of the dry quart that is less than fifty years old. There's no question that the US system is complicated and foolish, but there's no reason to leave the impression that it is more complicated than it is. We do use the ounce (volume) and the ounce (weight), which is confusing to the consumer, but there's only one pint, quart, and gallon in common use. | |||
:::Page protection? To protect the page from what? What are you afraid of? ] (]) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
And, BTW, "less common" had been there through around 600 edits -- three and a half years -- since the "Rough conversions" section was added. I just added "much". . . . . <strong>Jim</strong> . . . . ] (] • ]) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm afraid of wasting more time than absolutely necessary dealing with a banned user. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:If it is '''much''' less common, is it neccessary to include it in the article - we have an exact conversion anyway? Although I agree with yoy that the US system is foolish, but my understanding is that the dry quart and pint are very much part of their way of life than in the UK. I actually think that the reference to the dry quart should be removed compeltely, but given my pro-metric views, I restrained myself in order to maintain a neutral point of view. ] (]) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::By all means argue your opinion on the content, but please don't persist with these ad hominem personal attacks. You may get yourself into trouble with the administrators behaving like that. ] (]) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I thought about that. From the point of view of a USA reader, the dry quart is absolutely irrelevant. Why not remove it and see if anyone squawks?. . . . <strong>Jim</strong> . . . . ] (] • ]) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 3RR warning == | ||
I left you . Groeten, ] (]) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Beware of the 3RR rule at ]. There are discussions on the talkpage about that section, take the time to read, and digest, the opinions of others, and add ideas of your own. We should try to talk this one through, rather than attempt to impose our will. ] (]) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Proposal re Metric System (not "metrication"...) == | |||
== Important notice == | |||
] (]) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I see your points re deleting my additions. That said, i DO think that such a section would add considerably to the article, to help people grasp what the various prefixes actually mean, since it is an abstract concept which is difficult to handle for many people, and the current section really does nothing to help explain things at all (neither does the unnecessary article on "metric prefixes", i should add). Accordingly, if i made it much more "encyclopedic" in nature, would you leave it be? | |||
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 10:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
-Ross Mayhew. | |||
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
:Hi ] | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:One of my concerns is the degree of overlap between the two articles ] and ]. As I see it, the former should concnetrate on the metric system (or rather SI) as it is today with a small amount of historic background, while the latter should concentrate on the ''evolution'' of the metric system. As such I would see no problem with a section showing how Mouton introduced prefixes and maybe discussing (rather than cataloging) prefixes as they developed between 1793 and 1960 (introduction of SI). Also, the two articles should cross-reference each other to guide readers between them. WHat are your feelings on the matter? ] (]) 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Rangeblocks == | ||
FYI I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for DeFacto and his obvious socks: | |||
Declaring it over? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
* 23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block) | |||
* 22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block) | |||
It's under 200 IP addresses. I'm tired of dicking around with those. I'm sure he'll pop up again somewhere else since he doesn't seem to have anything better to do. Sad. ] <small>(])</small> 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Metrication deniers == | |||
:What are you talking about? ] (]) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Martin, I am sorry if I inadvertently lent any credence to the silly copyvio claims at ] and elsewhere. And if you feel the UKMA links to these documents are a more reliable or permanent source, please revert my changes to ]. Kind Regards ] (]) 12:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Like adding a metriculated table was not intentional? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Hi Mcewan, No problems at all - in fact I am glad that you found the citations - wheh I looked for them on the .gov.uk a year or two ago, I coulkd not find them, so I used the UKMA site. ] has been hassling me for two years now so now this is one less thing that he has with which to hassle me. ] (]) 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
== |
== Full disclosure == | ||
I took the liberty of on ] to make it easier to navigate to the appropriate pages. I hope you don't mind. ] <small>(])</small> 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for starting this article - I have been fascinated by his story since I first saw his grave in my local cemetery and have gradually been collecting a lot of info about him, with a view to starting an article shortly. I have recently ordered a copy of ]'s book to fill in more of the detail - I'll read it on my forthcoming holiday. | |||
:No problems - anything to keep him out of our hair. ] (]) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
With this in mind, I have been adding links to various pertinent articles - ironically, the only relevant article where he is not mentioned is that for ]. Perhaps that can be rectified in due course. Cheers. ] (]) 09:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I just pinged ] re Bill lC. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
p.s. I also intend to create an article about the '']'' which was named after him. ] (]) 09:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks. He doesn't really have a clue about the article he is trying to write. ] (]) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Whacked. ] <small>(])</small> 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for March 2== | |||
Thanks for what you have done so far - I am a bit perplexed by the confusion over the date of birth as both the Friends of Old Southampton Cemetery and the Fraserburgh Heritage Centre are adamant about the 1815 date. I will probably email them and ask for their comments - is their any chance that you could email me copies of the pages in the books cited by you so I can pass these on to them? I have a recent photo of the grave, which I will upload to WP Commons and add to the article, and that for the cemetery. | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
By the way - do you live in Durban? My wife and I are planning to re-visit South Africa next year (we went to Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, via the Garden Coast, 4 years ago). What's the best time to come from a weather point of view? Cheers. ] (]) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi ]. Thank you for your note. I will get together the sources that I have and send what photocopies I can lay my hands on. BTW, I live in Fleet (other end of Hampshire), but I was at univeristy in Durban. ] (]) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== RJL templates == | |||
I have now received the biography written by Stephen Gray in 1992, in which he asserts that the coreect date of birth is 17 August 1815, which he has checked against the Fraserburgh parish records. He is rather dismissive of the works of both Ritter (which he describes as "fiction") and Bulpin. Rather than edit the article piecemeal, I would prefer to read the whole book and then summarise its contents. As I will be away for most of July, it will be several weeks before I can come back on this. Cheers. ] (]) 10:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hello Martin, nice job on the ]! This is just a courtesy note to keep you informed that I fixed a couple of minor technicalities which I spotted with them and their docs. Best, ] (]) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Hi ]. Are you happy to transfer this conversation to the ] page (removing the personal bits)? | |||
:Hello Martin. In the spirit of ], with your '''B'''old edit to introduce italics into the mile column of UK road junction lists having been '''R'''everted, you should not change it back again whilst there is an ongoing '''D'''iscussion. Wait now to see if there is a consensus amongst editors for such a change to be introduced. ] (]) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:As regards visiting South Africa, the coastal areas are best during the South African summer (Oct to Apr), while the game parks (espl ] are best during the South African winter (Apr to Oct). The northern part of the Kruger Park is closed during the South African summer. If you do plan to visit Kruger, book from the UK - you will get preferential treatment as you are bringing foreign currency into the country. ] (]) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Yes of course, much of this should be on the article's talk pag. I'll leave you to decide what to include./not include. And thanks for the info on SA. I plan to retire next May/June, so October looks favourite. We did visit Kruger four years ago in July - it rained every day! But I'm looking forward to it already! ] (]) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== M3 edit == | ||
{{tmbox | |||
|tyle = notice | |||
|small = | |||
|image = ] | |||
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
}} '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 06:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
was made on an old version of the page and reintroduced errors and bad use of bold/capitals, ref placements etc. Please be careful to work on the most recent version of a page, or place an appropriate template telling other users that you're making large changes. Also, if you now believe a consensus exists to do this, are you going to remove the colour code key from the footer of every UK roads list? ] (]) 09:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Tugela River == | |||
:Yes, I will be - I have already started. I am also making corrections to J2 as per Google maps. ] (]) 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Just out of interest, could you show me where the consensus exists to do what you're doing? ] (]) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::WP:RJL Talk page (today's discussiopns) ] (]) 09:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Ah, the bit where you waited just five hours before starting your mission? Typically we allow discussions to go on a little longer than five hours before rolling out mass edits and modifications to the manual of style etc. What's the rush? Remember, there is no ] here. Besides, the discussion continued after your declaration onto the possibility of using a template instead, which would have no ACCESS issues. Have you considered that? ] (]) 09:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Ok, demonstrates that you are becoming disruptive. I notified you above that you had used an old version of a page to roll out your changes, and asked you nicely to be more careful. You weren't. If you continue to edit in this fashion, we'll need to discuss this disruption in more detail. And to think I defended you when Rschen7754 had mentioned Arbcom. Silly me. ] (]) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi Martinvl, | |||
Please accept my apologies - I hadn't noticed that I'd already 'corrected' article in question - if I had i'd probably have twigged that it had been reverted. I hope I didn't cause any offence. I'll of course be more careful in future. | |||
Regards, <span style="border: 2px solid black; text-align:center; background: lightblue; text-color: orange; link: orange; vlink: green">''']''' - ] - ]</span> 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I think that you are the one who was being disruptive by removing a perfectly clear citation and then stating that a citation was needed. I use the word "clear" rather than "reliable" because the citation stated exactly how I came by that information, no more and no less. You have every right to question the reliability of the citation, but not its existance, especially when you deleted it. ] (]) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== WP South Africa welcome == | |||
::Again, you're missing the point. Your edit removed a series of other edits by other editors. You need to be careful when you edit pages. Make sure you use the most recent edit. And I have no idea what you're talking about here by the way. What is this "clear" and "reliable" issue you have? You have made a number of disruptive edits, please stop doing it. By the way, if it helps, citations should be from ]. Make sure you use ] when you "reference" things. Although an editor of your experience surely must already know that. ] (]) 20:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
{| style="border:1px solid #C0C090; background-color:#F8EABA; padding: 4px; width: 80%; min-width: 575px; font-size: 90%; line-height: 1.1em;" align=center | |||
| style="line-height: 2em;"|]<big>'''Hi, {{BASEPAGENAME}}<br>Welcome to ]!'''</big> | |||
|- | |||
|We are a growing community of Misplaced Pages editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to South Africa. Here are some points that may be helpful: | |||
:::Please tell me exactly which edits you are objecting to, and while you are about it, would you please also tell me why you reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones' work of 09:22? | |||
* Our main aim is to help improve South Africa-related articles. | |||
:::*I know that I removed the coloured blocks - the general consensus of WP:RJL was that they should go (you might not be privy to posting that I made in connection with the coloured blocks). | |||
* Most important discussions take place on the project's ]; it is highly recommended that you . | |||
:::*I know that I corrected the destinations for the M3/M25 junction to reflect those currently displayed on Google Maps. Reverting this change is totally unjustified. | |||
* You may also be interested in joining ], the parent project to ]. | |||
:::*I know that I reinstated my citation of 2009 and removed your "citastion needed" flag - I believe that your action here was unjustfied and I am willing to submit this action to arbitration. | |||
:::In short, I think that you are the one who is being disruptive. ] (]) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually read the posts you get? I showed you two edits you made which over-rode edits by others. The second was after a warning which you clearly disregarded. Stop doing it. Cheers. (FYI, I've reinstated the work that Gareth did (which you'd blown away in your first edit, as it happens), so bonus there, eh?!) Incidentally, with regard to your anecdotal "source", please do "submit this action to arbitration", it's nonsense, and I look forward to seeing how you could possibly defend it against our policies and guidelines. Obviously, it would be courteous of you to let me know when you instigate such arbitration. In the mean time, I'll start referencing everything I do with something like "sourced ''in situ''" or whatever nonsense..... ] (]) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
If you have any questions, feel free to ], and we will be happy to help you. | |||
:'''I did not blow away any of Gareth's changes'''. If you check the history of today's changes, you will notice that all of my changes were in the subsection "Junctions" while none of Gareth's were in that subsection. ] (]) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. | |||
::Nah, you just over-rode all the other edits, most of them mine, as I demonstrated to you '''twice''' in diffs in this very section of your talk page. Stop disrupting Misplaced Pages. Let me know when you start arbitration. In the mean time, stop disrupting Misplaced Pages with your incorrect self-belief, your rolling out of a "consensus" after five hours of discussion, your inability to understand we have no ]. Calm down. Slow down. Relax. We'll get it sorted, but it doesn't have to happen in 20 seconds. 20 days, or so is fine. Get over it. ] (]) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Hidden notes in templates == | |||
|} | |||
If you're going to use hidden notes in templates, at least ensure they show up on the pages you're using them on please. ] (]) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Please be specific. ] (]) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::You're rolling out templates (without consensus I might add) with hidden notes. You are then not bothering to expose those notes on the pages in which you're rolling out the templates (for which you don't have any consensus). That means you have N1 etc, but no corresponding notes. This is very bad. Please fix it. ] (]) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Please revisit ] and tell me if the documentation is sufficient, or would you prefer a full example somewhere ] for example? ] (]) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Please revisit every place you're implementing your non-consensual templates and ensure you expose the notes to the reader. If you don't understand how to do this, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling with templates and rolling them out when you have no consensus to do so. And actually, hiding these notes away in templates when editors then need to add a bunch of other wikicode at the end of the page is really a bad idea. Consider what would happen if they already have their own notes which aren't using the same notation.... terrible idea. ] (]) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::The templates are designed to automatically display notes that are relevant to distances only if the RJL has distance columns. Likewise, they are designed to automatically display notes if the carriageway letters are displayed. In this way, the reader is not exposed to notes that have no relevance to the RJL concerend. In addition, the editor concerned can add his own notes to the list of notes in the footer box if he so wishes. While applying the templates, I am checking for things such as other editor's notes - I have not come across any yet. I will cross that bridge when I see notes by another editor - whatever I do, rest assured, I will not destroy them.] | |||
:::::BTW, if editors wish to add their own notes to the structure, all that they need to do is to add the parameter <code>notes = Y</code> to the template <code>RJLUKfooter</code>, and if the RJL has incorporated distances, even that will not be neccessary.(]) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Well the least you can do as you roll out these templates which have no consensus whatsoever is to implement the notes yourself. It would be unfortunate if, in the rolling out of these templates without any consensus, you fall foul of your own advice. ] (]) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Which is exactly what I have been doing. While rolling them out (and deliberately choosing minor motorways such as the A308(M) which get 12 hits a day as opposed to the M25 which get 700 hits a day), I have been tuning the templates quite a bit. I have also been very careful to ensure that at all times, articles will read sensibly. ] (]) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::You mean like which was finally corrected by ? Hiding notes in templates is a '''very''' bad idea. And rolling them out '''without any consensus''' is worse. Please stop, find a consensus for your version of these templates before continuing on your one-man crusade. ] (]) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::This was an error in <code>RJLUKfooter</code> template which I will correct this evening. ] (]) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Any chance you can show anyone the consensus you think you have to roll out these new templates? Note, if you can't, then I guess you won't mind me reverting all these edits back to the previous ''status quo''? Also, you have a number of answers to comments of yours at ]. It would be useful to see you replying there. ] (]) 20:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:I am currently preparing a document to get some proper feedback based on the experience I have gained on rolling out over the smaller motorways. BTW, I have fixed the M67 problem. ] (]) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
I removed your "statement" as it appears to be ], nothing to do with ] which I simply mentioned in passing as you appear to have edited deliberately in contradiction of it and ]. Please stop with the drama and personal attacks. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Marvellous. Looking forward to your responses at the MOS. By the way, you might like to fix your errors at ] as well. ] (]) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Added to the OR noticeboard, you are of course welcome to contribute. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Nah, notes still not showing. Hence why you should '''not have hidden notes in templates'''. You've proved it perfectly. ] (]) 21:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
::On my terminal everything seem fine. BTW, are you looking at the RJL footer? ] (]) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::On your "terminal"? How retro. No, there are no notes showing on that page. Once again, another example as to why you shouldn't be using hidden notes. Please reconsider. Alternatively, I'll undo all the RJL templates you've been implementing without any consensus. How about that? ] (]) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Hang on, I can see them. Obviously nowhere near where normal footnotes go! Brilliant idea. Not. I suggest you remove this half-baked idea entirely. Footnotes belong in a footnotes section, not special hidden notes from templates being displayed in a hidden style in another template. Overly complicated and in no way beneficial to our readers. By the way, plenty of comments waiting for you at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Please stop adding the UK RJL templates to articles, there is no consensus to do so. You have many, many comments to respond to at the MOS page. If you try to implement these templates again, I'll remove them. Thanks. ] (]) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Falklands Dates == | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for March 9== | |||
I reverted your addition to the heading as the "Argentine" colonial effort was between 1828 and 1831, then for about a month in late 1832. Modern Argentina claims the period 1820-1833 but there are a number of problems with those claims. I suggest it is simply better to avoid the controversy that will ensue. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
:OK, point taken ] (]) 07:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Edit warring, great, I try to collaborate and you wish to make everthing a battle. What exactly is your problem? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Justin, we are all busy - how long do you want me to wait and why? ] (]) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm at work and the changes popped up on my watchlist, I just wanted time till this evening so I could answer your question and explain the different elements of the history. 6 hrs or so, that is all. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== March 2013 == | ||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing. ] (]) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
=={{tl|Ordination}}== | |||
I think you may have meant the edit previous to mine? ] (]) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Not sure why you that is being used by so many pages, but I reverted your changes. ] (]) 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Error on my part. I had copied it into my sandbox, corrected and tested the error, copied the corrected version back into main space and then in error blanked the corrected version, not the version in my sandbox. I have now reinstated my corrected version and double checked it against the article ]. ] (]) 11:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Apologies for any inconvenience - we both hit the vandalism within five minutes which is a good thing. Anyway it is sorted now. ] (]) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Your good work was just undone. Perhaps you want to take a look. --] (]) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== AMU reversion == | |||
:Hi Bob, thanks for the warning. ] (]) 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Sorry, referring maybe I am being a bit tired/dense, where does it say that the preferred usage for large or small values is Dalton? It says it is "often used" sure, but the text is suggesting it is somehow preferred? () ] (]) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:The use of prefixes is referred for '''all''' SI units. (I am a part-time physics teacher so I come across this problem regularly). | |||
::Sorry, I think we are not quite on the same topic -- I am suggesting that the citation does not indicate that dalton is preferred over the AMU unit "u", which is the implication in the sentence. For example. what prevents someone from writing "ku" rather than "kDalton"] (]) 10:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::You are right, the BIPM reference does not prefer one above the other. However it appears that the ISO reference (which was added by another editor) does. As this is the case, I think it best that this discussion be continued on the article's talk page. ] (]) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
: I have continued this over at ] ] (]) 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Wales 30 : England 3 == | ||
Cheers Martin! Thanks for that.<br />Sincerely,<br />{{spaced ndash}}]]]{{spaced ndash}}10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
I would appreciate it to me if you could explain why you see ] as US-biased. You have offered little proof to back up your assertion. --''']]]''' 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I have made a proposal to include the UK in RJL at ]. --''']]]''' 00:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Hi Rschen7754. I saw your proposal. By and large it looks OK, but I think it best that somebody else form the UK groups has some input. If nobody else does, then it might well just end up being ignored. | |||
::I think that the real reason that the UK editors do not appear to be cooperating is that the promotes of the RJL have taken the US model as being the start point of discussions, rather than putting the US model and the UK model alongside each other and taking the common points as the start point. I get the feeling that earlier discussion have annoyed UK editors to the extent that they are just boycotting RJL discussions. | |||
::May I put one item into perspective. I have read a number of John Grisham books and I get the feeling that every US country has its court house and that the judges and politicians at county level have considerable power. The UK is much more centrally administered. I don't know the name of the chairman of our District Council (which serves a population of 80,000), not of our County Council (which serves a population of just under 1,000,000). You will probably find that this is true of most Brits (apart from Londoners where the mayor does have some power). This reflects our lack of interest in county boundaries. It also explains why we get hot under the collar whe we are told by outsiders what is important in our own country. ] (]) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Are there any other active UK users currently? In response to your other points, ] (then ]) has been in force worldwide since around 2007, before the current UK model was developed. --''']]]''' 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::There are a few, but as I have said, they have probably had enough of the RJL debate and are ignoring it. ] (]) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well... it will probably be implemented then, if nobody from the UK objects. (Not that it's a huge change anyway, it just sets Misplaced Pages MOS guidelines and your own project consensus regarding miles and km into the guideline). --''']]]''' 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Martin, you're right to a degree about every county here having a courthouse and power-wielding judges. Anyway, do you have any objection to adding ''cities'' to junction lists? Last time around, I asked about it the logic was since some junctions were out in the middle of nowhere, and obviously wouldn't have a location, that no junctions should have a location. I, for one, would like to know where M1 and M25 intersect, not just that they meet at J6a on the M1. –]] 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I see the need for localities in junction lists as being important - the UK concept of a "''city''" is different to the American concept - historically a "''city''" in the United Kingdom had a bishop. The UK roads group ensures that the only localities quoted on the junction lists are those that appear on the roads themselves which is why we have different lists for each direction. | |||
:BTW, I think that the M1 and M25 intersect in either the Watford or the Hertsmere district (I have not checked which). Does Hertsmere mean anything to you? Probably not. That is why we don't use district names on our junction lists. ] (]) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
::No, Hertsmere doesn't mean anything to me, but I think you're missing the message here. When I'm looking at a junction list, I want to know where the junction is, not where the roads at the junction will take me. –]] 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Freddie, you are missing the point. Large pasrts of England are divided up into ]. ] is one such county. Counties are in turn divided up into ]. ] is one such district. If you want things put into perspective, please visit ] (an area with which I believe you are familiar). Now visit ]. See if you understand it! (BTW, ] (]) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Before we confuse each other more than we already have, do we agree or disagree that ISO 3166-2:GB level localities should be in the junction lists? I think they should. –]] 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Doesn't seem that much more complicated than ]. --''']]]''' 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I live in the United Kingdom. Maybe it is just possible that I know more about my own country that do people who have never set foot here. I shall not be making any more comments regarding this topic on my home page.] (]) 05:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ANI == | |||
== ] == | |||
Hello Martinvl. I have opened a thread at ANI in which you are mentioned; you may wish to comment ]. ] (]) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi, why has this page been created? Are you aware that it has been created in the main userspace? I did userfy it for you to ] because the page name contains your user name, which is why I marked the page for speedy deletion, however I notice you have since changed it back. Is this supposed to be in main space? -- ]] 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== DR/N filing == | ||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <i><font color="black"><font size="2">Socrates2008</i> (<font size=2>]</font>)</font></font> 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Socatres2008. Thank you for your note. There was a dispute for which I apologised. The apology was accepted. Since the issue was resolved before the article was flagged, I think that the flag was unneccessary and should therefore be removed. ] (]) 08:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Disappointed that an experienced editor would do this in the first place, but fair enough. The ANI case is closed now too. <i><font color="black"><font size="2">Socrates2008</i> (<font size=2>]</font>)</font></font> 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hello, I am ], a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Your recent filing suggests that the main issues are editor conduct or behavior. If this is accurate, it may be best to close this filing and suggest formal arbitration. If you feel that there is predominantly a content dispute the filing may move forward. Thank you and happy editing.--] (]) 10:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Metric Calendar - opposition == | |||
:You also failed to list ] who made various content edits you disagreed with to the M4 page. ] (]) 10:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Test == | |||
The ] met a lot of opposition, and was eventually discarded. ] (]) 08:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
xx | |||
:I am fully aware of that. I am also aware of a site that gives it a good description and which converts betweeen the Gregorian Calendar and the French Revolutionary Calendar. I did a Y2K verification of that site. Having said that, woudl you please add references and not leave others to do so? ] (]) 11:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
== For the record == | |||
== Banking edit on ] == | |||
] is from the UK, before you go labeling everyone who does anything related to "our" RJL as American... --''']]]''' 06:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
I reverted a recent edit but only because it made no sense. I think you have some words missing. Do you want to fix it, I think you'll see what I mean when you re-read it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
: |
:I am aware of that. ] (]) 06:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
::{{tps|v}} Martin, why do you insist on keeping this subject alive? It's not doing you any favours, and is just aggravating people. Your DRN thread was extremely problematic, in that it focused on ''contributors'', not ''content'', so it was never going to go anywhere. You can try arbitration if you really want, but if you do that, the drama level will '''explode''', so can I please, please, please suggest you ''ignore this subject'' and go and edit something else? We could really do with reviewers for ] submissions if that sounds interesting to you. Anything will do, really, as long as it doesn't have junction boxes. Oh, and Rschen, stop rising to the bait. ] ] ] 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Signatures == | ||
Hi, I've nominated an article you started, ], for the "Did you know" section of the main page. See ]. Do you have any thoughts about the article and another article about this person's father, which I started and which is also part of the nomination? --] <font color="navy"><sub>formerly AFriedman</sub></font> ] ]</b> 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Hi ]. Thank you for your message. I started the article in rather a hurry in order to correct the error that the common ancestor of ] and ] was General Sir Thomas Fairfax (who lived a century later). I will add my references today. However, I have no other knowledge of him. Regards ] (]) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
I found one pretty decent source online, which you would see if you get to the articles, and I don't know where the others would be. What references do you have in mind? --] <font color="navy"><sub>formerly AFriedman</sub></font> ] ]</b> 06:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Please remember to ''sign'' your messages on talk pages. Its important to be able to work out who is saying what...--]] (]) 13:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
===Update=== | |||
Anyway: The DYK reviewer said the articles needed other sources if they're going to appear on the main page. They probably need to be added soon if the nomination is going to pass. I don't know what they would be. --] <font color="navy"><sub>formerly AFriedman</sub></font> ] ]</b> 06:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] at peer review == | |||
== Space puzzle == | |||
Hi Martin, | |||
I've seen before, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose it serves. Can you explain? ] (]) 03:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Hi ]. | |||
:This is a "no-breaking space" - it ensures that Wikipeida does not put a "new line" between the "200" and the "km". ] (]) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Wow! That's so cool to know that. Thanks. ] (]) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
I'm celebrating the end of the beginning of grant-writing season by getting back on wikipedia and putting my first-ever article up for ]. Turnabout is fair play, so you're more than welcome to contribute if you find the topic at all interesting. If it's not your thing, no worries. | |||
== UK & Aussie republicans == | |||
Best, | |||
Howdy. I meant place the Australian PM's comments in ''with'' the UK Bishop's comments. ] (]) 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
<small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Hi Garamond, | |||
Howdy. Would you ''please'' restore the Broadbent comments to that article, as you didn't have a consensus to delete it? ] (]) 06:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I read the article - I am not really competant to make any comments other than maybe a bit about the layout - I recognise that often you have to make compromises with what you have, so maybe what I have written is being a little over-pedandic. | |||
:Lets see what other editors think. As far as I am concerned Broadbent is a nobody who used offensive language. ] (]) 08:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
: |
:] (]) 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 20== | |||
''If'' disagreement continues over the intro, we could just mention he's the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. ] (]) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
:We should use what other authoritative sources say. | |||
:I have seen many report of "''second in line to the throne''" and "''second in line to the British throne''" while one report that has been syndicated to many countries around the world says "''William, second in line to the throne of 16 realms, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is ...''" ] (]) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Yep, plus it's alot better then 'second in line to Elizabeth II'. ] (]) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Re the "th" issue, your are at loggerheads. ] (]) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== support == | |||
Generally the article is decent. It is simpler to understand than the main article (and sensibly leaves out most of the minutiae about redefinitions of metric units), but not by all that much, because (to me) ] is fairly accessible anyway. I'm not very familiar with introduction articles and don't know how distinct they are supposed to be from their more complicated parent articles, but I don't see a whole lot of distinctness in this one. The difference between the two articles that struck me most is the detail about the definition of the second changing after they used solar eclipses to determine that Earth's rotation is slowing down. That's not in the main metric system article, which strikes me as odd—I'd expect parent articles to be more detailed than introductions—but not necessarily "wrong". | |||
I removed on eof your comments, the sections are clearly for supports not comments, thanks. ] (]) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I put it back, its a big mess, people supporting one and two and opposing, sill really. ] (]) 19:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] files in your user space == | |||
] Hey there Martinvl, thank you for your contributions. I am a ], alerting you that ] files are ]. I some files I found on ]. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your ] or your ]. | |||
I'm not sure what you mean by "whether it is worth developing", but in terms of quality the article is a solid start, and the main thing I wonder about is whether it's distinct enough from the main article to justify the effort. ] (]) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
* See a log of files removed today ]. | |||
:Hi A. Parrot | |||
* Shut off the bot ]. | |||
:Thank you for your comments. I think that at the moment the "Introduction to" articles are still developing - my rationale abpout including the earth slowing down in the "Introduction to the metric system", but not the main article is that this is a concept that could be understood by the non-scientific readersip - using that level of detail in the main article about all the base units woudl result in a huge article. ] (]) 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Report errors ]. | |||
Thank you, -- ] (]) 05:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Citation for Pound (mass)== | |||
Please provide a citation for your edit to ]. Please be aware that comments in an edit summary do not constitute a citation. ] (]) 12:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I have added some references - one of them itself has a reference to what appears to be a reputable book (which might be out of print). ] (]) 13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
thanks Martinvl; actually that was me (latest merge proposer). I'm trying to push ] to the lower grade of highway from ], rather than a lexical "roads called expressways" basis, which is as inappropriate as the present "roads called motorways" bent of ]. See ]] (]) 06:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Martinvl, do you have access to an OECD definition similar to the Motorway one that would describe an expressway?] (]) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi Nankai, I have only seen OECD definitions for motorways and for roads. These definitionsa re used for statistical purposes when comparing the economies of different countries. If you have too many definitions, it becomes difficult to compare like with like. In my view, I would define an expressway as being a road that fulfils one or more (alternatively two) of the criteria for a motorway - I haven't made up my mind which is the better cut-off point. ] (]) 08:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Stellenbosch to bid for Wikimania 2012! == | |||
Hi Martin! | |||
The nascent ] has decided to bid to host Wikimania in Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2012. This would be the first Wikimania in South Africa, and would be a great advertisement for our country. Please take a look at ]. If you can add to the discussion, please do. If you feel that you are able to do anything to help, please join the and let us know. Even simple messages of support are valued! | |||
Best regards, | |||
] | |||
== Rollback and reviewer granted == | |||
] | |||
I have rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of ''reverting ]'', and that you will not abuse it by reverting ] edits or to ]. For information on rollback, see ] and ]. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. ] (]) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I have also given you reviewer rights. See ] and ] for more information. Cheers, ] (]) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Stone (mass) (disambiguation) == | |||
Thank you for fixing ]. — ] (]) 12:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
] | |||
This is an automated message from ]. I have performed a search with the contents of ], and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: ]. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see ] for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see ] and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an ] to preserve attribution history. | |||
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article.<!--This template located at Template:Csb-notice-wikipage--> ] (]) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Peer Review on Falkland Islands == | |||
Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. ] <small>]</small> | |||
:OK, I will hold back. ] (]) 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Falkland Islanders == | |||
I think that as part of improving the Falkland Islands article we can take a good shot at expanding this article enough to reach a DYK. This would definitely make it easier improve the main Falkland Islands page after the information has been taken in, because it would be easier to see what was important. Thought I'd mention it as I was going to work on it, and saw you had made some recent edits to the page. ] (]) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Chipmunkdavis | |||
:I did a little work so as to substantiate the summaries that I had in the main article. I was not planning to do very much more work apart from maybe using the census data. The census data suggests that the section on religion is oveplayed - the census figures showed "Christian" and "not specified/none" as being about 99% - other faiths accounted for about 1%. I also planned to get proper references for the Roman Catholic and Anglican hierarchy, but not much more. The other issue that I don't quite know how to handle is the number of contract workers on the island (at least that is what the census figures tell me) without doing OR. ] (]) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::It just seems like a good opportunity to get some good information placed on these articles. The religion section does seem strange and disproportionate, although no doubt more information about christianity would go a long way towards fixing that. Personally I want to do something about the language section, a short summary of the dialect. Might be worth adding a paragraph about history too. ] (]) 12:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Undone indentation of comments == | |||
I've just undone a change you made to my comments on ] since it represents a substantial alteration to my comments. The purpose of indentation is to show what is being responded to. If as here, both posts relate to a single previous comment then one following the other with the same indentation level is correct. By indenting my comments you alter them in to a response to SDY's comments rather than your comments. ] (]) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I see your point. ] (]) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
==NOR== | |||
When people object to changes to core content policies, you can't keep reverting, Martin. What you've added makes no sense, and it can't stay as it is. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Slim Slim Virgin II. | |||
:I added two sections - the use of maps and the use of "reputable computer programs". The use of maps had been discussed, but I agree the use of "reputable computer programs" had not been discussed. I have removed the phrase regarding "reputable computer programs". When I originally made the change regarding the use of maps, a number of constructive comments were made and the phrasing also became unwieldy, hence my splitting the first sentence into two into what I believes clarifies the position. I invite yot to reread what is there. | |||
:Another reason that I reverted what you had written was that I had originally wanted to combine the section on routime calculations, but was explicitly asked by ] not to do so as the Maths group were discussing that section. This is also a reason why I decline to revert. ] (]) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Invitation to take part in a pilot study == | |||
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Misplaced Pages. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Misplaced Pages contributors." I would like to invite you to ]. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only '''5 minutes’’’. ] (]) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Talkback== | |||
{{Talkback|Talk:Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton}} | |||
==ADS query== | |||
Hi fellow wikipedian, | |||
My information was gathered personally and through my colleagues, the last two weeks of April we documented and recorded information from advanced direction signs, using photographs and data from the roadside. About 12 of us were involved in the project, and that is why I have worded the update phrase as I did, we all saw it fit for purpose. Also I am sorry if I have offended you by replacing your contributions but they were inaccurate I'm afraid. For those roads we couldn't go to we used various web resources and contacted people living in the area to help us and contribute their information for the pages. The information gathered was from the ADS on the road at the 1m, 1/2m and 0m signs (or 2/3m, 1/3m, 0m), so are up to date, however where signs were not visible either removed or damaged we used past sources to gather information. The Highways Agency also helped us with our contributions. ] (]) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
==ADS== | |||
Hi, | |||
The information I contribute is 99% accurate, human error can account for 1%. I gather all my information from reliable and trusted sources, I gave up using the DfT and HA, their information sometimes lacks the 'accuracy'. DLS are everywhere nowadays and can be found now on Google Streetview, which would provide accurate information for you, just a suggestion there. ] (]) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Thank you for creating this interesting article. It is a shame you did not nominate it for front page exposure at ] (now it is too late for that). :( --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Oops == | == Oops == | ||
Hi Martinv1, sorry I invaded your space. I've answered your message on my page. ] (]) 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Hi JimWae | |||
:Thank you for your note. While you might be correct, the way in which I expressed the values is exactly correct, reflects the definitons and is quicker to enter on a calculator (unless the user is working to four decimal places, in which case he should use the values in the table). ] (]) 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi Martinvl, I just reviewed an article you nominated for GA, ]. The comments I left regarding this matter can be viewed at this page: ]. Please let me know if you are finished before 1 week from today. Regards, --] (]) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration == | |||
== GA Review for ] == | |||
Howdy- Thank you for reviewing my nomination for Washington to become a good article. I wasn't sure with your decision- are you placing the article on hold or quick failing it? If you are placing it on hold, could you be a little more particular with the problems. Thanks again! ] (]) 02:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is: | |||
:Hi Prairie Kid | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles | |||
:I have had to fail the article. May I suggest that once you have fixed the problems that I have identified (too many lists) and dead links, that you resubmit for peer review and wait for a review before you submit for GA status. I saw the article in the peer review section a few weeks ago but ] prevented me from reviewing it. ] (]) 05:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== VIAF for ] / ] == | |||
Thank you.] (]) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi. I don't want to (if someone else wants to: Have a look at the sitelinks of Wikidata item ]), like I don't want to create a stub for any of the other key people of the Genootskap (the article counts eight founding members plus one "spiritual father", du Toit just being one of the founding members). But the current linking is incorrect: VIAF does not have an entry for this organisation (or at least what I had removed was not this entry), it just has an entry for this person. We do not have any personal information about du Toit in this article, and there's no reason to link his personal entry here rather than the entry of anyone else. --] (]) 08:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Use of maps in Misplaced Pages == | |||
:I have actually resurrected an old entry for du Toit. IMO, it should never have been removed. ] (]) 08:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Hello == | |||
re , thanks for taking this on. I started this guideline the last time this came up. I worked on this for a bit, but when interest waned I gave up and moved on. Nice to see some others chime in. This comes up every year or so, so it would be nice to at least have a guideline that we can use when this comes up. ] (]) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:No problem. Interesting though that we came in from a totally different angles - my thank to the editor who drew my attention to you article. I liked your observation of mass-transit maps. I trust that you are in agreement with my concept regarding the use of the same analysis technique in two different disciplines. ] (]) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with in general with what's being discussed. I'm not sure I would have said maps should be treated the same as foreign language sources; however, aside from not liking the wording, I understand the point being made. ] (]) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Can you think of alternative phrases? One that springs to mind is "Specialised notation" and liken it to a music score. I know nothing about music, but I am sure that there are certain concepts that anybody who can read a music score can picjk up immeadiately. Maps are the same. How happy are you about trying to work something about music scores (or anything else) into the article. I could get my daughter to assist - she has sung in the ] - the top English choir outside London. ] (]) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hiya, I just asked a question over on ] about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. --<span style="border:2px solid black;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;font- verdana;background:orange" > ] ]</span> 18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== History of the Falkland Islands == | |||
== Deletion of information on Fleet, Hampshire page == | |||
Hi, | |||
Please refrain from calling references advertising if they are certifying that 'Stephanie Weller' the teenage model and beauty brand owner is actually from Fleet. Many editors are fed up of your constant reverting and you will be blocked and reported if it is to carry on. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
We were discussing how to fix that on the talk page. Please join in there. ] <small>]</small> 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Yes I am her agent but I'm no fool. I'm in the middle of writing her article at the moment actually and once I have, I intend to put her back on the list but if it makes you happy then I wont use her business website as a link :) | |||
== redirect repeated links == | |||
::Under Misplaced Pages rules, people (or their agents) should not write their own articles, the rationale being that if they are notable enough somebody else will write the article in a neutral manner, if they are not sufficiently notable, Misplaced Pages does not want the article. Before spending more time on the article, may I respectfully suggest that you read ] and ]. The latter also applies to an agent writing an article. I also suggest that you read ] to see the sort of grilling that articles get. You should also read ], in particular the section highlighted by the shortcut ]. ] (]) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi, could you provide an example of your recent addition to MOSLINK? I'm unsure what it means. ] ] 09:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
: |
:::I also suggest that you search for her name on Google - ignore anything in Facebook, LinkedIn and You-tube. Also ignore her own website. Check to see what is left. That is the material from which you can build an article. I did a trial run and I found no relevant material. ] (]) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Re: the discussion at GAN == | |||
==Expressway redirect== | |||
Thanks for your recent assistance with the article ]. Please pop in to ] to discuss the redirect for ''Expressway'' ] (]) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi, re , I apologise if my recent proposals have caused you undue stress or paranoia - that was not at all my intention. I'm not actually a newbie - I have been operating as a mere IP address for many years and only decided to create an account because certain functions, such as nominating articles for GA, are unavailable to unregistered users (which is also why I have jumped right in to proposing stuff despite my apparent lack of article space edits). I'd be happy to go through the check user procedure if it would put you at ease (if this is something I am even allowed to request). ] (]) 01:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Reverts == | |||
:Hi CurlyLoop, | |||
:Thank you for your posting. There is no need for anybody to request a Check User procedure - it is time consuming and the now-banned editor who is behind the trouble seems to have found a way of IP-hopping thereby making a Check-User irrelevant. ] (]) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== test1 == | |||
Your original text on the sovereignty dispute was more accurate, the 1955 case involving Argentina foundered as Argentina indicated it would not respect the result. I see no need to include Chile, as this appears to be widening the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Reason (A) for the revert. Switching the statement to Brisbane is also less accurate for a summary as it is Vernet who made the original claim of destruction of the settlement when he sought to gain compensation for his losses. I link the statement to Brisbane in ], which is I believe the right place to do it. Reason (B). | |||
test <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I always give a reason for reverting, your habit of initiating revert wars without discussing per ] is generating unnecessary conflict and I do wish you would stop doing so. ] <small>]</small> 10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Please see ] == | ||
Today the discussion was closed ''against'' having any UK-specific derivations in RJL. Please undo your revert. --''']]]''' 06:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hiya. I know that some "actual usage" occurs as you say, but technically and legally (and the Palace would agree) dictates that ] is the style of a spinster and ] the automatic legal style of a married, divorced or widowed woman, regardless of their surname ✝''']]]''' 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The discussion that I saw was about coordinates, not about UK-specific formats. ] (]) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Dan, | |||
::You may wish to see . --''']]]''' 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your note. How do you know that the Palace would agree, especially since she is the first memeber of the Royal family not to take her husband's name. We should either leave it as it is or wait for announcements to be made. | |||
: |
:::I have just read that and I have posted a request to Nathan Johnson to reconsider his analysis. ] (]) 06:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::There were 10 supports and 2 opposes. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting "no consensus" from... can you enlighten me? --''']]]''' 06:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for June 29== | |||
== ] == | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
Hello Martinvl, I've updated your SVG. I've included the :File:Wyvern of Wessex'''.svg'''. The IBAN code seems only in the preview overlong, but next time I would choose the font condensed. The background is semi transparent, is that right? Greeting --<small style='white-space:nowrap'> ] ]</small> 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Perhelion | |||
:Thank you for your note. | |||
:Yes, it was my intention to use a semi-transparent background. I also used the same font that appeared on my own bank statements. The Bank of Wessex is of course a fictitious bank as is the addressee. If you know anything about the legend of King Arthur, you will probably understand the fiction that I used. ] (]) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== RfC == | |||
:: Hm ok, you'll use the image for an article? --<small style='white-space:nowrap'> ] ]</small> 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi Martin, wasn't a neutral notice. Please don't do anything else like that, because it risks compromising the RfC. | |||
== MOS == | |||
I'm trying to understand your strength of feeling about this, but failing so far. To my eyes (admittedly, completely unfamiliar with these issues), the table for the M5 in the current version seems clear enough. Or is that not the main issue? | |||
Hi, | |||
It's worth noting that the page says (bold added): "When creating or editing junction lists for a particular country or state, check with an appropriate road-related WikiProject for that region. The various projects may have adopted practices or preferences regarding some of the '''optional''' provisions presented below." And the ] says: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." | |||
The MOS is currently under discussion. Edit warring over drastic and unilateral changes will only get you blocked. — ] (]) 11:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
This means that, if the style changes were to cause inaccuracies on any article you had written, you could object to having them imposed on that page. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Kwami, | |||
:Thank you for your note. | |||
:I appreciate your concern - I have been trying to get this change done for some time, but edit-waring over dashes led to this article being locked. There was a discussion which is now somewhere in the archives. Part of the reasons for the change that I made is to overcome the problems related above. | |||
:BTW, I made a very similar change to the section on Units of Measure a few months ago which was well received. | |||
:Regards ] (]) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Hi SlimVirgin | |||
== Thanks == | |||
:Thanks for your posting. Please look at: | |||
:* dated 27 April 2007. The comment was "(moved Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Exit lists): moved out of WikiProject space per User talk:Northenglish#WP:USRD/ELG) (thank)" | |||
:*The article for the British M1 . | |||
:Anybody can see that the two articles a poles apart. | |||
:Now look at ]. Quite clearly the layout of this Road Junction List has been developed from the version of 2007 which followed the British pattern. ] (]) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Numerical summarizations == | |||
Thanks for and any others you've spotted. It was unintended and I reverted some too. I'm doing a huge run to fix massive overlinking of common units and some false positives got through my old process. I've updated the process and it shouldn't happen again. Thanks very much. ] (]) 10:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hello, I think ] are completed, and you can put back or review the . --] (]) 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks == | |||
:No - I disagree with the sentence "Summarizations based on ], however, are ''original research by synthesis'', as they involve the reinterpretation of data." Statistical methods do not, in my view, always involve reinterpretation of data. That sentence is therefore misleading. Without the bit on how to handle statistical data, the entire addition loses its core. ] (]) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for your help at the IoP workshop. ] (]) 13:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 3rr warning == | ||
Please don't edit war on ]. Leave the article as is until the discussion on the talkpage (which you have contributed to) has reached a consensus. ] (]) 12:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Distinguish properly between Avogadro constant and Avogadro number --] (]) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
== A little help to conclude == | |||
== Thank you == | |||
Hi, we need to discuss objections ] or ], or conclude/vote ], thanks. --] (]) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Martin, thank you for helping at the . | |||
By being knowledgable, patient, and helpful, you helped create a very positive and professional impression. I hope you'll be involved in future Wikimedia UK events. | |||
] (]) 08:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for July 17== | |||
==M5 coordinates== | |||
As I think you know, there is no consensus '''one way or another''' in the RJL discussion. There clearly is no space consideration in the M5 table; and separate columns for coordinates is pretty much a de facto standard for tables, as a perusal of the following links demonstrates. I could point you to a couple of thousand more such tables, but you get the drift. Some members of highways projects may want to play silly buggers over this, but fortunately they do now own the articles in question. On wikipedia, we are about providing the best service for our readers. Our readers are not best served by providing partial information where the complete picture can be provided with nil downside. I trust you will reconsider you position, or else point me to '''settled policy or guidelines''' forbidding such information. --] ] 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
*That's great. ]. There is no consensus for '''including''' a coordinates column, period, in ]. No matter how you spin it. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Neither is there any consensus for '''excluding''' a coordinates column, period, in ]. No matter how you spin it. I refer you to the second paragraph of ]. --] ] 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Then clearly you haven't read the discussion on the talk page, where almost everyone except you and PigsontheWing has made it clear that they don't want a separate column. Showing us a list that is composed entirely of non-road articles, save for two in which the junction list is not the table in question, proves absolutely nothing. Multiple editors have spoken, but feel free to break ]. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::It's good of you to infer that I would wish to break 3RR. Your good faith overwhelms. I would rather you read para 2 of otherstuff, and also ], and explain why none of this affects road junction lists. There is - to my perception - a long history of your side ducking all discussion and insisting that no consensus means no consensus to do stuff you don't want done. --] ] 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{unindent}} | |||
The debate continues on WP:RJL. ] (]) 06:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Block notice 21 July 2013 == | |||
== Etiquette regarding extension of discussion onto policy pages == | |||
Unfortunately, I had to block your account for 24 h for '''five''' reverts within 24h in ]. Whatever you cause is, please ALWAYS discuss it at the talk page rather than edit war.--] (]) 09:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
: For the record, I disagree with this block, given the fact he was reverting an obvious ban-evading sockpuppet and had previously taken all the appropriate steps to have the socks identified. Wasn't his fault if no admin could be bothered to process the SPI for several days. ] ] 09:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Let us finish the ANI discussion, as a result, I may unblock them.--] (]) 09:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
: I unblocked you, but, given that this is not your first block for edit warring, in the future, please discuss rather than edit war. Even if you are completely convinced you are edit warring with a sock.--] (]) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
==DYK for Imperial and US customary measurement systems== | |||
== Unacceptable accusations == | |||
{{tmbox | |||
|style = notice | |||
|small = | |||
|image = ] | |||
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that in 965 AD, ] decreed "that only ''']''' should pass throughout the King's dominion"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and it will be added to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for July 24== | |||
accusations that you put on my talk page are unjustified. Your behaviour is becoming ]. Please calm down and go back to the articles you mention and try to justify your misleading contributions. Your metrication POV-pushing agenda has become all too apparent across a number of associated articles recently and your rude and inflammatory reactions to my toning-down of your attempts is becoming intolerable. We have made some constructive process on some articles; please try to assume good faith and we may be able to resolve the issues with some of the other articles in question. -- ] (]). 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::(Talk page stalker) I disagree. A brief glance through your contributions for the past few months show that while you are intently devoted to metric/imperial things, especially in Britain, you have also recently jumped ship into three articles that you don't have a history of editing which Martinvl does, seemingly to instigate. In most cases you have made incorrect assumptions and just gone through cutting apart articles of which you have no real understanding. Please stop, or I will happily back Martinvl at his ANI thread. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::If you had done your research more thoroughly you'd have seen the trail from ] through ] to both ] and ]. That path was taken to attempt to correct the misrepresentations being perpetrated. A quick reading of my edit comments and/or any associated talkpage discussion at each stage will quickly confirm that. Your time would be better spent checking the record of this poster amongst the metric/imperial related articles and seeing if you can spot the trait that has lead us here. -- ] (]). 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
==Your contributed article, ]== | |||
] | |||
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, ''']'''. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - ''']'''. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for ]. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at ] - you might like to discuss new information at ]. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the ''']''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact ] to request that the administrator ] the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the ] and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions.<!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
== Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
:'''you want user reaction? Utterly redundant.''' | |||
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- {{User-multi | |||
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
|doc=yes | |||
|User=FishGF | |||
|1=t | |||
}} 08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Kilometres per hour - External Links == | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Hello, I've added an External references section in the article ], that you considered could be spam. This was not the desired effect as it can be useful to readers of that topic, it adds value and it has been clearly added under the External Links section. Having an External links section or External Reference section is a common practice in other articles that It had also been positive to my browsing experience on previous occasions in different articles. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Conversion packages such as the one that you added are two-a-penny on the internet - why should your particular package be preferred above anybody else's? ] (]) 05:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> — ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
The article ] you nominated as a ] has been placed on hold ]. The article is close to meeting the ], but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See ] for things which need to be addressed. <!-- Template:GANotice result=hold --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- {{User-multi | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
|doc=yes | |||
|User=FishGF | |||
|1=t | |||
}} 22:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hello Martinvl, I see that you are making sterling progress with the points I raised in my review. However, I thought, after reading the message sent on my behalf above, I had better point out that, regardless of what that auto-generated message above implies, I put the review on hold prior to completing it because of the poor and incomprehensible state of the section about the United States. When that section is fixed I will continue the review - there is no promise of a pass yet - I have yet to complete that review and a review in respect of all the other criteria. ] (]) 17:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. | |||
== Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- {{User-multi | |||
== Metric system == | |||
|doc=yes | |||
Your introduction will stand a much better chance of survival if you create it at ]. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
|User=FishGF | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
|1=t | |||
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''] ]'''</span> 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
}} 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Talk:Hectare#File:Comparison_land_area_units.svg == | |||
{{talkback|Talk:Hectare#File:Comparison_land_area_units.svg}} Thanks, ''']'''] 19:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== More unacceptable behaviour by you in ] == | |||
Martinvl, you are pushing the limits of our tolerance of your behaviour in this article. Earlier, despite the matter of the ''Which?''/Asda content being the subject of ongoing discussions, both in the article and on a couple of noticeboards - in which your interpretation of the material has been rejected - you made an inflammatory edit reverting that content and shoe-horning your POV of the material into the article. In that edit you also introduced other non-NPOV changes of wording to another section. I later removed an unsourced sentence from the lead of the article which asserted that children were not being tought how to manipulate imperial units, which you immediately reverted with the pointed and infammatory edit comment: "Reverted as per WP:POINT". Please try and cooperate with other editors on this article and ], and try not to antagonise others by the use of intolerant language in edit summary wording and by personalising disagreements by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations and intimidatory threats of disciplinary action on talk pages. -- ] (]). 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Be my guest and lodge a formal complaint! ] (]) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Scotland == | ||
Your assertion in your last edit related only to hand held flags. See the article ] for the references confirming such. Regards. Endrick Shellycoat (can't log in). ] (]) 08:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
You are now on 5RR at ]. Please stop edit warring or you may be reported and blocked. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== August 2013 == | |||
] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
I've reported you at ] for your sixth revert in 24 hours.] (]) 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{{!}} class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" {{!}}- | |||
! style="background-color: #FAA;" {{!}} <div style="font-size:112%;">List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page<span style="font-size:88%;margin-left:3em;">(Click show <span style="font-size:130%;">⇨</span>)</span></div> | |||
{{!}}- | |||
{{!}} style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " {{!}} <div style="font-size:112%;"> | |||
*<nowiki>{{BS|uhHST|2.0|Alter Mark</nowiki>{{red|''']'''}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> | |||
*<nowiki>|</nowiki>{{red|'''}'''}}<nowiki></nowiki> | |||
*<nowiki>and Vohwinkel ({{convert|3.3|km|mi|disp=or}}).<ref name="Urbanrail">{{cite web|title=UrbanRail.Net </nowiki>{{red|'''>'''}}<nowiki> Europe </nowiki>{{red|'''>'''}}<nowiki> Germany </nowiki>{{red|'''>'''}}<nowiki> Wuppertaler Schwebebahn (suspension railway) | url=http://www.urbanrail.de/eu/vrr/wuppertal.htm|</nowiki> | |||
</div> | |||
{{!}}} | |||
Thanks, <!-- (0, -1, -1, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 00:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Non-free images in sandboxes == | |||
Hi, the easiest way to avoid non-free images being deleted from userspace articles is simply to comment them out by placing a colon in from of "File" whilst they are not in article space. Otherwise they ''will'' be deleted; a bot creates a list of ] every day and someone will usually come round a fix the problem. Having said that, I don't think that particular image passes the criteria anyway; we don't really need the cover of a book to tell us the book exists (it would be reasonable in an article about the book, but here it fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8). ] (]) 00:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Edit warring== | |||
:Please remove the book cover. Otherwise I will be removing it again. ] (]) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hey Martinvl, thanks for all of your efforts to help Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, it seems that some other editors have a difference of opinion in this case - I would ask that you stop reverting their reverts, and instead go over to the article's talk page to discuss the changes with them. Please also take a look at ] and make sure that you don't continue edit warring. Thanks, and have a great day. ]<small> (])</small> 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I have removed it, but if you see it there again, it is because I am working on the article and am making a set of related changes in various parts of the article. I would rather do have a dozen edits in my own space than in article space, so do not ever edit my user pages without my express permission. If in doubt, ask an Admin to do it. ] (]) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::It doesnt work that way, if you need to use an image for formatting you can use ] for formatting purposes. I often go in large removal sweeps without paying attention to who's user space Im removing it from. NFCC#9 isnt something that can be ignored, When I see violations I remove them, Period. ] (]) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::One day you are going to burn your fingers badly, especially if you do supplementary edits at the same time. ] (]) 19:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for September 5== | |||
== Possible block at ] == | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
Hello Martinvl. It seems that you've been steadily reverting against other editors since October 6, and there is no evidence of any consensus on the talk page in favor of your changes. If you will promise to stop warring on this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions. I urge you to respond at ] and agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting again. Thank you, ] (]) 03:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''See below''}}, but you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> The complete report of this case is at ]. ] (]) 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== A serious question of COI == | |||
===Unblock request=== | |||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Firstly, the administrator concerned ignored a reasonable procedural request and secondly that no notice was taken of other parties who were undermining the integrity of Misplaced Pages by pushing ] via persistent misrepresentation of a ]. I have requested that the block be put on hold while mandatory mediation between the reporter, ] and myself takes place. Full details below (]) | decline=You were appropriately warned about ], yet continued. The block is well-founded, and necessary to protect the project from the hazards of edit-wars. There are very very few exceptions to the 3RR policy, and you were already advised this was not one of them. This extremely brief block gives you the opportunity to read the related policies: ], ], and most especially ]. While blocked, prepare your "case" for ]. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
Hello Martinvl, excuse the intrusion, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to have an obsession with articles and topics associated with or related to the metric system. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote that system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, leaves me wondering if you have a ] here. Would you mind putting the record straight and confirming in unequivocal terms whether you are, or have recently been, a member of a group or an organisation (such as ] or ]) that campaigns in aid of introducing the metric system into the US or UK. Before you answer, note the contents of the section entitled "Campaigning" in the above mentioned ], which states that 'activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.' ] (]) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
I wish to appeal against this blockage on the following grounds: | |||
#The placing of a block weas premature because no notice was taken by the administrators of my request entitled ''Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators'' and in particular the phrase ''I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed''. | |||
#The placing of a block on me and not on other editors invovled was unjustified because no notice was taken of ] pushing by the persistent misrepresentation of the content of a ] is by the reporter and more especially by by ] (who has also been ]ing me and provoking me by ]). This situation was not helped by the actions of ] who was ing the system to score points off ] in the same artcile at the same time time and who decided to score some points off me at the same time. PfainUK has in the past used ] and ] to promote his own POV, provoking both Michael Glass and myself. Had the adminstrators not ignored my procedural request, I would have laid the above allegations out in more detail. | |||
Since I am effectively alleging that the reporter and DeFcto are undermining the integrity of Misplaced Pages, I request that: | |||
#My blockage be put on hold. | |||
#My allegations regarding POV by persistent misrepresentation of the content of a RS be submitted for compulsory mediation. | |||
#Once the mediators have reported back, my reverts be reassessed in the light of the conduct of other editors who were invovled. ] (]) 09:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I am an admin, but I'm not acting as one here, just giving advice and making comments. First of all, you want to use the {{tl|unblock}} template as that will get your request actually noticed. Secondly... it seems that the blocking admin was being quite generous here. 3RR is there for a reason - there's no point in constantly reverting, and it's disruptive. You stop and discuss before you keep revert warring. Now, should other editors have been blocked, I don't know, I haven't looked into their edits. | |||
== 3RR warning == | |||
:Also, a 3RR block isn't a "Misplaced Pages death sentence" - look at my block log. Granted, due to the specific circumstances I might have been able to successfully appeal that block, but I didn't and it's there. Oh well. It doesn't affect me or my editing today. --''']]]''' 09:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please note that you are know on three reverts at ]. Please do not revert again, or you may be reported and blocked from editing. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
== 3RR on ] == | |||
Martinvl, beware - you don't need another block! -- ] (]). 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Falkland Islands== | |||
== Mediation Cabal: Request for participation == | |||
I would like you to have a look at my latest suggestion to use in Falklands-related articles the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. Just to say although I would still support my original metric then imperial stance I can also see that this thing will keep going round in circles hence my compromise suggestion. Would appreciate your comments and understand at some point we need an agreement but this would align the article with UK use and remove discussion to a more general forum. Also please forgive some of my ignorance on the players in the game and the history of the dispute. ] (]) 08:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
Dear Martinvl: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the ], which is a ] initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation. | |||
== COI statement request - September 2013 == | |||
The request can be found at ''']'''. | |||
] Hello, Martinvl. We ] your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things ] on Misplaced Pages, you may have a ] or close connection to the subject. | |||
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort. | |||
All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's ] content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by ] and writing with as little bias as possible. | |||
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the ], the ], or you can ask the mediator, Alpha Quadrant, at their ]. ] (]) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems: | |||
==Non-compliance with Verifiability policy== | |||
I have raised your belief that the German Misplaced Pages is a reliable source at ]. ] (]) 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. | |||
== October 2011 == | |||
*'''Be cautious about deletion discussions'''. Everyone is welcome to provide information about ] in ], but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors. | |||
] Please do not add or change content without ] it by citing ], as you did to ]. Please review the guidelines at ] and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> ''Misplaced Pages is not a ]. Please do not reference articles to articles on Wikipeida or any other wiki.'' ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 23:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Avoid linking''' to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see ]). | |||
*'''Exercise great caution''' so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies. | |||
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to ], ], and ]. | |||
== Foot == | |||
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see ]. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote the metric system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, followed by you ignoring my gentler approach above, led me to place this template.{{#if:| ] (]) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)}}<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. --> <!-- Template:uw-coi --> ] (]) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Just a word of thanks for all the work you have put in at ]. The article is, in my opinion, much improved as a result, although it still has, again in my opinion, a very long way to go yet. I'd like to apologise for rather forcing your hand over the matter of the circular references; I'd also like to apologise for having done so little myself in the way of referencing, after we had agreed to work on it together. Do I understand that you are fluent in Dutch? That is a valuable talent indeed. I will try to make some positive contributions to the article myself soon; meanwhile, I have removed the unreferenced stuff from the "History" section ... ] (]) 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Please put the record straight on this request as your actions and contributions very closely mirror the agenda of at least one campaigning organisation. ] (]) 06:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Justlettersandnumbers | |||
== ANI == | |||
:Thank you for your note - all appologies accepted. You will notice that I have worked six contemporary references into the text so that you do not have to hunt for them in the references. I can read Dutch reasonable well, but I hesitate to write it - learning Afrikaans in school in South Africa wrecked my chances of sorting out the Dutch grammar unless I put a lot of work into it. I read a little German and was able to guess my way around the French references by understanding the subject matter plus a few words. | |||
:Regards ] (]) 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
] Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Offensive accusations == | |||
== Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
addition that you made to the ] discussion was unjustified and unnecessary. Given the care and attention, not to mention time, that I give to improving the policy compliance (especially NPOV) in articles, I found the allegations extremely offensive (particularly the one of ]). Please retract it all immediately. Also, I would like to recommend that you read ] and ] to help you to improve your attitude towards, and relationships with, other editors. -- ] (]). 12:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
The article ] you nominated as a ] has failed ]; see ] for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. <!-- Template:GANotice result=fail --> ] (]) 21:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Martinvl, you are sailing close to the wind , please cease the intimidatory and inflammatory remarks and messages. -- ] (]). 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
] Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Mediation Cabal: Case update == | |||
] | |||
Dear {{PAGENAME}}: Hello, this is to let you know that a ] case that you are involved in, or have some connection with: | |||
: ''']''' | |||
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our ] so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their ]. Thanks! ] (]) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== September 2013 == | ||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
--------- | |||
Martinvl, of yours is unacceptable. | |||
Please see the talk page for the article and retract your edit to the article. I though we had settled it, as three of us have worked it out and agree that it is exactly 2 ppm less. If you don't get that answer, you are not using a correct method. note that 1/0.999998 is not 1.000002 so the direction of the comparison is critical to it being exact. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== M/KM == | |||
You characterise my contributions to Misplaced Pages that you reverted as "rubbish", despite the fact that they generally re-emerge fully supported by community consensus. | |||
It appears that you seem to have some sort of metric above imperial measurement thing going on. That is up to you however that doesn't mean that you have a right to revert miles first to km first especially when it goes against ], which at United Kingdom it clearly does. Also your attitude at ] quite frankly is poor and has only elicited a similar attitude from myself in response to your attempts at being a smart-ass. I will desist from responding anymore in like if you would be kind enough to stop as well. Try to argue your point without trying to be condescending. In regards to square miles first, at the talk page I pointed out one highly notable, and you'd expect to be credible source that does it so: Encylopedia Britannica. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
You also falsely accused me of "trapping" you into a 3RR situation. The only role I played in that (you were reported by another editor after ignoring his warnings) was to defend myself against the absurd and unjust allegations you made about me there, in your own (bad faith) defence. | |||
== Sock == | |||
I am a patient and tolerant person by nature, and can accept a certain amount of "robust" interaction, even false, but good-faith allegations, but when it comes to the vindictive spreading of downright lies in an attempt to defend your indefensible actions, I reserve the right to draw the line. You have ignored my challenges over other examples of your disgraceful behaviou above, are you going to do the decent thing this time, and retract your allegations on JimWae's talkpage - or have I got to waste more time dealing with your vile spew? -- ] (]). 12:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Sorry it took so long, I had suspicions but couldn't put a finger on it. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:No problems. I guessed it when he put the first message on my talk page, but is seems to me that DeFacto has sussed out that CheckUser returns negatives if the sockpuppet only works on pages that have not previously been worked on by the sockmaster which is why I did not file a SPI complaint. ] (]) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ANI Notice == | |||
== Advice sought from Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance == | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] <small>]</small> 15:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
I'm sorry, but I've waited long enough for you to respond to the various posts I've made above related to civility issues I have with you. I've resorted to asking for advice as to how to deal with you at ]. -- ] (]). 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Editing other's comments == | |||
:Basically you have tried my patience for a long time. There appear to be a number of gaps in your knowledge - yes we all have gaps in our knowledge, but in certain areas you appear not to know that you don't know and you do not acknowledge that maybe, just maybe sometimes other people might know a bit more about certain subjects than you do - you would do well to learn from them rather than casting doubt on perfectly valid objections. To make matters worse, you home page is completely annonymous - I know nothing about you - I don't know whether to treat you as a naïve sixteen-year old or as a person of maturity. I don't know what sort of things I can take for granted that you know, and quite frankly I am tired of having to cover all my bases when responding to you and having to respond to facile objections. If you go ahead with this compalint, I will have to raise a PoV complaint and it will be very strong, so will you withdraw your complaint and we will call it quits. ] (]) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please do not edit my comments on talk pages without permission. If you want me to move my comments, go to my talk page and ask. I believe that edit substantially altered the meaning of the comment, something that you are ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::You don't make this easy to resolve with that rather arrogant and condescending sounding response. You don't ''need'' to know anything about me to be civil. You don't have to throw accusations around because you know nothing about me. It's certainly no excuse for not answering my many requests for retraction (or justification) of your allegations. I have made no complaint, just a request for advice as to how to handle the situation as I see it. If you address (and we resolve) the issues as itemised in the ], particularly the one on JimWae's talkpage, then I guess I/we can close that request as resolved somehow. | |||
== Closure of RFC at ] == | |||
::Remember: this is just a question of ]; nothing to do with article content, just how we can co-exist reasonably harmoniously. -- ] (]). 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hello, | |||
:::Let me deal with the first point that you raised: . You deleted the phrase about children not being taught how to ''manipulate'' imperial measures. I don't know how old you are - I did my primary and secondary education in the 1950's and 1960's. During that period we were drilled with adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing pounds, shillings and pence, stones, pounds and ounces, gallons, quarts and pints and so on. We were also drilled in the handling of vulgar fractions. Decimal numbers were introduced at a comparitively late stage in my education (aboutthe age of 11 or 12). With the advent of decimalisation and metrication there was a big change in the way in which arithmetic (maths) was taught - all the teaching of how to manipulate non-decinal systems went out of the window as did the details of handling fractions and in its place, the manipulation of decinmal numbes was started two or three years earlier. If you are old enough to remember this, then you can see why I said that you were making a point; if you had a grounding in maths (A Level or better) what I write should have been self-evident to you and you can see why I said that you were making a point. If you are not of the generation that learnt how to handle the imperial system at school and you have not studied maths at A Level, then you should have been careful not to remove things of which you have littel understanding, ort at any rate be prepared to listen to those who do have some understanding. | |||
:::By taking a very "purist" line and engaging me to either back down or to spend a lot of time looking up references for things that are common sense, yo uhave slowed down my contributions elsewhere in Misplaced Pages and you have also been disrupting my ] wit han extremely tedious approach. I trust now that you understand he problems that yo uhave been causing; also you might understand why adopting total annonymity has made it difficult to address issues. ] (]) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
I do not believe your statement closing ] is an accurate reflection of the consensus, and I do not believe that you are an appropriate person to close it as you were the one who opened the RFC. Could I ask you to reconsider the close? The alternative is to ask for review as per ]. Thanks, '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: Martin, being "right" (scare quotes intended) does not give an editor free pass to be rude, or to make things up. The particular charge against De Facto about trapping you in 3RR is groundless. Pfainuk warned you at 4RR, I reported you once you had crossed 6RR, and then we all begged you, along with admins and other users, to recognise your behavioural issues, which even now you pretend weren't there, in a failed attempt to avoid you getting blocked. De Facto simply disagreed with you, which isn't actually actionable. If you are as venerable as you claim to be, you might start wanting to emulate such a state.] (]) 17:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ANI == | |||
::::Martinvl, it all sounds like bluster to me. With regard to the first point you mentioned, of the several outstanding issues, you should know, personal experience doesn't stand the test of ]. I got rid of unsupported content, you reverted me alleging that my edit was a ] - still with no support for the point - and have yet to explain why you think it was (which policy or guideline do you think I was frustrated with and trying to discredit?). What about the last of the points I want you to address - how do you justify making that post to JimWae's talkpage? -- ] (]). 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please do not re-open closed discussions/sections - that's not how ANI works, you do not get to specify sections where only you can post. ]] 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Please visit ]. DeFacto did not demand a citation, he just deleted the sentence that he did not like. As explained above, this suggested to me that he was making a point. A few weeks (days?) before that happenned (and probably unbeknown to VsevolodKrolikov), DeFacto had made some wholesale deletions to the article ] in order to promote his own point of view. Before we could come to a consensus, I had to talk hiom through UK legislation regarding the use of the stone and EU legislation which said where it could not be used; I also had to remind him that the Republic of Ireland was a member of the EU - and even then he still insisted on cutting half the lede away and he argued about including the fact that stone was 6.35 kg. This is but one example. Do you wonder that I have lost patience with him. ] (]) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
: I came here to make a FINAL warning about a) ] and b) ]. More of that crap on ANI will lead to a block. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:{{ec}} FYI, I ''am'' an administrator. If you re-open the section again then you will be blocked for disruption. ]] 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::The user rights of a user can be found via ]: e.g. to determine GiantSnowman's rights: <small>]</small> 11:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: Not a bad idea to have checked my alternate account while you were at it too <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert ''after'' I told him I was an admin. ]] 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for repeated disruption at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> ]] 11:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::I deleted the sentence that I disagreed with and used the edit summary to explain why: "Removed as nothing in cited ref about not teaching that". And in in fact, the references show that you were wrong with your assertion. You reverted and didn't supply a supporting ref. | |||
::::::<p/>Previous edits to previous articles are irrelevant, and I disagree vehemently with your characterisation of them, but we can talk about them elsewhere if you like. Please now explain your post to JimWae's talkpage. -- ] (]). 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=An accusation of misconduct was made against me by ] (WCM) at ]. WCM went on to enter into vote-stacking to back his case. I made a perfectly reasonable request that the ANI request be closed without further comment to his actions. Since the so-called community discussion was turning into a ], it needed some structure to it, otherwise in would be extremely difficult for an Admin to make a fair assessment of the situation and there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice against me. I therefore put a structure in place to ensure that my defence was not lost in a ]. | |||
== Mediation Cabal: Case update == | |||
*Please look at my complaint at ]. Please also note that I made this request yesterday, but to date no Admin has seen fit to action it, in particular my allegation against ] of ]. Please note that without the structure that I was proposing, this perfectly legitimate request would have been even hidden from a casual check by an Admin. | |||
] | |||
*Please compare the ease of navigating around the ANI from an administrator's point of view with and without the heading that I added. | |||
Dear {{PAGENAME}}: Hello, this is to let you know that a ] case that you are involved in, or have some connection with: | |||
I am sure that you will find that the headings make it much easier for your to find your way around and to ensure that the accusations made against me could be handled in a fair manner. This is explained further in the response that I made in the section “Defence by Martinvl”. | |||
: ''']''' | |||
I look forward to: | |||
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our ] so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their ]. Thanks! ] (]) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
*The ANI in question being closed without further comment on account of vote stacking by Wee Curry Monster | |||
*The 48 hour ban on me being lifted. | |||
*A reminder being sent to ], ] and ] that in future they should not take matters into their own hands so quickly. In this instance they have unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking. | |||
Finally, you wrote "It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert after I told him I was an admin." For the record your posting was made at 11:12, mine at 11:13. I had not read your posting stating that you were an Admin before I posted. Had I realised that, I would have changed track immediately. In practice, the one minute difference between posting times can mean anything between 1 second (1st posting at 11:12:59, 2nd posting at 11:13:00) and 119 seconds (1st posting at 11:12:00, 2nd posting at 11:13:59). Therefore, this was a case of "letters crossing in the post". ] (]) 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | decline=Procedural decline only; the block expired days ago yet this request is still showing at ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
:It doesn't really matter - your behaviour at ANI, as well as your comment that "Had I realised that , I would have changed track immediately", implies that you would have continued to edit war with non-admins. ]] 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: Oddly enough, "the person reverting me was not an admin" does not appear to be one of the valid exemptions from being blocked for ]. Is it a new addition that I am previously unaware of? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Are you going to investigate the WP:CANVASS complaint? ] (]) 13:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::We would be more than happy to do so once you present some evidence. ]] 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Please visit ]. The evidence is all there. By the way, this is the section that ], ] and ] were trying to archive. ] (]) 13:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::They didn't try to archive it - they did - and rightly so. It was not an attempt to censor you; it was done because comment such as "if anybody else posts here, I will delete their posts" were entirely innappropriate. And none of these diffs - , , count as canvassing - in actual fact notifying people about ANI discussion they are involved in is a ''requirement''. ]] 13:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Let's look at the canvassing issue first - that has been open for nearly a day, the other issues for an hour or so. ] (]) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I've already looked at the "canvassing issue" - there wasn't any. Next. ]] 13:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::So the fact that Wee Curry Monster informed some people connected with the accusation and not others is not canvassing? ] has the text "''Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).''". If Wee Curry Monster's actions were not canvassing, what were they? ] (]) 13:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::For the third time, no. Firstly, giving ''anyone'' a neutral message about ''anything'' is not canvassing - he did not say "hey, come help me get Martinvl in trouble!" or similar. Secondly, ANI ''requires'' notifications to be given to interested parties. ]] 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::May I draw to your attention extracts from WP:CANVASS: | |||
::::::::::*Appropriate notification is defined as "''An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... ''". The definition merely states "''drawing attention to''". | |||
::::::::::*The definition of Inappropriate Canvassing includes "''Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages''". Again this definition makes no mention as to the content of the message. | |||
::::::::::In short, it is the existence of a message that constitutes canvassing, not the contents. I ask you to please revisit my request. ] (]) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} Look, there is a giant red notice at the top of ANI which says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" and provides a template to use - {{tl|ANI-notice}} - which is in fact the exact same template WCM has used. That notice applies to ''anybody and everybody'' who is mentioned or interested or involved in the situation. Please just ]. ]] 15:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Test for ]. ] (]) 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Did you see the red number next to your username increment when I posted the above test message. If you look at the postings that I made, you will see quite clearly that I spelt Wee Curry Monster's name out in full and that as a result the number popped up on his screen when he next logged onto Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, I received a notification - and everyone else will have as well. FYI, pinging editors while you are blocked is generally frowned upon, as it can get quite annoying. ]] 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Who else would have received a notification? ] (]) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Everyone whose user name you have linked to here i.e. Wee Curry Monster, NE Ent, EatsShootsAndLeaves and Beyond My Ken. ]] 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::If you look at the message that I posted () every name in the diff box will be notified - ie just GiantSnowman. If I am incorrect in my analysis, will you please explain the algorithm by editors are selected for notification. ] (]) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::But you ''have'' linked to the users I mentioned, see your edit . ]] 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{unindent}} | |||
... and so I linked to Wee Curry Monster when I requested that he inform '''all''' users, thereby satisfying the demand that he was notified that I had lodged the complaint. Now that we have established that the complaint was properly made, will you please investigate it? ] (]) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
: Linking to the user, thus activating the Echo function is NOT equivalent to using the {{tl|ANI-notice}} template on their page. It is held to NOT be the proper way to notify a user, and the top of ANI is quite clear on the method you must use to notify someone <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::@] - Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Since I am unable to contact Wee Curry Mon ster directly, will you please do so on my behalf? The reference is . ] (]) 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: Sure I will...wait, what? In your unblock request, you're accusing me and others of "unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking" ... have you even READ ]? Have you ever actually understood the concept of "community"? Have you even read ]? Your block is about YOUR behaviour - with was pathetic. It should not have taken 1 editor (who might as well be an admin) and 2 admins to tell you to stop screwing around on ANI or else you'd be blocked in order to ACTUALLY get blocked. Edit-warring is NEVER permitted, and you know better than than. You need to address your ridiculous activity in the unblock, or it's on the fast-track to being declined. ] is required to edit this project, and your ability to read the clear instructions and warnings ARE signs of competence <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 23:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{unindent}} | |||
Yes, I have read ]. I have also read ]. Natural justice applies to any civilised society that maintains the right to investigate misconduct by its members, be it a ], a ], an ] or Misplaced Pages. There are two tenants to natural justice: | |||
*An impatial arbiter '']''. | |||
*The right to be heard ]''. | |||
Misplaced Pages has two type of tribunal where conduct of its members are investigated - the ] process and the ] process. By and large, natural justice is applied in the WP:ARBCOM process, but the total lack of structure in the ] process which jeopardises the right to be heard means that natural justice cannot be guaranteed in the WP:ANI process. If you look at item 28 on this page you will see a babble in which it is impossible for the accused (ie me) to be heard in what was rapidly degenerating into ]. No reasonable person could, in the cold light of day, assert that I could defend myself in that situation. If the ANI system is be observe the principals of natural justice, then the accused '''must''' have the right to be heard above what in this case, had become a ]. | |||
How then can the accused be assured that his defence is heard? Must one rely on an Administrator wading through the a ]. That is not a satisfactory solution, which is why I constructed the solution to which certain people objected. Those people who objected to me making myself heard above the mob were if fact exhibiting the worst traits of mob behaviour. I recognise that you might have been trying to act to present disruption on the ANI page and in the heat of the moment, maybe you (and ] are excused for have taking, what with hindsight was to deprive me of a fundamental right. However, in the cold light of day it is incumbent to look at the bigger picture and in this case, while blindly applying the ] gave the appearance of establishing order, you were in fact giving in to the mob and denying me natural justice . In light of this I ask you (or ] (yes, I am pinging him because he was the administrator who blocked me) to: | |||
== Edit warring at ] == | |||
#Acknowledge that in this particular case, the ANI process had degenerated into mob rule | |||
#Agree to take what reasonable steps are necessary to restore confidence in the ANI process (which includes revoking the block that was imposed on me). | |||
Finally, if you have not studied politics or law or are unfamiliar with the legal principles on which natural justice are based, then may I suggest that you seek an opinion from somebody who has a legal background . | |||
] (]) 07:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
: You're not even attempting to address the reason for your block. Misplaced Pages does NOT have a formal justice system - we have ]. Nobody here needs to understand anything about Natural law - YOU need to understand that ] is never permitted, and it was your edit-warring - on an admin noticeboard of all places - that led to your block. No - you do NOT get to create your own format on a noticeboard, that would be granting you additional privileges that nobody else on the project has, and violates the equal community nature of the project. So, talk about natural justice, YOU were trying to be elite - and that doesn't fly. Maybe "mob rule" ''does'' equal ] ... but hey, you AGREED to that when you signed up. You also agreed to follow the community processes. You don't get to weasel out of them when you suddenly think things are not going your way <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hello. I am unprotecting ] per a request on my talk page so that an editor can continue to make constructive edits to this page. I am writing this to you specifically as you were involved in a recent edit war on that page (which is not related to the request on my talk page), and I'm notifying you that any edit warring whatsoever in the next 2 weeks will be met with a block. Please don't take this as a license to edit war in the future. | |||
So now we are a "mob"? Martinvl, everyone else including myself has had to put up with a wall of text when defending ourselves, it's part and package of Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Please do not interpret this as me taking anyone's specific side, or as accusing any specific editor either. ] (]) 18:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@EatsShootsAndLeaves | |||
:The Concise English Dictionary describes "Justice" as "exercise of authority in the maintenance of right". That make administrators, ANI and Arbcom part of the Misplaced Pages justice system. Will you now please read the principles of ] and try to implement it in your actions as an administrator. In particular, what did you do when I was a trying to exercise my right as the accused to have a fair hearing. You assists the mob in silencing me. At the time you might have had to act without knowing all the facts. Now that I have explained the facts to you , please undo the actions taken against me. ] (]) 13:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Ensuring that you AND EVERYONE have access to the same style of "hearing" on ANI means that every single editor uses the same format. Legalese and wikilawyering is not permitted - not here on this talkpage, nor on ANI. It's not a court of law, or justice. Indeed, blocks are ''preventative'' not punitive. ANI is intentionally NOT a court, nor does it accept evidence in "protected" formats - it's not intended to mete out justice. So, stop acting all amateur-lawyerish and address YOUR BEHAVIOUR...the ] is becoming deafening...you agreed to the processes in place when you signed up to this private website, and if you don't like those processes, it's easy enough to stop editing here <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Misplaced Pages is a privately owned website subject to US law, so ] does not apply. ] applies. The tells us ANI has been around since 2003 and has seven hundred thousand edits to it, expecting an established culture to change its practices to meet your personal preferences is unrealistically egocentric. <small>]</small> 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I suggest that you look where it says ''...the California Corporations Code (ss. 5341 and 7341) provides that, except in the case of a religious corporation, any disciplinary action undertaken by a corporation must be done "in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner"''. Is Misplaced Pages a "corporation" under Californian Law? Unless you are a specialist in Californian Law, I suggest that you don't try and make it up as you go along. ] (]) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::No. Misplaced Pages is not a corporation under California Law. ] (]) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
*This is getting more absurd by the second. ] — ] 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::May I request that some administrator, preferably the one who issued the block, fix the unblock request? The template is broken, for some reason. It makes it hard to read for archival records. ] — ] 19:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Not broken - someone simply <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki>ed it. I have .]] 20:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== User notification re Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge == | |||
:Hi Magog the Ogre | |||
:For the record, two editors were adding columns to a table and making a real dogs dinner of it, so I revoked both of them and have asked them to agree how to sort out the mess. If they continue to make a mess, I will come back to you and ask you to reprotect it. ] (]) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi Martinvl. Sorry about your block. I am notifying you as an editor who has participated in previous discussions on this topic. We now have multiple reliable sources for the descent of ] from Edward IV. However, Virgosky has added sourced information which appears to contradict the finding () and repeatedly . The edit warring continues which is futile and harmful to Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate your help building consensus on the talk page in order to resolve the dispute. ]] 09:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Unacceptable mass-reversions == | |||
:Hi Helen, | |||
Hello Martinvl, I see that you, without talkpage discussion and without any authority other than your own POV, have gone around all of the articles that I've edited in the last two or three hours - edits supported by reliable sources where necessary, and fully explained in the edit summaries - and summarily reverted all my edits. Can you please explain this bizarre and unacceptable behaviour? -- ] (]). 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your note. My block should have expired an hour after you posted. I will certainly try to follow this up. We are of course bedeviled by the BLP clause - does it really apply when there the actual events are so far removed from the Duchess. ] (]) 11:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks Martinvl. As DrKiernan pointed out, the sources in question are not about Catherine per se so ] does not apply to them (not saying the sources are SPS though, just that that particular rule does not apply). ]] 11:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Mediation Cabal: Case update == | |||
] | |||
Dear {{PAGENAME}}: Hello, this is to let you know that a ] case that you are involved in, or have some connection with: | |||
: ''']''' <small>with outside discussion at ]</small> | |||
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our ] so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their ]. Thanks! ] (]) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::One useful indocator as to what constitutes privacy regarding living people is that British census data is made public after 100 years - obviously a few people who were on the census are still alive, but the British Government has obviously deemed that anything that is 100 years old is no longer an invasion of privacy. In other cases, such as ] were only made into films after all the major character (especially the Queen Mother) had died. ] (]) 11:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
==File copyright problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg== | |||
] | |||
Thank you for uploading ]. However, it currently is missing information on its '''copyright''' and '''licensing''' status. Misplaced Pages takes ] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the ]. You may refer to the ''']''' to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on ''']''' may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> | |||
:::Interesting thanks. Note that the discussion is now at ]. ]] 12:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is . | |||
==Archive== | |||
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the ]. Thanks again for your cooperation.<!-- Template:Di-no license-notice --> ] (]) 09:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Martinvl, please archive your talk page, it's becoming too large for convenient browsing. ] (]) 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Done. I have been meaning to do it for some time, but kept on putting it off. ] (]) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Topic Ban == | |||
:Hi Sreejith2000 | |||
:Thank you for your e-mail. If you go to the page you will see that that the ''permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2009071410068257 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact OTRS volunteers at their noticeboard.'' (Extracted from the OTRS notice). If you need further information, please let me know. In addition, please note that I will not have access to my e-mails related to this system until after 25 December 2011 as I am travelling. | |||
:] (]) 13:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
I have that a ] exists to ] you from all articles, talk pages, and any namespace page related to measurements. Appeals may be made to the ] or ] but otherwise any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths. The only exception being explicit source quotations in article-space.--v/r - ]] 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification== | |||
:I saw your notice.<p>I request an immediate relaxation in respect of the articles ] and ], both of which are currently being reviewed as ].<p>I also request an immediate relaxation in respect of an SPA that I am about to place on another user.<p>Thank you.<p>] (]) 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC) <small>reformatted --v/r - ]] 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
::I will consider the request for relaxation for the purposes of the GA review once I've reviewed the area to determine whether the dispute has crossed over there or not. If it has, I'm likely going to say no. If it has not, I'll allow you to finish the GA process on those two articles only. I'll let you know later today. I'm unable to relax the topic ban with respect to this other user, however.--v/r - ]] 17:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I've reviewed both pages and I don't see recent overlap with the specific dispute that led to your topic ban. I'll allow you to finish the GA reviews provided that no disputes erupt on those pages with other editors, you remain civil, no wiki lawyering, and that they are wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time. Please limit your interactions to the GA reviewer unless a direct question is asked of you. If a dispute erupts on these pages during the GA review, I will rescind this exception prior to any block. I am also copying this to your talk page for easier retrieval from other sysops.--v/r - ]] 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you. ] (]) 17:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== October 2013 == | |||
Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for persistent ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 17:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> | |||
:], just for clarification, can you provide diffs of the disruptive edits please? I imagine it's as a result of the topic ban noted above, but your blocking notice isn't clear. ] (]) 18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I am flabbergasted. I received a topic ban due in part to my ignorance of a particular Misplaced Pages policy which can be traced to cultural differences between United States tradition and British tradition. These differences are enumerated in ]. I acknowledged these faults and asked for mitigation, but instead the ban was increased from a topic ban to a total ban. I acknowledge that I repeated an appeal within 24 hour of the last appeal having been turned down, but it was in that period that I learnt about that particular policy – my ignorance of it having been the central plank in the stance that I was taking concerning procedural matters. I strongly protest the increased ban, especially as the original request from User:Wee Curry Monster was serviced by User:TParis and User:Drmies has not cited any action that has not already been addressed by User:TParis. My Misplaced Pages-related actions, since the rejection of my original appeal were: *Sorting out a red link at ] *Removing spam from ] *Assisting at . I do not believe that these actions constitute disruptive action. I request further information from User:Drmies and if this is not forthcoming, I request that the additional restriction placed on me by User:Drmies be removed in total. | decline=You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked <s>seven</s> numerous times, and you are now claiming "cultural differences" as the reason you seem unable to comprehend your topic ban? You are hardly the first to try and play that card to try and win sympathy when blocked. It rarely works and it isn't going to cut in this case. You show no recognition whatsoever that your problems were caused by your own actions and not others. I think the ] is your best path to being unblocked at this point. ] (]) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
:Martin, do me a favour and slow down. I've re-opened the thread at AN, I've asked ] the precise "disruptive edit(s)" for which you've been indef blocked, staying cool right now is something you need to do... ] (]) 18:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
*{{U|The Rambling Man}}, it follows the two threads still up at ]. It is deemed disruptive by a clear consensus of editors that the persistent requests for removal of the topic ban only recently instated is not just disruptive in its own right, but that they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the editor to realize what the problem with their edits is. Undoing this block can be done after what seems to me a relatively easy admission on the editor's part: that their edits leading to the topic ban (hashed out at length in ], closed only a few days ago) were indeed deemed disruptive, and that asking for relaxation of the topic ban is untimely especially if recognition is lacking. In ], for instance, the closer, {{U|The Bushranger}}, clearly warned of the boomerang, which the editor could have expected when launching ]. In that first AN thread, the accusations leveled at {{U|Wee Curry Monster}} are an indication of ], as is the (aborted?) section "Misrepresentation of fact by other editors": please note the responses by {{U|Cullen328}}, {{U|Nilfanion}}, and {{U|Guy Macon}}, which show exasperation with what is considered wikilawyering.<p>Rambling Man, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin, and I saw your AN comment: as I said, I have no objection to an unblock (accompanied by a 1RR restriction, for instance?), but it should probably come with an assurance that the behavior (not just in the measurement business) will cease. I (personally) will not stand in the way of an unblock, but I'm sure you realize that there's a crowd of people at AN who feel strongly about this issue, and I am quite confident that I acted on consensus. You don't need my advice, follow your own judgment; and if more editors like chime in with you and {{U|Garamond Lethe}} you will be strengthened in that judgment.<p>One more thing: I do not accept that the appeal to only-just acquired knowledge of ] (which is not a policy, of course) is a reason to just forget the disruption ever happened, especially since it suggests that the editor didn't read the long, long ANI thread that led to the topic ban. The responses following the editor's unblock request of 18 October speak clearly to the disruption as well--and, at any rate, a longtime editor can be expected to be aware of the need for consensus. NOTJUSTICE, or lack of knowledge of that essay, has no bearing on that matter; it simply points at a (perceived) behavioral aspect. Thank you, ] (]) 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
**Okay {{U|Drmies}}, thanks for that, I appreciate the time you've taken to fill me in. I'm hoping that Martin will also gain an understanding, '''on this specific occasion''', as to how to become unblocked and how to stay unblocked. I'm not advocating anyone's behaviour (or misbehaviour), I'm just double checking we've ensured that all parties know exactly what's going on and why. Once again, thanks for your time. Martin, perhaps some advice here to digest and follow, if not then let us know. ] (]) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
***Oh, I should correct myself on the 1R remark: that's a proposal by Garamond Lethe for relaxing the topic ban and should have no bearing on the unblock. My apologies for conflating the two. ] (]) 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Will ] please list the '''seven''' times that I have been blocked? An analysis of shows '''six''' entries, two of which are irrelevant - they were a block issued at 19:10 for edit-warring which was revoked 30 minutes later when it was realised that the other party was a sock-puppet. ] (]) 07:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Hindhead Tunnel == | |||
::Whatever. If it makes you feel better we'll just call it "numerous" times. The exact number is hardly the point. You're not going to wiki-lawyer your way out of this on a technicality, that's another thing that makes this different than a court of law. ] (]) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "]". Thank you.<!--Template:DRN-notice--> --] (]) 11:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::@] - You obviously did not get it. You should not have counted these two entries: | |||
== Civility issue == | |||
::*09:40, 21 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) unblocked Martinvl (talk | contribs) (discussion at ANI; was edit warring with a sock) | |||
::*09:12, 21 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Martinvl (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring) | |||
::What else did you skim-read? ] (]) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::tell you what I will do for you, I will re-post my last two remarks with emphasis added on the most important parts, hopefully that will clarify what my point was. | |||
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you ] while interacting with other editors, which you did not on ]. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> | |||
::::::You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked <s>seven</s> numerous times, and you are now claiming "cultural differences" as the reason you seem unable to comprehend your topic ban? You are hardly the first to try and play that card to try and win sympathy when blocked. It rarely works and it isn't going to cut in this case. <big>'''You show no recognition whatsoever that your problems were caused by your own actions and not others.''' </big>I think the ] is your best path to being unblocked at this point. ] (]) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
In particular, please refrain from nonsense ] attacks, such as the unhelpful hostility you displayed toward User:de Facto. No one is required to provide any personal background information on their user pages here, and whether they have or have not to the satisfaction of your personal curiosity has no bearing on whether an opinion they express on an issue has merit. Your talk page displays a long history of other editors raising civility and disruptive editing issues with you, yet you do not appear to be participating much differently based on this quite unusually high level of negative feedback. Please think more carefully about how you approach such discussions in the future. | |||
::::::Whatever. If it makes you feel better we'll just call it "numerous" times. <big>'''The exact number is hardly the point.'''</big> You're not going to wiki-lawyer your way out of this on a technicality, that's another thing that makes this different than a court of law. ] (]) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I sincerely hope this helps you to see what is most important in these two comments and you will be able to post a new unblock request which shows some understanding of these issues. ] (]) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
PS: Given that you are in formal mediation about editing related to the UK and metrics, you probably should not be engaging in flamey debate on this topic at MOS anyway, pending the outcome of your mediation. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 04:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
:Hi SMcCandlish | |||
:I read your posting and appreicate your concern. Things between DeFacto and myself go back quite far. I don't know where to put them down to nievety, stupidity, pig-headedness or a combination of these. A few months ago DeFacto accused me of beign uncivil towards him. You can read about it ]. He also has a track record of being very pushy about his own ideas - two quick examples are ] and ]. Much of my own dealing with him can be found in his accusation of incivilty against me. ] (]) 08:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
The article ] you nominated as a ] has failed ]; see ] for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. <!-- Template:GANotice result=fail --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- {{User-multi | |||
==Merge discussion for ]== | |||
|doc=yes | |||
] An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been proposed for a ] with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going {{ #if:Talk:Anthony_Bennett_(English_politician)#Merger_proposal |]|to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article}}, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ] (]) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:mergenote --> | |||
|User=Pyrotec | |||
|1=t | |||
}} 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
: The above statement is incorrect, it passed. ] (]) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Nice work! <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 21:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Ditto. ] (]) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you, and especially to ] who set a high but fair standard. Wikiproject Measurement has become a Cinderella project which makes it difficult to get people to review articles. ] (]) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I going to continue reviewing (well more precisely start reviewing) your nomination ], but it looks like you can't contribute. A shame. Objections are now appearing at ]. ] (]) 23:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
==2012 Elfstedentocht== | |||
{{od}} Thanks for mentioning that; I've added both to my watchlist, but you look like you have things well in hand. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 01:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
It's now looking as though there won't be a race this year. Per the discussion on the talk page, I moved the 2012 stuff to my userspace. If you wish to make use of the material so show the build-up to the race, it is available. I'll delete the page in my userspace in a week or so. ] (]) 10:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
== About Reversion of 28 October 2013 International_Bank_Account_Number == | |||
==Disambiguation link notification== | |||
Hello Martinvl, | |||
Hi. When you recently edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
About Reversion of 28 October 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:International_Bank_Account_Number, We have removed the whois privacy and added a privacy policy page which describes our non-logging policy for data sent through our website. The website www.reverseiban.com is an open source project designed to provide easy way of validating and reverse-lookup of IBANs. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
No information is logged in our website and it is entirely free to use. In the process of gathering verification algorithms and reverse IBAN information for our website, we found out many details which are not widely available on the internet. For example Ukraine does not have a publicly available record for accurate IBAN validation since the country itself has not joined the IBAN standard. Ukraine however has four banks which issue IBAN numbers and we developed the validation algorithm and reverse information for all Ukrainian banks. We will also be happy to contribute to Misplaced Pages and update many of the IBAN related pages in wikipedia ( Similar to the Ukraine example ) . | |||
== Yet another civility issue == | |||
I hope you can reconsider your reversal of our publication since we had not intent of commercial advertising for our website, but rather sharing a useful and unique technique of understanding IBAN structuring. | |||
Martinvl, please retract the unfounded that you left on my talkpage. If you believe that the banners I added to the poorly referenced sections of "]" are unfounded, please explain your reasoning on the ] and I will review it there. By the way, I'm not sure that it would be wise to carry out your threat and add another attempt to get me blocked to your record, especially so soon after recent failed, apparently malicious one and after the advice given to you by SMcCandlish in message on ]. -- ] (]). 11:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Kind Regards, Andrew & Stan www.reverseiban.com <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Given your recent behaviour on the MOSNUM and Hindhead Tunnel articles, I believe that these banners were added in bad faith, so please remove them - at least one of them is totally unfounded. ] (]) 12:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Andrew & Stan, | |||
::#What recent "behaviour" are you alluding to? Please characterise it in your own words. | |||
:My reasons for reverting your changes are detailed on the article talk page. That reasoning stands. Will you please address any correspondence regarding that article to the article talk page and not to me personally. ] (]) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::#Which one (of the four) banners do you claim was "totally unfounded"? | |||
::#You appear to accept that three of the banners were founded then - do you? | |||
::-- ] (]). 12:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
*May I suggest that the above parties should read ]. It is generally not viewed positively for anyone involved with an organisation to edit pertaining to that organisation, especially if the edits appear promotional. Furthermore, I'd like to point to ]. It is considered wrong for multiple people to edit under the same identity, even with regards to an IP address. ] — ] 16:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Beste Martin, == | |||
== November 2013 == | |||
Wil jij een beetje op het artikel van ] letten? Ik ben hier niet zo actief. En nu krijg je allerlei geruchten. Dat zij een ''ambassadeur van de orgaandonatie'' is is compete nonsens. Ze had alleen een twitterberichtje geplaats over een televisie programma waarin een vriendin voorkwam die een niertransplantatie gehad had. Dezelfde kolder heb ik al twee keer van Misplaced Pages NL verwijdert. | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 14:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
(Ik denk dat je dit wel kunt lezen in het Nederlands....;). Vriendelijke groet, ] (]) 10:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Hi Sir Salter, | |||
:You are right, I can read Dutch, but having learnt Afrikaans at school destroyed my chances of writing in Dutch (see my Talk Page). I have bookmarked the artcile and I will keep an eye on what is happening. | |||
:Vriendelijke groet ] (]) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
*{{Confirmed}} — You've been cleared at SPI, as I thought you'd be. It seems ] is certainly ], so you were right about that. Just thought I'd just give you notice, as I think you deserve it. The SPI for EzEdit is ]. ] — ] 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Ik begrijp dat Martin. Dat moet uiterst verwarrend zijn. De talen lijken erg op elkaar maar verschillen ook erg. | |||
::Als je zie je dat er enorm veel hits zijn. (40.000!) Het is dus bijzonder gevaarlijk dit soort roddel die zich vooral via de sociale media zich verspreid heeft als waarheid neer te zetten. Ik vermoed dat in de wereld (het is internationaal nieuws) heel wat kranten Misplaced Pages als bron gebruiken.. En voor je het weet ''is'' dit een waarheid. nu circuleerd er weer . Het beste is denk ik , en spreken tenminste Nederlands... Vriendelijke groet, ] (]) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::What's this about me being DeFacto? ] (]) 15:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Metric Martyrs == | |||
:Thank you. ] (]) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
] Please do not add commentary or your own ] to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to ]. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's ] and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Particulary your recent edits in the 'Pardon campaign' section which gave the impression of a greater scope than actually exists for the regulations. More discussion can be found on the article's talkpage. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npov2 --> -- ] (]). 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
::If I may ask, what exactly happened that caused DeFacto to become an incessant menace to you? He seems to have been doing this for years, targeting you specifically, and it really makes very little sense. ] — ] 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Not speaking for Martin (really!), but that's probably a question best asked and answered offline. Cataloging the frailties of other editors in public rarely places the cataloger in a good light. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::@RGloucester, | |||
::::Hi, Thank you for your interest in the origin of the clash between DeFacto and myself. As suggested by Garamond Lethe, drop me an e-mail outlining exactly what you would like to know and I will reply. | |||
::::] (]) 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
First of all, let me apologise for forgetting the courtesy notice for the SPI check. That was really inexcusable of me. Secondly, I would hope you would realise that I didn't believe there was anything to it. ] <small>]</small> 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
*They've both been blocked. See the SPI. ] — ] 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
*Martin, you are not banned: you are blocked. Huge difference. I outlined, above, what an admin would probably want to consider in an unblock request. Note that this is not the same as an appeal, which probably refers to a ban. You are blocked for violating your topic ban; you aren't ''banned''. If I were you I'd look back at that ANI discussion to see what other editors probably expect. Thank you, and good luck with it, ] (]) 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi ] | |||
:Thank you for your note. | |||
:Will you please reconsider the "topic ban" allegation. The allegation that I breached the ban was probably made in respect of the SPA posting that I made at 17:37 on 25 October 2013 (now deleted). The policy ] allows discussions regarding the topic in respect of appeals discussing the ban itself. Since Wee Curry Monsters posting timed at 17:00 on 25 October 2013 (now deleted) citing edit-warring between EzEdit and myself was the immediate trigger to my topic ban, it was highly appropriate that my views about EzEdit being a SPA be a significant part of any discussion process regarding such a ban. I request that you take this into account and review my block. EzEdit's pedigree as a sockpuppet and my associated interaction can be seen in context at ]. ] (]) 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Correction: blocked for disruptive editing. Plenty of detail above. Your block is obviously to be reviewed by someone who is not me. ] (]) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I think the two of you are talking past each other. Martin, I'll take stab at translating offline. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 22:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== |
== WikiCup 2014 == | ||
] Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as ], such as the edit at ], are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can ]. Please read ] for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-notvand --> ] (]) 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for ]. Cheers, --] ©<sup>]</sup><sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>]</sub> 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Pontificalibus | |||
:I have noted your comments. I have had a long run-in with Defacto - he is cetainly not a new editor and has had a contraversial past - for example ] (with which I had no invovlement), | |||
== Falkland Islands award == | |||
:Vandalism is defined as "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". In his summary of the "Legal Requirements" DeFactio has deliberately watered down what the law actually says. I have drawn his attention to it, but he has refused to discuiss the matter, but threw insults at me. This is compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Given his past conduct, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. | |||
{{User HMAward|Falkland Islands}} | |||
:BTW, I notice that you removed a large part of the description of the lede photograph of teh artcile in question. May I draw to your attention: | |||
:*Electrical units have always been based on metric units. | |||
:*It is virtually impossible to buy a metric-only set of domestic scales on the high street - I have tried. Dial models have dual scales and the few balances that are sold (eg at Argos) have imperial weights only (metric available for an additional cost). | |||
:*On the other hand, go to your local garden centre and look at the thermometers there - a significant number (over half the models in my local garden centre) are in degrees Celsius only. | |||
Hi Martin. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. Congratulations. | |||
:] (]) 07:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
--] | ] 03:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Martinvl, please do not misrepresent my actions. In ], as in the case of the other discussion you mention above (which as you weren't involved in, you know nothing about) - but noticed that there has been controversy in (so appear to hope that a bit of mud from there might stick and help your campaign here), I had been removing one-sided POVy OR/SYNTH to try to achieve a more neutral and reliably supported article. -- ] (]). 09:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Question for administrator == | |||
:::DeFacto, you have made four changes in the space of 15 minutes. Please use your sandbox. ] (]) 10:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{admin help|answered=yes}} | |||
::::Changes where? -- ] (]). 10:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Will an administrator please demand an explanation of violations of WP:BLP by ]: | |||
:::::Here, today, at 09:55, 09:56, 10:07 and 10:11. ] (]) 10:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::Clarifications. There had been no replies, so what's the problem? -- ] (]). 17:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Mabuska "The fact they ... continued lying ...". I object to the word "lying". | |||
== Warning: March 2012 == | |||
*Mabuska "They haven't even apologised for their false accusations ...". I object to the term "false accusations". | |||
] Do not create pages that ] their subject. Attack pages and files '''are not tolerated''' by Misplaced Pages and are ]. Users who create or add such material may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-Attack --> | |||
--] (]) 11:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
: Neither are ] violations. You also cannot be serious that you want to address something that was said on October 28? I will advise them to ensure they keep the rhetoric down in the future, but otherwise there is no action needed here <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::As if you didn't know who had placed the message. Do you know how the 'history' function works? I tried to get your attack page speedy deleted. Unfortunately the admin who dealt with it didn't realise how misleading the content was or your malicious intent, so let it stay. -- ] (]). 17:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I beg to differ and I request that since you have taken this issue up, that you ask Mabuska to justify himself. ] (]) 12:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for March 4== | |||
::: How do you beg to differ? Do you believe this is actually a ] issue? If so, how. Do you believe that anyone needs to ask him to justify comments from 2 weeks ago? Do you believe this is actually a beneficial use of your or anyone's time? Do you not feel the notification I left on his page was ]? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
::::I will await Mabuska's answer. And yes, I do believe it appropriate to demand an answer from him. ] (]) 12:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::::: You didn't answer all the questions - especially the ] part. He was not requested to respond; he was requested to refrain from rhetoric in the future. As we do not do punishment, we do prevention ... and we also do not ], that should be more than enough. You also may not "demand an answer" from anyone - not even ArbComm can "demand an answer" - so again, refrain in the future is the best we can do, and then respond accordingly if that does not occur <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
:::::: @EatsShootsAndLeaves: The "In a nutshell" banner on the ] page states "''Material about living persons added to any Misplaced Pages page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research''". I am a living person. That is sufficient for the policy to apply. | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::::::I will remove my demands, but I now formally request that the statements by Mabuska be removed from Wikipeida immediately. ] (]) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
::::::: ] does not apply to editors - you're not an identifiable living person, as per ]. ] does apply to editors, and Mabuska's comments have been appropriately dealt with from a ''preventative'' perspective. Nothing further will be done <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 15:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
*The best way forward for you, Martin, is to cool off for a while and come back with clear head, appeal the block and make it clear that you understand why you were blocked. As was said before, contesting the block on procedural matters is not likely to come of anything. ] — ] 15:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::@EatsShootsAndLeaves: Please stop making up the rules as you go along. The word "identifiable" does not appear anywhere on the page ]. ] (]) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: I'm not making it up. The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors. NPA is the only policy that therefore applies, and based on community-sanctioned remedies based on the severity and nature of the "potential" NPA, this situation has been appropriately dealt with. If you want to be a wikilaywer, fill your boots - it doesn't change the fact that another editor's comments about you are not nor will they be subject to BLP. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 18:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: Please justify your statement "The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors". I can see nothing about it on the ] page. ] (]) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::: FFS, you cannot simply pull things out of policies to suit your needs. The policy clearly states "this policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article" - you are not identifialy mentioned in any biography of a living person. I was trying to put the wording into English that you might actually understand, but apparently failed. Your wikilawyering is simply porving that your block IS protective in nature - well done <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Compare these two comments by Martinvl: and . So where did I imply DDStretch was a hypocrite? And despite your denials about it, DDStretch saw your comment . | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
The fact you use the word "accusing" towards me and the fact you lied about me implying DDStetch was a hypocrite, means that you made a "false accusation" in the clearest meaning of the term and means that you lied. Oh yes and I suppossedly "twisted" what DDStretch said which was also a lie. | |||
== Notification of DRN submission == | |||
Object to my choice of words if you wish, they have basis, and basis backed by undeniable evidence. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "]". Thank you.<!--Template:DRN-notice--> -- ] (]). 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
:@Mabuska, your explanation does not hold water and I refuse to accept your explanation. I am not going to waste my time arguing with you because given the way that Misplaced Pages works, it will accomplish nothing. ] (]) 14:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ANI discussion == | |||
:: Martin, nobody gives a shit whether you accept it or not. He was in no way ''required'' to provide one, yet he did. Your refusal to accept it is ''your problem'' and nobody else's. Now, drop the ] if you have any intention of returning to this project as an editor <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 15:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
There is a ] about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. ] <small>(])</small> 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
@Martinvl : Your implication that I somehow saw a comment *you* claim was made by Mabuska as a personal attack on me from him is a gross distortion of the facts. You have done this before to others. If you continue like this I will ask an uninvolved admin to see if there are sufficient grounds for blocking you from your own talk page. ] ] 01:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for March 14== | |||
== Ok, folks, that's enough == | |||
Hi. When you recently edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
Everything that's needed to be said has been said, and a fair bit more besides. We have an encyclopedia to edit. Let's get back to work. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 02:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Reporting obvious errors == | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
I spotted a non-contentious change that was made about 30 hours ago that needs reverting. How best should I go about ensuring that this is done without breaking my block? ] (]) 10:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Courtesy note to you!== | |||
: You cannot. Being blocked means you are not permitted to edit. The only reason you have access to this talkpage is to formulate unblock requests, and respond to concerns from your fellow editors. Editing by proxy could still be considered to be editing. Although not recommended, if you have a "friendly" fellow editor who currently edits in that article, you could advise them by e-mail. Don't e-mail someone who has never edited it <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
I don't mind you re-indenting my comment: you've got good reason, unlike some people recently... | |||
I |
::Martin, I agree with ES&L. Please don't do anything that might endanger the chances for success of a future unblock request. ] (]) 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
== ] GA == | |||
:Thanks - I am currently drafting a response. ] (]) 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Nice work. | |||
:Now, there's interesting. Why would an anonymous user called 212.183.128.124 suddenly pop up and fiddle with the white-space in the article? Who do we know (who's currently banned off wikipedia in general) who would persistently rearrange the commas, and move other people's posts around? :-) ] (]) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
<small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 01:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Steve whoever fiddled the white space did so from an IP address registered with Vodaphone, London. ] (]) 15:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Suppressed content == | |||
:::If he suddenly (out of the blue) turns up on "Hindhead Tunnel" you'll know who he is! ] (]) 15:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
I am reviewing past events and have found that the of the handed to me has been suppressed. Can someone please explain why this has happened? ] (]) 15:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::There are about 20 postings from this IP address - all but one of them vandalism, though the vandalism in question was not DeFacto's style. ] (]) 15:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
:The detail is still in the archive, certain personal information was redacted at ANI and those diffs also contrained that information. ] <small>]</small> 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I have checked the ANI history file - the edits that were shown as suppressed are no longer in the history file, but the following edits that I made are not there either, even though they exist in the appropriate archive: | |||
::::It would seem deFacto has managed to win himself an indefinite ban - for sockpuppetting now. Last week he was still arguing with the admins about his "unfair block". He certainly pissed off a few of them in epic style! ] (]) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
::*16:36, 17 October 2013 | |||
::*17:16, 25 October 2013 | |||
::It is very difficult for me to prepare an appeal if I cannot supply diffs to enable Arbcom members to find the actual text. | |||
::] (]) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
::: ArbCom can view the diff's. You simply need to provide the diff and/or the date/time. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
*Martin, I am not going to edit on your behalf. If you like you can post things here on this talk page and see if the community a. lets them stand and b. is willing to act on them. If you wish to have Misplaced Pages edited, you should file an unblock request so you can do it yourself. Thank you, ] (]) 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
== British Weights and Measures Association == | |||
:::On the subject of Hindhead Tunnel BTW, I see that some of deFacto's arguments centred on his insistence that UK articles should be imperial-first, (mis)citing ] and other "sources" for backup on that. In case you're interested, last summer a "featured article" on the front page of Misplaced Pages was ]. I read it (because it was there) and immediately opened a thread on its talk page to complain about the pedantic imperial-first (even imperial only) style of the page. I was firmly rebuked off by the page's authors who claimed that in order to get "featured page" status, an article has to be one set of units or the other, and since the early records of the river used imperial (or Queen Anne) units, then the rest had to be like that too. I disagreed, but couldn't sway them, even though ] doesn't seem to say any such thing. I concluded that left the way it was, the article looked like it belonged in Steampunkopedia! Go read - it looks like it was copied as-is from Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 despite actually being up-to-date! Truly awful - deFacto would have loved it. My final comment on the subject is still only the penultimate comment on the talk page if you look at its history. ] (]) 23:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Martin, I received your email regarding Michael Barry / ] - thank you. | |||
::::Hi Steve, | |||
It makes sense that he would be the person referenced in the article, but the BWMA journal you quoted doesn't appear to mark his passing, and I can't quite connect the person to the organization. Is there anything else that can make the connection, or can you point out what I am missing? Thanks again.....''']]''' 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you for your note. If you look at MOSNUM, you will see a note about changing the units of measure for changes' sake, but if you are doing a major overhaul, then it is appropriate to change units. His argument about the original units being in non-metric is ill-founded, moreover it is likely that certain flows etc have changed since the original readings were taken which might give rise for a major overhaul.] (]) 06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Hi PKT | |||
:Just to double-check please visit the . The current patron are listed on page 1 and the deceased patrons at the bottom of page 8. Michael Bukht was certainly awarded an ] which shows up in the BWMA journal. It also confusingly shows him with a ], but if we go back to the issue, we see him listed as being alive with just an OBE. Since he died in August 2011, I must assume that the editor of the journal was being sloppy in keeping his list of patrons up to date. ] (]) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Indefinite block and topic ban appeals == | |||
== You didn't... == | |||
{{hidden begin| | |||
...honestly call the ISP/technical people at NAS, did you? Please please tell me you didn't (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
|title = Appeals <s>suspended while I consider</s> withdrawn as per EatsShootsAndLeaves' comment (below) | |||
: I am still awaiting a response to this question (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
|titlestyle=background:#ccccff | |||
::I did, I said so in my initial posting. I have not persued the matter any further though. ] (]) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
::: You know that by doing so, you should be indefinitely blocked, right? (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!--{{Unblock|reason=--> | |||
::::Please point me to the reference that says so - my line with their technical people was "There is a problem - how can I get our technical people to sort the matter without impacting any legitimate use that you might have?". This is a special case because the perpetrators of the trouble were ]. BTW, I telephoned them - a local call for me, but an international call from Canada. ] (]) 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
] be phased out after the ] meeting in November 2014?<ref name=NewSI/><br><br>Who is following this up?<br>See ] ].]] | |||
::::: Are you a formal representative of Misplaced Pages? Are you as a minimum an administrator? Have you even checked back on ANI for the results of your actions? Any attempts to contact an employer, etc are regularly met with indef blocks (see for example ]) (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
I wish to appeal the following sanctions against me: | |||
::::::I acknowledge that I am not a formal represenatative of Misplaced Pages which is why the tone of my discussion with the National Autistic Society was one of "What information can I pass back to the adminstrators?" The approach that I took is nothing more than I would do in ]. | |||
::::::On rereading the ANI, I see that ] wrote <<As far as I can tell, the National Autistic (sic) Society doesn't have "patients" and would not use such terms as "suffering from autism".>> Their IT department told me that patients do have access to their network. This negates a good deal of the discussion that followed. ] (]) 13:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
*An ] imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing.<ref name=DM></ref> | |||
:::::::<s>The issues at hand here have to do with a lot more than simply whether the exact term "patients" is applicable. The fact is that your actions are tantamount to believing that an entire class of people are not worthy of editing Misplaced Pages, and actively taking unilateral action to ensure that they cannot (despite having no warrant for doing so based on Misplaced Pages policy). ] (]) 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)</s> | |||
::::::::That's a bit unfair - ], Martinvl only investigated an active vandal and proposed a block for that vandal. It was ] who (prematurely, in my opinion) suggested soft-blocking the entire NAS. Nobody proposed blocking autistic people from editing Misplaced Pages, and I should hope no one seriously ever would. I was however disturbed by Martinvl's characterisation of autistic people as people who "will not respond to normal reasoning," which is absurd. I've known many people with high-functioning autism who are better at reasoning than the average person. ] 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Yes, I worded it overly strongly as well; so striking my comments accordingly. ] (]) 05:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{unindent}} | |||
In describing autistic people I was referring in particular to those undergoing treatment at the centre one of whom was vandalising the articles ], ], ], ] and ] articles. I '''did''' indeed leave a request on the user talk page ] and made a comment in one of the changes. Both were ignored. As I mentioned earlier to Penyulap, I should have left a few more comments when reverting changes as the changes were not obvious vandalism. | |||
*A one year ] imposed by User:TParis on 25 October 2013. This ban was imposed in response to an ] posted by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM).<ref name=ANI></ref> In particular, I would like this ban to be reassessed in light of new evidence. | |||
May I request that there be a standard notice on IP type users pages that are linked to specific corportions which give guidance to editors (and not just admins) on how to deal with vandalism. ] (]) 07:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
: Now we're beyond the original problem with you contacting an ISP. Now you're getting into something even more distasteful: the suggestion that someone on the Autism Spectrum edits differently than a "neurotypical" person. That's pretty horrific (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Could we please stop this discussion. I have contacted Bwilkins privately. ] (]) 10:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Hopefully final point: Misplaced Pages takes seriously its responsibility towards editors to ensure that random people are not calling their service providers/employers/etc. Doing so is a serious invasion of their privacy, and we must protect those editors from such action, as has happened many times in the past. At this point, you should have been indefinitely blocked ''until'' the project saw that future situations would not recur. However, I'll take the opposite tack: please confirm that you will not take such action on your own ever again, or else I will have no choice but to protect those editors ''via'' a block (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 11:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Having seen that my actions are viewed differently to what I would have expected in the ] workplace, I undertake not to make such an action on my own again. | |||
::In order to prevent anybody else doing this, may I suggest that the last sentence on the "Attention" box on the Talk Page be amended from: | |||
:::"In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact the National Autistic Society to report abuse." | |||
::to | |||
:::"In the event of on-going vandalism from this address, please contact an administrator via ] and they will contact the National Autistic Society to report abuse." | |||
::] (]) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== Indefinite block appeal=== | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 13== | |||
When WCM ]<ref group=Note name=WCMCANVASS>'''Summary of canvassing by Wee Curry Monster'''<br>When publishing the ANI, Wee Curry Monster identified three specific articles/talk pages that were of interest. They are catalogued below with then number of edits and distinct editors as they existed at the time the ANI was published (15:14 on 16 October 2013): | |||
* - (Section 8) - 54 postings; 8 editors including both WCM and me. | |||
* (Section 1) - 326 postings, 25 editors including both WCM and me. | |||
* (Section 14) - 1 posting (me) | |||
Apart from WCM and me, 26 distinct editors contributed to these three articles/talk pages (some to two of the articles). Initially WCM notified 3 editors and, after my first complaint, a further 4, all of whom supported his point of view. I rate this as "]".</ref> support for an ANI that he published requesting that I be banned from any and all discussions relating to ], I responded in an unorthodox way. My actions were misinterpreted and when I tried to explain myself, I used language that was again misinterpreted. | |||
As Misplaced Pages currently stands, the only policy in existence that expressly targets canvassing is the banning of an editor who persists in such activity – Misplaced Pages policy does not offer a formal method redress to undo the harm caused by a single episode of canvassing. It should be noted however that the essay ] proposes a method of redress. At the time I was unaware of this essay, otherwise I would have quoted it. | |||
My intention was to get the ANI annulled without necessarily asking for sanctions against WCM. In order to ensure that my request for annulment of the ANI was seen, I tried to emulate the structure used in Arbcom hearings of each participant having their own area.<ref group = Note>'''No threaded discussions in Arbcom hearings'''<br>]: ''If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. There may be no threaded discussion ...''</ref> Other editors did not see it that way – User:Beyond my Ken saw it as ] of the ANI. I made the mistake of losing my cool and reverting User:Beyond My Ken's changes. | |||
Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
Looking back at the episode, I can see that I made a number of errors: | |||
*I used an unorthodox approach to counter WCM's canvassing – I should have followed the principal of ] and used the approach outlined in ], even if it meant me being more heavy-handed than I would have liked. | |||
*When my approach was challenged I should have used standard Misplaced Pages jargon and observed the principal of ]. In particular I should have used the term ] rather than ]. I should have realised that a number of editors (including administrators) shout ] the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified. | |||
*I should have planned my approach to countering the canvassing around the principal of ]. This will ensure that everybody understands exactly what I was trying to prove and will save me getting stressed when they do not see what appear to me to be obvious. This means, amongst other things not responding immediately, but to take a deep breath and ask myself "Who has mis-interpreted the situation and how can I ensure that they do not again mis-interpret it?" | |||
*Even when I have been badly wronged I need to keep my cool. | |||
=== Topic ban appeal=== | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Topic ban listed on ]. | |||
Unlike the indefinite block for which I accept responsibility, I believe that the principal force behind the topic ban was a ] campaign on the part on the part of WCM to silence me before launching the RFC. When he first published the ANI he asked that "''a community sanction be considered banning User:Martinvl from any and all discussions related to ]''."<ref name=ANI/> Incidents that led me to believe that this was a malicious request include: | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 20== | |||
*Three days after the topic ban and a few hours after the indefinite block were put into place, WCM published an RFC requesting views on changes to ] in respect of units of measure in articles related to the United Kingdom<ref name=WCM_RFC></ref> The speed with which he published his RFC suggest that the ANI was part of a campaign by WCM rather than an isolated incident. | |||
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
*Within minutes of posting the ANI, WCM engaged in a campaign of improper canvassing<ref group=Note name=WCMCANVASS/> for support of his ANI,<ref name=WCMC></ref> an action which ] describes as "''disruptive behavior''".<ref group = Note>'''Improper canvassing is disruptive behaviour'''<br>The policy document ] states that canvassing, if ''done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way ... is generally considered ] behavior''.</ref> My complaints about this particular action have been discussed earlier. Although I have been advised to ] in respect of this action, I believe that WCM's other actions warrant revisiting this particular action. | |||
*Two week before placing the ANI, WCM changed the order of units of measure in the article ].<ref></ref> Since a discussion about the use of imperial/metric units of measure within UK-related articles was in progress at the time<ref></ref> I believe these changes to be an act of deliberate provocation. | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
*A month before placing the ANI, WCM had supported a motion by User:Kahastok's move to get me topic-banned - and . The result of User:Kahastok's ANI was the withdrawal of the original text of . WCM had previously used ] tactics<ref>] quote: ''Some unacceptable uses are ... writing new guidelines that apply specifically to the page, and branding them as "policy."''</ref> User:Kahastok's original text. I believe that the failure of User:Kahastok's ANI led to WCM taking matters into his own hands. | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
*When the ANI discussion appeared to be petering out, he resurrected discussion by misrepresenting my battle with a sock-puppet as edit warring.<ref>The diff for this entry made on 17:00 25 October 2013 has been struck out, but the text is visible towards the end of ]</ref> I was in fact gathering evidence for a second ] against User:EzEdit, an earlier attempt dated 31 July 2013 failed on grounds of being inconclusive.<ref name=EZE0>]</ref> The tone of urgency in his posting triggered User:TParis into serving a topic ban 16 minutes later. Comments made by WCM four months later suggest that he should have suspected that User:EzEdit was a sockpuppet of the banned user User:DeFacto.<ref name=WCMnemesis></ref> The speed with which User:TParis reacted prevented me from filing the WP:SPI that I was preparing, making the topic ban, from this point of view, a "]" incident. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
In his , WCM admitted to suffering from ] as a result of ] with the British Army in the Balkans. This might explain some of his excesses. However the approach taken by certain administrators who dealt with incidents during the early part of the topic ban discussion exasperated rather than resolved the issues. I do not plan to enlarge on these issues or to name the administrators concerned, but rather, should the opportunity arise, work towards reforming the underlying Misplaced Pages procedures. | |||
== Kelvin == | |||
=== Mitigating circumstances=== | |||
I note that you corrected an IP in ]. I don't think there is any inconsistency in the definition, but it needs to be read carefully. I tried to explain it to the IP at ]. - ] (]) 17:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
I would like a number of mitigating circumstances into be taken into account. I believe these to show me as a valuable member of the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
:Hi David, the point that I was making to the user was that Misplaced Pages was not in error. Maybe we coudllook at rewording thingds so that the asmbiguity falls away. ] (]) 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
==== Wikimedia training ==== | |||
*I have attended the Wikimedia trainers course and have assisted at a number of training events including one on 28 October 2013 - the day that I was served with in indefinite block.<ref name=UWSE></ref> | |||
*I have also been invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) signify whether or not I would be interested in at-tending a one day refresher course on training editors. | |||
:: It's been discussed a few times over the years at ], and from time to time errors have been introduced by confused editors, and then removed. I can't think off-hand of any rewording that would make it clearer, but any suggestions would be welcome. - ] (]) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
*I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation. | |||
:::I have reworded it. Throw it out if you think it rubbish or OTT. ] (]) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
==== English Misplaced Pages achievements ==== | |||
:::: Looks good. Well done! - ] (]) 18:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{hidden begin| | |||
:::::Thanks. ] (]) 18:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
|title = Summary of editing history | |||
|titlestyle=background:#ccccff | |||
}} | |||
I have taken four articles to Good Article status in the '''English Misplaced Pages'''. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets: | |||
* ]] (97.3%) | |||
* ]] (81.6%) | |||
* ]] (58.8%) ('''500k+ hits per year''') | |||
* ]] (47.7%) ('''500k+ hits per year''') | |||
I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets: | |||
== 3RR warning == | |||
* ]] (98.6%) | |||
* ]] (82.9%) | |||
* ]] (50.1%) | |||
* ]] (30.9%) ('''1M+ hits per year''') | |||
I have been the largest contributor to a number of other articles. My contribution as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets: | |||
Caution: you risk breaking the ] rule at ]. ] (]) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
* '']'' (98.4%) | |||
:You were warned; you did it again; I have now reported you to ]. ] (]) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
* ] (96.7%) | |||
* ] (87.8%) | |||
* ] (88.5%) | |||
* ] (88.3%) | |||
* ] (84.1%) | |||
* ] (77.6%) | |||
* ] (77.2%) | |||
* ] (74.3%) | |||
* ] (72.6%) | |||
* ] (65.5%) | |||
* ] (64%) | |||
* ] (60.0%) | |||
* ] (56.8%) | |||
* ] (41.5%) | |||
* ] (13.8%) | |||
* ] (6.9%) ('''1M+ hits per year''') | |||
'''Simple Misplaced Pages''' | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
* ] (99.4%) | |||
*Martinvl, ] struck again. ] (]) 15:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
* ] (98.7%) | |||
* ] (95.4%) | |||
* ] (85.4%) | |||
* ] (79.0%) | |||
'''Afrikaans Misplaced Pages''' | |||
== Please stop it, or attempt to justify it == | |||
* ] (Approx 59% - own calculation) | |||
{{Hidden end}} | |||
]s and ]. Image is used on ], ], ], ] and many other language articles, but not the English language article.]] | |||
The article ]] is likely to attract considerable attention in November this year when these proposals are actually discussed by the ]. I am by far the principal contributor to this article.<ref name=NewSI></ref> | |||
I tutor 17 and 18-year old students in physics and maths on a one-to-one basis. I often use Misplaced Pages articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked. | |||
You are going around making false accusations about me, associating me with another, apparently banned, editor. Please stop it. Or do you think that you have some evidence to support that claim? If you do think that, please state that so-called "evidence" here so that I can defend myself. Thank you. ] (]) 16:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
==== Other language Wikipedias ==== | |||
== May 2012 == | |||
In the last few months I have been active on the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages. Most recently I have been ] from the Dutch Misplaced Pages to the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages, making translations as needed and, should I see any errors, correcting the Dutch version. | |||
While in the Netherlands, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article ]. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Misplaced Pages. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles.<ref name=Kelvin></ref> | |||
{{{icon|]}}} Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of sock-puppets. However, one or more edits you labeled as sock-puppetry, such as the edit at ], are not considered such under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a strict definition of the word "sock-puppet", and mislabeling edits as sock-puppetry is offensive. Please read ] for more information on what is and is not considered sock-puppetry. Thank you. ] (]) 16:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Future plans==== | |||
== S-ttl/claim == | |||
If these sanctions are lifted, my plans are: | |||
*Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the ] are reflected in the article ]]. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old ] be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments. | |||
Thanks for your patience with the extra lap here. Hope it won't get in your way too much. Cheers, --]] 07:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Bring the article ] (a ]) to GA status. | |||
:Hi Joe | |||
:No problem - I have taken the liberty of copying a discussion that I had elewhere onto the Project Page. ] (]) 07:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Ensuring that articles that refer to changing standards are kept up to date, in particular those that are affected by to the (published on 26 June 2014) and changes to the ] as from time to time by ]. | |||
::Awesome, thanks! I'm off to sleep here, but will try and check back, don't hesitate to give me a poke if this for any reason slides off my radar. --]] 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Request the lifting of sanctions on SIMPLE Misplaced Pages. These sanctions were imposed when a DeFacto sockpuppet<ref name=DeFactoSocks></ref> attacked the article ] while I was trying to get it to GA status. (I was complimented on the initial draft of the article ). | |||
== Strawberries and sockpuppetry == | |||
I see you had to revert ]'s attempt to re-add the Asda strawberries. Note the number of L's in that user name and their lack of edit history - a certain somebody's idea of a joke, I reckon! ] (]) 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I am 99% sure that we are dealing with our friend DeFacto (who is now banned from Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Get the articles ] and ] to GA status. It should be noted that no articles on SIMPLE have been granted since . | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
] | |||
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. | |||
*Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality, making any necessary changes myself. | |||
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit ''']''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with ]. If the page is deleted, you can contact ] to request that the administrator ] the page or email a copy to you. <!-- Template:Db-test-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] ]⁄] 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== Conclusion === | |||
:I am happy for you to delete this page. It will make my life easuier as I was picking up where another editor left off. I will notify him. ] (]) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
The above shows that the ANI that WCM filed against me which led to a topic ban being placed on me was filed with malice. I acknowledge however that my indefinite block was caused by disruption resulting from an unorthodox defence. I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved. I request that, in line with the ] that my indefinite block be lifted forthwith. | |||
I have also examined WCM's behaviour, the behaviour of administrators concerned and also the underlying Misplaced Pages processes. I accept that WCM's actions might be attributable to ]. I have chosen not to comment on any individual administrator but should I be unblocked, to direct my energies to improving any underlying Misplaced Pages processes. However, in recognition of the impact of WCM's actions on me, I request that the topic ban to be annulled (as it would have been had ] been invoked), or if annulment is not possible, for it to be lifted forthwith. | |||
::Before I saw your note above, I had encountered this page in the list of speedy deletion candidates and decided that, as it was clearly not an encyclopedia article, you had probably placed it in the main encyclopedia space by mistake. I therefore "userfied" it - moved into a sub-page in your user space - at ]. If you don't want it, just put {{tl|db-user}} at the top, and someone will delete it. Regards, ] (]) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
If nothing else, removal of the topic ban will enable me keep the article ]] up to date in preparation for the ] meeting and possible redefinition of the ].<ref name=NewSI/> in November 2014. | |||
==Work done in vain?== | |||
Looks like someone is trying to undo the progress we were making with the templates: | |||
=== Notes === | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
{{Reflist |group=Note}} | |||
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== References === | |||
== TreeView Implementation == | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
<!--}}--> ] (]) 20:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:As an involved party to backing the banning of Martinvl due to his poor behaviour when interacting with editors who didn't agree with him including myself I must say that this statement: ''"I believe that the principal force behind the topic ban was a WP:DEPE campaign on the part on the part of WCM to silence me before launching the RFC"'' and then much later on this ''"I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved."'' - only reinforces the fact that Martinvl still doesn't seem able in anyway to acknowledge and accept the fact that his behaviour caused the problems and that in the vast majority of the issues that got him banned, that he was the one at fault. Add in the fact that he proposes to work with admins on changing the underlying procedures of Misplaced Pages because they didn't work for him at the start? Same old pass the buck, not his fault. | |||
Hello, | |||
:In my view Martinvl still hasn't learned anything and I think the block should remain. | |||
It appears that this has been implemented, so we can now move forward. Did we come to some agreement with the template naming? I wasn't sure if my slight sarcasm came through on the discussion page! Do you need/want help with the documentation? --] (]) 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
:If the indef was to be lifted I;d strongly suggest keeping Martinvl indefinitely banned from editing anything to do with measurements as he most likely do as many others have and end up getting involved intentionally or not in yet another argument that somehow is never his fault.] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Looks like we have another interested party, with some naming ideas. ]--] (]) 15:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Hi | |||
::I have just noticed that. It looks like the templates that I had in my user space were moved (which explains why I could nto find them). I have an replacement elsewhere in my user space (needs a bit of tidying up) to replace the French royalty - I have chosen to show the descendants of Henry VII up to James VI/I. Needs a bit of tidying up which I will do over the weekend (if I can find time). | |||
::Regards ] (]) 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Yeah, it looks like we didn't need to do anything as another user decided to come in and implement it his way.--] (]) 15:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::I have started adding the Tudor example. ] (]) 15:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::You might like to do some tidying up -] is getting in the way. | |||
::Martin is continuing to allege canvassing, despite neutral 3rd parties telling him there was none. A neutral template message notified involved members of the discussion at ]. At <u>his</u> insistence, everyone who simply contributed to the discussion was notified and a neutral message posted at ]. ] states this is an appropriate notification. Instead of acknowledging his own behaviour lead to his block, he is continuing to pursue a course of blaming everyone else. | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for June 28== | |||
::He also suggests that I acted out of malice at ], whilst he was preparing an SPI against EzEdit. Perhaps Martin would explain how I should have been aware of it ''before'' it was filed? All I knew at the time he was edit warring less than a week after a 3RR block. I became aware of the sockpuppet issue regarding ] when ] mentioned it in the ] thread . His allegations of “deceit” and “malice” because I mention it <u>after his block</u> further demonstrate his inability to assume good faith. | |||
Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
::Further, if you look at his contributions at the you find and in which he alleges malice and deceit on my part and accuses {{U|GiantSnowman}}, {{U|EatsShootsAndLeaves}}, {{U|Drmies }} and {{U|TParis}} variously of conspiracy, wikilawyering and incompetence. Instead of recognising he was the author of his own misfortune, he accuses {{U|Beyond My Ken}} of being in the wrong for "misunderstanding" what he was trying to do. After progressively toning down the rhetoric over a month he still posts an appeal that alleges everyone else was wrong except Martin. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 14:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::In this appeal, Martin demonstrates his propensity to ], an inability to drop the ], his ], a ] and ]. The claims of deceit, malice and a conspiracy demonstrate ]. He is simply unable to edit co-operatively. | |||
== Your repeated unjustified mass reversions must stop == | |||
::I also note above, that contrary to his topic ban, Martin has been emailing users about areas closely related to it. Of itself that would be grounds to refuse this objectionable appeal. Finally, I wish it to be noted, that the condescending manner in which Martin has referred to my mental health problems is grossly offensive. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Martin, have you become the owner of Misplaced Pages? Or otherwise, why are you going around and removing wholesale, the valid and fully summarised contributions made by other editors and reverting content to your own last favored version, and without the courtesy of a reasoned summary of your actions? ] (]) 19:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::A few responses to pre-empt any immediate problems. Other responses might well follow. | |||
:::*You are not doing yourself any favours, nor are you doing {{U|GiantSnowman}}, {{U|EatsShootsAndLeaves}}, {{U|Drmies }} and {{U|TParis}} any favours by digging up early drafts of my appeal. I removed certain material before I published the version on this page because I believed it counter-productive both to myself and to the person concerned to re-argue certain points. If they don't bring those points up, then neither will I. | |||
:::*You chose to use your mental health problems as a mitigating circumstance as regards earlier behaviour that did not affect me directly. I have accused you of ] - behaviour that could earn you an indefinite ban. By recognising that you have problems, I was signalling to any Administrators that I was only seeking the removal of sanctions that have been imposed against me and that I was not seeking any retribution against you. | |||
:::] (]) 09:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The reasons for block raised by uninvolved admin ] at Martin's ] (unaccountably missing from the above) were ''"tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT, lack of understanding of the nature of the project and extreme Wikilawyering"''. I suggest that some of these issues are evident in the unblock request. For example, the supposed canvassing has been investigated over and over and over again, including in the original topic ban close. And it has been rejected every time. | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
:It may be valuable, when considering the point on legal language, to note the section "Right to reply" in the above-referenced discussion (original diff ). Was this a case where editors ''"shout ] the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified"?'' | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
:I note as WCM did that is a clear topic ban violation, and that per ], this would suggest that the timer be reset, so that the ban ends 26 June 2015 and not 25 October 2014 (assuming that it isn't just post-dated from any future unblock as a matter of course - I don't know how this works). '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
::In response to Kahastok's last comment, I was responding to a "Help needed" request in a potential WP:BLP situation. I was doing no more that supplying such help. (). | |||
::I will respond to other issues later. ] (]) 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::] does allow exceptions in case of "reverting... obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons", but it is difficult to see how a link to a dab page on ] qualifies as an obvious violation of ], even if we accept as "reverting" it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::The page in ] lists "Michael Barry" as one of it's patrons. The page ] is a disambiguous page listing a number of different "Michael Barry's". Only one of them is/was a patron of the BWMA. By identifying the BWMA patron as having died, I was ensuring that none of the living "Michael Barry"'s were associated with the BWMA. ] (]) 12:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion== | |||
{{hidden end}} | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "]". Thank you.<!--Template:DRN-notice--> --] (]) 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
* '''Procedural note:''' Unblock templates may ONLY be used to deal with unblocks - not topic bans. After all, an admin cannot unlaterally remove a community-imposed topic-ban. Process is: deal with block, then deal with topic ban following ''its'' processes - not all together <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Greetings from Livermore, CA == | |||
== Under Construction == | |||
{{You've got mail}} | |||
]] 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Friendly tip=== | |||
== Future changes to ] == | |||
Martinvl, would it not be more prudent and preferable to create and edit your appeal in a sandbox page such as ]? Especially considering your appeal is something "under construction", which is not what talk pages are for IIRC. Also stating "This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." comes across as "don't edit my talk page until I say so", bolstered by the template saying to remove if no edit has been made for several hours, which going by your talk page history, means it could of been removed several times over the past few days. Using the ''<nowiki>{{Under construction}}</nowiki>'' template would be better. A sandbox appeal also allows you to edit it without everyone being able to view it unless they figure out what namespace you've given it, so you get some privacy that way until your ready to unveil it. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi], | |||
:Thank you for your tip. Unfortunately, being blocked, I cannot edit any subpages. I have moved the text elsewhere to get some privacy. ] (]) 11:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Hi Martinvl, | |||
Hey, Martinvl. Much thanks for enhancing this article. I've found errors in section ] introduced by you in, I suppose, | |||
I'm keeping a list of changes I'd like to make to ] in my ]. You might want to start thinking about changes or additions you'd like to see. While I'd certainly welcome comments, it might be best to put those off until we finish up with the dispute resolution. Just wanted to give you a "heads up". | |||
In particular, '''α''' fundamental constant is pretty ridiculous. Can you request unban for purposes of fixing article or ask competent contributors to do this? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Thanks, | |||
]] 09:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Hi ] | |||
== A beer for you! == | |||
:Thank you for your posting. | |||
:First of all, ] lays down the limit of what I can do - in particular "''Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits''". Since you came to me for advice concerning a genuine concern, I believe that I am allowed to advise you as to what should be there. Provided that you use your own judgment, then you may edit the article using my advice for guidance. It will of course be up to you, if you are challenged, to show that the changes you make are verifiable and/or productive. | |||
:On to your main question. I do not understand what is "ridiculous" about the ] ('''''α'''''). Under the New SI definitions, the fine structure constant will become an exact quantity since all of its component parts will be defined exactly. Under the existing SI definition, neither '''''h''''' nor '''''k''''' are defined exactly, but are measured in a laboratory. | |||
:If I have missed the point, will you please explain what you mean? I will then try to help. | |||
:Regards ] (]) 11:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Ah, yes, that is my fault. I did not read the headers of tables, "Relative uncertainty", and interpreted the rows as ''values'' of constants. | |||
::As for '''''α''''', it will not be exact because '''μ<sub>0</sub>''', '''ε<sub>0</sub>''' and '''k''' are not defined exact anymore. | |||
::] (]) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Correct! ] (]) 14:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Training new Wikipedians == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your patience and perseverance so far with ]. I do think this process will ultimately result in a better article, but for now, enjoy your beer and, at your leisure, drop by ] and contribute as the spirit move you. ]] 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
In the discussion regarding my indefinite block on ], a number of editors have questioned my suitability as a trainer. Training in the United Kingdom does not come within the remit of English Misplaced Pages, it comes within the remit of the ]. As such, I respectfully remind editors that decisions made here regarding my suitability as a trainer might well be subject to the provisions of ]. ] (]) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
: For crying out loud Martin, if you'd submitted a proper request for unblock that followed ], you'd likely be unblocked by now. Instead, you keep claiming to have been wrongfully blocked, and claiming that both the en.Misplaced Pages and WMUK can't live without you as if that's supposed to count for something. Hint: it doesn't. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Hi Dangerous Panda | |||
::Thank you for your note. | |||
::However the advice ] states | |||
:::"''Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Misplaced Pages per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects.''". | |||
::I believe that this applies to blocked uses as well. I also believe that assisting in training (something that I have done before) is a "significant and useful contribution". What am I meant to do? | |||
::] (]) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::The problem, Martin, is that you need to demonstrate that you will not continue the behaviour that led to your block. At present, you've not done this, and have not been repentant. ] — ] 13:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:: "Other WMF projects" ... you know, like Simple Misplaced Pages, the Russian Misplaced Pages. Someone who is indef blocked from the English Misplaced Pages ''cannot'' represent the English Misplaced Pages in any forum either logically ''or'' ethically. It would be like saying "I'm banned from driving for speeding, dangerous driving, and drinking while driving, but I will be your driving lessons instructor today" <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hello Martinvl, I am sure that you are editing the above article in good faith, but please be careful not to undo the work of other editors attempting to clean this article. As you can see from the discussion on its talk page, much of the content has been criticised as infringing many of the Misplaced Pages policies. Please help to put thing right by offering new material for discussion before adding it, and certainly don't blanket-revert the changes already made without firest reaching agreement on the talk page. Please be careful as disruption of this cleanup exercise, or continued edit-warring might get you into hot water! Best, ] (]) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Unblock request == | |||
:On the contrary you are removing a large amount of good material by your over-zealous interpretation of WP: PRIMARY. Removing large chunks of material as you have been doing makes it impossible to discuss each item. Moreover, since you have requested that this article be merged with ], it is the height of bad faith to start stripping out material before there is a consensus. Also, remember, if there is a lack of consensus, the status quo remains. | |||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I wish to appeal the ] imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing.<ref name=DM></ref> The reasons for the block are outlined ] (Note - this section has become convoluted due to two threads becoming inter-twined, one dated 28 October 2013 and the other 10/11 November 2013). | |||
One of the underlying purposes of the ] is to allow all parties concerned to lay past conflicts aside. I will therefore not name any of the other parties involved, but in order to explain the context, I need to refer to the incidents. | |||
:Also, you were so fast to undo the last bout of changes I do not believe that you actually read them. ] (]) 15:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation that the proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice. In particular I had wrongly assumed that in an ANI hearing were entitled to use their own sub-sections, ]. Even if I thought that it should apply here, this was the wrong way to make the proposal. In order for the process of consensus to work, it is essential that all parties follow the established protocol. The consensus process requires self-policing - anything that causes disruption (as opposed to proper debate) or that undermines the process of ascertaining the view of the community as a whole is likely to cause the consensus process breaking down into chaos. I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
::If the material is that good, where are the secondary sources supporting it? You can add each item to a section on the talk page, and we can discuss its merits there. This constant edit-warring will get you nowhere. ] (]) 20:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== Mitigating circumstances === | |||
:::That will be Hell's own job to administer. We need a top-down approach - what does the article as a whole look like and then narrow down to specifics. Furthermore, I have never seen your suggested approach being done before on Misplaced Pages (or anywhere else). | |||
As per ], I request that my past contributions to the English language Wikipedias and my on-going contributions to Wikimedia Commons and foreign-language Wikpedias be taken into account. I believe that these, especially when coupled with my previous contributions to the English Misplaced Pages show me as a valuable member of the Wikimedia community. | |||
:::I don't know what you do outside Misplaced Pages - I have had a career in software engineering - one of the most important aspects of any engineering design is to start with an outline of what you want to build and to refine it in a stepwise manner. In this respect, building a Misplaced Pages article is no different to designing a piece of engineering. ] (]) 20:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
==== Wikimedia training ==== | |||
*I have attended the Wikimedia trainers' course and have assisted at a number of training events. | |||
*On the day that I was indefinitely blocked, I assisted at the Editathon ''Women in Science'' at ].<ref name=UWSE></ref> One of the leaders gave a talk on the work of ] in the ] and her interaction with thinkers of the age including ], ] and ]. This talk was relevant to the articles ]] and ]], but due to my block, I have been unable to incorporate any of the material presented into these articles. | |||
*I was invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) to signify whether or not I would be interested in attending a one day refresher course on training editors. Due to the sanctions against me, I felt it politic to decline. | |||
*I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation. | |||
==== Misplaced Pages achievements ==== | |||
::::I'm not convinced a top-down approach is optimal for distributed, volunteer efforts (the linux kernel being largest example). Top-down works really well when you know where you're going and you're paying people to get there. Making that model work in this environment might be possible, but you're setting yourself up to have to persuade people to accept fewer large changes rather than many small changes (and more surface area means more drag). Yes, there's a greater administrative cost for managing lots of small changes. But there's also an administrative cost for having edits reverted and having to spend time in DRN. ]] 07:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{hidden begin| | |||
|title = Contributions to English Misplaced Pages | |||
|titlestyle=background:#ccccff | |||
}} | |||
I have taken four articles to Good Article status in the '''English Misplaced Pages'''. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets: | |||
* ]] (97.3%) | |||
* ]] (81.6%) | |||
* ]] (58.8%) ('''500k+ hits per year''') | |||
* ]] (47.7%) ('''500k+ hits per year''') | |||
I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets: | |||
:::::What I am saying is that rathern than keeping hoards of stuff in limbo, the normal way in Misplaced Pages is to discuss what is in the artcile otherwise, in the absence of a chairman, nothing will ever get done. 08:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
* ]] (98.6%) | |||
* ]] (82.9%) | |||
* ]] (50.1%) | |||
* ]] (30.9%) ('''1M+ hits per year''') | |||
I have been the largest contributor to a number of other articles. My contribution as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets: | |||
:::::: <grin> Well, I have "hoards of stuff in limbo" at ] that's staying in limbo until you say otherwise, and I'd much rather dump it in to the article and discuss it piecemeal there. (Yes, I understand the two situations are not entirely alike.) ]] 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
* '']'' (98.4%) | |||
{{unindent}} | |||
* ] (96.7%) | |||
And look at the amount of discussion we are having over one section. Now multiply that by half a dozen sections. We would never get anywhere. ] (]) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
* ] (87.8%) | |||
* ] (88.5%) | |||
* ] (88.3%) | |||
* ] (84.1%) | |||
* ] (77.6%) | |||
* ] (77.2%) | |||
* ] (74.3%) | |||
* ] (72.6%) | |||
* ] (65.5%) | |||
* ] (64%) | |||
* ] (60.0%) | |||
* ] (56.8%) | |||
* ] (41.5%) | |||
* ] (25.7%) | |||
* ] (13.8%) | |||
* ] (6.9%) ('''1M+ hits per year''') | |||
{{Hidden end}} | |||
{{hidden begin| | |||
== A careless edit, or another dishonest edit summary == | |||
|title = Contributions to Simple Misplaced Pages | |||
|titlestyle=background:#ccccff | |||
}} | |||
I am the principal contributor to the following article: | |||
Hello Martinvl. Myself and ] have just been editing the ] article. Here are diffs of our most recent work: | |||
* ] (99.4%) | |||
* | |||
* ] (98.7%) | |||
* | |||
* ] (95.4%) | |||
* | |||
* ] (85.4%) | |||
* | |||
* ] (79.0%) | |||
{{Hidden end}} | |||
{{hidden begin| | |||
You then came along with , and reverted all the above edits in one go, with the edit summary: "Reinstated material removed by Ornaith - See Talk Page". | |||
|title = Contributions to other language Wikipedias | |||
|titlestyle=background:#ccccff | |||
}} | |||
*I added the photo of the Kelvin thermometer to 44 language variants of Misplaced Pages (see also section entitled "Wikimedia Commons") | |||
There are serious problems with that edit summary: | |||
*You didn't mention in the edit summary that you also reverted all the edits of Kahastok | |||
*You haven't mentioned on the talk page why you reverted my edit to the shipping section | |||
In the last few months I have been active on the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages. I am the principal contributor to the following article: | |||
Please revert your own edit, and go to the talk page and engage in the discussion about the article content. If you don't, I will report you for disruption of the BRD process. With your track-record, you would probably be in serious trouble. ] (]) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
* ] (]) (Over 50% - own calculation) | |||
* ] (]) (New article) | |||
* ] (]) (Over 50% - own calculation) | |||
* ] (About 60% - own calculation) | |||
* ] (Created article and added about 40% of content) | |||
* ] (]) (Created article and added most of the text). | |||
I also copied the Dutch template ] to the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages as ] and applied it to 25 cities in the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages. | |||
{{Hidden end}} | |||
{{hidden begin| | |||
:@Ornaith - If you hadn't just removed large amount of data, then I woudl have left Kahastok's changes where they were. You had better applogise to Kahastok and arrange with him how to restore his changes. Meanwhile '''DON'T DELETE LARGE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL'''. ] (]) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
|title = Contributions to Wikimedia Commons | |||
|titlestyle=background:#ccccff | |||
}} | |||
*While in the Netherlands in May 2014, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article ]. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Misplaced Pages. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles. Another editor subsequently added it to the English Misplaced Pages.<ref name=Kelvin></ref> | |||
*My contributions to Wikimedia Commons can be seen . | |||
== Wiki Loves Monuments in South Africa == | |||
*For the record, at 12:15 on 24-Jul-2014 I loaded the five images that I took in 1982 that depict the area where ] was lost. | |||
Dear WikiProject South Africa Wikipedians | |||
*A total 29 contributions from five different countries to ] competition. | |||
*The 20 images of 1970's vintage cameras that I loaded were part of a physics teaching exercise related to ]. | |||
{{Hidden end}} | |||
]s and ]. I added the image to the ], ], ], ] and many other language articles. Another editor added it to the English language article.]] | |||
'''Miscellaneous''' | |||
This is an urgent call from Wikimedia South Africa. We are currently working hard on the South African side of the exciting international photographic competition, Wiki Loves Monuments . We have been planning to make this national competition really take off, but to do so, we need your help! The competition starts on the 1st September, and we need your help now! If you are interested in being part of or can help the Wiki Loves Monuments national organising team, then please join here . If you have limited time, but want to help out at an upload marathon at a heritage site near you, please then contact either Lourie or Isla . We look forward to hearing from you!" | |||
Other items that I would like taken into consideration include: | |||
Kind regards, ] | |||
*The article ]] is likely to attract considerable attention in November this year when these proposals are actually discussed by the ]. I am by far the principal contributor to this article.<ref name=NewSI></ref> | |||
*I tutor ] maths and physics on a one-to-one basis. My students are typically 16 to 18 years old. I often use Misplaced Pages articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked. | |||
<small>Sent by ] in 14:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
====Future plans==== | |||
== August 2012 == | |||
If these sanctions are lifted, my plans for the English Misplaced Pages are: | |||
*Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality for their studies. | |||
In case you didn't see my reply to you on my talkpage, I'll reiterate the main points of it here for you. | |||
*Make myself available for assisting at Misplaced Pages training events. | |||
Your abuse of the {{t|BLP unsourced}} template in the ] article certainly counts towards your 3RR tally, and your covert removal of references from the "References" section in the same article may indeed lead to more serious charges. Perhaps you should review your own actions before throwing your weight around, and before you get a WP:3RR or even a WP:ANI filed against you for them. ] (]) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Martinvl, the proper tag would be the {refimproveblp} - there is one legit source that mentions the subject. | |||
:::Canepa, self posted resumes are not suitable general sources/references nor appropriate ]. | |||
:::You two should stop bickering like an old married couple and maybe consider a voluntary interaction ban before one gets placed on you. Misplaced Pages is a big place, you dont need to follow each other around poking at each other. -- ] 12:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Ensuring that the article ] is kept up to date, especially when ] publishes relevant changes such as . (This article records over a million hits a year). | |||
== Edit-warring == | |||
*Continue work on nineteenth century South African history, particularly articles related to the political situation in the ] and the Natal campaign of the ]. | |||
Martin, just in case you didn't notice my comment at ], it bears repeating. Be very careful of your own edits to the article. Technically, any change to the article constitutes a revert. I counted three on your part in the last 24 hours. Admins may cut you some slack if it appears you are editing collaboratively, but you have to be conscious of what you're doing and the risks you take. Also, don't shout in edit summaries. If you can't keep your cool, then don't do anything - always safer and usually better. Take care.--] (]) 22:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the ] are reflected in the article ]]. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old ] be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments.<ref name=NewSI/> | |||
:Hi Bbb23, | |||
:I see your point. However there is another matter - the page view statistics of this article show between 3.5k and 4k hits per day on weekdays and about 1k hits per day on weekends. Moreover if you load the opening paragraph into the Google search box and do a search, you will see that over a hundred sites that have that exact text. In other words, in the reader community this is a high-profile article. We cannot afford to have it plastered with unneccessary "citation needed" flags and various banners. Please check these statistics out yourself and you will see what I mean. Also check out which users are copying it. In view of this I think that you will understand that I was trying to keep a stable high-profile article stable. Maybe we need to have some mechanism to do this, or if WP:ANI is the appropriate way to do it, then to regularise how this should be done without users seeing any in-fighting. ] (]) 22:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::if you feel so badly about the tags destroying the pristine appearance article and its clones, then provide sources so that there is nothing to tag. ]. -- ] 23:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Bring the article ] | |||
::If a tag is needed, it is needed. If a banner template tag is need, it is needed. We can't tailor our policies based on the possible reactions by readers. One solution is, as RedPen says, find sources for the material. Another is if the material is unsourced and challenged, you can remove it, although you should exercise care in doing so, particularly if it's been in place for some time and never tagged as being unsourced. You can only remove tags if you give a valid reason for doing so, and saying it doesn't look good isn't a valid reason. Finally, just because Triomio was blocked doesn't mean you have carte blanche to revert his edits. There's already been a complaint about that at the noticeboard.--] (]) 23:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Ensuring that articles that refer to changing standards are kept up to date, such as those that are affected by to the formal definition of the ] | |||
:::For what little it's worth, I looked at a couple of the requests to provide citations in the lede and found them adequately cited in the body of the article. The kindest construction I could come up with was that Triomio had not understood the citations (which are relatively technical). I expect in a couple of days I'll get a chance to ask Triomio again if this is the case. ]] 04:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== References === | |||
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
|decline= I am not entirely convinced that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, and hence I consider it likely that you will end up repeating the same mistakes. I appreciate that you have mentioned the block reason was 'disruptive editing', however beyond mentioning this, you have not explained in detail what led to your block. Your description of creating subsections on the admin noticeboard is curious, as this has little or nothing to do with your block. You have gone into great detail in regard to your achievements, however you seem reluctant to accept any failings on your part. From my perspective, your involvement with metric / imperial measurement articles was deeply problematic, and in this context, I am unconvinced that you should be unblocked to continue editing in this area. ] (]) 09:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
Admins reviewing this request may wish to read ] from September, and also note that as of the expiry of his topic ban this morning, Martin is not under any active sanction on en.wiki other than his indefinite block. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== User page bug? == | |||
], thanks for taking the time to do review, but I have to admit that Martin isn't the only editor who is confused about why he was blocked. I was participating in the ANI thread when it happened, and my recollection was that the block was due to edit-warring at ANI, ''not'' due to any tendentious editing elsewhere. That's the behavior Martin explains in detail, as that's what he (and I) thought caused the block. My memory may not be serving me correctly, so I'll see if I can dig up the specific diffs for you. ] (]) 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi Martin, I'm a bit a bit surprised about you hunting bugs on Triomio's user page. Would you mind telling me the purpose? ] (]) 17:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::That's more or less correct, as he had already been topic banned from units articles at the time of his blocking. He was trying to appeal that topic ban, if my memory serves me correctly. ] — ] 12:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I kinda wondered about that as well.--] (]) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::* I've dug up the links: | |||
:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive255#Topic_ban_appeal_by_Martinvl | |||
:::*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive255#Topic_Appeal_Ban_.282.29_by_Martinvl | |||
:::I would comment that Martin's ] was framed as if his behavior wasn't seriously problematic, and he was blocked for something approaching cultural differences, and in my opinion, his second unblock request isn't much better. He wasn't blocked for creating subsections on a noticeboard, he was blocked for being unable to edit in a collaborative manner. ] (]) 13:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:(ec) Martin provided a pointer to the discussion, so that was easier than I expected. The specific set of diffs is . When the block occurred, Martin had already picked up the topic ban. Based on what ] said above, Martin ultimately decided to sit that one out in the penalty box and only appeal the block after the ban expired. At some risk of trying your patience, here's what I'm reading in ]' explanation: | |||
::Hi, I mentioned Triomio in a posting and when I checked the Wikilink I had a strange page. However, when I went to his talk page and then moved onto his userpage, I had the normal blank page. Since I have an IT background, it looked like a startup problem (page creation aborted?), so I created a page in a clean manner. ] (]) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:*{{tq|It is deemed disruptive by a clear consensus of editors that the persistent requests for removal of the topic ban only recently instated is not just disruptive in its own right, but that they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the editor to realize what the problem with their edits is.}} | |||
:::Maybe that makes sense to De, but I can't follow it. What do you mean by a "strange page"? What exactly was the wikilink? My view is it would have been more appropriate to report it as a problem rather than for you to create someone else's user page. I'll wait for De to chime in.--] (]) 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:*{{tq|Undoing this block can be done after what seems to me a relatively easy admission on the editor's part: that their edits leading to the topic ban (hashed out at length in ], closed only a few days ago) were indeed deemed disruptive, and that asking for relaxation of the topic ban is untimely especially if recognition is lacking.}} | |||
:*{{tq|Rambling Man, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin, and I saw your AN comment: as I said, I have no objection to an unblock (accompanied by a 1RR restriction, for instance?), but it should '''probably''' come with an assurance that the behavior (not just in the measurement business) will cease.}} (emphasis added) | |||
:*{{tq|Oh, I should correct myself on the 1R remark: that's a proposal by Garamond Lethe for relaxing the topic ban and should have no bearing on the unblock. My apologies for conflating the two.}} | |||
:I think a reasonable reading (though not the only reasonable reading) was that if Martin was appealing the topic ban, the disruptive editing outside of ANI would have to be addressed, but addressing it in the block appeal (while a good idea) was not strictly necessary. ], ], could you clarify? If I've misread this (and thus misled Martin in off-wiki correspondence), I owe him an apology. ] (]) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
*If any of this can be put in a nutshell, the AN discussion (linked above, Archive 255) makes it clear (though not by some overwhelming margin) that Martin's behavior in these unblock requests and related threads was deemed excessively wikilawyerish with a high degree if IDNHT, which PhilKnight points out as well in their decline. I am still not convinced that Martin can say, in a sentence or less, what they were blocked for and what they will do to prevent future blocks. Then again, one might say that those matters were all related to the topic ban which has now run out (TParis's closure of the discussion that led to the ban is part of a series of suppressed edits, but ], so that ''those'' disruptions will have come to an end.<p>When you look at Martin's subsequent behavior leading up to the block, which starts with the immediate appeal (on the same day) at AN, plus the request copied by TParis to Martin's own talk page 9), it's understandable that editors lost patience. Personally, I think that since the ban is over we can apply ROPE and maybe keep Martin on a 1RR leash, so to speak: I have no objection to it. But if you ask me whether I think that he totally gets it, I'd have to say no. Is not "getting it" enough reason to keep him out of mainspace and the area he cares so much about it? I can't answer that, but I wish him good luck. ] (]) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::], it is odd. I feel like it would be easy for anyone else to simply say "I understand what I did wrong, and I won't do it again". Martin, however, simply hasn't grasped it. These longs and endless unblock requests are really odd, especially considered what you said at the time of block a "relatively easy admission". However, I will support unblocking Martin if he is willing to submit to indefinite 1RR, in line with ]. He isn't going to stop issuing these requests, so we might as well see what happens if he is unblocked with said editing restriction. If he continues disruption, it will be pretty clear. He has plenty of people watching his edits, so he'd be swiftly re-blocked in that instance. ] — ] 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::], I agree completely, esp. on the oddness. Mind you, Martin has emailed me once or twice and I have suggested the "simple" unblock method every time. I thin it is obvious that each of these unblock requests, AN threads, etc. are also an attempt at justification/vindication. That's not helpful for us when we're having to decide on unblocking and conditions thereof; at the same time, yes, ROPE will rein in the lion of righteousness when it starts roaming too freely. ] (]) 16:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
In the AN thread I cited above, I cited an uninvolved editor describing the issues with Martin's editing during the first topic ban appeal as "". | |||
::::Doesn't make sense to me either although sometimes we do get the occasional server overload with strange-looking message pages. Do you have a diff of the posting where you mentioned Triomio? And yes, actually we're not supposed to create pages in another editor's userspace at all, so I suggest you leave Triomio a talk page message to explain this. ] (]) 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
I don't think 1RR is the solution here - never have - because edit warring has never been the core problem with Martin's edits. The biggest problems have always been the extreme Wikilawyering, IDHT behaviour, battleground attitude etc. - most of which are exhibited on talk pages rather than reverts. We see evidence a-plenty for it in the above threads on this page and the AN/ANI threads. Martin's attitude in his topic ban appeals was what got him blocked, but that attitude was no different from the attitude that got him the topic ban in the first place. | |||
:::::It depended on whether I entered the page from the search box or from the Talk page. I have expanded the explantation. ] (]) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::Well, you expanded the explanation on his user page but you didn't leave a message on his Talk page. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to leave a message on Triomio's Talk page pointing him here and asking whether he wants to edit his user page or if he would like me to delete it.--] (]) 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
When the topic ban was imposed, it was presumably not on the assumption that he would be indeffed three days later. Martin could have used the period under topic ban to demonstrate that he had in fact changed and that the issues identified were no longer a problem. To some extent he could still have done this on other wikis (in fact, he was ] on the Simple English Misplaced Pages for continuing the disruption that saw him blocked here.) | |||
== Goods from bulk == | |||
My suggestion, if we were going to unblock, would be to reinstate the topic ban indefinitely. Give Martin that time that was allowed in the original topic ban decision to demonstrate that he can edit within the rules, before allowing him into the areas where he has problems. But we should not unblock at all without some evidence that he understands the problems the issues that led to the topic ban and indefinite block caused, and how he intends to resolve those issues. In particular, given quite how extreme Martin's Wikilawyering has historically been, we should not let him back without some reason to assume that he will not continue Wikilawyering. Once we have that, we can then allow him to prove his words per ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi Ehrenkater, | |||
::Based on what you've said, I would say that Martin should be unblocked in exchange for a new measurement topic ban, say about three months. ] — ] 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Any time-limited ban gives us no chance to evaluate how he's doing against the ban before letting him back to cause all the problems he caused before. No, if he's unblocked (and IMO unblocking is a bad idea at this stage) it should be an indefinite topic ban with appeals no earlier than 3-6 months after the unblock date. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't think that's fair. He has done nothing to warrant a new topic ban, since he has not been able to edit. If he were to accept a new topic ban in exchange for unblocking, that'd be voluntary on his part. In light of that, there is no need for an exorbitant sanction. If he renews his old disruptive trends, like I've said before, he'll be swiftly blocked in line with ]. So many editors are watching his edits that there is no chance for any disruption to slip through the cracks. Leaving him blocked is not solving the problem. It has carried on long enough. We need to evaluate whether his actions have changed. If they haven't, like I've said, he's going to be blocked again. ] — ] 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::I was fleshing my point out and edit conflicted. Truth is we have no reason whatsoever to assume that Martin even understands the basics of why he was blocked per ]. As recently as September at AN, it was all ]'s fault and nothing to do with Martin's own behaviour. It's not like he doesn't have reasons - the reason I quote is because it lays it out quite clearly. | |||
:::::So, giving him a time-limited ban and then just letting him do what he wants is insufficient. He'll just wait it out and then we'll be exactly where we were before the unblock. No, wait until he actually understands why he was blocked before unblocking, then an indef topic ban until he can demonstrate that he can edit properly. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I have added a picture to the article to answer your questions regarding the "sale of loose goods or goods from bulk". Woudl you be happy if I removed your example about the cheese in the lede paragraph. Maybe we could change the wording of the picture caption. Martinvl (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
For what it's worth, I'd advocate an unblock and mentoring. I've seen it work well before. The mentoring would relate directly to the problematic areas of editing, e.g. around the units pages. I would happily adopt that role if the community agreed to unblocking Martin. I guess the deal would be that he'd be allowed to edit anywhere on anything, but if it came under the "guise" of units etc, he'd need to discuss the edits on the talk page and alert me to the fact he wants to propose changes, I can then sanction them, or otherwise. A probationary period of, say, three months would seem appropriate. It's not as if Martin is destroying the encyclopedia, he just needs help understanding why some of his edits and interactions aren't optimal. And we're all guilty of that. ] (]) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
The cheese example was your example, not mine. I was and am concerned that the expression "sale of goods from bulk" is not clear. If you feel you have a better explanation or example of this than the cheese, please do substitute it. ---] (]) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I'll second ]'s suggestion. ], I do think we have evidence of Martin's change in attitude. The initial block and ban appeals admitted no fault on Martin's part, but over the course of a year (and it reading several of his draft appeals offline) I've seen his thinking evolve. ''This'' appeal identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it, and provides assurances that it won't happen again. If the primary issue is that he didn't identify and discuss all of the behavior that resulted in his block, that's partially my fault and I'd like Martin to be given a chance to address that here without prejudice. | |||
==Court Moor School== | |||
:One last point: In working with Martin I've found him to be infinitely patient and collegial across dozens of articles. MOSNUM is a problem, and heading to ANI after things warmed up at MOSNUM is also a problem. (There may be article talk page problems independent of his interactions with DeFacto, but I don't have firsthand knowledge there.) Those are specific problems that I think would be fixable by mentoring. If we unblock Martin on condition of receiving that mentor, the downside is a handful of contentious posts before he is shut down permanently. The upside is continued solid contributions across a pretty wide swath of articles, and potentially he'll learn how to not only walk away from certain disputes but also how to resolve them amicably. On balance, I think the potential reward is well worth the minimal risk. ] (]) 20:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hello, Martinvl you have new messages on Court Moor School's Talk page. | |||
] (]) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I have to say, I'm a little sick of the "achievements" and the ongoing attempts to demonstrate that Martin thinks he's a great asset. Let us decide. ] (]) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for September 16== | |||
:::I agree with you on that, TRM. I also have decided that I will '''support''' your suggestion for moving forward. ] — ] 20:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I can see where Martin got the idea: {{tq|Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Misplaced Pages per this 'offer'.}} per ]. I agree that brevity would have been more helpful. ] (]) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::They are indeed. Note, however, that when Martin started editing simple.wiki, he was indeffed there for continuing the disruption there that led him to be indeffed here. Far from proving that he was reformed and changed, he proved that nothing had changed. He conveniently left that bit out of his request, of course. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, I've found the opposite. My experience is that in the topic of measurements, Martin will Wikilawyer continuously and to an extreme degree. For example, Martin will insist that large-scale changes can be made without consensus (rather, that consensus is needed to reverse them). For example, Martin will insist that he has the right to withdraw his assent to a consensus ''years'' after the consensus was formed, and that therefore that the original consensus never existed in the first place. For example, Martin will insist that the fact that an external site uses Misplaced Pages as a source makes Misplaced Pages a reliable source. It's nonsense on all three counts, but that's what you ''had'' to expect when dealing with Martin on the topic of measurements. Far from "infinitely patient and collegial", I have found Martin to be a bully who uses Wikilawyering, personal attacks and ]-type behaviour to drive other editors from Misplaced Pages, and hence push his POV. That has been my experience. | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ], ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
::Has he changed? I see no evidence from the above. You say, this appeal "identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it". Where? The ''only'' thing he takes the blame for is "mishandling" the ANI. And even then, he ''still'' puts the underlying blame for his position on this repeatedly-rejected claim that the "proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice". The evidence from the drafts is that he removed the outright accusations against ], but the fact remains that does not accept that his behaviour was poor. There is nothing remotely close to the standard of ] or ] here. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::], answering your question "Where?": {{tq|This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation.... In particular I had wrongly assumed.... Even if I thought that it should apply here, this was the wrong way... it is essential that all parties follow the established protocol.... I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Misplaced Pages community.}} The blocking offense was not the accusation, but the handling of the accusation, and that's what the block appeal addresses. ] (]) 21:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Right. He takes responsibility ''only'' for his handling of the topic ban request. He doesn't even accept that his accusation of "sharp practice" was wrong, even though uninvolved admin after uninvolved admin told him it was. Based on this, it's clear that he still thinks the whole thing was nothing more than his own mishandling of a frivolous complaint. He does not accept any responsibility for any wider issues whatsoever. He says "I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Misplaced Pages community" - what does that mean? So far as we can tell he thinks that everything he did outside that single ANI thread ''was'' in line with the conduct expected by the community. It most certainly wasn't. | |||
::::The reasons to block argued at the time were summarised by an uninvolved admin - and I'll quote this again in case you've missed it - as "". Martin's repeated topic ban appeals demonstrated these issues in spades, but they were easily identifiable in the original topic ban request and in Martin's behaviour for years leading up to it. There is nothing in the above that even comes close to recognising any of these issues. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Notice of dispute resolution discussion on ] == | |||
:::::No the block appeal doesn't address the reason why he was banned. In fact, he has gone round the houses through multiple appeals to avoid ever admitting the problems with the way he was editing. I've never seen any evidence that he has accepted he was blocked because of his behaviour, on the contrary he was claiming it was sharp practise on my part or admin incompetence. Every appeal since has displayed all the behaviour that lead to his block and fundamentally the gratuitously offensive reference to my mental health problems more than anything else demonstrates he just doesn't understand how to edit collaboratively. | |||
Hi. I've started a ] about the big Equation Controversy on ]. Feel free to join in. Cheers --<font color="blue">]</font><sup>''<small>]</small>''</sup> 19:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::If you want an example of just what the problem is Martin states "''Bad faith actions by User:Wee Curry Monster who, knowing that I had views that were contrary to his, tried to get me out of the way before launching this RFC''". The thing is I don't fundamentally have different views on the metric system, were there a plebiscite tomorrow I would vote to end the anachronistic situation in the UK and go 100% metric. The problem with Martin is you're either for or against, with no room for the shades of grey where compromise lies and he approaches every situation with a ] mentality. Within a short few months of being blocked here, he was blocked on simple wikipedia for the same behaviour. I would suggest that he needs to show trouble free editing elsewhere and not to repeat the IP socking and other sock puppets that I've spotted but at this point refrained from reporting as it never became a problem. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ec}}I think ]'s offer is a generous one, worth trying. I'd float a refinement and a warning. Clearly, {{u|Kahastok}} and {{u|Lesser Cartographies}} have very different experiences of Martin; I think this is partly because they worked on different types of articles. Lesser Cartographies sometimes worked with Martin on articles about units of measurement and systems of measurement. Kahastok and others were in conflict with Martin over the use of units of measurement in a wide range of articles, particularly Falklands articles at first but extending far more widely, in long and bitter conflicts fought in the articles themselves and their talk pages, in ] and ], on project pages and template talk pages and probably more. Would unblocking Martin be less contentious if he remained banned from the choice of units of measurement in Misplaced Pages articles (and discussion of same), while free to work on articles about units of measurement? {{u|Martinvl}}, would you accept that? | |||
== km/h turned out pretty well, actually. == | |||
:::There is one fly in this ointment. DeFacto will be delighted to have hir old victim back and will pursue Martin; it seems no-one else is quite so satisfying. As we saw on SimpleWiki in the episode Kahastok mentions, DeFacto has a great advantage in this; if s/he can have them both banned for repeating their old enwiki conflict, DeFacto just loses another sock. TRM, this will make your work more interesting than it should be - but I don't doubt you can handle it. ] (]) | |||
::::The reason for opposing this is outlined in one of the first lines of the appeal '''"This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation that the <u>proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice.</u>"''' Emphasis added. He still hasn't dropped the ] and he is still blaming others. The issue isn't a case of being in conflict with Martin over the use of units of measurement, its a conflict only in the sense that other editors were prepared to compromise personal views to edit in line with a MOS to ensure a consistent look and feel to articles. Martin refused to make the slightest compromise and edited counter to MOS to the detriment of article quality and was prepared to wikilawyer and filibuster to impose his view. You could walk away and he would insist you were edit warring with him as he did at ] - I haven't edited that article since and he would still have it my one edit was "edit warring" with him. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 23:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{YGM|ts=]] 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
::::To clarify an earlier remark, ], a De Facto sock once alleged {{U|Garamond Lethe}} was a sock puppet of Martinvl. I initiated an SPI as a rapid way of clearing the matter making clear I thought it groundless. I still believe it to be so. I was not referring to that user but another account and an IP account. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 23:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::: For what's it worth, I'd be prepared to support an unblock which involved an indefinite topic ban from metric / imperial unit articles, combined with indefinite 1RR. ] (]) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Thank you for your offer. I would however like clarification as to what you mean by "metric/imperial unit articles". Do you means any article that deals with metric '''or''' imperial units or do you mean any article that deals with metric '''and''' imperial units. How would this restriction affect articles such as ] – a GA that needs updating in the very near future? (More details are in the appeal itself). ] (]) 07:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::(ec) ], let me suggest a slight tweak to that as a possible compromise. As ] pointed out, I've primarily interacted with Martin on measurement articles like ] and ], and his behavior there has been fine. ] and ] have dealt with Martin mostly outside of measurement articles (MOSNUM and Falklands, to name two). Would you support inverting your condition: in addition to the 1RR, Martin would have an indefinite ban on discussing units of measurement outside of units-of-measurement articles. That keeps the peace at Falklands (which your original formulation didn't quite cover, I think) and lets us get the benefit of Martin's knowledge of obscure international standards. ], ]: would that prevent the disruptive behavior you've seen? ] (]) 07:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== A failed experiment? == | |||
:::::::(2 x ec) For clarity, the original topic ban was not just from unit articles, but from the topic of measurements. It included ], and the act of changing or adding units on non-unit related articles (or discussion of such changes). The issues I experienced rarely if ever arose on the actual unit articles (which I have rarely edited) - part of the reason it was a problem was that it could appear anywhere because measurements are so common. The article that immediately prompted the topic ban discussion was ]. Just a topic ban on the unit articles themselves leaves all the key areas where Martin caused problems out of scope. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Regarding your reversing of a See Also link to the Hex River tunnels in the Cape Gauge article, please clarify "failed experiment".<br>I added it there since the Hex River pass was THE reason why the Cape Government converted from Standard to Cape Gauge. The fact that most railways in Africa still use Cape Cauge can therefore be directly attributed to this Pass.<br>André Kritzinger 11:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: Ok, thanks for explaining. Looking at ] the previous wording was "Topic ban from all articles, talk pages, and any namespace page related to measurements. Appeals may be made to the administrator's noticeboard or Arbcom but otherwise any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths. The only exception being explicit source quotations in article-space." which seems to be sensible enough wording. ] (]) 07:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi André | |||
:Please look at the result of your changes - to make it easy, . You will see that the changes you made did not have the desired effect. ] (]) 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
::It certainly didn't! Late night editing can be risky, it seems....<br>André Kritzinger 12:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Maybe a few too many Castles? (or was it Lion?) ] (]) 12:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::More like Cape Red at my age. Besides, Lion was taken off the market when SAB went international big-time.<br>I think it was a server issue. The Seacom cable down West Africa is probably busted again since the Interwebs have been extremely slow the past few weeks. A page will appear loaded and I'd click on it, and then it suddenly loads further and the click ends up in the wrong spot. Must have hit the <<nowiki><nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>> button that way just before I saved my preview.<br>André Kritzinger 21:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Trying to save this reply for the FIFTH time now! André Kritzinger 21:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::André, I often cut and paste the required paragraph into WORD or Notepad, work on it there, paste it in my sanbox to check it out and then paste it onto the original article. This minimises the number of edit operation that need to use the West African cable and also gives you an on-going back-up. Regards ] (]) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I always work in Word. But I still need the cable to preview. Even in the sandbox. André Kritzinger 11:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Phil, may I expand on Lesser Cartographies' comment. If you look at the first eight articles that I catalogued in the list of my contributions to the English Misplaced Pages, you will see that seven of them are covered by the topic ban given to me a year ago. Apart from harassment from DeFacto, there was no any edit-warring in any of these artciles. The topic ban, as worded, would also prevent me from updating articles to reflect changes in the SI Brochure (see ). ] (]) 08:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for October 8== | |||
:::::::::::<s>Phil, I would not object to lifting the block if the topic ban was re-imposed and a 1RR restriction enacted as a condition of the unblock.</s> Its not the edit warring alone that is the problem but the other behaviours including the relentless wikilawyering. Just look at the disruption caused at ] over a trivial edit. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 08:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
:::::::::::I must say, I find that this particular response demonstrates why, IMO, an unblock is unwise at this stage. Martin points out that seven of the first eight articles on his list would count and that he hasn't edit warred on any of them. There are two answers to that. Firstly, so what? Given the issues that have occurred in the past, if Martin wants to edit those articles he can wait until such a time as he proves that he can do so responsibly. We ultimately do not ''need'' Martin to edit: other editors can also work on these articles. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 12:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Secondly, while he hasn't edit warred on them much, that's not to say he hasn't Wikilawyered on them or disrupted them in other ways. Edit warring has never been the main issue, and the fact that Martin highlights it demonstrates either that he's trying to throw people off or that he has genuinely no idea why he was blocked - why things like Wikilawyering are a problem. At least one of those examples of Wikilawyering I cited earlier came from within that eight. That he might not have edit warred does not mean that he has not caused problems and we should reasonably expect him to know what those problems are before we unblock him. I've cited a convenient list from the original discussions a few times now, so I don't think they're not known or particularly unclear. | |||
== Image for ] == | |||
:::::::::::But yes, if there is to be an unblock, the original topic ban should be suitable. I would suggest that we clarify a few things: specifically, does it include articles and edits related to the process of metrication or organisations or individuals related to it? I would suggest that it does, but we should be clearer on this. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I noticed that the image was for the USS Lexington from 1776 not from 1825, so I updated the images and the files to be consistent. I could not find an image of the USS Lexington from 1825. | |||
--] (]) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} Given this editor's propensity for extreme wikilawyering, of which there is no evidence of him withdrawing from doing, and some evidence that he is unchanged in this respect, any change in the topic ban needs to have really clear definitions with boundaries very clearly defined. This is necessary in order to both minimize disruption to wikipedia, and to protect the editor from himself. It is true that every person who has suffered some restriction should have the ability to reform and demonstrate that he or she has reformed, but I believe that giving too easy a return would just be too risky for both (wikipedia and Martin) at the moment. In a response to PhilKnight's suggestion, we already see the editor enquiring about whether an "and" or "or" interpretation is to be used at one point. The editor recognises an ambiguity, and wants to know the limits beyond which he must not go. I suggest we make these limits as broad as is reasonable, out of a desire to minimize disruption and continue to protect Martin, who is otherwise a good contributor. Until Martin clearly and explicitly addresses and acknowledges '''his own behaviour''' that led to the restrictions, I think it is reasonable for us to do that. ] ] 05:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Zeete, | |||
:I checked the records - you are quite right, the USS Lexington (1776) was in fact decommissioned and replaced another vessel of teh same name in 1825. I will undo my reversion . ] (]) 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Wee Curry Monster}} At 22:17, 27 October 2014 you wrote "...not to repeat the IP socking and other sock puppets that I've spotted ...". Will you please catalogue the instances of IP socking to which you are referring and justify why you believe that I made them? ] (]) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Talkback== | |||
{{talkback|Stefan2|File:UniversityOfNatal CoatOfArms.jpg|ts=15:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
] (]) 15:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Wee Curry Monster}} The SPI that you raised against me (See ] answers my request about "other sock puppets" but does not touch on your claim of "IP socking". I have responded to the SPI (See ]. I believe that my response shows beyond reasonable doubt that the accusation was a case of mistaken identity. | |||
:I'm sorry to inform you, but I have deleted ] because it failed our criteria for fair use. Essentially, coats of arms can always be created under a free license since their description is not copyrighted. See the use of ]s in heraldry. Any individual depiction of arms is however copyrightable by the artist unless they waive such rights. I suggest you have a look at Commons and check the regular contributors of coats of arms over there. They may be willing to create an svg image of this particular coat of arms with a free license. And that would also be immune against opacity. ] (]) 15:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Will you please now catalogue the instances of '''IP socking''' to which you referred and justify why you believe that I made those postings? ] (]) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:You are not really in a position to demand things like this. It is up to individual editors to judge whether to take things to SPI or any other board, not for you to tell them to. If WCM wants to file SPI, he'll file SPI. If he doesn't, you have no business trying to force him to. It is not as though there are plenty of other reasons not to unblock, such as your failure to acknowledge the reasons for your block in the first place. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for October 15== | |||
:: As a result of Martin chosing to go off-wiki and email a number of users, some of which has included unpleasant comments on myself, I am withdrawing my support from the suggestion that Martin is unblocked with restrictions. The off-wiki communications seem to demonstrate that Martin intends to continue to edit in the confrontational manner he did before and I am already tired of the time sink any dealing with Martin becomes. For the record I would <b>oppose</b> unblocking at this time. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
:::{{ping|Wee Curry Monster}}, {{ping|Nick-D}} can I please clarify things. I did not want to post the message that I am now posting. In my view, in this case your mentor Nick-D is the problem, not me. | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
:::I knew that you had some personal issues and that you had voluntarily taken yourself "off air". I did not want to publicise these issues, I did not want to contact you directly (that would have revealed my e-mail address to you) but I wanted to get on with my appeal, which would have resulted in my interacting with you. Taking your personal issues into account made things difficult for me so I asked Nick-D to pass on a message to you from me, explaining to him confidentially and in good faith why I had contacted him. | |||
::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
:::Nick-D let you down twice over – firstly he refused to acknowledge your personal issues (which he dismissed as "unpleasant comments") and secondly he did not pass on my message. He let me down by not telling me that he was not going to assist and he let himself and the Misplaced Pages Administratorship down by publicising the existence (albeit not the content) of what was meant to be a confidential communication. I have since written a very strongly worded e-mail to him explaining what your personal issues can mean, drawing on my own (second-hand) experience of such issues and sending him a number of references as to why he need to take these issues seriously. I think that he owes both of us an apology. ] (]) 14:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::This nonsense about "personal issues" seems remarkably intrusive, out-of-line, and offensive. There is no way that I can support an unblock in these circumstances, and hence must now voice my '''opposition''' to any such unblocking at this time. ] — ] 16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::And there we go. It was entirely Nick-D's fault that you sent him e-mails containing "unpleasant allusions" about WCM. Just as it was entirely ]'s fault that you accused ] of hypocrisy and indeed entirely Curry Monster's fault that you were topic banned and then indeffed for the issues that we are all aware of. Of course it was. | |||
::::Nick-D can and should use his judgement in determining how to react to an e-mail such as yours. That you demand he apologise for doing so - along with all the patronising crap about "personal issues" (which despite your protestations you seem to bring up at every opportunity) - demonstrates amply why I believe you have not learnt from your period of block and why I think you would if unblocked now repeat the behaviour that saw you blocked in the first place. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
:::::I concur with RGloucester and Kahastok here, including in regards to the tone and content of the emails strongly suggesting that Martin should not be unblocked for the reasons they both note. ] (]) 09:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
::::::I've since had an email from Martin to my personal account. Suffice it to say, I have not and will not be replying but the contents have convinced me that Martin is utterly oblivious to the problems with his editing and is still blaming others. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
{{od}} One step forwards, ten steps back. I don't think Martin can be unblocked at this stage. He needs to really confront his own behaviour here, and comment on just his own behaviour: no comments about other editors, or anything like that. But given what has happened recently, I think a break on the order of a few months must happen before he can claim he has done so by posting appropriate messages. ] ] 13:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
:Just noticed in the reasons for the refusal of the unblock request: ''"however you seem reluctant to accept any failings on your part"'' - it has been over a year since Martinvl was blocked and this was one of the main roots of his problems - the inability to accept they have done wrong in any way, and that any issues were everybody else's fault. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:] (] | ]) | |||
::Just to add: If Martinvl was to be in future unblocked I would strongly suggest a permanent topic-ban on weights and measures. A topic-ban that will lapse would only mean that at some stage when back in the field that Martinvl will inevitably revert back to their normal behaviour. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::added a link pointing to ] | |||
:::{{rto|Mabuska}}, on the contrary, if Martin comes back he should be allowed to edit ''only'' weights and measures articles. He has a solid track record of problem-free collaborative editing there. Where he gets into trouble is articles outside of weights and measures such as ] and ]. Keep him out of everything ''except'' weights and measures articles and we'll get all of the benefit of his expertise with none of the drama. ] (]) 04:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::{{rto|Mabuska}},{{rto|Lesser Cartographies}} Wrt Lesser Cartographies but Martin's block log includes several blocks for edit warring on weights and measures articles eg ]. Those articles ''are'' part of the problem. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::If you look at the ], you will see that | |||
::::*I came close to, but did not breach the 3RR limits. | |||
::::*The complainant was ], a Defacto sockpuppet who was blocked indefinitely four days later. | |||
::::These two points are sufficient to dismiss WCM's claim as being frivolous. | |||
::::] (]) 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sigh, the whole point Martin is that you can't edit collaboratively, you edit war relentlessly and then wikilawyer that its all someone else's fault. OK fine, lets go back to the first block in your block log. , concerning 6RR on ]. The discussion in ] seems depressingly familiar to this one years later at ]. The point being that the articles {{U|Lesser Cartographies}} suggested you be allowed to edit and your ] issues are part of the problem. You still don't seem to get that ] doesn't give you 3 free reverts. You were constantly telling people I was edit warring with you , when I'd point blank refused to , you then edit-warred with a number of editors telling them that ] meant they had to revert to your favoured version whilst it was discussed. You have been blocked in the past for exactly the same behaviour that lead to your indefinite block and in your unblock appeal displaying the same behaviour. People are just tired of the time sink any dealings with you becomes. Now if its all the same, please do not send me one of those patronising emails again, I am removing your talk page from my watchlist and I would appreciate it if you didn't ping me again. I intend to go back to my transcription of the Bernhardt memo for wikisource and to content writing. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' any unblock. Martin, that "frivolous" crack finally convinced me that you'd much rather be Right than edit here. Ok, you're Right. I wish you the joy of whatever consolation that brings you. <small>In case you're wondering, here's one version of the correct response. ''You're correct that I edit-warred at those articles, and I understand why you're concerned. I should not have done that, full stop. I expect similar situations will come up again, and when then do I will not revert DeFacto or anyone else I disagree with. Rather, I'll ask for assistance and leave the ultimate disposition of the article to other editors. I would prefer this be enforced with a formal 1RR restriction; if you would like this to be combined with a topic-ban or other restriction, I think that's reasonable as well. I'd like to discuss the specifics of what would allow you to be comfortable with my return to editing.'' Breaking that down: 1) Acknowledge the concern, 2) Take responsibility without rationalizing or offering excuses, 3) Outline what you'll do differently to guarantee the problem doesn't recur and 4) ask for feedback. In short: ''I fucked up. My bad. It won't happen again and here's why. I'd like your input.'' If you'd rather argue the fact that you weren't wrong, that's your choice. But I think you've run out of people who are interested in listening to that argument. When you're done with wanting to argue I'll be happy to support your next unblock. No, it's not fair. No, you don't get any vindication (other than the opportunity to rack up more FAs). When the FAs mean more to you than being Right, it's easy enough to say "whatever" (nicely) and avoid these dumpster fires. Looking forward to having you back. ] (]) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
::Many, many thanks for posting that message. I have been tempted to give explicit advice to Martin along those lines myself before now, but given I was involved at one point, I guessed it would have hardly any impact. I hope that this unsolicited advice from you might have some effect. ] ] 04:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::It seems that my use of the word "frivilous" caused some problems. The Oxford Concise Dictionary (1964) gives a number of meanings for the word "''frivilous''". The first of these is "paltry". The same dictionary gives a number of meanings for the word "paltry", the first of which is "''worthless''". describes a "''frivolous claim''" as one that is "''motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition''". If we now look at a few crucial timings regarding the 24 hour block that I received on 6 January, we see: | |||
==Invitation for a Wikimedia UK training event 27-28 October== | |||
:::* 21:12, 1 January 2013 - ] ] against MeasureIT, alleging that he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto. | |||
Hope you are well. Because of your great involvement with Misplaced Pages training so far and outreach I believe it would be worth sending you a direct invitation to the next training session that Wikimedia UK is organising for our volunteers. Please have a look here. As a thank you we would of course pay all the expenses and organise your accommodation. It's a very highly valued training and a great opportunity to develop your skills! Let me know if you are able to attend - would be great to see you there. ] (]) 13:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (daria.cybulskawikimedia.org.uk) | |||
:::* 13:56, 5 January 2013 - Measure IT ]. I immediately stopped editing. | |||
:::* 00:34, 6 January 2013 - Both MeasureIT and both I received a 24 hour block. | |||
:::* 15:26, 9 January 2013 - MeasureIT blocked as a sockpuppet of DeFacto. | |||
:::Under ], actions "''Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users''" are not deemed to be countable under 3RR. It follows therefore that, with the benefit of hindsight, this block was unjustified and therefore that WCM's assertion that this was an example of edit-warring is worthless (or to use the term favoured in , "frivilous". ] (]) 14:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Request '''revocation of Martin's talk page access'''. The fact that he is continuing this behaviour again is unacceptable. He has not learned anything. ] — ] 14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::After being pinged and reading the recent downward spiral of faulty reasoning on Martin's part, I can't see any point in continuing this thread. For what it's worth, I still think TRM's offer of mentoring was generous but I no longer think it's worth trying now, even under a broad topic ban. Martin, please wait until the benefit of hindsight tells you, not that you made tactical errors or meant well, but that you were often in the wrong and could not return to Misplaced Pages without heeding the criticism and advice you received. ] (]) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== November 2014 == | |||
:Test ] (]) 19:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
== ] and ] talk == | |||
{{Talkback|Maurice Carbonaro|User_talk:Maurice_Carbonaro#Pendulum|ts = 08:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
==Gallon== | |||
Why did you insert the statement "legally defined" if you don't have the legal definition to support this and you know you don't have the citation? | |||
] '''You are suspected of ]''', which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the ], then respond to the evidence at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-socksuspect --> | |||
"(Undid revision 522241853 by Cantaloupe2 (talk) The US gallon is legally defined as 231 cu in - just the citation is not there.)" Please prove it with relevant US statute or remove it. You restored it and it is challenged, therefore the burden of proof is on you ]] (]) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Just for the record, I had no intention of making an SPI report and would have happily let the matter drop. But noting the ping I got today and the fact that I really don't wish to see an extended period of wikilawyering over this, I've launched an SPI case. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 15:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:It is in the cited document. Please read the section called "introduction". ] (]) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
===SPI response by Martinvl=== | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for November 14== | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
Will an admin please post the statement below on the above SPI page on my behalf? Since I am under an indefinite block I am unable to do so myself. | |||
+ + + + + + + + + + + Start of SPI defence + + + + + + + + + | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
This is a clear case of mistaken identity. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
*I checked my diary against the postings made by JJada. JJade mde three posting on 5 May 2014. At that time I was travelling in the Netherlands. I took the photograph for on the previous day and posted it a few days later when I returned from my travels. I am willing to forward copies of the relevant e-mails confirming my travel arrangements for that period to a person who has Check User clearance. They can then compare the IP addresses for 5 May 2014 against the other IP addresses used by JJade. | |||
*Had I made the changes that JJada made , I would have followed the convention used on Page 2 (Para 1.1) of and used the word "quantities", not "expressions". | |||
== Lady Bullock == | |||
*JJade finished sentence with a preposition. Although my writing style is far from perfect, I am always careful to avoid finishing sentences with prepositions. | |||
Hi! You might want to check the article about ]. The IP keeps inserting that trivia there as well. I truly wonder what that person's thinking. A second cousin of a grandmother? I have yet to meet all my ''own'' second cousins, let alone those of my parents and grandparents. ] (]) 02:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Whoever JJada might be, I am not JJada. | |||
== ] == | |||
- - - - - - - - - - - End of SPI defence - - - - - - - | |||
] (]) 18:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Good morning ],<br />I was delighted to switch on this morning and find someone else with common sense.<br /> Sincerely, -- <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 08:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
: |
:I have posted the statement. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
== Your email == | |||
::Cheers! Have a good week! -- <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 22:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
I have read your email. You are very welcome to send me the evidence you refer to if you like, but at present I don't think that it would be relevant to any case that I am concerned with. I have no intention of taking action on the basis of innuendo, which at present is all there is. As for your block appeal, that is a case I have no plan to get involved in. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Thanks for adding his school information. I thought I'd heard of Martinvl somewhere - we were both at the Wikimedia London training weekend last month! ] (]) 09:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I posted the following to JamesBWatson: | |||
:It was a very good school - I went there! ] (]) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Hi JamesBWatson, | |||
::Thank you for your e-mail. | |||
== A cup of tea for you! == | |||
::In order that I can place on record that I was at a meeting organised by XXXX when User 94.196.214.34 the statements that were referred to in the , I am sending you the following information from the their website: | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Just the thing this time of the morning. Or coffee, if you prefer. ] (]]) 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{ygm}} | |||
|} | |||
::*XXXX Calendar - (url hidden) confirms that meetings are held at 7:45 pm on the second Monday of each month, and in particular that there was a regular monthly meeting on 20 October 2014, starting at 7:45 (18:45 GMT). | |||
== Road Junction Lists == | |||
::*Gallery 2013 - (url hidden) Click on caption introducing the guest speaker YYYY. I am on Frame 13 of the gallery where I am named. | |||
Hello! I seem to be back from the dead I guess! :-) Could you possibly bring me up to speed on where we stand with the Road Junction Lists these days? Are we using km/miles, or just miles? Are we using coords, or not? I've tried reading the discussions while I've been away, but it's a nightmare trying to work anything out! Ta :-) <span style="font-family:Papyrus">]</span> <sup>(])</sup> 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
::*Gallery 2014 - (url hidden) Click on the third picure (guest speaker ZZZZ). Using the information from the previous gallery, I can be picked out on frames 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. | |||
:Hi Jeni | |||
:Welcome back | |||
:Coords - I have not been involved, someone else has. The Americans allowed our junction lists to be used as a trial which then petered out. I am indifferent to them, except that they clutter things up. | |||
::I am posting an edited version of this e-mail on my Talk Page. | |||
:Distances - ] says that we use both miles and kilometres. Kilometres are, in my view, mandatory because that ] and distance marker posts are in kilometres and since the Department of Transport is not willing publish things on the internet etc, but by putting the posts in place, they are effectively publishing their data. (The Welsh Departmernt of Transport did in fact publish the coordinates of all the driver location signs on their motorways and trunk roads,m but they havd since removed them from the internet, possibly when I cited them on the A55 article. I have collated a large number of kilometre markers. I personally know the location of many motorway exits that I use in terms of their associated driver location signs. I have not added any miles to the road junction lists because I believe it to be counter-productive. How do we know that the numbers on the driver location signs are really kilometres? I have heard that on some roads, the distances have been fudged to avoid discontinuities, so doing mile convesions are counter-productive. However, given that the WP:RJL says that both should be used, I will not stop anybody else from including them. | |||
::Regards | |||
:In both cases, the use of coordinates and of miles column will cramp things up, so in my view both are optional extras. | |||
::The lists in the US, at least those using the templates, display both miles and kilometers. Our templates are set up to display the miles to the left and convert the input into kilometers in a column to the right. There are exceptions: California uses postmiles which can't be converted into a meaningful metric equivalent, and some roads like ] and those in Puerto Rico are marked in km. The extra column takes up very little width in the tables. | |||
::We still aren't using coordinates at all, preferring to use KML files, which when used with {{tl|Attached KML}} provide a line on a map, instead of disconnected dots. The line from the KML can be seen in the WikiMiniAtlas in the upper right corner, or displayed on Google or Bing Maps. If/when other mapping services support KML display, they'll be added, and Google already is using our KMLs to display summary information about American roads in their search results. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Martinvl | |||
== What are you playing at? == | |||
:] (]) 15:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::OK, Martin. It seems likely that, if I were willing to spend my time dealing with the irritatingly gimmicky presentation on the pages you link to, I might be able to grab some of the photographs and keep them, and if I did so I might be able to compare different photographs and confirm that someone with a name related to your Misplaced Pages username was present in a place distant from the geolocation of an IP address that edited round about that time. If so, it might perhaps be taken as evidence in your defence against a charge which as far as I know has never yet been made. If, as seems likely, everything you have said about this case is true, then I can fully sympathise with the frustration you must be feeling, and I can understand why you have sent me the information that you have sent. At present, as I have already said, it does not help in anything that I am concerned with, but I will bear it in mind in case it ever becomes relevant. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 15:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Please stop following me around and please stop undoing almost every damn edit that I make. ] (]) 22:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Hi JamesBWatson - I was filing the information with an uninvolved third party (you) and letting others know that this information exists. This should deflate any innuendo that I am the sockmaster concerned. At the moment other parties do not need to know who XXXX, YYYY and ZZZZ are, merely that they exist. As far as I am concerned the fact that you can access the information should the need arise is probably sufficient to put the matter to bed. ] (]) 16:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Sorry, it is not Brains' bitter. == | |||
:::::Martin, the IP geolocates to a Three Mobile Broadband account, which (to the best of my knowledge) will continue to produce IP addresses in the same range even when the physical device is outside of that area. For whatever it's worth, those IPs are not part of your SPI. ] (]) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | The ] is now looking much better, thanks to your input. – <br /><strong> – ]</strong>/<small>]</small> 10:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Cheers! and if it is a full litre, Gezuntheit! ] (]) 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: Croeso! – <br /><strong> – ]</strong>/<small>]</small> 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
:::Which I assume is Welsh (I don't know why :-) ) ] (]) 10:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{ping|Lesser Cartographies}}, I think that you are mixing up two unrelated, but otherwise fallacious SPI accusations. | |||
== Outstanding questions == | |||
::::::*In ], where the IP addresses are known, I argued that I was at a meeting at the time that the postings were made. I have deposited internet links to photographic evidence showing my attendance with JamesBWatson. | |||
::::::*In ], I argued that I was in the Netherlands when some of the postings were made. Given the number of restaurants, railways stations, hotels and bars that offer free Wi-Fi, why would I pay to use broadband while roaming when I would walk into the nearest bar or coffee shop and use their free WiFi? BTW, we do not yet know the IP addresses from which these postings were made. | |||
::::::] (]) 07:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::To answer your second question: I frequently use by cell phone hotspot over free local wifi for privacy, speed and convenience. To answer the first question, I get a lot of enWP editing done while at meetings, and I expect others do as well. | |||
:::::::Let's assume that you have never used ThreeMBB. Let's further assume JJada's IP addresses all resolve to ThreeMBB. The closing admin then has a choice between two scenarios: | |||
::::::::1. You bought a new hotspot device and used it in part to help cover your tracks with socking. You also made a few superficial changes to your sentence structure and use of prepositions and made a couple of "mistakes" in the contents of your edits (mistakes that would only be obvious as such to someone with your domain knowledge). Based on that behavior and the vocabulary used, this is a straightforward case of socking. | |||
::::::::2. Someone else went to a great deal of trouble to make edits where the IP addresses would resolve to your general area. They carefully researched your vocabulary tells and included just enough Martinisms to not only tie the edits to you, but also to make it appear as if you were trying to hide your identity. Despite all that trouble, when the edits did not lead to an SPI they abandoned the effort rather than escalating. | |||
:::::::If JJada '''isn't''' your sock, then I think it's time to just admit defeat and give up on the idea of editing enWP. Somebody out there can, when the mood strikes them, create edits that look exactly like what we would expect if you were socking—down to the level of making the IP addresses look plausible. Even if the socking is resolved in your favor this time, the adversary can create new "sock" accounts at will and there's nothing you can do about it. | |||
:::::::If no such adversary exists, then you're wasting our time and yours. ] (]) 10:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Let me reiterate - the IP addresses used by Jjada have not been resolved, so how can they be plausible? | |||
::::::::Also, what was the motive behind Jjada's postings? Are the compatible with my motives as shown on ] and ? | |||
::::::::] (]) 05:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Australian terrorist incident == | |||
Hello Martinvl, | |||
{{reply to|Oncenawhile}} - Rather than making postings such as , you should be contacting the NSW police directly on their crime-stoppers page. (I tried to add their site here, but it appears that the best way to get it is to Google it). | |||
In case you haven't seen them there, here are four questions I asked you about the comments you left on my talk page. Perhaps you could help me improve my familiarity of Misplaced Pages protocol by answering them for me please: | |||
*What shouldn't I be touching? | |||
*Why shouldn't I be touching whatever it is? | |||
*Why would you be using words of one syllable? | |||
*Is there a Misplaced Pages test or exam that I need to take to see if I have the appropriate artistic skills required to be allowed to apply WP:IMAGE? ] (]) 19:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Someone might like to post this at WP:AN. ] (]) 08:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Curatrice, | |||
:When I wrote these lines, you were moiving from article to article making the same change - in particulare reducing ther size of the image in the lede. I saw from your contributuon history that you did not have much experience of Wikipeida and I was following you reinstating, in particular, image sizes. | |||
:There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't mend it". You need to be a little more discerning in trying to mend things that are not broken - in particular, don't apply recommendations unless you are actually mending something - an unfortunate by-proiduct of applying changes for the sake of it is that in "fixing" something, one can inadvertently introduce an error elsewhere. It is unfortunate that when people make a "quick fix", they only make a "quick check" that it worked. | |||
:There is no Wikpeida test regarding artisitic skills - just be aware that unless you have skills regarding proportions etc, it is best not to mess around with other people's layouts, espcially if you are blindly applying recommednations. | |||
:I am not decrying the recommendations - firstly, they are a good starting point when you are laying out a page, but ther are inconsistencies and sometimmes contradictions in various recommendations, so be careful. | |||
:Finally, don't leap into something too quickly - be cautious, see what the reaction is - if you have misunderstood something and repeat teh same changes too many times, you will piss off whoever sorts out the mess. ] (]) 20:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
I have since contacted the NSW police regarding this posting. In the interests of justice, please do not touch anything - let the police draw their own conclusions. ] (]) 11:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for doing so. Whoever was behind the account certainly had some connection to this lunatic, so i'm sure the NSW police will appreciate the info. ] (]) 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== January 2015 == | |||
:::Firstly, happy new year - perhaps we can enjoy a more productive and congenial relationship this year! Secondly, are you going to get the new year off to a good start by answering the one about the one syllable please? ] (]) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 12:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A request == | |||
{{Tmbox | |||
I just noticed the ] for the comparison of the UK and the Falklands. It looks really good, and is much better than the PNG I compiled from OpenStreetMap. | |||
| type = style | |||
| image = ] | |||
| text = | |||
<span style="font-size: 120%;">'''Please use the {{Tlx|Admin help}} template appropriately.'''</span><br /> You used the {{Tlx|Admin help}} template, but asked a question that doesn't require an admin to be answered. If you need help like this in the future, please add the {{Tlx|Help me}} template instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the ], the ], or join the ] to get real-time assistance. Click for instant access.<!-- Template:helpme-na -->}} | |||
Wee Curry Monster has made a ] against me on WP:ANI which contain a number of unfounded allegations . Since I am indefinitely blocked, what are my options to repudiate his claims? I need to ensure that whoever handles WCM's claims knows the full facts. ] (]) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
* You don't need an administrator for this specific question. What I might suggest doing is either requesting an unblock so that you may address the concerns on your own using the {{Tl|Unblock}} template, or post your comments and statements here and someone may copy your comment for you. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Martinvl, as per ], I'll be happy to copy your comments for you if you can ping me when you post them. ]]] 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you. ] (]) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::There are no "unfounded allegations". Everything stated in the edit you linked to is unambiguously true. You have also been warned before, and have had every opportunity to make constructive responses to the criticisms of your actions. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> ] As you know, you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing. Your abilities to edit your talk page and to send emails have also been revoked, for the reasons discussed at ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the ], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the '']''. However, you should bear in mind that unblock requests which fail to show an appreciation of the reasons for the block (like your earlier unblock requests, and your comments immediately above) are unlikely to succeed. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blocknotalk --> | |||
Is it possible for you to do an image like this with all of the overseas territories on the same scale, like the ones already created for ] and ]? This map, I feel would be very useful in the ] article. | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|15973|Jun 15, 2016 21:25:05|closed}}--] (]) 21:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== Information pertinent to this appeal === | |||
Many thanks | |||
I would like to draw attention to a proposal Martin made at Meta-Wiki . Relevant points from this: | |||
--] (]) 19:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
#Persists in claims of ] He demanded I inform ''all'' users on the talk page, I complied with his request, he then claims this is "canvassing". | |||
#Describes the ANI which lead to his block as "mob justice". | |||
#Describes me as a "bully" and a "troll" and alleges I exploited the situation at ANI. | |||
#Still persisting with the quasi-legal justification. | |||
Relevant discussions , ,,. There are several topic ban appeals and unblock requests on this page alone. He is also blocked permanently on simple.wiki for exactly the same disruptive behaviour after being blocked here . The continuing theme in all of these is a complete lack of any appreciation for the disruptive nature of his editing that lead to his block, instead he is persisting with the theme that he was wronged and it was my fault. The recent proposal at Meta-Wiki shows that he still doesn't get it. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 23:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
:So basically Martinvl has retained the exact same attitude and lack of respect for Misplaced Pages, its procedures, protocols and editors since the first time I bumped into him prior to that original AN/I discussion? If that is the case then they should remain indefinitely blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I also agree that nothing seems to have changed on the basis of the report, above (I am trying to see if I can access the actual appeal message, but without success so far), so that there is no real prospect of anything positive being achieved by unblocking him. ] ] 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
The rules are that anyone can reform, and that includes Martin. Clearly, if we can't see what he's said, we can't say that he hasn't resolved all of the concerns that have been raised in the past. But on past form, I doubt it. | |||
:I can give it a try, but after Christmas. ] (]) 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
My advice to the person reviewing this would be, after reading the text of the appeal, to try to read the text of the appeal without inferring anything. Martin is an inveterate Wikilawyer and one of his tactics is write in such a way as to imply things that he doesn't mean, or that he is likely to later want to distance himself from. He will later hotly deny that he ever said them and even demand apologies for the suggestion that he might have done. We've seen it with personal attacks, we've seen it with legal threats and we've seen it with content disputes. And we've seen similar tactics attempted with previous unblock requests. | |||
::Hi RaviC, | |||
::First of all, compliments of the season. | |||
::I have done a preliminary chaeck to see how fasiuble it would be to do a .svg diagram as requested by you. The main problem is that Wikimedia COmmons only has .svg maps for 6 of the 14 territoroes in question. Ideally, all maps should be of the same format and the absence of the raw materials makes things difficult. All that I can do really is to suggest that you continue with your .png map. | |||
::Regards ] (]) 13:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
With Martin, if you don't demand and receive absolute clarity, if what is said is anything less than 100% unambiguous, 100% explicit and 100% impossible to reinterpret, you might as well ask him to take advantage of you. You can't assume that he will accept the spirit of any agreement, nor give any statement, in good faith. It has to be as tight as a legal document, because he ''will'' take advantage of any possible loophole, no matter how ridiculous or obviously outside the spirit of the text. Yes, this makes the whole process of getting anywhere at all on any issue very longwinded and frustrating. Martin wasn't indeffed for no reason. | |||
:::Hi there, hope you had a good holiday. | |||
It happened last time he appealed. Martin took responsibility for the behaviour that led to the block only in the narrowest possible terms (and the meta page makes it clear that he's since rowed back even on that). It rapidly became clear that this was because he took no responsibility for his wider behavioural issues at all, and continued to exhibit those issues in that very discussion. | |||
:::Would ]? The territories are all in the same format, but not in the same size ratio. | |||
If Martin does not clearly, explicitly and unambiguously understand and accept the reasons for his topic ban and block - described at the time by an uninvolved admin as - he should not be unblocked. If it is not clear, unambiguous and explicit that he knows how to avoid those issues in the future, he should not be unblocked. And we should not unblock under any circumstances until the (very thinly-veiled) legal threat made at the Meta page is resolved. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::If not, don't worry about it, I will continue with the .png that I have made a start on. | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
:::Kind regards | |||
<blockquote>Image uploaded as "temporary" for a discussion (see file name), discussion has long-since concluded.</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
:::--] (]) 14:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
::::Hi RaviC, | |||
::::Thanks for the message. | |||
::::I had a look as the file that you delievered and it is perfect starting material. I have given the matter some thought and I think that it might well be appropriate to have three different scales - the main one being the UK and the larger BoTs, the second, at a scale of 20% the first showing the British Antarctic Territory andionlgside the UK. I will position this in the "Noth Sea" of the first map. The third, probably at 500% the scale of the first would show the smallest territories against the Isle of Wight. All would have a scale. | |||
::::Any comments? | |||
::::Regards ] (]) 14:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hi there, that seems like a great idea. Placing the smaller ones alongside the Isle of Wight is a great way to compare them to the UK without them being almost invisible. --] (]) 16:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
==File copyright problem with File:Severn Estuary Crossings.svg== | |||
::::::OK - I will work on it over the next week or two. ] (]) 16:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
Thank you for uploading ]. However, it is currently missing information on its '''copyright''' and '''licensing''' status. Misplaced Pages takes ] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the ]. You may refer to the ''']''' to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on ''']''' may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> | |||
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is . | |||
== 3RR Warning (]) == | |||
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the ]. Thanks again for your cooperation.<!-- Template:Di-no license-notice --> | |||
'''This is a formal ] warning.''' | |||
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, ]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details. Thanks, ] (]) 03:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
You have now made 3 reversions (, , ) to that article within 24 hours. There is a discussion about that claim on the talk page, please participate in it. ] (]) 15:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|21183|Apr 11, 2018 19:53:35|closed}}--] (]) 19:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|21198|Apr 12, 2018 21:17:48|closed}}--] (]) 21:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|21242|Apr 16, 2018 19:23:03|closed}}--] (]) 19:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
*'''UTRS Admin note''': Due to repeated unsuccessful appeals that displayed the same exhaustive wiki-lawyering as presented here, UTRS access has been blocked for 3 months.--]<sup>]</sup> 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Stop disrupting an SPI == | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|23537|Dec 10, 2018 17:20:12|closed}}--] (]) 17:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
Your actions here are unacceptable. You cannot simply rearrange views like you did to suit your own agenda. Others have contributed in context, and you corrupted the whole sense of the discussion. It is not fair to all those others concerned. ] (]) 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> -- ] (]). 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
] | |||
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. | |||
== 3RR Warning (]) == | |||
'''This is a formal ] warning.''' ] (]) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
==SPI== | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|26990|Oct 09, 2019 17:39:28|closed}}--] (]) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
No, it's fine. I was mostly annoyed at his edit summary, which is typical of this person. When I left the note on his page, I knew he'd come back and say that you had moved the comments in the first place so he was innocent etc, so I criticised you in the note as well. I don't have a problem with moving the comments, just with him spouting bad faith all the time. Now that I've left that note, he has specifically not got any permission to move my comments, so he can't do it again. Thanks for the ANI heads up, cheers :) ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|27159|Oct 15, 2019 21:00:49|closed}}--] (]) 21:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{UTRS-unblock-user|27396|Oct 30, 2019 22:36:44|closed}}--] (]) 22:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Information relating to recent attempts to get round the block == | |||
:What do you (Bretonbanquet) mean by "so he can't do it again"? I never moved any of your comments, that was Martinvl. I restored them to their original positions. ] (]) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
''I provide the following information in case it may ever be of help to any administrator if Martinvl should make further attempts either to get unblocked or to evade the effect of his block.'' | |||
* As can be seen above, two months ago Martinvl 3 times in short succession posted at UTRS requesting that his block be reviewed. I have read those UTRS appeals, and the replies given by the declining administrators. More recently he has emailed OTRS, requesting that the email be forwarded to me, which was done. I have also read his UTRS appeals from previous years, including the three made in rapid succession within a few days in April 2018, which led to UTRS access being temporarily removed. None of the recent UTRS appeals contains anything substantially new: they largely repeat things he has repeatedly said previously, including in the UTRS appeals made in previous years. | |||
* The post to OTRS was both an attempt to use OTRS to circumvent his removal of email access. It was also an attempt to get proxy editing done for him. As has been the case in the past, his UTRS appeals showed no understanding at all of the reasons which led to the block, nor any indication that he will not do the same again; on the contrary, two of the UTRS appeals explicitly stated that he was asking for email access to be restored so that he could abuse that email access to lobby and canvass editors. ''(In view of his persistent practice, commented on in the past, of ridiculous wikilawyering about the exact words used in statements, I will explicitly state that he did not use such words as "lobby", "abuse", and "canvass", but he did indicate that that was his purpose.)'' Such abuse of email was what led to his email access being removed in the first place, and the idea that it should be restored so that he can continue doing the same thing shows a truly astonishing inability to understand. | |||
* He has also more than once attempted to evade the effect of his block on English Misplaced Pages by posting about it to one or more other Wikimedia projects. (Fortunately, and unsurprisingly, he got nowhere by doing so.) | |||
* Every piece of evidence indicates that Martinvl either does not understand or chooses not to understand the reasons for his block and for his loss of talk page and email address, and that he thoroughly intends to return to doing exactly the same things again if his block is removed or if talk page and/or email access is returned. His practice of repeatedly posting appeals which say essentially the same, and which make '''no attempt whatever''' to address the reasons given for the decline of the previous appeals, is disruptive and a waste of other editors' time, and will not lead to his being unblocked. It is now more than six years since his current indefinite block was imposed, and in that time he has had ample opportunity to make a constructive unblock appeal, but he has instead persistently made numerous futile appeals which make no progress whatever towards either showing an understanding of the block nor indicating that he has any intention whatever of changing his ways. Either he has considerable difficulty in understanding what he is told, he understands but stubbornly refuses to accept consensus because he is "RIGHT" and sees no reason to collaborate, or he is trolling. Whichever of those possibilities is in fact the case, unfortunately I see no reason to think that after making no change in six years he is likely ever to do so. I therefore find it difficult to imagine any realistic possibility that unblocking will ever be appropriate. | |||
''I hope that my writing all this has been a waste of my time, because he has at last got the message and sill stop his time-wasting unblock requests and his abusive attempts to evade the effects of his block. However, if that turns out not to be the case, perhaps some or all of what I have written will be of help to another administrator who has to waste her or his time reviewing the situation.'' ] (]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 12:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
==Orphaned non-free image File:OIML blue logo.jpg== | |||
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:40, 7 October 2021 (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 ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
== Comments at SPI == | |||
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
Regarding , why are you even bothering to speak to him? What you're writing will have zero effect on the way the SPI case is handled. You're just wasting your time. You're free to do so if you wish, I just thought I'd point that out. (FYI in England if you think a kid is lying you might say "you're telling porkies" to him) --] ] 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
== January 2013 == | |||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] (]) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I notice that ] has requested that his block be lifted. May I draw to attention the following: | |||
:''] '' | |||
*I did not actually make a fourth reversion during the 24 hour period. | |||
*MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice, just as | |||
:* he failed to notify me that he was on the Fringe Theory notice board, | |||
:*he failed to notify me that he was on the Original research notice board | |||
:*he failed to notify me that he was on the Conflict of interest notice board. | |||
*MeasureIT’s record on this article, such as the tone of language used in had much to be desired, especially when he stated that he was restoring NPOV. | |||
In short, since MeasureIT was doing all that he could to needle me, I was the victim and he the perpetrator. If you see fit to lift his ban I request that mine be lifted simulatanteously.}| decline=This block is not about another user. This block is about you edit warring. You have not substantially addressed this in your unblock request. Please see ] for advice, in particular ]. --] ] 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
Dear Wikimedian, | |||
== Questions raised over an edit of yours == | |||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
I have raised questions about your recent edit to "]" in the talkpage section "]". Please, as I have asked you many times before, consider discussing your views there first, and attempting to reach a consensual agreement, ''before'' making further similar changes. Discussion is certainly more likely to be productive than is constant warring. Thanks. ] (]) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for January 22== | |||
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
==]== | |||
If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per ]. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to ''suppress'' such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! ''']''' ''']''' 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Credit card! (sorry) == | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> | |||
== Information on removal of email access == | |||
Hi, sorry - sarcasm doesn't travel well and I should have been clearer! Apologies. All I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't say it's a credit card when it isn't, if only because it will upset sad people with OCD, i.e. me! I agree that a fifteen-paragraph explanation might be a bit excessive, on the other hand ... oh, I really don't know. Do you think there is some concise form of words that makes it clear somehow but doesn't actually say it's a card. Does "plastic card" work?? Sorry - not good editing from me. Cheers ] (]) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Actually, on reflection I think that your ''second'' version with quotes around it pretty much does that. I might just shut up now! :) Cheers ] (]) 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! ] (]) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Ha! Yes, it's a good sharp image. :) Nice one. Cheers ] (]) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
, | |||
== Mandatory Notice == | |||
I've seen this repeated a couple of times now at Meta, so it may be worthwhile to put the record straight here for the benefit of any future editor unfamiliar with what happened. Martin has been claiming his email and talk page access was removed because he attempted to use the talk page to alert people to information related to the ]. When he posted about the siege it had been over for 15 hrs and in any case this is simply untrue. | |||
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
Revocation was for an entirely different incident on 4 January 2015. I noticed a message posted by an editor responding to an email request from Martin to change the article ], Martin immediately removed it . I discussed this with my mentor Nick-D . Nick suggested this was ''prima facie'' evidence of an attempt to recruit meat puppets with the email functionality and as this was not the first occasion advised I post at ] asking for review by an uninvolved admin. I did so , it was reviewed and JBW as an uninvolved admin chose to revoke his talk page and email access . <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Hi Martin. Well, we've been through this drill before.... ]] 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== February 2013 == | |||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] ] 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Talkback== | |||
{{talkback|Arctic Kangaroo|ts=08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
] ] 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:On the same subject, ... see M25 Talk page! – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Invitation to participate in discussions == | |||
Rather than reverting, whinging and throwing about bad faith accusations please come to these talkpages and discuss your continual insistence of adding unencyclopaedic content to these metric system related articles: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
] (]) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I've requested page protection at SPI. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you Garamond ] (]) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Page protection? To protect the page from what? What are you afraid of? ] (]) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm afraid of wasting more time than absolutely necessary dealing with a banned user. <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>]<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1em">]<br/>]</span></tt></span></small> 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::By all means argue your opinion on the content, but please don't persist with these ad hominem personal attacks. You may get yourself into trouble with the administrators behaving like that. ] (]) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== 3RR warning == | |||
Beware of the 3RR rule at ]. There are discussions on the talkpage about that section, take the time to read, and digest, the opinions of others, and add ideas of your own. We should try to talk this one through, rather than attempt to impose our will. ] (]) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:56, 10 June 2024
|
Archives |
WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Alex79818 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Stop disrupting an SPI
Your actions here are unacceptable. You cannot simply rearrange views like you did here to suit your own agenda. Others have contributed in context, and you corrupted the whole sense of the discussion. It is not fair to all those others concerned. MeasureIT (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
3RR Warning (History of the metric system)
This is a formal WP:3RR warning. MeasureIT (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
SPI
No, it's fine. I was mostly annoyed at his edit summary, which is typical of this person. When I left the note on his page, I knew he'd come back and say that you had moved the comments in the first place so he was innocent etc, so I criticised you in the note as well. I don't have a problem with moving the comments, just with him spouting bad faith all the time. Now that I've left that note, he has specifically not got any permission to move my comments, so he can't do it again. Thanks for the ANI heads up, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- What do you (Bretonbanquet) mean by "so he can't do it again"? I never moved any of your comments, that was Martinvl. I restored them to their original positions. MeasureIT (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeasureIT (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments at SPI
Regarding this, why are you even bothering to speak to him? What you're writing will have zero effect on the way the SPI case is handled. You're just wasting your time. You're free to do so if you wish, I just thought I'd point that out. (FYI in England if you think a kid is lying you might say "you're telling porkies" to him) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
January 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at History of the metric system. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I notice that User:MeasureIT has requested that his block be lifted. May I draw to attention the following:
- I did not actually make a fourth reversion during the 24 hour period.
- MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice, just as
- he failed to notify me that he was this issue on the Fringe Theory notice board,
- he failed to notify me that he was raising the issue on the Original research notice board
- he failed to notify me that he was the issue on the Conflict of interest notice board.
- MeasureIT’s record on this article, such as the tone of language used in this edit had much to be desired, especially when he stated that he was restoring NPOV.
In short, since MeasureIT was doing all that he could to needle me, I was the victim and he the perpetrator. If you see fit to lift his ban I request that mine be lifted simulatanteously.}
Decline reason:
This block is not about another user. This block is about you edit warring. You have not substantially addressed this in your unblock request. Please see Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks for advice, in particular this subsection. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Questions raised over an edit of yours
I have raised questions about your recent edit to "History of the metric system" in the talkpage section "Talk:History of the metric system/Archive 1#Recent edit by Martinvl". Please, as I have asked you many times before, consider discussing your views there first, and attempting to reach a consensual agreement, before making further similar changes. Discussion is certainly more likely to be productive than is constant warring. Thanks. MeasureIT (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metrication in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chapel Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Kilometres per hour
If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to suppress such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! SilkTork 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Credit card! (sorry)
Hi, sorry - sarcasm doesn't travel well and I should have been clearer! Apologies. All I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't say it's a credit card when it isn't, if only because it will upset sad people with OCD, i.e. me! I agree that a fifteen-paragraph explanation might be a bit excessive, on the other hand ... oh, I really don't know. Do you think there is some concise form of words that makes it clear somehow but doesn't actually say it's a card. Does "plastic card" work?? Sorry - not good editing from me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, on reflection I think that your second version with quotes around it pretty much does that. I might just shut up now! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! Yes, it's a good sharp image. :) Nice one. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Mandatory Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- Hi Martin. Well, we've been through this drill before.... GaramondLethe 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Arctic Kangaroo 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.Message added 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Arctic Kangaroo 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- On the same subject, ... see M25 Talk page! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in discussions
Rather than reverting, whinging and throwing about bad faith accusations please come to these talkpages and discuss your continual insistence of adding unencyclopaedic content to these metric system related articles:
212.183.128.236 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested page protection at SPI. Garamond Lethet
c 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Garamond Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Page protection? To protect the page from what? What are you afraid of? 212.183.128.211 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid of wasting more time than absolutely necessary dealing with a banned user. Garamond Lethet
c 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid of wasting more time than absolutely necessary dealing with a banned user. Garamond Lethet
- By all means argue your opinion on the content, but please don't persist with these ad hominem personal attacks. You may get yourself into trouble with the administrators behaving like that. 212.183.128.202 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
3RR warning
Beware of the 3RR rule at International System of Units. There are discussions on the talkpage about that section, take the time to read, and digest, the opinions of others, and add ideas of your own. We should try to talk this one through, rather than attempt to impose our will. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Important notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2013 (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. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Rangeblocks
FYI I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for DeFacto and his obvious socks:
- 23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
- 22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
It's under 200 IP addresses. I'm tired of dicking around with those. I'm sure he'll pop up again somewhere else since he doesn't seem to have anything better to do. Sad. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Metrication deniers
Martin, I am sorry if I inadvertently lent any credence to the silly copyvio claims at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Document transcriptions on lobby group_websites and elsewhere. And if you feel the UKMA links to these documents are a more reliable or permanent source, please revert my changes to Metrication of British transport. Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Mcewan, No problems at all - in fact I am glad that you found the citations - wheh I looked for them on the .gov.uk a year or two ago, I coulkd not find them, so I used the UKMA site. User:DeFacto has been hassling me for two years now so now this is one less thing that he has with which to hassle me. Martinvl (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Full disclosure
I took the liberty of refactoring your comments on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto to make it easier to navigate to the appropriate pages. I hope you don't mind. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- No problems - anything to keep him out of our hair. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I just pinged Toddst1 re Bill lC. Garamond Lethet
c 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I just pinged Toddst1 re Bill lC. Garamond Lethet
- Thanks. He doesn't really have a clue about the article he is trying to write. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. He doesn't really have a clue about the article he is trying to write. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M606 motorway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull and Halifax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
RJL templates
Hello Martin, nice job on the road junction list templates! This is just a courtesy note to keep you informed that I fixed a couple of minor technicalities which I spotted with them and their docs. Best, 178.109.28.112 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Martin. In the spirit of WP:BRD, with your Bold edit to introduce italics into the mile column of UK road junction lists having been Reverted, you should not change it back again whilst there is an ongoing Discussion. Wait now to see if there is a consensus amongst editors for such a change to be introduced. 178.105.26.216 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
M3 edit
This edit was made on an old version of the page and reintroduced errors and bad use of bold/capitals, ref placements etc. Please be careful to work on the most recent version of a page, or place an appropriate template telling other users that you're making large changes. Also, if you now believe a consensus exists to do this, are you going to remove the colour code key from the footer of every UK roads list? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I will be - I have already started. I am also making corrections to J2 as per Google maps. Martinvl (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, could you show me where the consensus exists to do what you're doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:RJL Talk page (today's discussiopns) Martinvl (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, the bit where you waited just five hours before starting your mission? Typically we allow discussions to go on a little longer than five hours before rolling out mass edits and modifications to the manual of style etc. What's the rush? Remember, there is no deadline here. Besides, the discussion continued after your declaration onto the possibility of using a template instead, which would have no ACCESS issues. Have you considered that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:RJL Talk page (today's discussiopns) Martinvl (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, could you show me where the consensus exists to do what you're doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, this edit demonstrates that you are becoming disruptive. I notified you above that you had used an old version of a page to roll out your changes, and asked you nicely to be more careful. You weren't. If you continue to edit in this fashion, we'll need to discuss this disruption in more detail. And to think I defended you when Rschen7754 had mentioned Arbcom. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that you are the one who was being disruptive by removing a perfectly clear citation and then stating that a citation was needed. I use the word "clear" rather than "reliable" because the citation stated exactly how I came by that information, no more and no less. You have every right to question the reliability of the citation, but not its existance, especially when you deleted it. Martinvl (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you're missing the point. Your edit removed a series of other edits by other editors. You need to be careful when you edit pages. Make sure you use the most recent edit. And I have no idea what you're talking about here by the way. What is this "clear" and "reliable" issue you have? You have made a number of disruptive edits, please stop doing it. By the way, if it helps, citations should be from reliable sources. Make sure you use reliable sources when you "reference" things. Although an editor of your experience surely must already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please tell me exactly which edits you are objecting to, and while you are about it, would you please also tell me why you reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones' work of 09:22?
- I know that I removed the coloured blocks - the general consensus of WP:RJL was that they should go (you might not be privy to this posting that I made in connection with the coloured blocks).
- I know that I corrected the destinations for the M3/M25 junction to reflect those currently displayed on Google Maps. Reverting this change is totally unjustified.
- I know that I reinstated my citation of 2009 and removed your "citastion needed" flag - I believe that your action here was unjustfied and I am willing to submit this action to arbitration.
- In short, I think that you are the one who is being disruptive. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please tell me exactly which edits you are objecting to, and while you are about it, would you please also tell me why you reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones' work of 09:22?
What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually read the posts you get? I showed you two edits you made which over-rode edits by others. The second was after a warning which you clearly disregarded. Stop doing it. Cheers. (FYI, I've reinstated the work that Gareth did (which you'd blown away in your first edit, as it happens), so bonus there, eh?!) Incidentally, with regard to your anecdotal "source", please do "submit this action to arbitration", it's nonsense, and I look forward to seeing how you could possibly defend it against our policies and guidelines. Obviously, it would be courteous of you to let me know when you instigate such arbitration. In the mean time, I'll start referencing everything I do with something like "sourced in situ" or whatever nonsense..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I did not blow away any of Gareth's changes. If you check the history of today's changes, you will notice that all of my changes were in the subsection "Junctions" while none of Gareth's were in that subsection. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, you just over-rode all the other edits, most of them mine, as I demonstrated to you twice in diffs in this very section of your talk page. Stop disrupting Misplaced Pages. Let me know when you start arbitration. In the mean time, stop disrupting Misplaced Pages with your incorrect self-belief, your rolling out of a "consensus" after five hours of discussion, your inability to understand we have no deadline. Calm down. Slow down. Relax. We'll get it sorted, but it doesn't have to happen in 20 seconds. 20 days, or so is fine. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hidden notes in templates
If you're going to use hidden notes in templates, at least ensure they show up on the pages you're using them on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please be specific. Martinvl (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're rolling out templates (without consensus I might add) with hidden notes. You are then not bothering to expose those notes on the pages in which you're rolling out the templates (for which you don't have any consensus). That means you have N1 etc, but no corresponding notes. This is very bad. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please revisit template:RJLUKhdr and tell me if the documentation is sufficient, or would you prefer a full example somewhere template:RJLUK for example? Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please revisit every place you're implementing your non-consensual templates and ensure you expose the notes to the reader. If you don't understand how to do this, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling with templates and rolling them out when you have no consensus to do so. And actually, hiding these notes away in templates when editors then need to add a bunch of other wikicode at the end of the page is really a bad idea. Consider what would happen if they already have their own notes which aren't using the same notation.... terrible idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The templates are designed to automatically display notes that are relevant to distances only if the RJL has distance columns. Likewise, they are designed to automatically display notes if the carriageway letters are displayed. In this way, the reader is not exposed to notes that have no relevance to the RJL concerend. In addition, the editor concerned can add his own notes to the list of notes in the footer box if he so wishes. While applying the templates, I am checking for things such as other editor's notes - I have not come across any yet. I will cross that bridge when I see notes by another editor - whatever I do, rest assured, I will not destroy them.Martinvl
- BTW, if editors wish to add their own notes to the structure, all that they need to do is to add the parameter
notes = Y
to the templateRJLUKfooter
, and if the RJL has incorporated distances, even that will not be neccessary.(talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)- Well the least you can do as you roll out these templates which have no consensus whatsoever is to implement the notes yourself. It would be unfortunate if, in the rolling out of these templates without any consensus, you fall foul of your own advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Which is exactly what I have been doing. While rolling them out (and deliberately choosing minor motorways such as the A308(M) which get 12 hits a day as opposed to the M25 which get 700 hits a day), I have been tuning the templates quite a bit. I have also been very careful to ensure that at all times, articles will read sensibly. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You mean like this edit which was finally corrected by this kind edit? Hiding notes in templates is a very bad idea. And rolling them out without any consensus is worse. Please stop, find a consensus for your version of these templates before continuing on your one-man crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This was an error in
RJLUKfooter
template which I will correct this evening. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This was an error in
- You mean like this edit which was finally corrected by this kind edit? Hiding notes in templates is a very bad idea. And rolling them out without any consensus is worse. Please stop, find a consensus for your version of these templates before continuing on your one-man crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Which is exactly what I have been doing. While rolling them out (and deliberately choosing minor motorways such as the A308(M) which get 12 hits a day as opposed to the M25 which get 700 hits a day), I have been tuning the templates quite a bit. I have also been very careful to ensure that at all times, articles will read sensibly. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well the least you can do as you roll out these templates which have no consensus whatsoever is to implement the notes yourself. It would be unfortunate if, in the rolling out of these templates without any consensus, you fall foul of your own advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please revisit every place you're implementing your non-consensual templates and ensure you expose the notes to the reader. If you don't understand how to do this, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling with templates and rolling them out when you have no consensus to do so. And actually, hiding these notes away in templates when editors then need to add a bunch of other wikicode at the end of the page is really a bad idea. Consider what would happen if they already have their own notes which aren't using the same notation.... terrible idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please revisit template:RJLUKhdr and tell me if the documentation is sufficient, or would you prefer a full example somewhere template:RJLUK for example? Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're rolling out templates (without consensus I might add) with hidden notes. You are then not bothering to expose those notes on the pages in which you're rolling out the templates (for which you don't have any consensus). That means you have N1 etc, but no corresponding notes. This is very bad. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Any chance you can show anyone the consensus you think you have to roll out these new templates? Note, if you can't, then I guess you won't mind me reverting all these edits back to the previous status quo? Also, you have a number of answers to comments of yours at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. It would be useful to see you replying there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am currently preparing a document to get some proper feedback based on the experience I have gained on rolling out over the smaller motorways. BTW, I have fixed the M67 problem. Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Marvellous. Looking forward to your responses at the MOS. By the way, you might like to fix your errors at A308(M) motorway as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, notes still not showing. Hence why you should not have hidden notes in templates. You've proved it perfectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- On my terminal everything seem fine. BTW, are you looking at the RJL footer? Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- On your "terminal"? How retro. No, there are no notes showing on that page. Once again, another example as to why you shouldn't be using hidden notes. Please reconsider. Alternatively, I'll undo all the RJL templates you've been implementing without any consensus. How about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hang on, I can see them. Obviously nowhere near where normal footnotes go! Brilliant idea. Not. I suggest you remove this half-baked idea entirely. Footnotes belong in a footnotes section, not special hidden notes from templates being displayed in a hidden style in another template. Overly complicated and in no way beneficial to our readers. By the way, plenty of comments waiting for you at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding the UK RJL templates to articles, there is no consensus to do so. You have many, many comments to respond to at the MOS page. If you try to implement these templates again, I'll remove them. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château de Beaumesnil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry V and Beaumesnil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
March 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M4 motorway. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Our other kid (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Ordination}}
Not sure why you blanked the template that is being used by so many pages, but I reverted your changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Error on my part. I had copied it into my sandbox, corrected and tested the error, copied the corrected version back into main space and then in error blanked the corrected version, not the version in my sandbox. I have now reinstated my corrected version and double checked it against the article Pope Francis. Martinvl (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Second Severn Crossing
Your good work was just undone. Perhaps you want to take a look. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Bob, thanks for the warning. Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Wales 30 : England 3
Cheers Martin! Thanks for that.
Sincerely,
– Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
ANI
Hello Martinvl. I have opened a thread at ANI in which you are mentioned; you may wish to comment here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
DR/N filing
Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Your recent filing suggests that the main issues are editor conduct or behavior. If this is accurate, it may be best to close this filing and suggest formal arbitration. If you feel that there is predominantly a content dispute the filing may move forward. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- You also failed to list User:Our other kid who made various content edits you disagreed with to the M4 page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Test
xx
For the record
User:Nilfanion is from the UK, before you go labeling everyone who does anything related to "our" RJL as American... --Rschen7754 06:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of that. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- (stalking) Martin, why do you insist on keeping this subject alive? It's not doing you any favours, and is just aggravating people. Your DRN thread was extremely problematic, in that it focused on contributors, not content, so it was never going to go anywhere. You can try arbitration if you really want, but if you do that, the drama level will explode, so can I please, please, please suggest you ignore this subject and go and edit something else? We could really do with reviewers for Articles for creation submissions if that sounds interesting to you. Anything will do, really, as long as it doesn't have junction boxes. Oh, and Rschen, stop rising to the bait. Ritchie333 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Signatures
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages. Its important to be able to work out who is saying what...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Parable of the Sunfish at peer review
Hi Martin,
I'm celebrating the end of the beginning of grant-writing season by getting back on wikipedia and putting my first-ever article up for peer review. Turnabout is fair play, so you're more than welcome to contribute if you find the topic at all interesting. If it's not your thing, no worries.
Best,
Garamond Lethet
c 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Garamond,
- I read the article - I am not really competant to make any comments other than maybe a bit about the layout - I recognise that often you have to make compromises with what you have, so maybe what I have written is being a little over-pedandic.
- Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M25 motorway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M26 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Introduction to the metric system
Generally the article is decent. It is simpler to understand than the main article (and sensibly leaves out most of the minutiae about redefinitions of metric units), but not by all that much, because (to me) metric system is fairly accessible anyway. I'm not very familiar with introduction articles and don't know how distinct they are supposed to be from their more complicated parent articles, but I don't see a whole lot of distinctness in this one. The difference between the two articles that struck me most is the detail about the definition of the second changing after they used solar eclipses to determine that Earth's rotation is slowing down. That's not in the main metric system article, which strikes me as odd—I'd expect parent articles to be more detailed than introductions—but not necessarily "wrong".
I'm not sure what you mean by "whether it is worth developing", but in terms of quality the article is a solid start, and the main thing I wonder about is whether it's distinct enough from the main article to justify the effort. A. Parrot (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi A. Parrot
- Thank you for your comments. I think that at the moment the "Introduction to" articles are still developing - my rationale abpout including the earth slowing down in the "Introduction to the metric system", but not the main article is that this is a concept that could be understood by the non-scientific readersip - using that level of detail in the main article about all the base units woudl result in a huge article. Martinvl (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops
Hi Martinv1, sorry I invaded your space. I've answered your message on my page. EdithLovely (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Metric system/GA1
Hi Martinvl, I just reviewed an article you nominated for GA, Metric system. The comments I left regarding this matter can be viewed at this page: Talk:Metric system/GA1. Please let me know if you are finished before 1 week from today. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
GA Review for Washington (State)
Howdy- Thank you for reviewing my nomination for Washington to become a good article. I wasn't sure with your decision- are you placing the article on hold or quick failing it? If you are placing it on hold, could you be a little more particular with the problems. Thanks again! PrairieKid (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Prairie Kid
- I have had to fail the article. May I suggest that once you have fixed the problems that I have identified (too many lists) and dead links, that you resubmit for peer review and wait for a review before you submit for GA status. I saw the article in the peer review section a few weeks ago but real life prevented me from reviewing it. Martinvl (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
VIAF for Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners / Stephanus Jacobus du Toit
Hi. I don't want to create a stub for du Toit (if someone else wants to: Have a look at the sitelinks of Wikidata item Q1401026), like I don't want to create a stub for any of the other key people of the Genootskap (the article counts eight founding members plus one "spiritual father", du Toit just being one of the founding members). But the current linking is incorrect: VIAF does not have an entry for this organisation (or at least what I had removed was not this entry), it just has an entry for this person. We do not have any personal information about du Toit in this article, and there's no reason to link his personal entry here rather than the entry of anyone else. --YMS (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have actually resurrected an old entry for du Toit. IMO, it should never have been removed. Martinvl (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello
Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of information on Fleet, Hampshire page
Please refrain from calling references advertising if they are certifying that 'Stephanie Weller' the teenage model and beauty brand owner is actually from Fleet. Many editors are fed up of your constant reverting and you will be blocked and reported if it is to carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikotchneva (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I am her agent but I'm no fool. I'm in the middle of writing her article at the moment actually and once I have, I intend to put her back on the list but if it makes you happy then I wont use her business website as a link :)
- Under Misplaced Pages rules, people (or their agents) should not write their own articles, the rationale being that if they are notable enough somebody else will write the article in a neutral manner, if they are not sufficiently notable, Misplaced Pages does not want the article. Before spending more time on the article, may I respectfully suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) and Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. The latter also applies to an agent writing an article. I also suggest that you read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Today to see the sort of grilling that articles get. You should also read Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, in particular the section highlighted by the shortcut WP:NOPAY. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also suggest that you search for her name on Google - ignore anything in Facebook, LinkedIn and You-tube. Also ignore her own website. Check to see what is left. That is the material from which you can build an article. I did a trial run and I found no relevant material. Martinvl (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: the discussion at GAN
Hi, re this edit, I apologise if my recent proposals have caused you undue stress or paranoia - that was not at all my intention. I'm not actually a newbie - I have been operating as a mere IP address for many years and only decided to create an account because certain functions, such as nominating articles for GA, are unavailable to unregistered users (which is also why I have jumped right in to proposing stuff despite my apparent lack of article space edits). I'd be happy to go through the check user procedure if it would put you at ease (if this is something I am even allowed to request). CurlyLoop (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi CurlyLoop,
- Thank you for your posting. There is no need for anybody to request a Check User procedure - it is time consuming and the now-banned editor who is behind the trouble seems to have found a way of IP-hopping thereby making a Check-User irrelevant. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
test1
test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.106.95 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see WT:RJL
Today the discussion was closed against having any UK-specific derivations in RJL. Please undo your revert. --Rschen7754 06:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion that I saw was about coordinates, not about UK-specific formats. Martinvl (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You may wish to see . --Rschen7754 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have just read that and I have posted a request to Nathan Johnson to reconsider his analysis. Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- There were 10 supports and 2 opposes. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting "no consensus" from... can you enlighten me? --Rschen7754 06:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have just read that and I have posted a request to Nathan Johnson to reconsider his analysis. Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You may wish to see . --Rschen7754 06:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proposed redefinition of SI base units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC
Hi Martin, this wasn't a neutral notice. Please don't do anything else like that, because it risks compromising the RfC.
I'm trying to understand your strength of feeling about this, but failing so far. To my eyes (admittedly, completely unfamiliar with these issues), the table for the M5 in the current version seems clear enough. Or is that not the main issue?
It's worth noting that the page says (bold added): "When creating or editing junction lists for a particular country or state, check with an appropriate road-related WikiProject for that region. The various projects may have adopted practices or preferences regarding some of the optional provisions presented below." And the MoS main page says: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
This means that, if the style changes were to cause inaccuracies on any article you had written, you could object to having them imposed on that page. SlimVirgin 17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi SlimVirgin
- Thanks for your posting. Please look at:
- this version dated 27 April 2007. The comment was "(moved Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Exit lists): moved out of WikiProject space per User talk:Northenglish#WP:USRD/ELG) (thank)"
- The article for the British M1 for the same date.
- Anybody can see that the two articles a poles apart.
- Now look at M1 motorway#Junctions. Quite clearly the layout of this Road Junction List has been developed from the version of 2007 which followed the British pattern. Martinvl (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Numerical summarizations
Hello, I think discussion about statistics and summarizations are completed, and you can put back or review the "Numerical summarizations" section. --Krauss (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- No - I disagree with the sentence "Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data." Statistical methods do not, in my view, always involve reinterpretation of data. That sentence is therefore misleading. Without the bit on how to handle statistical data, the entire addition loses its core. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3rr warning
Please don't edit war on Fahrenheit. Leave the article as is until the discussion on the talkpage (which you have contributed to) has reached a consensus. Dissimilar name (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
A little help to conclude
Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the metric system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Block notice 21 July 2013
Unfortunately, I had to block your account for 24 h for five reverts within 24h in History of the metric system. Whatever you cause is, please ALWAYS discuss it at the talk page rather than edit war.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
- For the record, I disagree with this block, given the fact he was reverting an obvious ban-evading sockpuppet and had previously taken all the appropriate steps to have the socks identified. Wasn't his fault if no admin could be bothered to process the SPI for several days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let us finish the ANI discussion, as a result, I may unblock them.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I unblocked you, but, given that this is not your first block for edit warring, in the future, please discuss rather than edit war. Even if you are completely convinced you are edit warring with a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Imperial and US customary measurement systems
On 23 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 965 AD, King Edgar decreed "that only one weight and one measure should pass throughout the King's dominion"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imperial and US customary measurement systems. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great northern tilefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of International System of Units
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article International System of Units you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Kilometres per hour - External Links
Hello, I've added an External references section in the article Kilometres per hour, that you considered could be spam. This was not the desired effect as it can be useful to readers of that topic, it adds value and it has been clearly added under the External Links section. Having an External links section or External Reference section is a common practice in other articles that It had also been positive to my browsing experience on previous occasions in different articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.9.124 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Conversion packages such as the one that you added are two-a-penny on the internet - why should your particular package be preferred above anybody else's? Martinvl (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of International System of Units
The article International System of Units you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:International System of Units for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Martinvl, I see that you are making sterling progress with the points I raised in my review. However, I thought, after reading the message sent on my behalf above, I had better point out that, regardless of what that auto-generated message above implies, I put the review on hold prior to completing it because of the poor and incomprehensible state of the section about the United States. When that section is fixed I will continue the review - there is no promise of a pass yet - I have yet to complete that review and a review in respect of all the other criteria. FishGF (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of History of the metric system
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article History of the metric system you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Hectare#File:Comparison_land_area_units.svg
Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Talk:Hectare#File:Comparison_land_area_units.svg.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks, cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 19:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Scotland
Your assertion in your last edit related only to hand held flags. See the article Royal Standard of Scotland for the references confirming such. Regards. Endrick Shellycoat (can't log in). 217.43.209.130 (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wuppertal Suspension Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Non-free images in sandboxes
Hi, the easiest way to avoid non-free images being deleted from userspace articles is simply to comment them out by placing a colon in from of "File" whilst they are not in article space. Otherwise they will be deleted; a bot creates a list of non-free usages outside articlespace every day and someone will usually come round a fix the problem. Having said that, I don't think that particular image passes the criteria anyway; we don't really need the cover of a book to tell us the book exists (it would be reasonable in an article about the book, but here it fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8). Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please remove the book cover. Otherwise I will be removing it again. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed it, but if you see it there again, it is because I am working on the article and am making a set of related changes in various parts of the article. I would rather do have a dozen edits in my own space than in article space, so do not ever edit my user pages without my express permission. If in doubt, ask an Admin to do it. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- It doesnt work that way, if you need to use an image for formatting you can use File:Example.jpg for formatting purposes. I often go in large removal sweeps without paying attention to who's user space Im removing it from. NFCC#9 isnt something that can be ignored, When I see violations I remove them, Period. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- One day you are going to burn your fingers badly, especially if you do supplementary edits at the same time. Martinvl (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- It doesnt work that way, if you need to use an image for formatting you can use File:Example.jpg for formatting purposes. I often go in large removal sweeps without paying attention to who's user space Im removing it from. NFCC#9 isnt something that can be ignored, When I see violations I remove them, Period. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed it, but if you see it there again, it is because I am working on the article and am making a set of related changes in various parts of the article. I would rather do have a dozen edits in my own space than in article space, so do not ever edit my user pages without my express permission. If in doubt, ask an Admin to do it. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International System of Units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
A serious question of COI
Hello Martinvl, excuse the intrusion, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to have an obsession with articles and topics associated with or related to the metric system. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote that system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, leaves me wondering if you have a conflict of interest here. Would you mind putting the record straight and confirming in unequivocal terms whether you are, or have recently been, a member of a group or an organisation (such as USMA or UKMA) that campaigns in aid of introducing the metric system into the US or UK. Before you answer, note the contents of the section entitled "Campaigning" in the above mentioned WP:COI, which states that 'activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.' R.stickler (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3RR warning
Please note that you are know on three reverts at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Please do not revert again, or you may be reported and blocked from editing. Kahastok talk 07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Falkland Islands
I would like you to have a look at my latest suggestion to use in Falklands-related articles the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. Just to say although I would still support my original metric then imperial stance I can also see that this thing will keep going round in circles hence my compromise suggestion. Would appreciate your comments and understand at some point we need an agreement but this would align the article with UK use and remove discussion to a more general forum. Also please forgive some of my ignorance on the players in the game and the history of the dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
COI statement request - September 2013
Hello, Martinvl. We welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote the metric system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, followed by you ignoring my gentler approach above, led me to place this template. R.stickler (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please put the record straight on this request as your actions and contributions very closely mirror the agenda of at least one campaigning organisation. R.stickler (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of International System of Units
The article International System of Units you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:International System of Units for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. FishGF (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzEdit (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Systems of measurement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see the talk page for the article and retract your edit to the article. I though we had settled it, as three of us have worked it out and agree that it is exactly 2 ppm less. If you don't get that answer, you are not using a correct method. note that 1/0.999998 is not 1.000002 so the direction of the comparison is critical to it being exact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHart93 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
M/KM
It appears that you seem to have some sort of metric above imperial measurement thing going on. That is up to you however that doesn't mean that you have a right to revert miles first to km first especially when it goes against WP:MOSNUM, which at United Kingdom it clearly does. Also your attitude at Talk:United Kingdom quite frankly is poor and has only elicited a similar attitude from myself in response to your attempts at being a smart-ass. I will desist from responding anymore in like if you would be kind enough to stop as well. Try to argue your point without trying to be condescending. In regards to square miles first, at the talk page I pointed out one highly notable, and you'd expect to be credible source that does it so: Encylopedia Britannica. Mabuska 22:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sock
Sorry it took so long, I had suspicions but couldn't put a finger on it. NativeForeigner 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- No problems. I guessed it when he put the first message on my talk page, but is seems to me that DeFacto has sussed out that CheckUser returns negatives if the sockpuppet only works on pages that have not previously been worked on by the sockmaster which is why I did not file a SPI complaint. Martinvl (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Editing other's comments
Please do not edit my comments on talk pages without permission. If you want me to move my comments, go to my talk page and ask. I believe that this edit substantially altered the meaning of the comment, something that you are not allowed to do. Kahastok talk 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Closure of RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography
Hello,
I do not believe your statement closing this RFC is an accurate reflection of the consensus, and I do not believe that you are an appropriate person to close it as you were the one who opened the RFC. Could I ask you to reconsider the close? The alternative is to ask for review as per WP:CLOSE. Thanks, Kahastok talk 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
ANI
Please do not re-open closed discussions/sections - that's not how ANI works, you do not get to specify sections where only you can post. GiantSnowman 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I came here to make a FINAL warning about a) WP:DISRUPT and b) WP:EW. More of that crap on ANI will lead to a block. ES&L 11:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) FYI, I am an administrator. If you re-open the section again then you will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The user rights of a user can be found via Special:ListUsers: e.g. to determine GiantSnowman's rights: NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea to have checked my alternate account while you were at it too ES&L 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert after I told him I was an admin. GiantSnowman 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea to have checked my alternate account while you were at it too ES&L 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The user rights of a user can be found via Special:ListUsers: e.g. to determine GiantSnowman's rights: NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GiantSnowman 11:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
An accusation of misconduct was made against me by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) at here. WCM went on to enter into vote-stacking to back his case. I made a perfectly reasonable request that the ANI request be closed without further comment to his actions. Since the so-called community discussion was turning into a Ochlocracy, it needed some structure to it, otherwise in would be extremely difficult for an Admin to make a fair assessment of the situation and there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice against me. I therefore put a structure in place to ensure that my defence was not lost in a WP:wall of text.
- Please look at my complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defence by Martinvl. Please also note that I made this request yesterday, but to date no Admin has seen fit to action it, in particular my allegation against User:Wee Curry Monster of vote stacking. Please note that without the structure that I was proposing, this perfectly legitimate request would have been even hidden from a casual check by an Admin.
- Please compare the ease of navigating around the ANI from an administrator's point of view with and without the heading that I added.
I am sure that you will find that the headings make it much easier for your to find your way around and to ensure that the accusations made against me could be handled in a fair manner. This is explained further in the response that I made in the section “Defence by Martinvl”. I look forward to:
- The ANI in question being closed without further comment on account of vote stacking by Wee Curry Monster
- The 48 hour ban on me being lifted.
- A reminder being sent to User:NE Ent, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Beyond My Ken that in future they should not take matters into their own hands so quickly. In this instance they have unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking.
Finally, you wrote "It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert after I told him I was an admin." For the record your posting was made at 11:12, mine at 11:13. I had not read your posting stating that you were an Admin before I posted. Had I realised that, I would have changed track immediately. In practice, the one minute difference between posting times can mean anything between 1 second (1st posting at 11:12:59, 2nd posting at 11:13:00) and 119 seconds (1st posting at 11:12:00, 2nd posting at 11:13:59). Therefore, this was a case of "letters crossing in the post". Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only; the block expired days ago yet this request is still showing at WP:RFU. Jezebel'sPonyo 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- It doesn't really matter - your behaviour at ANI, as well as your comment that "Had I realised that , I would have changed track immediately", implies that you would have continued to edit war with non-admins. GiantSnowman 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, "the person reverting me was not an admin" does not appear to be one of the valid exemptions from being blocked for edit-warring. Is it a new addition that I am previously unaware of? ES&L 11:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to investigate the WP:CANVASS complaint? Martinvl (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- We would be more than happy to do so once you present some evidence. GiantSnowman 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please visit Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defence by Martinvl.. The evidence is all there. By the way, this is the section that User:NE Ent, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Beyond My Ken were trying to archive. Martinvl (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- They didn't try to archive it - they did - and rightly so. It was not an attempt to censor you; it was done because comment such as "if anybody else posts here, I will delete their posts" were entirely innappropriate. And none of these diffs - 1, 2, 3 count as canvassing - in actual fact notifying people about ANI discussion they are involved in is a requirement. GiantSnowman 13:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let's look at the canvassing issue first - that has been open for nearly a day, the other issues for an hour or so. Martinvl (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've already looked at the "canvassing issue" - there wasn't any. Next. GiantSnowman 13:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- So the fact that Wee Curry Monster informed some people connected with the accusation and not others is not canvassing? Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification has the text "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).". If Wee Curry Monster's actions were not canvassing, what were they? Martinvl (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- For the third time, no. Firstly, giving anyone a neutral message about anything is not canvassing - he did not say "hey, come help me get Martinvl in trouble!" or similar. Secondly, ANI requires notifications to be given to interested parties. GiantSnowman 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- May I draw to your attention extracts from WP:CANVASS:
- Appropriate notification is defined as "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... ". The definition merely states "drawing attention to".
- The definition of Inappropriate Canvassing includes "Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages". Again this definition makes no mention as to the content of the message.
- In short, it is the existence of a message that constitutes canvassing, not the contents. I ask you to please revisit my request. Martinvl (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- May I draw to your attention extracts from WP:CANVASS:
- For the third time, no. Firstly, giving anyone a neutral message about anything is not canvassing - he did not say "hey, come help me get Martinvl in trouble!" or similar. Secondly, ANI requires notifications to be given to interested parties. GiantSnowman 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- So the fact that Wee Curry Monster informed some people connected with the accusation and not others is not canvassing? Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification has the text "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).". If Wee Curry Monster's actions were not canvassing, what were they? Martinvl (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've already looked at the "canvassing issue" - there wasn't any. Next. GiantSnowman 13:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let's look at the canvassing issue first - that has been open for nearly a day, the other issues for an hour or so. Martinvl (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- They didn't try to archive it - they did - and rightly so. It was not an attempt to censor you; it was done because comment such as "if anybody else posts here, I will delete their posts" were entirely innappropriate. And none of these diffs - 1, 2, 3 count as canvassing - in actual fact notifying people about ANI discussion they are involved in is a requirement. GiantSnowman 13:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please visit Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defence by Martinvl.. The evidence is all there. By the way, this is the section that User:NE Ent, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Beyond My Ken were trying to archive. Martinvl (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- We would be more than happy to do so once you present some evidence. GiantSnowman 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Look, there is a giant red notice at the top of ANI which says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" and provides a template to use - {{ANI-notice}} - which is in fact the exact same template WCM has used. That notice applies to anybody and everybody who is mentioned or interested or involved in the situation. Please just let this go. GiantSnowman 15:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Test for User:GiantSnowman. Martinvl (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did you see the red number next to your username increment when I posted the above test message. If you look at the postings that I made, you will see quite clearly that I spelt Wee Curry Monster's name out in full and that as a result the number popped up on his screen when he next logged onto Misplaced Pages. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I received a notification - and everyone else will have as well. FYI, pinging editors while you are blocked is generally frowned upon, as it can get quite annoying. GiantSnowman 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Who else would have received a notification? Martinvl (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone whose user name you have linked to here i.e. Wee Curry Monster, NE Ent, EatsShootsAndLeaves and Beyond My Ken. GiantSnowman 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at the message that I posted (here) every name in the diff box will be notified - ie just GiantSnowman. If I am incorrect in my analysis, will you please explain the algorithm by editors are selected for notification. Martinvl (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- But you have linked to the users I mentioned, see your edit here. GiantSnowman 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at the message that I posted (here) every name in the diff box will be notified - ie just GiantSnowman. If I am incorrect in my analysis, will you please explain the algorithm by editors are selected for notification. Martinvl (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone whose user name you have linked to here i.e. Wee Curry Monster, NE Ent, EatsShootsAndLeaves and Beyond My Ken. GiantSnowman 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Who else would have received a notification? Martinvl (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I received a notification - and everyone else will have as well. FYI, pinging editors while you are blocked is generally frowned upon, as it can get quite annoying. GiantSnowman 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did you see the red number next to your username increment when I posted the above test message. If you look at the postings that I made, you will see quite clearly that I spelt Wee Curry Monster's name out in full and that as a result the number popped up on his screen when he next logged onto Misplaced Pages. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
... and so I linked to Wee Curry Monster when I requested that he inform all users, thereby satisfying the demand that he was notified that I had lodged the complaint. Now that we have established that the complaint was properly made, will you please investigate it? Martinvl (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Linking to the user, thus activating the Echo function is NOT equivalent to using the {{ANI-notice}} template on their page. It is held to NOT be the proper way to notify a user, and the top of ANI is quite clear on the method you must use to notify someone ES&L 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- @User:EatsShootsAndLeaves - Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Since I am unable to contact Wee Curry Mon ster directly, will you please do so on my behalf? The reference is here. Martinvl (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure I will...wait, what? In your unblock request, you're accusing me and others of "unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking" ... have you even READ WP:GAB? Have you ever actually understood the concept of "community"? Have you even read WP:NOTTHEM? Your block is about YOUR behaviour - with was pathetic. It should not have taken 1 editor (who might as well be an admin) and 2 admins to tell you to stop screwing around on ANI or else you'd be blocked in order to ACTUALLY get blocked. Edit-warring is NEVER permitted, and you know better than than. You need to address your ridiculous activity in the unblock, or it's on the fast-track to being declined. Some degree of competence is required to edit this project, and your ability to read the clear instructions and warnings ARE signs of competence ES&L 23:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- @User:EatsShootsAndLeaves - Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Since I am unable to contact Wee Curry Mon ster directly, will you please do so on my behalf? The reference is here. Martinvl (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have read WP:GAB. I have also read Natural justice. Natural justice applies to any civilised society that maintains the right to investigate misconduct by its members, be it a nation state, a club, an employer or Misplaced Pages. There are two tenants to natural justice:
- An impatial arbiter Nemo iudex in causa sua.
- The right to be heard Audi alteram partem.
Misplaced Pages has two type of tribunal where conduct of its members are investigated - the WP:ARBCOM process and the WP:ANI process. By and large, natural justice is applied in the WP:ARBCOM process, but the total lack of structure in the WP:ANI process which jeopardises the right to be heard means that natural justice cannot be guaranteed in the WP:ANI process. If you look at item 28 on this this ANI page you will see a babble in which it is impossible for the accused (ie me) to be heard in what was rapidly degenerating into mob rule. No reasonable person could, in the cold light of day, assert that I could defend myself in that situation. If the ANI system is be observe the principals of natural justice, then the accused must have the right to be heard above what in this case, had become a mob.
How then can the accused be assured that his defence is heard? Must one rely on an Administrator wading through the a wall of text. That is not a satisfactory solution, which is why I constructed the solution to which certain people objected. Those people who objected to me making myself heard above the mob were if fact exhibiting the worst traits of mob behaviour. I recognise that you might have been trying to act to present disruption on the ANI page and in the heat of the moment, maybe you (and User:GiantSnowman are excused for have taking, what with hindsight was to deprive me of a fundamental right. However, in the cold light of day it is incumbent to look at the bigger picture and in this case, while blindly applying the rules of edit warring gave the appearance of establishing order, you were in fact giving in to the mob and denying me natural justice . In light of this I ask you (or User:GiantSnowman (yes, I am pinging him because he was the administrator who blocked me) to:
- Acknowledge that in this particular case, the ANI process had degenerated into mob rule
- Agree to take what reasonable steps are necessary to restore confidence in the ANI process (which includes revoking the block that was imposed on me).
Finally, if you have not studied politics or law or are unfamiliar with the legal principles on which natural justice are based, then may I suggest that you seek an opinion from somebody who has a legal background . Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're not even attempting to address the reason for your block. Misplaced Pages does NOT have a formal justice system - we have WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody here needs to understand anything about Natural law - YOU need to understand that edit-warring is never permitted, and it was your edit-warring - on an admin noticeboard of all places - that led to your block. No - you do NOT get to create your own format on a noticeboard, that would be granting you additional privileges that nobody else on the project has, and violates the equal community nature of the project. So, talk about natural justice, YOU were trying to be elite - and that doesn't fly. Maybe "mob rule" does equal WP:CONSENSUS ... but hey, you AGREED to that when you signed up. You also agreed to follow the community processes. You don't get to weasel out of them when you suddenly think things are not going your way ES&L 09:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
So now we are a "mob"? Martinvl, everyone else including myself has had to put up with a wall of text when defending ourselves, it's part and package of Misplaced Pages. Mabuska 11:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- @EatsShootsAndLeaves
- The Concise English Dictionary describes "Justice" as "exercise of authority in the maintenance of right". That make administrators, ANI and Arbcom part of the Misplaced Pages justice system. Will you now please read the principles of Natural justice and try to implement it in your actions as an administrator. In particular, what did you do when I was a trying to exercise my right as the accused to have a fair hearing. You assists the mob in silencing me. At the time you might have had to act without knowing all the facts. Now that I have explained the facts to you , please undo the actions taken against me. Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ensuring that you AND EVERYONE have access to the same style of "hearing" on ANI means that every single editor uses the same format. Legalese and wikilawyering is not permitted - not here on this talkpage, nor on ANI. It's not a court of law, or justice. Indeed, blocks are preventative not punitive. ANI is intentionally NOT a court, nor does it accept evidence in "protected" formats - it's not intended to mete out justice. So, stop acting all amateur-lawyerish and address YOUR BEHAVIOUR...the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is becoming deafening...you agreed to the processes in place when you signed up to this private website, and if you don't like those processes, it's easy enough to stop editing here ES&L 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a privately owned website subject to US law, so Natural justice does not apply. No justice applies. The info page tells us ANI has been around since 2003 and has seven hundred thousand edits to it, expecting an established culture to change its practices to meet your personal preferences is unrealistically egocentric. NE Ent 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that you look here where it says ...the California Corporations Code (ss. 5341 and 7341) provides that, except in the case of a religious corporation, any disciplinary action undertaken by a corporation must be done "in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner". Is Misplaced Pages a "corporation" under Californian Law? Unless you are a specialist in Californian Law, I suggest that you don't try and make it up as you go along. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. Misplaced Pages is not a corporation under California Law. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that you look here where it says ...the California Corporations Code (ss. 5341 and 7341) provides that, except in the case of a religious corporation, any disciplinary action undertaken by a corporation must be done "in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner". Is Misplaced Pages a "corporation" under Californian Law? Unless you are a specialist in Californian Law, I suggest that you don't try and make it up as you go along. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting more absurd by the second. RGloucester — ☎ 19:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- May I request that some administrator, preferably the one who issued the block, fix the unblock request? The template is broken, for some reason. It makes it hard to read for archival records. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not broken - someone simply <nowiki>ed it. I have fixed it.GiantSnowman 20:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- May I request that some administrator, preferably the one who issued the block, fix the unblock request? The template is broken, for some reason. It makes it hard to read for archival records. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
User notification re Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
Hi Martinvl. Sorry about your block. I am notifying you as an editor who has participated in previous discussions on this topic. We now have multiple reliable sources for the descent of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV. However, Virgosky has added sourced information which appears to contradict the finding (a typographical error according to Patrick Cracroft-Brennan) and repeatedly removes a sourced retraction of the same information which I subsequently added. The edit warring continues which is futile and harmful to Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate your help building consensus on the talk page in order to resolve the dispute. HelenOnline 09:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Helen,
Thank you for your note. My block should have expired an hour after you posted. I will certainly try to follow this up. We are of course bedeviled by the BLP clause - does it really apply when there the actual events are so far removed from the Duchess. Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Martinvl. As DrKiernan pointed out, the sources in question are not about Catherine per se so WP:BLPSPS does not apply to them (not saying the sources are SPS though, just that that particular rule does not apply). HelenOnline 11:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- One useful indocator as to what constitutes privacy regarding living people is that British census data is made public after 100 years - obviously a few people who were on the census are still alive, but the British Government has obviously deemed that anything that is 100 years old is no longer an invasion of privacy. In other cases, such as The Kings Speech were only made into films after all the major character (especially the Queen Mother) had died. Martinvl (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting thanks. Note that the discussion is now at Talk:Family_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Discussion_on_ancestry. HelenOnline 12:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Archive
Martinvl, please archive your talk page, it's becoming too large for convenient browsing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I have been meaning to do it for some time, but kept on putting it off. Martinvl (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Topic Ban
I have determined that a consensus exists to topic ban you from all articles, talk pages, and any namespace page related to measurements. Appeals may be made to the administrator's noticeboard or Arbcom but otherwise any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths. The only exception being explicit source quotations in article-space.--v/r - TP 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I saw your notice.
I request an immediate relaxation in respect of the articles History of the metric system and International System of Units, both of which are currently being reviewed as WP:Good Articles.
I also request an immediate relaxation in respect of an SPA that I am about to place on another user.
Thank you.
Martinvl (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reformatted --v/r - TP 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will consider the request for relaxation for the purposes of the GA review once I've reviewed the area to determine whether the dispute has crossed over there or not. If it has, I'm likely going to say no. If it has not, I'll allow you to finish the GA process on those two articles only. I'll let you know later today. I'm unable to relax the topic ban with respect to this other user, however.--v/r - TP 17:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've reviewed both pages and I don't see recent overlap with the specific dispute that led to your topic ban. I'll allow you to finish the GA reviews provided that no disputes erupt on those pages with other editors, you remain civil, no wiki lawyering, and that they are wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time. Please limit your interactions to the GA reviewer unless a direct question is asked of you. If a dispute erupts on these pages during the GA review, I will rescind this exception prior to any block. I am also copying this to your talk page for easier retrieval from other sysops.--v/r - TP 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've reviewed both pages and I don't see recent overlap with the specific dispute that led to your topic ban. I'll allow you to finish the GA reviews provided that no disputes erupt on those pages with other editors, you remain civil, no wiki lawyering, and that they are wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time. Please limit your interactions to the GA reviewer unless a direct question is asked of you. If a dispute erupts on these pages during the GA review, I will rescind this exception prior to any block. I am also copying this to your talk page for easier retrieval from other sysops.--v/r - TP 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will consider the request for relaxation for the purposes of the GA review once I've reviewed the area to determine whether the dispute has crossed over there or not. If it has, I'm likely going to say no. If it has not, I'll allow you to finish the GA process on those two articles only. I'll let you know later today. I'm unable to relax the topic ban with respect to this other user, however.--v/r - TP 17:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- User:Drmies, just for clarification, can you provide diffs of the disruptive edits please? I imagine it's as a result of the topic ban noted above, but your blocking notice isn't clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am flabbergasted. I received a topic ban due in part to my ignorance of a particular Misplaced Pages policy which can be traced to cultural differences between United States tradition and British tradition. These differences are enumerated in WP:NOJUSTICE. I acknowledged these faults and asked for mitigation, but instead the ban was increased from a topic ban to a total ban. I acknowledge that I repeated an appeal within 24 hour of the last appeal having been turned down, but it was in that period that I learnt about that particular policy – my ignorance of it having been the central plank in the stance that I was taking concerning procedural matters. I strongly protest the increased ban, especially as the original request from User:Wee Curry Monster was serviced by User:TParis and User:Drmies has not cited any action that has not already been addressed by User:TParis. My Misplaced Pages-related actions, since the rejection of my original appeal were: *Sorting out a red link at Falkland Islands *Removing spam from International Bank Account Number *Assisting at this Misplaced Pages educational event. I do not believe that these actions constitute disruptive action. I request further information from User:Drmies and if this is not forthcoming, I request that the additional restriction placed on me by User:Drmies be removed in total.
Decline reason:
You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked seven numerous times, and you are now claiming "cultural differences" as the reason you seem unable to comprehend your topic ban? You are hardly the first to try and play that card to try and win sympathy when blocked. It rarely works and it isn't going to cut in this case. You show no recognition whatsoever that your problems were caused by your own actions and not others. I think the standard offer is your best path to being unblocked at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Martin, do me a favour and slow down. I've re-opened the thread at AN, I've asked User:Drmies the precise "disruptive edit(s)" for which you've been indef blocked, staying cool right now is something you need to do... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, it follows the two threads still up at WP:AN. It is deemed disruptive by a clear consensus of editors that the persistent requests for removal of the topic ban only recently instated is not just disruptive in its own right, but that they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the editor to realize what the problem with their edits is. Undoing this block can be done after what seems to me a relatively easy admission on the editor's part: that their edits leading to the topic ban (hashed out at length in Misplaced Pages:Ani#User:Martinvl_and_long_term_disruption_of_WT:MOSNUM, closed only a few days ago) were indeed deemed disruptive, and that asking for relaxation of the topic ban is untimely especially if recognition is lacking. In Misplaced Pages:AN#Topic_ban_appeal_by_Martinvl, for instance, the closer, The Bushranger, clearly warned of the boomerang, which the editor could have expected when launching Misplaced Pages:AN#Topic_Appeal_Ban_.282.29_by_Martinvl. In that first AN thread, the accusations leveled at Wee Curry Monster are an indication of WP:NOTTHEM, as is the (aborted?) section "Misrepresentation of fact by other editors": please note the responses by Cullen328, Nilfanion, and Guy Macon, which show exasperation with what is considered wikilawyering.
Rambling Man, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin, and I saw your AN comment: as I said, I have no objection to an unblock (accompanied by a 1RR restriction, for instance?), but it should probably come with an assurance that the behavior (not just in the measurement business) will cease. I (personally) will not stand in the way of an unblock, but I'm sure you realize that there's a crowd of people at AN who feel strongly about this issue, and I am quite confident that I acted on consensus. You don't need my advice, follow your own judgment; and if more editors like chime in with you and Garamond Lethe you will be strengthened in that judgment.
One more thing: I do not accept that the appeal to only-just acquired knowledge of Misplaced Pages:There is no justice (which is not a policy, of course) is a reason to just forget the disruption ever happened, especially since it suggests that the editor didn't read the long, long ANI thread that led to the topic ban. The responses following the editor's unblock request of 18 October speak clearly to the disruption as well--and, at any rate, a longtime editor can be expected to be aware of the need for consensus. NOTJUSTICE, or lack of knowledge of that essay, has no bearing on that matter; it simply points at a (perceived) behavioral aspect. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay Drmies, thanks for that, I appreciate the time you've taken to fill me in. I'm hoping that Martin will also gain an understanding, on this specific occasion, as to how to become unblocked and how to stay unblocked. I'm not advocating anyone's behaviour (or misbehaviour), I'm just double checking we've ensured that all parties know exactly what's going on and why. Once again, thanks for your time. Martin, perhaps some advice here to digest and follow, if not then let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I should correct myself on the 1R remark: that's a proposal by Garamond Lethe for relaxing the topic ban and should have no bearing on the unblock. My apologies for conflating the two. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay Drmies, thanks for that, I appreciate the time you've taken to fill me in. I'm hoping that Martin will also gain an understanding, on this specific occasion, as to how to become unblocked and how to stay unblocked. I'm not advocating anyone's behaviour (or misbehaviour), I'm just double checking we've ensured that all parties know exactly what's going on and why. Once again, thanks for your time. Martin, perhaps some advice here to digest and follow, if not then let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Will Beeblebrox please list the seven times that I have been blocked? An analysis of this page shows six entries, two of which are irrelevant - they were a block issued at 19:10 for edit-warring which was revoked 30 minutes later when it was realised that the other party was a sock-puppet. Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever. If it makes you feel better we'll just call it "numerous" times. The exact number is hardly the point. You're not going to wiki-lawyer your way out of this on a technicality, that's another thing that makes this different than a court of law. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Beeblebrox - You obviously did not get it. You should not have counted these two entries:
- 09:40, 21 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) unblocked Martinvl (talk | contribs) (discussion at ANI; was edit warring with a sock)
- 09:12, 21 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Martinvl (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring)
- What else did you skim-read? Martinvl (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Beeblebrox - You obviously did not get it. You should not have counted these two entries:
- tell you what I will do for you, I will re-post my last two remarks with emphasis added on the most important parts, hopefully that will clarify what my point was.
- You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked
sevennumerous times, and you are now claiming "cultural differences" as the reason you seem unable to comprehend your topic ban? You are hardly the first to try and play that card to try and win sympathy when blocked. It rarely works and it isn't going to cut in this case. You show no recognition whatsoever that your problems were caused by your own actions and not others. I think the standard offer is your best path to being unblocked at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}} - Whatever. If it makes you feel better we'll just call it "numerous" times. The exact number is hardly the point. You're not going to wiki-lawyer your way out of this on a technicality, that's another thing that makes this different than a court of law. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked
- I sincerely hope this helps you to see what is most important in these two comments and you will be able to post a new unblock request which shows some understanding of these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of History of the metric system
The article History of the metric system you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of the metric system for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pyrotec -- Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above statement is incorrect, it passed. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work! Garamond Lethet
c 21:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC) - Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, and especially to User:Pyrotec who set a high but fair standard. Wikiproject Measurement has become a Cinderella project which makes it difficult to get people to review articles. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work! Garamond Lethet
- I going to continue reviewing (well more precisely start reviewing) your nomination International System of Units, but it looks like you can't contribute. A shame. Objections are now appearing at Talk:History of the metric system. Pyrotec (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that; I've added both to my watchlist, but you look like you have things well in hand. Garamond Lethet
c 01:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
About Reversion of 28 October 2013 International_Bank_Account_Number
Hello Martinvl,
About Reversion of 28 October 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:International_Bank_Account_Number, We have removed the whois privacy and added a privacy policy page which describes our non-logging policy for data sent through our website. The website www.reverseiban.com is an open source project designed to provide easy way of validating and reverse-lookup of IBANs.
No information is logged in our website and it is entirely free to use. In the process of gathering verification algorithms and reverse IBAN information for our website, we found out many details which are not widely available on the internet. For example Ukraine does not have a publicly available record for accurate IBAN validation since the country itself has not joined the IBAN standard. Ukraine however has four banks which issue IBAN numbers and we developed the validation algorithm and reverse information for all Ukrainian banks. We will also be happy to contribute to Misplaced Pages and update many of the IBAN related pages in wikipedia ( Similar to the Ukraine example ) .
I hope you can reconsider your reversal of our publication since we had not intent of commercial advertising for our website, but rather sharing a useful and unique technique of understanding IBAN structuring.
Kind Regards, Andrew & Stan www.reverseiban.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.55.23 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew & Stan,
- My reasons for reverting your changes are detailed on the article talk page. That reasoning stands. Will you please address any correspondence regarding that article to the article talk page and not to me personally. Martinvl (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- May I suggest that the above parties should read WP:SOAP. It is generally not viewed positively for anyone involved with an organisation to edit pertaining to that organisation, especially if the edits appear promotional. Furthermore, I'd like to point to WP:NOSHARE. It is considered wrong for multiple people to edit under the same identity, even with regards to an IP address. RGloucester — ☎ 16:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Credibility gap (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl/Archive
- Confirmed — You've been cleared at SPI, as I thought you'd be. It seems EzEdit is certainly DeFacto, so you were right about that. Just thought I'd just give you notice, as I think you deserve it. The SPI for EzEdit is here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- What's this about me being DeFacto? EzEdit (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- If I may ask, what exactly happened that caused DeFacto to become an incessant menace to you? He seems to have been doing this for years, targeting you specifically, and it really makes very little sense. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not speaking for Martin (really!), but that's probably a question best asked and answered offline. Cataloging the frailties of other editors in public rarely places the cataloger in a good light. Garamond Lethet
c 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)- @RGloucester,
- Hi, Thank you for your interest in the origin of the clash between DeFacto and myself. As suggested by Garamond Lethe, drop me an e-mail outlining exactly what you would like to know and I will reply.
- Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not speaking for Martin (really!), but that's probably a question best asked and answered offline. Cataloging the frailties of other editors in public rarely places the cataloger in a good light. Garamond Lethet
- If I may ask, what exactly happened that caused DeFacto to become an incessant menace to you? He seems to have been doing this for years, targeting you specifically, and it really makes very little sense. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all, let me apologise for forgetting the courtesy notice for the SPI check. That was really inexcusable of me. Secondly, I would hope you would realise that I didn't believe there was anything to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- They've both been blocked. See the SPI. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martin, you are not banned: you are blocked. Huge difference. I outlined, above, what an admin would probably want to consider in an unblock request. Note that this is not the same as an appeal, which probably refers to a ban. You are blocked for violating your topic ban; you aren't banned. If I were you I'd look back at that ANI discussion to see what other editors probably expect. Thank you, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi User:Drmies
- Thank you for your note.
- Will you please reconsider the "topic ban" allegation. The allegation that I breached the ban was probably made in respect of the SPA posting that I made at 17:37 on 25 October 2013 (now deleted). The policy WP:BANEX allows discussions regarding the topic in respect of appeals discussing the ban itself. Since Wee Curry Monsters posting timed at 17:00 on 25 October 2013 (now deleted) citing edit-warring between EzEdit and myself was the immediate trigger to my topic ban, it was highly appropriate that my views about EzEdit being a SPA be a significant part of any discussion process regarding such a ban. I request that you take this into account and review my block. EzEdit's pedigree as a sockpuppet and my associated interaction can be seen in context at DeFacto's sockpuppet record. Martinvl (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Correction: blocked for disruptive editing. Plenty of detail above. Your block is obviously to be reviewed by someone who is not me. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the two of you are talking past each other. Martin, I'll take stab at translating offline. Garamond Lethet
c 22:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the two of you are talking past each other. Martin, I'll take stab at translating offline. Garamond Lethet
- Correction: blocked for disruptive editing. Plenty of detail above. Your block is obviously to be reviewed by someone who is not me. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Falkland Islands award
This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Falkland Islands to Good Article status. |
Hi Martin. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. Congratulations.
--MarshalN20 | 03:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Question for administrator
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Will an administrator please demand an explanation of violations of WP:BLP by User:Mabuska:
- Mabuska wrote "The fact they ... continued lying ...". I object to the word "lying".
- Mabuska wrote "They haven't even apologised for their false accusations ...". I object to the term "false accusations".
--Martinvl (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Neither are WP:BLP violations. You also cannot be serious that you want to address something that was said on October 28? I will advise them to ensure they keep the rhetoric down in the future, but otherwise there is no action needed here ES&L 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I beg to differ and I request that since you have taken this issue up, that you ask Mabuska to justify himself. Martinvl (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- How do you beg to differ? Do you believe this is actually a WP:BLP issue? If so, how. Do you believe that anyone needs to ask him to justify comments from 2 weeks ago? Do you believe this is actually a beneficial use of your or anyone's time? Do you not feel the notification I left on his page was sufficient? ES&L 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I will await Mabuska's answer. And yes, I do believe it appropriate to demand an answer from him. Martinvl (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't answer all the questions - especially the WP:BLP part. He was not requested to respond; he was requested to refrain from rhetoric in the future. As we do not do punishment, we do prevention ... and we also do not beat dead horses, that should be more than enough. You also may not "demand an answer" from anyone - not even ArbComm can "demand an answer" - so again, refrain in the future is the best we can do, and then respond accordingly if that does not occur ES&L 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I will await Mabuska's answer. And yes, I do believe it appropriate to demand an answer from him. Martinvl (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- @EatsShootsAndLeaves: The "In a nutshell" banner on the WP:BLP page states "Material about living persons added to any Misplaced Pages page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". I am a living person. That is sufficient for the policy to apply.
- I will remove my demands, but I now formally request that the statements by Mabuska be removed from Wikipeida immediately. Martinvl (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- The best way forward for you, Martin, is to cool off for a while and come back with clear head, appeal the block and make it clear that you understand why you were blocked. As was said before, contesting the block on procedural matters is not likely to come of anything. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- @EatsShootsAndLeaves: Please stop making up the rules as you go along. The word "identifiable" does not appear anywhere on the page WP:BLP. Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not making it up. The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors. NPA is the only policy that therefore applies, and based on community-sanctioned remedies based on the severity and nature of the "potential" NPA, this situation has been appropriately dealt with. If you want to be a wikilaywer, fill your boots - it doesn't change the fact that another editor's comments about you are not nor will they be subject to BLP. ES&L 18:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please justify your statement "The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors". I can see nothing about it on the WEP:BLP page. Martinvl (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- FFS, you cannot simply pull things out of policies to suit your needs. The policy clearly states "this policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article" - you are not identifialy mentioned in any biography of a living person. I was trying to put the wording into English that you might actually understand, but apparently failed. Your wikilawyering is simply porving that your block IS protective in nature - well done ES&L 21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please justify your statement "The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors". I can see nothing about it on the WEP:BLP page. Martinvl (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not making it up. The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors. NPA is the only policy that therefore applies, and based on community-sanctioned remedies based on the severity and nature of the "potential" NPA, this situation has been appropriately dealt with. If you want to be a wikilaywer, fill your boots - it doesn't change the fact that another editor's comments about you are not nor will they be subject to BLP. ES&L 18:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- @EatsShootsAndLeaves: Please stop making up the rules as you go along. The word "identifiable" does not appear anywhere on the page WP:BLP. Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Compare these two comments by Martinvl: this and this. So where did I imply DDStretch was a hypocrite? And despite your denials about it, DDStretch saw your comment as a personal attack.
The fact you use the word "accusing" towards me and the fact you lied about me implying DDStetch was a hypocrite, means that you made a "false accusation" in the clearest meaning of the term and means that you lied. Oh yes and I suppossedly "twisted" what DDStretch said which was also a lie.
Object to my choice of words if you wish, they have basis, and basis backed by undeniable evidence. Mabuska 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Mabuska, your explanation does not hold water and I refuse to accept your explanation. I am not going to waste my time arguing with you because given the way that Misplaced Pages works, it will accomplish nothing. Martinvl (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martin, nobody gives a shit whether you accept it or not. He was in no way required to provide one, yet he did. Your refusal to accept it is your problem and nobody else's. Now, drop the stick if you have any intention of returning to this project as an editor ES&L 15:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@Martinvl : Your implication that I somehow saw a comment *you* claim was made by Mabuska as a personal attack on me from him is a gross distortion of the facts. You have done this before to others. If you continue like this I will ask an uninvolved admin to see if there are sufficient grounds for blocking you from your own talk page. DDStretch (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, folks, that's enough
Everything that's needed to be said has been said, and a fair bit more besides. We have an encyclopedia to edit. Let's get back to work. Garamond Lethet
c 02:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Reporting obvious errors
I spotted a non-contentious change that was made about 30 hours ago that needs reverting. How best should I go about ensuring that this is done without breaking my block? Martinvl (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- You cannot. Being blocked means you are not permitted to edit. The only reason you have access to this talkpage is to formulate unblock requests, and respond to concerns from your fellow editors. Editing by proxy could still be considered to be editing. Although not recommended, if you have a "friendly" fellow editor who currently edits in that article, you could advise them by e-mail. Don't e-mail someone who has never edited it ES&L 12:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Martin, I agree with ES&L. Please don't do anything that might endanger the chances for success of a future unblock request. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
International System of Units GA
Nice work.
Garamond Lethet
c 01:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Suppressed content
I am reviewing past events and have found that the details of the topic ban handed to me has been suppressed. Can someone please explain why this has happened? Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The detail is still in the archive, certain personal information was redacted at ANI and those diffs also contrained that information. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have checked the ANI history file - the edits that were shown as suppressed are no longer in the history file, but the following edits that I made are not there either, even though they exist in the appropriate archive:
- 16:36, 17 October 2013
- 17:16, 25 October 2013
- It is very difficult for me to prepare an appeal if I cannot supply diffs to enable Arbcom members to find the actual text.
- Martinvl (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- ArbCom can view the diff's. You simply need to provide the diff and/or the date/time. ES&L 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have checked the ANI history file - the edits that were shown as suppressed are no longer in the history file, but the following edits that I made are not there either, even though they exist in the appropriate archive:
- Martin, I am not going to edit on your behalf. If you like you can post things here on this talk page and see if the community a. lets them stand and b. is willing to act on them. If you wish to have Misplaced Pages edited, you should file an unblock request so you can do it yourself. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
British Weights and Measures Association
Martin, I received your email regarding Michael Barry / Michael Bukht - thank you. It makes sense that he would be the person referenced in the article, but the BWMA journal you quoted doesn't appear to mark his passing, and I can't quite connect the person to the organization. Is there anything else that can make the connection, or can you point out what I am missing? Thanks again.....PKT(alk) 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi PKT
- Just to double-check please visit the August 2013 Issue of the Yardstick. The current patron are listed on page 1 and the deceased patrons at the bottom of page 8. Michael Bukht was certainly awarded an OBE which shows up in the BWMA journal. It also confusingly shows him with a CBE, but if we go back to the November 2012issue, we see him listed as being alive with just an OBE. Since he died in August 2011, I must assume that the editor of the journal was being sloppy in keeping his list of patrons up to date. Martinvl (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Indefinite block and topic ban appeals
AppealsI wish to appeal the following sanctions against me:
- An indefinite block imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing.
- A one year topic ban imposed by User:TParis on 25 October 2013. This ban was imposed in response to an WP:ANI posted by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM). In particular, I would like this ban to be reassessed in light of new evidence.
Indefinite block appeal
When WCM canvassed support for an ANI that he published requesting that I be banned from any and all discussions relating to WP:MOSNUM, I responded in an unorthodox way. My actions were misinterpreted and when I tried to explain myself, I used language that was again misinterpreted.
As Misplaced Pages currently stands, the only policy in existence that expressly targets canvassing is the banning of an editor who persists in such activity – Misplaced Pages policy does not offer a formal method redress to undo the harm caused by a single episode of canvassing. It should be noted however that the essay WP:False consensus proposes a method of redress. At the time I was unaware of this essay, otherwise I would have quoted it.
My intention was to get the ANI annulled without necessarily asking for sanctions against WCM. In order to ensure that my request for annulment of the ANI was seen, I tried to emulate the structure used in Arbcom hearings of each participant having their own area. Other editors did not see it that way – User:Beyond my Ken saw it as taking ownership of the ANI. I made the mistake of losing my cool and reverting User:Beyond My Ken's changes. Looking back at the episode, I can see that I made a number of errors:
- I used an unorthodox approach to counter WCM's canvassing – I should have followed the principal of Least Surprise and used the approach outlined in WP:CANVASS, even if it meant me being more heavy-handed than I would have liked.
- When my approach was challenged I should have used standard Misplaced Pages jargon and observed the principal of WP:NPLT. In particular I should have used the term WP:False consensus rather than Natural Justice. I should have realised that a number of editors (including administrators) shout WP:NLT the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified.
- I should have planned my approach to countering the canvassing around the principal of WP:OBVIOUS. This will ensure that everybody understands exactly what I was trying to prove and will save me getting stressed when they do not see what appear to me to be obvious. This means, amongst other things not responding immediately, but to take a deep breath and ask myself "Who has mis-interpreted the situation and how can I ensure that they do not again mis-interpret it?"
- Even when I have been badly wronged I need to keep my cool.
Topic ban appeal
Topic ban listed on WP:Editing restrictions.
Unlike the indefinite block for which I accept responsibility, I believe that the principal force behind the topic ban was a WP:DEPE campaign on the part on the part of WCM to silence me before launching the RFC. When he first published the ANI he asked that "a community sanction be considered banning User:Martinvl from any and all discussions related to WP:MOSNUM." Incidents that led me to believe that this was a malicious request include:
- Three days after the topic ban and a few hours after the indefinite block were put into place, WCM published an RFC requesting views on changes to WP:MOSNUM in respect of units of measure in articles related to the United Kingdom The speed with which he published his RFC suggest that the ANI was part of a campaign by WCM rather than an isolated incident.
- Within minutes of posting the ANI, WCM engaged in a campaign of improper canvassing for support of his ANI, an action which WP:Canvassing describes as "disruptive behavior". My complaints about this particular action have been discussed earlier. Although I have been advised to WP:DROPTHESTICK in respect of this action, I believe that WCM's other actions warrant revisiting this particular action.
- Two week before placing the ANI, WCM changed the order of units of measure in the article United Kingdom. Since a discussion about the use of imperial/metric units of measure within UK-related articles was in progress at the time I believe these changes to be an act of deliberate provocation.
- A month before placing the ANI, WCM had supported a motion by User:Kahastok's move to get me topic-banned - here and here. The result of User:Kahastok's ANI was the withdrawal of the original text of WP:FALKLANDUNITS. WCM had previously used WP:BULLYING tactics to support User:Kahastok's original text. I believe that the failure of User:Kahastok's ANI led to WCM taking matters into his own hands.
- When the ANI discussion appeared to be petering out, he resurrected discussion by misrepresenting my battle with a sock-puppet as edit warring. I was in fact gathering evidence for a second WP:SPI against User:EzEdit, an earlier attempt dated 31 July 2013 failed on grounds of being inconclusive. The tone of urgency in his posting triggered User:TParis into serving a topic ban 16 minutes later. Comments made by WCM four months later suggest that he should have suspected that User:EzEdit was a sockpuppet of the banned user User:DeFacto. The speed with which User:TParis reacted prevented me from filing the WP:SPI that I was preparing, making the topic ban, from this point of view, a "Blue on blue" incident.
In his appeal for the lifting of an unrelated topic ban, WCM admitted to suffering from PTSD as a result of active service with the British Army in the Balkans. This might explain some of his excesses. However the approach taken by certain administrators who dealt with incidents during the early part of the topic ban discussion exasperated rather than resolved the issues. I do not plan to enlarge on these issues or to name the administrators concerned, but rather, should the opportunity arise, work towards reforming the underlying Misplaced Pages procedures.
Mitigating circumstances
I would like a number of mitigating circumstances into be taken into account. I believe these to show me as a valuable member of the Misplaced Pages community.
Wikimedia training
- I have attended the Wikimedia trainers course and have assisted at a number of training events including one on 28 October 2013 - the day that I was served with in indefinite block.
- I have also been invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) signify whether or not I would be interested in at-tending a one day refresher course on training editors.
- I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation.
English Misplaced Pages achievements
Summary of editing historyI have taken four articles to Good Article status in the English Misplaced Pages. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
- History of the metric system (97.3%)
- Proposed redefinition of SI base units (81.6%)
- Metric system (58.8%) (500k+ hits per year)
- International System of Units (47.7%) (500k+ hits per year)
I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
- Imperial and US customary measurement systems (98.6%)
- Introduction to the metric system (82.9%)
- Metrication in the United Kingdom (50.1%)
- International Bank Account Number (30.9%) (1M+ hits per year)
I have been the largest contributor to a number of other articles. My contribution as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
- De Zuid-Afrikaan (98.4%)
- Battle of the Tugela Heights (96.7%)
- Langalibalele (87.8%)
- Charles Rawden Maclean (88.5%)
- Metrication of British transport (88.3%)
- Stephanus Jacobus du Toit (84.1%)
- Christopher Robert Nicholson (77.6%)
- Driver location sign (77.2%)
- International Organization of Legal Metrology (74.3%)
- Metre Convention (72.6%)
- 2012 Olympic Marathon Course (65.5%)
- Nathaniel Isaacs (64%)
- General Conference on Weights and Measures (60.0%)
- Estcourt (56.8%)
- Kilometres per hour (41.5%)
- Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (13.8%)
- Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (6.9%) (1M+ hits per year)
Simple Misplaced Pages
- SIMPLE:International Bank Account Number (99.4%)
- SIMPLE:Baarle (98.7%)
- SIMPLE:Metre Convention (95.4%)
- SIMPLE:Metric system (85.4%)
- SIMPLE:Planck constant (79.0%)
Afrikaans Misplaced Pages
- AF:Drywing (Approx 59% - own calculation)
The article Proposed redefinition of SI base units is likely to attract considerable attention in November this year when these proposals are actually discussed by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM). I am by far the principal contributor to this article.
I tutor 17 and 18-year old students in physics and maths on a one-to-one basis. I often use Misplaced Pages articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked.
Other language Wikipedias
In the last few months I have been active on the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages. Most recently I have been copying weather tables from the Dutch Misplaced Pages to the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages, making translations as needed and, should I see any errors, correcting the Dutch version.
While in the Netherlands, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article Kelvin. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Misplaced Pages. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles.
Future plans
If these sanctions are lifted, my plans are:
- Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the CGPM are reflected in the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old International Prototype Kilogram be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments.
- Bring the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems (a Level 3 Vital Article) to GA status.
- Ensuring that articles that refer to changing standards are kept up to date, in particular those that are affected by supplement to the 8th edition of the SI Brochure (published on 26 June 2014) and changes to the International Bank Account Number as notified from time to time by SWIFT.
- Request the lifting of sanctions on SIMPLE Misplaced Pages. These sanctions were imposed when a DeFacto sockpuppet attacked the article SIMPLE:Metric system while I was trying to get it to GA status. (I was complimented on the initial draft of the article here).
- Get the articles SIMPLE:Planck constant and SIMPLE:Metric system to GA status. It should be noted that no articles on SIMPLE have been granted GA status since 12 July 2013.
- Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality, making any necessary changes myself.
Conclusion
The above shows that the ANI that WCM filed against me which led to a topic ban being placed on me was filed with malice. I acknowledge however that my indefinite block was caused by disruption resulting from an unorthodox defence. I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved. I request that, in line with the WP:Standard Offer that my indefinite block be lifted forthwith.
I have also examined WCM's behaviour, the behaviour of administrators concerned and also the underlying Misplaced Pages processes. I accept that WCM's actions might be attributable to PTSD. I have chosen not to comment on any individual administrator but should I be unblocked, to direct my energies to improving any underlying Misplaced Pages processes. However, in recognition of the impact of WCM's actions on me, I request that the topic ban to be annulled (as it would have been had WP:False consensus been invoked), or if annulment is not possible, for it to be lifted forthwith.
If nothing else, removal of the topic ban will enable me keep the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units up to date in preparation for the CGPM meeting and possible redefinition of the kilogram. in November 2014.
Notes
- ^ Summary of canvassing by Wee Curry Monster
When publishing the ANI, Wee Curry Monster identified three specific articles/talk pages that were of interest. They are catalogued below with then number of edits and distinct editors as they existed at the time the ANI was published (15:14 on 16 October 2013):- Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute - (Section 8) - 54 postings; 8 editors including both WCM and me.
- WT:MOSNUM#Imperial measurements (Section 1) - 326 postings, 25 editors including both WCM and me.
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography#RFC - Clarifying Units of Measure (Section 14) - 1 posting (me)
- No threaded discussions in Arbcom hearings
WP:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Responding to requests: If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. There may be no threaded discussion ... - Improper canvassing is disruptive behaviour
The policy document WP:Canvassing states that canvassing, if done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way ... is generally considered disruptive behavior.
References
- ^ 26th CGPM Notice (18-20 November 2014)
- Notice of indefinite block on EN Misplaced Pages (28 October 2013)
- ^ Notice of topic ban on EN Misplaced Pages (25 October 2013)
- RFC by Wee Curry Monster - Proposals to rewrite WP:MOSNUM on UK units of preference 28 October 2013
- Wee Curry Monster canvassing for support for his ANI
- Wee Curry Monster (Article United Kingdom) - Changing the order of units of measurement - 30 September 2013
- WP:MOSNUM (Talk page) - Discussion on use of Imperial units - opened 3 August 2013, closed 14 November 2013
- WP:BULLYING quote: Some unacceptable uses are ... writing new guidelines that apply specifically to the page, and branding them as "policy."
- The diff for this entry made on 17:00 25 October 2013 has been struck out, but the text is visible towards the end of the ANI in question
- Unsuccessful SPI against User:EzEdit (aka User:DeFacto) posted 31 July 2013
- Wee Curry Monster - Note to Drmies that Martinvl had come up against his nemesis in SIMPLE - 21 March 2014
- Kingston University Women in Science event
- Thermometer calibrated in kelvins
- Archive of DeFacto sockpuppets investigations
Martinvl (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- As an involved party to backing the banning of Martinvl due to his poor behaviour when interacting with editors who didn't agree with him including myself I must say that this statement: "I believe that the principal force behind the topic ban was a WP:DEPE campaign on the part on the part of WCM to silence me before launching the RFC" and then much later on this "I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved." - only reinforces the fact that Martinvl still doesn't seem able in anyway to acknowledge and accept the fact that his behaviour caused the problems and that in the vast majority of the issues that got him banned, that he was the one at fault. Add in the fact that he proposes to work with admins on changing the underlying procedures of Misplaced Pages because they didn't work for him at the start? Same old pass the buck, not his fault.
- In my view Martinvl still hasn't learned anything and I think the block should remain.
- If the indef was to be lifted I;d strongly suggest keeping Martinvl indefinitely banned from editing anything to do with measurements as he most likely do as many others have and end up getting involved intentionally or not in yet another argument that somehow is never his fault.Mabuska 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Martin is continuing to allege canvassing, despite neutral 3rd parties telling him there was none. A neutral template message notified involved members of the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. At his insistence, everyone who simply contributed to the discussion was notified and a neutral message posted at WT:MOSNUM. WP:CANVAS states this is an appropriate notification. Instead of acknowledging his own behaviour lead to his block, he is continuing to pursue a course of blaming everyone else.
- He also suggests that I acted out of malice at WP:ANI, whilst he was preparing an SPI against EzEdit. Perhaps Martin would explain how I should have been aware of it before it was filed? All I knew at the time he was edit warring less than a week after a 3RR block. I became aware of the sockpuppet issue regarding User:DeFacto when User: David Biddulph mentioned it in the WP:ANI thread . His allegations of “deceit” and “malice” because I mention it after his block further demonstrate his inability to assume good faith.
- Further, if you look at his contributions at the Afrikaans wikipedia you find this and this in which he alleges malice and deceit on my part and accuses GiantSnowman, EatsShootsAndLeaves, Drmies and TParis variously of conspiracy, wikilawyering and incompetence. Instead of recognising he was the author of his own misfortune, he accuses Beyond My Ken of being in the wrong for "misunderstanding" what he was trying to do. After progressively toning down the rhetoric over a month he still posts an appeal that alleges everyone else was wrong except Martin.
- In this appeal, Martin demonstrates his propensity to wikilawyer, an inability to drop the drop the stick, his battleground mentality, a refusal to recognise his own failings and an inability to listen. The claims of deceit, malice and a conspiracy demonstrate an absence of good faith. He is simply unable to edit co-operatively.
- I also note above, that contrary to his topic ban, Martin has been emailing users about areas closely related to it. Of itself that would be grounds to refuse this objectionable appeal. Finally, I wish it to be noted, that the condescending manner in which Martin has referred to my mental health problems is grossly offensive. WCMemail 21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- A few responses to pre-empt any immediate problems. Other responses might well follow.
- You are not doing yourself any favours, nor are you doing GiantSnowman, EatsShootsAndLeaves, Drmies and TParis any favours by digging up early drafts of my appeal. I removed certain material before I published the version on this page because I believed it counter-productive both to myself and to the person concerned to re-argue certain points. If they don't bring those points up, then neither will I.
- You chose to use your mental health problems as a mitigating circumstance as regards earlier behaviour that did not affect me directly. I have accused you of WP:DEPE - behaviour that could earn you an indefinite ban. By recognising that you have problems, I was signalling to any Administrators that I was only seeking the removal of sanctions that have been imposed against me and that I was not seeking any retribution against you.
- Martinvl (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- A few responses to pre-empt any immediate problems. Other responses might well follow.
- I also note above, that contrary to his topic ban, Martin has been emailing users about areas closely related to it. Of itself that would be grounds to refuse this objectionable appeal. Finally, I wish it to be noted, that the condescending manner in which Martin has referred to my mental health problems is grossly offensive. WCMemail 21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The reasons for block raised by uninvolved admin User:Beyond My Ken here at Martin's first topic ban appeal (unaccountably missing from the above) were "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT, lack of understanding of the nature of the project and extreme Wikilawyering". I suggest that some of these issues are evident in the unblock request. For example, the supposed canvassing has been investigated over and over and over again, including in the original topic ban close. And it has been rejected every time.
- It may be valuable, when considering the point on legal language, to note the section "Right to reply" in the above-referenced discussion (original diff here). Was this a case where editors "shout WP:NLT the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified"?
- I note as WCM did that this is a clear topic ban violation, and that per WP:BAN, this would suggest that the timer be reset, so that the ban ends 26 June 2015 and not 25 October 2014 (assuming that it isn't just post-dated from any future unblock as a matter of course - I don't know how this works). Kahastok talk 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- In response to Kahastok's last comment, I was responding to a "Help needed" request in a potential WP:BLP situation. I was doing no more that supplying such help. (diff of initial request).
- I will respond to other issues later. Martinvl (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BANEX does allow exceptions in case of "reverting... obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons", but it is difficult to see how a link to a dab page on British Weights and Measures Association qualifies as an obvious violation of WP:BLP, even if we accept this as "reverting" it. Kahastok talk 06:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- The page in British Weights and Measures Association lists "Michael Barry" as one of it's patrons. The page Michael Barry is a disambiguous page listing a number of different "Michael Barry's". Only one of them is/was a patron of the BWMA. By identifying the BWMA patron as having died, I was ensuring that none of the living "Michael Barry"'s were associated with the BWMA. Martinvl (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Unblock templates may ONLY be used to deal with unblocks - not topic bans. After all, an admin cannot unlaterally remove a community-imposed topic-ban. Process is: deal with block, then deal with topic ban following its processes - not all together the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Under Construction
Friendly tip
Martinvl, would it not be more prudent and preferable to create and edit your appeal in a sandbox page such as User_talk:Martinvl/appeal? Especially considering your appeal is something "under construction", which is not what talk pages are for IIRC. Also stating "This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." comes across as "don't edit my talk page until I say so", bolstered by the template saying to remove if no edit has been made for several hours, which going by your talk page history, means it could of been removed several times over the past few days. Using the {{Under construction}} template would be better. A sandbox appeal also allows you to edit it without everyone being able to view it unless they figure out what namespace you've given it, so you get some privacy that way until your ready to unveil it. Mabuska 10:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- HiMabuska,
- Thank you for your tip. Unfortunately, being blocked, I cannot edit any subpages. I have moved the text elsewhere to get some privacy. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposed redefinition of SI base units
Hey, Martinvl. Much thanks for enhancing this article. I've found errors in section Other physical constants introduced by you in, I suppose,
In particular, α fundamental constant is pretty ridiculous. Can you request unban for purposes of fixing article or ask competent contributors to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbst (talk • contribs) 11:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Danbst
- Thank you for your posting.
- First of all, WP:EVASION lays down the limit of what I can do - in particular "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Since you came to me for advice concerning a genuine concern, I believe that I am allowed to advise you as to what should be there. Provided that you use your own judgment, then you may edit the article using my advice for guidance. It will of course be up to you, if you are challenged, to show that the changes you make are verifiable and/or productive.
- On to your main question. I do not understand what is "ridiculous" about the fine structure constant (α). Under the New SI definitions, the fine structure constant will become an exact quantity since all of its component parts will be defined exactly. Under the existing SI definition, neither h nor k are defined exactly, but are measured in a laboratory.
- If I have missed the point, will you please explain what you mean? I will then try to help.
- Regards Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that is my fault. I did not read the headers of tables, "Relative uncertainty", and interpreted the rows as values of constants.
- As for α, it will not be exact because μ0, ε0 and k are not defined exact anymore.
- Danbst (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Correct! Martinvl (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Training new Wikipedians
In the discussion regarding my indefinite block on WP:AN, a number of editors have questioned my suitability as a trainer. Training in the United Kingdom does not come within the remit of English Misplaced Pages, it comes within the remit of the ]. As such, I respectfully remind editors that decisions made here regarding my suitability as a trainer might well be subject to the provisions of WP:CONEXCEPT. Martinvl (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- For crying out loud Martin, if you'd submitted a proper request for unblock that followed WP:GAB, you'd likely be unblocked by now. Instead, you keep claiming to have been wrongfully blocked, and claiming that both the en.Misplaced Pages and WMUK can't live without you as if that's supposed to count for something. Hint: it doesn't. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dangerous Panda
- Thank you for your note.
- However the advice here states
- "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Misplaced Pages per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects.".
- I believe that this applies to blocked uses as well. I also believe that assisting in training (something that I have done before) is a "significant and useful contribution". What am I meant to do?
- Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The problem, Martin, is that you need to demonstrate that you will not continue the behaviour that led to your block. At present, you've not done this, and have not been repentant. RGloucester — ☎ 13:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Other WMF projects" ... you know, like Simple Misplaced Pages, the Russian Misplaced Pages. Someone who is indef blocked from the English Misplaced Pages cannot represent the English Misplaced Pages in any forum either logically or ethically. It would be like saying "I'm banned from driving for speeding, dangerous driving, and drinking while driving, but I will be your driving lessons instructor today" the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish to appeal the indefinite block imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing. The reasons for the block are outlined here (Note - this section has become convoluted due to two threads becoming inter-twined, one dated 28 October 2013 and the other 10/11 November 2013).
One of the underlying purposes of the Standard Offer is to allow all parties concerned to lay past conflicts aside. I will therefore not name any of the other parties involved, but in order to explain the context, I need to refer to the incidents.
This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation that the proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice. In particular I had wrongly assumed that in an ANI hearing were entitled to use their own sub-sections, a practice that is required in Arbcom hearings. Even if I thought that it should apply here, this was the wrong way to make the proposal. In order for the process of consensus to work, it is essential that all parties follow the established protocol. The consensus process requires self-policing - anything that causes disruption (as opposed to proper debate) or that undermines the process of ascertaining the view of the community as a whole is likely to cause the consensus process breaking down into chaos. I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Misplaced Pages community.
Mitigating circumstances
As per WP:Standard Offer, I request that my past contributions to the English language Wikipedias and my on-going contributions to Wikimedia Commons and foreign-language Wikpedias be taken into account. I believe that these, especially when coupled with my previous contributions to the English Misplaced Pages show me as a valuable member of the Wikimedia community.
Wikimedia training
- I have attended the Wikimedia trainers' course and have assisted at a number of training events.
- On the day that I was indefinitely blocked, I assisted at the Editathon Women in Science at Kingston University. One of the leaders gave a talk on the work of Émilie du Châtelet in the Age of Enlightenment and her interaction with thinkers of the age including Newton, 's Gravesande and Leibniz. This talk was relevant to the articles Metric System and History of the metric system, but due to my block, I have been unable to incorporate any of the material presented into these articles.
- I was invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) to signify whether or not I would be interested in attending a one day refresher course on training editors. Due to the sanctions against me, I felt it politic to decline.
- I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation.
Misplaced Pages achievements
Contributions to English Misplaced PagesI have taken four articles to Good Article status in the English Misplaced Pages. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
- History of the metric system (97.3%)
- Proposed redefinition of SI base units (81.6%)
- Metric system (58.8%) (500k+ hits per year)
- International System of Units (47.7%) (500k+ hits per year)
I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
- Imperial and US customary measurement systems (98.6%)
- Introduction to the metric system (82.9%)
- Metrication in the United Kingdom (50.1%)
- International Bank Account Number (30.9%) (1M+ hits per year)
I have been the largest contributor to a number of other articles. My contribution as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
- De Zuid-Afrikaan (98.4%)
- Battle of the Tugela Heights (96.7%)
- Langalibalele (87.8%)
- Charles Rawden Maclean (88.5%)
- Metrication of British transport (88.3%)
- Stephanus Jacobus du Toit (84.1%)
- Christopher Robert Nicholson (77.6%)
- Driver location sign (77.2%)
- International Organization of Legal Metrology (74.3%)
- Metre Convention (72.6%)
- 2012 Olympic Marathon Course (65.5%)
- Nathaniel Isaacs (64%)
- General Conference on Weights and Measures (60.0%)
- Estcourt (56.8%)
- Kilometres per hour (41.5%)
- EN:Elfstedentocht (25.7%)
- Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (13.8%)
- Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (6.9%) (1M+ hits per year)
I am the principal contributor to the following article:
- SIMPLE:International Bank Account Number (99.4%)
- SIMPLE:Baarle (98.7%)
- SIMPLE:Metre Convention (95.4%)
- SIMPLE:Metric system (85.4%)
- SIMPLE:Planck constant (79.0%)
- I added the photo of the Kelvin thermometer to 44 language variants of Misplaced Pages (see also section entitled "Wikimedia Commons")
In the last few months I have been active on the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages. I am the principal contributor to the following article:
- af:Drywing (Power) (Over 50% - own calculation)
- af:IBAN (International Bank Account Number) (New article)
- af:Stoomlokomotief (Steam locomotive) (Over 50% - own calculation)
- af:Hampshire (About 60% - own calculation)
- af:Aldershot (Created article and added about 40% of content)
- af:Britse Museum (British Museum) (Created article and added most of the text).
I also copied the Dutch template nl:Sjabloon:Tabel weergemiddelden to the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages as af:Sjabloon:Tabel weergemiddeldes and applied it to 25 cities in the Afrikaans Misplaced Pages.
Contributions to Wikimedia Commons- While in the Netherlands in May 2014, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article Kelvin. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Misplaced Pages. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles. Another editor subsequently added it to the English Misplaced Pages.
- My contributions to Wikimedia Commons can be seen here.
- For the record, at 12:15 on 24-Jul-2014 I loaded the five images that I took in 1982 that depict the area where Air Algérie Flight 5017 was lost.
- A total 29 contributions from five different countries to Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 competition.
- The 20 images of 1970's vintage cameras that I loaded were part of a physics teaching exercise related to optics.
Miscellaneous
Other items that I would like taken into consideration include:
- The article Proposed redefinition of SI base units is likely to attract considerable attention in November this year when these proposals are actually discussed by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM). I am by far the principal contributor to this article.
- I tutor A-Level maths and physics on a one-to-one basis. My students are typically 16 to 18 years old. I often use Misplaced Pages articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked.
Future plans
If these sanctions are lifted, my plans for the English Misplaced Pages are:
- Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality for their studies.
- Make myself available for assisting at Misplaced Pages training events.
- Ensuring that the article International Bank Account Number is kept up to date, especially when SWIFT publishes relevant changes such as this one. (This article records over a million hits a year).
- Continue work on nineteenth century South African history, particularly articles related to the political situation in the Cape Colony and the Natal campaign of the Boer War.
- Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the CGPM are reflected in the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old International Prototype Kilogram be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments.
- Bring the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems
- Ensuring that articles that refer to changing standards are kept up to date, such as those that are affected by March 2014 Supplement to the formal definition of the International System of Units (SI)
References
- Notice of indefinite block on EN Misplaced Pages (28 October 2013)
- Kingston University Women in Science event
- Thermometer calibrated in kelvins
- ^ 26th CGPM Notice (18-20 November 2014)
Decline reason:
I am not entirely convinced that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, and hence I consider it likely that you will end up repeating the same mistakes. I appreciate that you have mentioned the block reason was 'disruptive editing', however beyond mentioning this, you have not explained in detail what led to your block. Your description of creating subsections on the admin noticeboard is curious, as this has little or nothing to do with your block. You have gone into great detail in regard to your achievements, however you seem reluctant to accept any failings on your part. From my perspective, your involvement with metric / imperial measurement articles was deeply problematic, and in this context, I am unconvinced that you should be unblocked to continue editing in this area. PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Admins reviewing this request may wish to read this AN thread from September, and also note that as of the expiry of his topic ban this morning, Martin is not under any active sanction on en.wiki other than his indefinite block. Kahastok talk 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
PhilKnight, thanks for taking the time to do review, but I have to admit that Martin isn't the only editor who is confused about why he was blocked. I was participating in the ANI thread when it happened, and my recollection was that the block was due to edit-warring at ANI, not due to any tendentious editing elsewhere. That's the behavior Martin explains in detail, as that's what he (and I) thought caused the block. My memory may not be serving me correctly, so I'll see if I can dig up the specific diffs for you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less correct, as he had already been topic banned from units articles at the time of his blocking. He was trying to appeal that topic ban, if my memory serves me correctly. RGloucester — ☎ 12:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've dug up the links:
- I would comment that Martin's original unblock request was framed as if his behavior wasn't seriously problematic, and he was blocked for something approaching cultural differences, and in my opinion, his second unblock request isn't much better. He wasn't blocked for creating subsections on a noticeboard, he was blocked for being unable to edit in a collaborative manner. PhilKnight (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less correct, as he had already been topic banned from units articles at the time of his blocking. He was trying to appeal that topic ban, if my memory serves me correctly. RGloucester — ☎ 12:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Martin provided a pointer to the discussion, so that was easier than I expected. The specific set of diffs is here. When the block occurred, Martin had already picked up the topic ban. Based on what Kahastok said above, Martin ultimately decided to sit that one out in the penalty box and only appeal the block after the ban expired. At some risk of trying your patience, here's what I'm reading in Drmies' explanation:
It is deemed disruptive by a clear consensus of editors that the persistent requests for removal of the topic ban only recently instated is not just disruptive in its own right, but that they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the editor to realize what the problem with their edits is.
Undoing this block can be done after what seems to me a relatively easy admission on the editor's part: that their edits leading to the topic ban (hashed out at length in Misplaced Pages:Ani#User:Martinvl_and_long_term_disruption_of_WT:MOSNUM, closed only a few days ago) were indeed deemed disruptive, and that asking for relaxation of the topic ban is untimely especially if recognition is lacking.
Rambling Man, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin, and I saw your AN comment: as I said, I have no objection to an unblock (accompanied by a 1RR restriction, for instance?), but it should probably come with an assurance that the behavior (not just in the measurement business) will cease.
(emphasis added)Oh, I should correct myself on the 1R remark: that's a proposal by Garamond Lethe for relaxing the topic ban and should have no bearing on the unblock. My apologies for conflating the two.
- I think a reasonable reading (though not the only reasonable reading) was that if Martin was appealing the topic ban, the disruptive editing outside of ANI would have to be addressed, but addressing it in the block appeal (while a good idea) was not strictly necessary. Drmies, The Rambling Man, could you clarify? If I've misread this (and thus misled Martin in off-wiki correspondence), I owe him an apology. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- If any of this can be put in a nutshell, the AN discussion (linked above, Archive 255) makes it clear (though not by some overwhelming margin) that Martin's behavior in these unblock requests and related threads was deemed excessively wikilawyerish with a high degree if IDNHT, which PhilKnight points out as well in their decline. I am still not convinced that Martin can say, in a sentence or less, what they were blocked for and what they will do to prevent future blocks. Then again, one might say that those matters were all related to the topic ban which has now run out (TParis's closure of the discussion that led to the ban is part of a series of suppressed edits, but it's here, so that those disruptions will have come to an end.
When you look at Martin's subsequent behavior leading up to the block, which starts with the immediate appeal (on the same day) at AN, plus the request copied by TParis to Martin's own talk page 9here), it's understandable that editors lost patience. Personally, I think that since the ban is over we can apply ROPE and maybe keep Martin on a 1RR leash, so to speak: I have no objection to it. But if you ask me whether I think that he totally gets it, I'd have to say no. Is not "getting it" enough reason to keep him out of mainspace and the area he cares so much about it? I can't answer that, but I wish him good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies, it is odd. I feel like it would be easy for anyone else to simply say "I understand what I did wrong, and I won't do it again". Martin, however, simply hasn't grasped it. These longs and endless unblock requests are really odd, especially considered what you said at the time of block a "relatively easy admission". However, I will support unblocking Martin if he is willing to submit to indefinite 1RR, in line with WP:ROPE. He isn't going to stop issuing these requests, so we might as well see what happens if he is unblocked with said editing restriction. If he continues disruption, it will be pretty clear. He has plenty of people watching his edits, so he'd be swiftly re-blocked in that instance. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- ☎, I agree completely, esp. on the oddness. Mind you, Martin has emailed me once or twice and I have suggested the "simple" unblock method every time. I thin it is obvious that each of these unblock requests, AN threads, etc. are also an attempt at justification/vindication. That's not helpful for us when we're having to decide on unblocking and conditions thereof; at the same time, yes, ROPE will rein in the lion of righteousness when it starts roaming too freely. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies, it is odd. I feel like it would be easy for anyone else to simply say "I understand what I did wrong, and I won't do it again". Martin, however, simply hasn't grasped it. These longs and endless unblock requests are really odd, especially considered what you said at the time of block a "relatively easy admission". However, I will support unblocking Martin if he is willing to submit to indefinite 1RR, in line with WP:ROPE. He isn't going to stop issuing these requests, so we might as well see what happens if he is unblocked with said editing restriction. If he continues disruption, it will be pretty clear. He has plenty of people watching his edits, so he'd be swiftly re-blocked in that instance. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In the AN thread I cited above, I cited an uninvolved editor describing the issues with Martin's editing during the first topic ban appeal as "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT and extreme Wikilawyering".
I don't think 1RR is the solution here - never have - because edit warring has never been the core problem with Martin's edits. The biggest problems have always been the extreme Wikilawyering, IDHT behaviour, battleground attitude etc. - most of which are exhibited on talk pages rather than reverts. We see evidence a-plenty for it in the above threads on this page and the AN/ANI threads. Martin's attitude in his topic ban appeals was what got him blocked, but that attitude was no different from the attitude that got him the topic ban in the first place.
When the topic ban was imposed, it was presumably not on the assumption that he would be indeffed three days later. Martin could have used the period under topic ban to demonstrate that he had in fact changed and that the issues identified were no longer a problem. To some extent he could still have done this on other wikis (in fact, he was indeffed on the Simple English Misplaced Pages for continuing the disruption that saw him blocked here.)
My suggestion, if we were going to unblock, would be to reinstate the topic ban indefinitely. Give Martin that time that was allowed in the original topic ban decision to demonstrate that he can edit within the rules, before allowing him into the areas where he has problems. But we should not unblock at all without some evidence that he understands the problems the issues that led to the topic ban and indefinite block caused, and how he intends to resolve those issues. In particular, given quite how extreme Martin's Wikilawyering has historically been, we should not let him back without some reason to assume that he will not continue Wikilawyering. Once we have that, we can then allow him to prove his words per WP:ROPE. Kahastok talk 18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Based on what you've said, I would say that Martin should be unblocked in exchange for a new measurement topic ban, say about three months. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any time-limited ban gives us no chance to evaluate how he's doing against the ban before letting him back to cause all the problems he caused before. No, if he's unblocked (and IMO unblocking is a bad idea at this stage) it should be an indefinite topic ban with appeals no earlier than 3-6 months after the unblock date. Kahastok talk 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that's fair. He has done nothing to warrant a new topic ban, since he has not been able to edit. If he were to accept a new topic ban in exchange for unblocking, that'd be voluntary on his part. In light of that, there is no need for an exorbitant sanction. If he renews his old disruptive trends, like I've said before, he'll be swiftly blocked in line with WP:ROPE. So many editors are watching his edits that there is no chance for any disruption to slip through the cracks. Leaving him blocked is not solving the problem. It has carried on long enough. We need to evaluate whether his actions have changed. If they haven't, like I've said, he's going to be blocked again. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was fleshing my point out and edit conflicted. Truth is we have no reason whatsoever to assume that Martin even understands the basics of why he was blocked per WP:GAB. As recently as September at AN, it was all User:Wee Curry Monster's fault and nothing to do with Martin's own behaviour. It's not like he doesn't have reasons - the reason I quote this is because it lays it out quite clearly.
- I don't think that's fair. He has done nothing to warrant a new topic ban, since he has not been able to edit. If he were to accept a new topic ban in exchange for unblocking, that'd be voluntary on his part. In light of that, there is no need for an exorbitant sanction. If he renews his old disruptive trends, like I've said before, he'll be swiftly blocked in line with WP:ROPE. So many editors are watching his edits that there is no chance for any disruption to slip through the cracks. Leaving him blocked is not solving the problem. It has carried on long enough. We need to evaluate whether his actions have changed. If they haven't, like I've said, he's going to be blocked again. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any time-limited ban gives us no chance to evaluate how he's doing against the ban before letting him back to cause all the problems he caused before. No, if he's unblocked (and IMO unblocking is a bad idea at this stage) it should be an indefinite topic ban with appeals no earlier than 3-6 months after the unblock date. Kahastok talk 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Based on what you've said, I would say that Martin should be unblocked in exchange for a new measurement topic ban, say about three months. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, giving him a time-limited ban and then just letting him do what he wants is insufficient. He'll just wait it out and then we'll be exactly where we were before the unblock. No, wait until he actually understands why he was blocked before unblocking, then an indef topic ban until he can demonstrate that he can edit properly. Kahastok talk 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd advocate an unblock and mentoring. I've seen it work well before. The mentoring would relate directly to the problematic areas of editing, e.g. around the units pages. I would happily adopt that role if the community agreed to unblocking Martin. I guess the deal would be that he'd be allowed to edit anywhere on anything, but if it came under the "guise" of units etc, he'd need to discuss the edits on the talk page and alert me to the fact he wants to propose changes, I can then sanction them, or otherwise. A probationary period of, say, three months would seem appropriate. It's not as if Martin is destroying the encyclopedia, he just needs help understanding why some of his edits and interactions aren't optimal. And we're all guilty of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll second The Rambling Man's suggestion. Kahastok, I do think we have evidence of Martin's change in attitude. The initial block and ban appeals admitted no fault on Martin's part, but over the course of a year (and it reading several of his draft appeals offline) I've seen his thinking evolve. This appeal identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it, and provides assurances that it won't happen again. If the primary issue is that he didn't identify and discuss all of the behavior that resulted in his block, that's partially my fault and I'd like Martin to be given a chance to address that here without prejudice.
- One last point: In working with Martin I've found him to be infinitely patient and collegial across dozens of articles. MOSNUM is a problem, and heading to ANI after things warmed up at MOSNUM is also a problem. (There may be article talk page problems independent of his interactions with DeFacto, but I don't have firsthand knowledge there.) Those are specific problems that I think would be fixable by mentoring. If we unblock Martin on condition of receiving that mentor, the downside is a handful of contentious posts before he is shut down permanently. The upside is continued solid contributions across a pretty wide swath of articles, and potentially he'll learn how to not only walk away from certain disputes but also how to resolve them amicably. On balance, I think the potential reward is well worth the minimal risk. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say, I'm a little sick of the "achievements" and the ongoing attempts to demonstrate that Martin thinks he's a great asset. Let us decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you on that, TRM. I also have decided that I will support your suggestion for moving forward. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can see where Martin got the idea:
Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Misplaced Pages per this 'offer'.
per WP:OFFER. I agree that brevity would have been more helpful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)- They are indeed. Note, however, that when Martin started editing simple.wiki, he was indeffed there for continuing the disruption there that led him to be indeffed here. Far from proving that he was reformed and changed, he proved that nothing had changed. He conveniently left that bit out of his request, of course. Kahastok talk 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say, I'm a little sick of the "achievements" and the ongoing attempts to demonstrate that Martin thinks he's a great asset. Let us decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I've found the opposite. My experience is that in the topic of measurements, Martin will Wikilawyer continuously and to an extreme degree. For example, Martin will insist that large-scale changes can be made without consensus (rather, that consensus is needed to reverse them). For example, Martin will insist that he has the right to withdraw his assent to a consensus years after the consensus was formed, and that therefore that the original consensus never existed in the first place. For example, Martin will insist that the fact that an external site uses Misplaced Pages as a source makes Misplaced Pages a reliable source. It's nonsense on all three counts, but that's what you had to expect when dealing with Martin on the topic of measurements. Far from "infinitely patient and collegial", I have found Martin to be a bully who uses Wikilawyering, personal attacks and WP:IDHT-type behaviour to drive other editors from Misplaced Pages, and hence push his POV. That has been my experience.
- Has he changed? I see no evidence from the above. You say, this appeal "identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it". Where? The only thing he takes the blame for is "mishandling" the ANI. And even then, he still puts the underlying blame for his position on this repeatedly-rejected claim that the "proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice". The evidence from the drafts is that he removed the outright accusations against User:Wee Curry Monster, but the fact remains that does not accept that his behaviour was poor. There is nothing remotely close to the standard of WP:GAB or WP:STANDARDOFFER here. Kahastok talk 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Kahastok, answering your question "Where?":
This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation.... In particular I had wrongly assumed.... Even if I thought that it should apply here, this was the wrong way... it is essential that all parties follow the established protocol.... I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Misplaced Pages community.
The blocking offense was not the accusation, but the handling of the accusation, and that's what the block appeal addresses. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)- Right. He takes responsibility only for his handling of the topic ban request. He doesn't even accept that his accusation of "sharp practice" was wrong, even though uninvolved admin after uninvolved admin told him it was. Based on this, it's clear that he still thinks the whole thing was nothing more than his own mishandling of a frivolous complaint. He does not accept any responsibility for any wider issues whatsoever. He says "I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Misplaced Pages community" - what does that mean? So far as we can tell he thinks that everything he did outside that single ANI thread was in line with the conduct expected by the community. It most certainly wasn't.
- Kahastok, answering your question "Where?":
- Has he changed? I see no evidence from the above. You say, this appeal "identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it". Where? The only thing he takes the blame for is "mishandling" the ANI. And even then, he still puts the underlying blame for his position on this repeatedly-rejected claim that the "proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice". The evidence from the drafts is that he removed the outright accusations against User:Wee Curry Monster, but the fact remains that does not accept that his behaviour was poor. There is nothing remotely close to the standard of WP:GAB or WP:STANDARDOFFER here. Kahastok talk 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The reasons to block argued at the time were summarised by an uninvolved admin - and I'll quote this again in case you've missed it - as "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT and extreme Wikilawyering". Martin's repeated topic ban appeals demonstrated these issues in spades, but they were easily identifiable in the original topic ban request and in Martin's behaviour for years leading up to it. There is nothing in the above that even comes close to recognising any of these issues. Kahastok talk 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No the block appeal doesn't address the reason why he was banned. In fact, he has gone round the houses through multiple appeals to avoid ever admitting the problems with the way he was editing. I've never seen any evidence that he has accepted he was blocked because of his behaviour, on the contrary he was claiming it was sharp practise on my part or admin incompetence. Every appeal since has displayed all the behaviour that lead to his block and fundamentally the gratuitously offensive reference to my mental health problems more than anything else demonstrates he just doesn't understand how to edit collaboratively.
- If you want an example of just what the problem is here Martin states "Bad faith actions by User:Wee Curry Monster who, knowing that I had views that were contrary to his, tried to get me out of the way before launching this RFC". The thing is I don't fundamentally have different views on the metric system, were there a plebiscite tomorrow I would vote to end the anachronistic situation in the UK and go 100% metric. The problem with Martin is you're either for or against, with no room for the shades of grey where compromise lies and he approaches every situation with a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Within a short few months of being blocked here, he was blocked on simple wikipedia for the same behaviour. I would suggest that he needs to show trouble free editing elsewhere and not to repeat the IP socking and other sock puppets that I've spotted but at this point refrained from reporting as it never became a problem. WCMemail 22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think The Rambling Man's offer is a generous one, worth trying. I'd float a refinement and a warning. Clearly, Kahastok and Lesser Cartographies have very different experiences of Martin; I think this is partly because they worked on different types of articles. Lesser Cartographies sometimes worked with Martin on articles about units of measurement and systems of measurement. Kahastok and others were in conflict with Martin over the use of units of measurement in a wide range of articles, particularly Falklands articles at first but extending far more widely, in long and bitter conflicts fought in the articles themselves and their talk pages, in WP:MOSNUM and [[WT:MOSNUM}}, at WP:ANI, on project pages and template talk pages and probably more. Would unblocking Martin be less contentious if he remained banned from the choice of units of measurement in Misplaced Pages articles (and discussion of same), while free to work on articles about units of measurement? Martinvl, would you accept that?
- There is one fly in this ointment. DeFacto will be delighted to have hir old victim back and will pursue Martin; it seems no-one else is quite so satisfying. As we saw on SimpleWiki in the episode Kahastok mentions, DeFacto has a great advantage in this; if s/he can have them both banned for repeating their old enwiki conflict, DeFacto just loses another sock. TRM, this will make your work more interesting than it should be - but I don't doubt you can handle it. NebY (talk)
- The reason for opposing this is outlined in one of the first lines of the appeal "This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation that the proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice." Emphasis added. He still hasn't dropped the WP:STICK and he is still blaming others. The issue isn't a case of being in conflict with Martin over the use of units of measurement, its a conflict only in the sense that other editors were prepared to compromise personal views to edit in line with a MOS to ensure a consistent look and feel to articles. Martin refused to make the slightest compromise and edited counter to MOS to the detriment of article quality and was prepared to wikilawyer and filibuster to impose his view. You could walk away and he would insist you were edit warring with him as he did at Talk:United Kingdom here - I haven't edited that article since and he would still have it my one edit was "edit warring" with him. WCMemail 23:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify an earlier remark, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl/Archive, a De Facto sock once alleged Garamond Lethe was a sock puppet of Martinvl. I initiated an SPI as a rapid way of clearing the matter making clear I thought it groundless. I still believe it to be so. I was not referring to that user but another account and an IP account. WCMemail 23:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- For what's it worth, I'd be prepared to support an unblock which involved an indefinite topic ban from metric / imperial unit articles, combined with indefinite 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your offer. I would however like clarification as to what you mean by "metric/imperial unit articles". Do you means any article that deals with metric or imperial units or do you mean any article that deals with metric and imperial units. How would this restriction affect articles such as Proposed redefinition of SI base units – a GA that needs updating in the very near future? (More details are in the appeal itself). Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- For what's it worth, I'd be prepared to support an unblock which involved an indefinite topic ban from metric / imperial unit articles, combined with indefinite 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) PhilKnight, let me suggest a slight tweak to that as a possible compromise. As NebY pointed out, I've primarily interacted with Martin on measurement articles like Kilometers per hour and Stone (unit), and his behavior there has been fine. Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster have dealt with Martin mostly outside of measurement articles (MOSNUM and Falklands, to name two). Would you support inverting your condition: in addition to the 1RR, Martin would have an indefinite ban on discussing units of measurement outside of units-of-measurement articles. That keeps the peace at Falklands (which your original formulation didn't quite cover, I think) and lets us get the benefit of Martin's knowledge of obscure international standards. Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster: would that prevent the disruptive behavior you've seen? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- (2 x ec) For clarity, the original topic ban was not just from unit articles, but from the topic of measurements. It included WP:MOSNUM, and the act of changing or adding units on non-unit related articles (or discussion of such changes). The issues I experienced rarely if ever arose on the actual unit articles (which I have rarely edited) - part of the reason it was a problem was that it could appear anywhere because measurements are so common. The article that immediately prompted the topic ban discussion was United Kingdom. Just a topic ban on the unit articles themselves leaves all the key areas where Martin caused problems out of scope. Kahastok talk 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for explaining. Looking at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community the previous wording was "Topic ban from all articles, talk pages, and any namespace page related to measurements. Appeals may be made to the administrator's noticeboard or Arbcom but otherwise any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths. The only exception being explicit source quotations in article-space." which seems to be sensible enough wording. PhilKnight (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Phil, may I expand on Lesser Cartographies' comment. If you look at the first eight articles that I catalogued in the list of my contributions to the English Misplaced Pages, you will see that seven of them are covered by the topic ban given to me a year ago. Apart from harassment from DeFacto, there was no any edit-warring in any of these artciles. The topic ban, as worded, would also prevent me from updating articles to reflect changes in the SI Brochure (see here). Martinvl (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Phil, I would not object to lifting the block if the topic ban was re-imposed and a 1RR restriction enacted as a condition of the unblock.Its not the edit warring alone that is the problem but the other behaviours including the relentless wikilawyering. Just look at the disruption caused at Talk:United Kingdom over a trivial edit. WCMemail 08:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I must say, I find that this particular response demonstrates why, IMO, an unblock is unwise at this stage. Martin points out that seven of the first eight articles on his list would count and that he hasn't edit warred on any of them. There are two answers to that. Firstly, so what? Given the issues that have occurred in the past, if Martin wants to edit those articles he can wait until such a time as he proves that he can do so responsibly. We ultimately do not need Martin to edit: other editors can also work on these articles.
- Secondly, while he hasn't edit warred on them much, that's not to say he hasn't Wikilawyered on them or disrupted them in other ways. Edit warring has never been the main issue, and the fact that Martin highlights it demonstrates either that he's trying to throw people off or that he has genuinely no idea why he was blocked - why things like Wikilawyering are a problem. At least one of those examples of Wikilawyering I cited earlier came from within that eight. That he might not have edit warred does not mean that he has not caused problems and we should reasonably expect him to know what those problems are before we unblock him. I've cited a convenient list from the original discussions a few times now, so I don't think they're not known or particularly unclear.
- But yes, if there is to be an unblock, the original topic ban should be suitable. I would suggest that we clarify a few things: specifically, does it include articles and edits related to the process of metrication or organisations or individuals related to it? I would suggest that it does, but we should be clearer on this. Kahastok talk 19:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Given this editor's propensity for extreme wikilawyering, of which there is no evidence of him withdrawing from doing, and some evidence that he is unchanged in this respect, any change in the topic ban needs to have really clear definitions with boundaries very clearly defined. This is necessary in order to both minimize disruption to wikipedia, and to protect the editor from himself. It is true that every person who has suffered some restriction should have the ability to reform and demonstrate that he or she has reformed, but I believe that giving too easy a return would just be too risky for both (wikipedia and Martin) at the moment. In a response to PhilKnight's suggestion, we already see the editor enquiring about whether an "and" or "or" interpretation is to be used at one point. The editor recognises an ambiguity, and wants to know the limits beyond which he must not go. I suggest we make these limits as broad as is reasonable, out of a desire to minimize disruption and continue to protect Martin, who is otherwise a good contributor. Until Martin clearly and explicitly addresses and acknowledges his own behaviour that led to the restrictions, I think it is reasonable for us to do that. DDStretch (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: At 22:17, 27 October 2014 you wrote "...not to repeat the IP socking and other sock puppets that I've spotted ...". Will you please catalogue the instances of IP socking to which you are referring and justify why you believe that I made them? Martinvl (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: The SPI that you raised against me (See November 2014 (below) answers my request about "other sock puppets" but does not touch on your claim of "IP socking". I have responded to the SPI (See SPI response by Martinvl (below). I believe that my response shows beyond reasonable doubt that the accusation was a case of mistaken identity.
Will you please now catalogue the instances of IP socking to which you referred and justify why you believe that I made those postings? Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are not really in a position to demand things like this. It is up to individual editors to judge whether to take things to SPI or any other board, not for you to tell them to. If WCM wants to file SPI, he'll file SPI. If he doesn't, you have no business trying to force him to. It is not as though there are plenty of other reasons not to unblock, such as your failure to acknowledge the reasons for your block in the first place. Kahastok talk 21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- As a result of Martin chosing to go off-wiki and email a number of users, some of which has included unpleasant comments on myself, I am withdrawing my support from the suggestion that Martin is unblocked with restrictions. The off-wiki communications seem to demonstrate that Martin intends to continue to edit in the confrontational manner he did before and I am already tired of the time sink any dealing with Martin becomes. For the record I would oppose unblocking at this time. WCMemail 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Wee Curry Monster:, @Nick-D: can I please clarify things. I did not want to post the message that I am now posting. In my view, in this case your mentor Nick-D is the problem, not me.
- I knew that you had some personal issues and that you had voluntarily taken yourself "off air". I did not want to publicise these issues, I did not want to contact you directly (that would have revealed my e-mail address to you) but I wanted to get on with my appeal, which would have resulted in my interacting with you. Taking your personal issues into account made things difficult for me so I asked Nick-D to pass on a message to you from me, explaining to him confidentially and in good faith why I had contacted him.
- Nick-D let you down twice over – firstly he refused to acknowledge your personal issues (which he dismissed as "unpleasant comments") and secondly he did not pass on my message. He let me down by not telling me that he was not going to assist and he let himself and the Misplaced Pages Administratorship down by publicising the existence (albeit not the content) of what was meant to be a confidential communication. I have since written a very strongly worded e-mail to him explaining what your personal issues can mean, drawing on my own (second-hand) experience of such issues and sending him a number of references as to why he need to take these issues seriously. I think that he owes both of us an apology. Martinvl (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- This nonsense about "personal issues" seems remarkably intrusive, out-of-line, and offensive. There is no way that I can support an unblock in these circumstances, and hence must now voice my opposition to any such unblocking at this time. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- And there we go. It was entirely Nick-D's fault that you sent him e-mails containing "unpleasant allusions" about WCM. Just as it was entirely User:Mabuska's fault that you accused User:Ddstretch of hypocrisy and indeed entirely Curry Monster's fault that you were topic banned and then indeffed for the issues that we are all aware of. Of course it was.
- Nick-D can and should use his judgement in determining how to react to an e-mail such as yours. That you demand he apologise for doing so - along with all the patronising crap about "personal issues" (which despite your protestations you seem to bring up at every opportunity) - demonstrates amply why I believe you have not learnt from your period of block and why I think you would if unblocked now repeat the behaviour that saw you blocked in the first place. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with RGloucester and Kahastok here, including in regards to the tone and content of the emails strongly suggesting that Martin should not be unblocked for the reasons they both note. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nick-D can and should use his judgement in determining how to react to an e-mail such as yours. That you demand he apologise for doing so - along with all the patronising crap about "personal issues" (which despite your protestations you seem to bring up at every opportunity) - demonstrates amply why I believe you have not learnt from your period of block and why I think you would if unblocked now repeat the behaviour that saw you blocked in the first place. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've since had an email from Martin to my personal account. Suffice it to say, I have not and will not be replying but the contents have convinced me that Martin is utterly oblivious to the problems with his editing and is still blaming others. WCMemail 13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
One step forwards, ten steps back. I don't think Martin can be unblocked at this stage. He needs to really confront his own behaviour here, and comment on just his own behaviour: no comments about other editors, or anything like that. But given what has happened recently, I think a break on the order of a few months must happen before he can claim he has done so by posting appropriate messages. DDStretch (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just noticed in the reasons for the refusal of the unblock request: "however you seem reluctant to accept any failings on your part" - it has been over a year since Martinvl was blocked and this was one of the main roots of his problems - the inability to accept they have done wrong in any way, and that any issues were everybody else's fault. Mabuska 15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just to add: If Martinvl was to be in future unblocked I would strongly suggest a permanent topic-ban on weights and measures. A topic-ban that will lapse would only mean that at some stage when back in the field that Martinvl will inevitably revert back to their normal behaviour. Mabuska 15:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Mabuska:, on the contrary, if Martin comes back he should be allowed to edit only weights and measures articles. He has a solid track record of problem-free collaborative editing there. Where he gets into trouble is articles outside of weights and measures such as United Kingdom and Falkland Islands. Keep him out of everything except weights and measures articles and we'll get all of the benefit of his expertise with none of the drama. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Mabuska:,@Lesser Cartographies: Wrt Lesser Cartographies but Martin's block log includes several blocks for edit warring on weights and measures articles eg History of the metric system. Those articles are part of the problem. WCMemail 13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the history of this block, you will see that
- I came close to, but did not breach the 3RR limits.
- The complainant was User:MeasureIT, a Defacto sockpuppet who was blocked indefinitely four days later.
- These two points are sufficient to dismiss WCM's claim as being frivolous.
- Martinvl (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh, the whole point Martin is that you can't edit collaboratively, you edit war relentlessly and then wikilawyer that its all someone else's fault. OK fine, lets go back to the first block in your block log. , concerning 6RR on Metrication in the United Kingdom. The discussion in Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3 seems depressingly familiar to this one years later at Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 28#Units of measure dispute.. The point being that the articles Lesser Cartographies suggested you be allowed to edit and your WP:OWN issues are part of the problem. You still don't seem to get that WP:3RR doesn't give you 3 free reverts. You were constantly telling people I was edit warring with you , when I'd point blank refused to , you then edit-warred with a number of editors telling them that WP:BRD meant they had to revert to your favoured version whilst it was discussed. You have been blocked in the past for exactly the same behaviour that lead to your indefinite block and in your unblock appeal displaying the same behaviour. People are just tired of the time sink any dealings with you becomes. Now if its all the same, please do not send me one of those patronising emails again, I am removing your talk page from my watchlist and I would appreciate it if you didn't ping me again. I intend to go back to my transcription of the Bernhardt memo for wikisource and to content writing. WCMemail 00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the history of this block, you will see that
- Just to add: If Martinvl was to be in future unblocked I would strongly suggest a permanent topic-ban on weights and measures. A topic-ban that will lapse would only mean that at some stage when back in the field that Martinvl will inevitably revert back to their normal behaviour. Mabuska 15:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose any unblock. Martin, that "frivolous" crack finally convinced me that you'd much rather be Right than edit here. Ok, you're Right. I wish you the joy of whatever consolation that brings you. In case you're wondering, here's one version of the correct response. You're correct that I edit-warred at those articles, and I understand why you're concerned. I should not have done that, full stop. I expect similar situations will come up again, and when then do I will not revert DeFacto or anyone else I disagree with. Rather, I'll ask for assistance and leave the ultimate disposition of the article to other editors. I would prefer this be enforced with a formal 1RR restriction; if you would like this to be combined with a topic-ban or other restriction, I think that's reasonable as well. I'd like to discuss the specifics of what would allow you to be comfortable with my return to editing. Breaking that down: 1) Acknowledge the concern, 2) Take responsibility without rationalizing or offering excuses, 3) Outline what you'll do differently to guarantee the problem doesn't recur and 4) ask for feedback. In short: I fucked up. My bad. It won't happen again and here's why. I'd like your input. If you'd rather argue the fact that you weren't wrong, that's your choice. But I think you've run out of people who are interested in listening to that argument. When you're done with wanting to argue I'll be happy to support your next unblock. No, it's not fair. No, you don't get any vindication (other than the opportunity to rack up more FAs). When the FAs mean more to you than being Right, it's easy enough to say "whatever" (nicely) and avoid these dumpster fires. Looking forward to having you back. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Many, many thanks for posting that message. I have been tempted to give explicit advice to Martin along those lines myself before now, but given I was involved at one point, I guessed it would have hardly any impact. I hope that this unsolicited advice from you might have some effect. DDStretch (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that my use of the word "frivilous" caused some problems. The Oxford Concise Dictionary (1964) gives a number of meanings for the word "frivilous". The first of these is "paltry". The same dictionary gives a number of meanings for the word "paltry", the first of which is "worthless". This source describes a "frivolous claim" as one that is "motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition". If we now look at a few crucial timings regarding the 24 hour block that I received on 6 January, we see:
- 21:12, 1 January 2013 - User:NebY raised an SPI against MeasureIT, alleging that he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto.
- 13:56, 5 January 2013 - Measure IT filed a 3RR compaint against me. I immediately stopped editing.
- 00:34, 6 January 2013 - Both MeasureIT and both I received a 24 hour block.
- 15:26, 9 January 2013 - MeasureIT blocked as a sockpuppet of DeFacto.
- Under WP:NOT3RR, actions "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" are not deemed to be countable under 3RR. It follows therefore that, with the benefit of hindsight, this block was unjustified and therefore that WCM's assertion that this was an example of edit-warring is worthless (or to use the term favoured in legal circle, "frivilous". Martinvl (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Request revocation of Martin's talk page access. The fact that he is continuing this behaviour again is unacceptable. He has not learned anything. RGloucester — ☎ 14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- After being pinged and reading the recent downward spiral of faulty reasoning on Martin's part, I can't see any point in continuing this thread. For what it's worth, I still think TRM's offer of mentoring was generous but I no longer think it's worth trying now, even under a broad topic ban. Martin, please wait until the benefit of hindsight tells you, not that you made tactical errors or meant well, but that you were often in the wrong and could not return to Misplaced Pages without heeding the criticism and advice you received. NebY (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that my use of the word "frivilous" caused some problems. The Oxford Concise Dictionary (1964) gives a number of meanings for the word "frivilous". The first of these is "paltry". The same dictionary gives a number of meanings for the word "paltry", the first of which is "worthless". This source describes a "frivolous claim" as one that is "motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition". If we now look at a few crucial timings regarding the 24 hour block that I received on 6 January, we see:
November 2014
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl. Thank you.
Just for the record, I had no intention of making an SPI report and would have happily let the matter drop. But noting the ping I got today and the fact that I really don't wish to see an extended period of wikilawyering over this, I've launched an SPI case. WCMemail 15:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
SPI response by Martinvl
ResolvedWill an admin please post the statement below on the above SPI page on my behalf? Since I am under an indefinite block I am unable to do so myself.
+ + + + + + + + + + + Start of SPI defence + + + + + + + + +
This is a clear case of mistaken identity.
- I checked my diary against the postings made by JJada. JJade mde three posting on 5 May 2014. At that time I was travelling in the Netherlands. I took the photograph for this Wikimedia Commons image on the previous day and posted it a few days later when I returned from my travels. I am willing to forward copies of the relevant e-mails confirming my travel arrangements for that period to a person who has Check User clearance. They can then compare the IP addresses for 5 May 2014 against the other IP addresses used by JJade.
- Had I made the changes that JJada made here, I would have followed the convention used on Page 2 (Para 1.1) of this document and used the word "quantities", not "expressions".
- JJade finished this sentence with a preposition. Although my writing style is far from perfect, I am always careful to avoid finishing sentences with prepositions.
Whoever JJada might be, I am not JJada.
- - - - - - - - - - - End of SPI defence - - - - - - -
Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted the statement. Kahastok talk 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Your email
I have read your email. You are very welcome to send me the evidence you refer to if you like, but at present I don't think that it would be relevant to any case that I am concerned with. I have no intention of taking action on the basis of innuendo, which at present is all there is. As for your block appeal, that is a case I have no plan to get involved in. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I posted the following to JamesBWatson:
- Hi JamesBWatson,
- Thank you for your e-mail.
- In order that I can place on record that I was at a meeting organised by XXXX when User 94.196.214.34 posted the statements that were referred to in the DeFacto SPI, I am sending you the following information from the their website:
- XXXX Calendar - (url hidden) confirms that meetings are held at 7:45 pm on the second Monday of each month, and in particular that there was a regular monthly meeting on 20 October 2014, starting at 7:45 (18:45 GMT).
- Gallery 2013 - (url hidden) Click on caption introducing the guest speaker YYYY. I am on Frame 13 of the gallery where I am named.
- Gallery 2014 - (url hidden) Click on the third picure (guest speaker ZZZZ). Using the information from the previous gallery, I can be picked out on frames 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10.
- I am posting an edited version of this e-mail on my Talk Page.
- Regards
- Martinvl
- Martinvl (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, Martin. It seems likely that, if I were willing to spend my time dealing with the irritatingly gimmicky presentation on the pages you link to, I might be able to grab some of the photographs and keep them, and if I did so I might be able to compare different photographs and confirm that someone with a name related to your Misplaced Pages username was present in a place distant from the geolocation of an IP address that edited round about that time. If so, it might perhaps be taken as evidence in your defence against a charge which as far as I know has never yet been made. If, as seems likely, everything you have said about this case is true, then I can fully sympathise with the frustration you must be feeling, and I can understand why you have sent me the information that you have sent. At present, as I have already said, it does not help in anything that I am concerned with, but I will bear it in mind in case it ever becomes relevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi JamesBWatson - I was filing the information with an uninvolved third party (you) and letting others know that this information exists. This should deflate any innuendo that I am the sockmaster concerned. At the moment other parties do not need to know who XXXX, YYYY and ZZZZ are, merely that they exist. As far as I am concerned the fact that you can access the information should the need arise is probably sufficient to put the matter to bed. Martinvl (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, the IP geolocates to a Three Mobile Broadband account, which (to the best of my knowledge) will continue to produce IP addresses in the same range even when the physical device is outside of that area. For whatever it's worth, those IPs are not part of your SPI. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Lesser Cartographies:, I think that you are mixing up two unrelated, but otherwise fallacious SPI accusations.
- In this case, where the IP addresses are known, I argued that I was at a meeting at the time that the postings were made. I have deposited internet links to photographic evidence showing my attendance with JamesBWatson.
- In this case, I argued that I was in the Netherlands when some of the postings were made. Given the number of restaurants, railways stations, hotels and bars that offer free Wi-Fi, why would I pay to use broadband while roaming when I would walk into the nearest bar or coffee shop and use their free WiFi? BTW, we do not yet know the IP addresses from which these postings were made.
- Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- To answer your second question: I frequently use by cell phone hotspot over free local wifi for privacy, speed and convenience. To answer the first question, I get a lot of enWP editing done while at meetings, and I expect others do as well.
- Let's assume that you have never used ThreeMBB. Let's further assume JJada's IP addresses all resolve to ThreeMBB. The closing admin then has a choice between two scenarios:
- 1. You bought a new hotspot device and used it in part to help cover your tracks with socking. You also made a few superficial changes to your sentence structure and use of prepositions and made a couple of "mistakes" in the contents of your edits (mistakes that would only be obvious as such to someone with your domain knowledge). Based on that behavior and the vocabulary used, this is a straightforward case of socking.
- 2. Someone else went to a great deal of trouble to make edits where the IP addresses would resolve to your general area. They carefully researched your vocabulary tells and included just enough Martinisms to not only tie the edits to you, but also to make it appear as if you were trying to hide your identity. Despite all that trouble, when the edits did not lead to an SPI they abandoned the effort rather than escalating.
- If JJada isn't your sock, then I think it's time to just admit defeat and give up on the idea of editing enWP. Somebody out there can, when the mood strikes them, create edits that look exactly like what we would expect if you were socking—down to the level of making the IP addresses look plausible. Even if the socking is resolved in your favor this time, the adversary can create new "sock" accounts at will and there's nothing you can do about it.
- If no such adversary exists, then you're wasting our time and yours. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let me reiterate - the IP addresses used by Jjada have not been resolved, so how can they be plausible?
- Also, what was the motive behind Jjada's postings? Are the compatible with my motives as shown on af: and here?
- Martinvl (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Lesser Cartographies:, I think that you are mixing up two unrelated, but otherwise fallacious SPI accusations.
Australian terrorist incident
@Oncenawhile: - Rather than making postings such as one, you should be contacting the NSW police directly on their crime-stoppers page. (I tried to add their site here, but it appears that the best way to get it is to Google it).
Someone might like to post this at WP:AN. Martinvl (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have since contacted the NSW police regarding this posting. In the interests of justice, please do not touch anything - let the police draw their own conclusions. Martinvl (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing so. Whoever was behind the account certainly had some connection to this lunatic, so i'm sure the NSW police will appreciate the info. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
January 2015
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WCMemail 12:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Please use the {{Admin help}} template appropriately.You used the {{Admin help}} template, but asked a question that doesn't require an admin to be answered. If you need help like this in the future, please add the {{Help me}} template instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access. |
Wee Curry Monster has made a ] against me on WP:ANI which contain a number of unfounded allegations . Since I am indefinitely blocked, what are my options to repudiate his claims? I need to ensure that whoever handles WCM's claims knows the full facts. Martinvl (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- You don't need an administrator for this specific question. What I might suggest doing is either requesting an unblock so that you may address the concerns on your own using the {{Unblock}} template, or post your comments and statements here and someone may copy your comment for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Martinvl, as per Technical 13, I'll be happy to copy your comments for you if you can ping me when you post them. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are no "unfounded allegations". Everything stated in the edit you linked to is unambiguously true. You have also been warned before, and have had every opportunity to make constructive responses to the criticisms of your actions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Martinvl, as per Technical 13, I'll be happy to copy your comments for you if you can ping me when you post them. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:
Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #15973 was submitted on Jun 15, 2016 21:25:05. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Information pertinent to this appeal
I would like to draw attention to a proposal Martin made at Meta-Wiki . Relevant points from this:
- Persists in claims of WP:CANVAS He demanded I inform all users on the talk page, I complied with his request, he then claims this is "canvassing".
- Describes the ANI which lead to his block as "mob justice".
- Describes me as a "bully" and a "troll" and alleges I exploited the situation at ANI.
- Still persisting with the quasi-legal justification.
Relevant discussions Removal of talk page & email access, 2nd Topic Ban appeal,First Topic Ban appeal,Original ANI discussion. There are several topic ban appeals and unblock requests on this page alone. He is also blocked permanently on simple.wiki for exactly the same disruptive behaviour after being blocked here . The continuing theme in all of these is a complete lack of any appreciation for the disruptive nature of his editing that lead to his block, instead he is persisting with the theme that he was wronged and it was my fault. The recent proposal at Meta-Wiki shows that he still doesn't get it. WCMemail 23:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- So basically Martinvl has retained the exact same attitude and lack of respect for Misplaced Pages, its procedures, protocols and editors since the first time I bumped into him prior to that original AN/I discussion? If that is the case then they should remain indefinitely blocked. Mabuska 11:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree that nothing seems to have changed on the basis of the report, above (I am trying to see if I can access the actual appeal message, but without success so far), so that there is no real prospect of anything positive being achieved by unblocking him. DDStretch (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The rules are that anyone can reform, and that includes Martin. Clearly, if we can't see what he's said, we can't say that he hasn't resolved all of the concerns that have been raised in the past. But on past form, I doubt it.
My advice to the person reviewing this would be, after reading the text of the appeal, to try to read the text of the appeal without inferring anything. Martin is an inveterate Wikilawyer and one of his tactics is write in such a way as to imply things that he doesn't mean, or that he is likely to later want to distance himself from. He will later hotly deny that he ever said them and even demand apologies for the suggestion that he might have done. We've seen it with personal attacks, we've seen it with legal threats and we've seen it with content disputes. And we've seen similar tactics attempted with previous unblock requests.
With Martin, if you don't demand and receive absolute clarity, if what is said is anything less than 100% unambiguous, 100% explicit and 100% impossible to reinterpret, you might as well ask him to take advantage of you. You can't assume that he will accept the spirit of any agreement, nor give any statement, in good faith. It has to be as tight as a legal document, because he will take advantage of any possible loophole, no matter how ridiculous or obviously outside the spirit of the text. Yes, this makes the whole process of getting anywhere at all on any issue very longwinded and frustrating. Martin wasn't indeffed for no reason.
It happened last time he appealed. Martin took responsibility for the behaviour that led to the block only in the narrowest possible terms (and the meta page makes it clear that he's since rowed back even on that). It rapidly became clear that this was because he took no responsibility for his wider behavioural issues at all, and continued to exhibit those issues in that very discussion.
If Martin does not clearly, explicitly and unambiguously understand and accept the reasons for his topic ban and block - described at the time by an uninvolved admin as "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT and extreme Wikilawyering" - he should not be unblocked. If it is not clear, unambiguous and explicit that he knows how to avoid those issues in the future, he should not be unblocked. And we should not unblock under any circumstances until the (very thinly-veiled) legal threat made at the Meta page is resolved. Kahastok talk 19:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:M8-M898 Temporary for discussion.svg
The file File:M8-M898 Temporary for discussion.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Image uploaded as "temporary" for a discussion (see file name), discussion has long-since concluded.
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. ~ Rob13 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Severn Estuary Crossings.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Severn Estuary Crossings.svg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21183 was submitted on Apr 11, 2018 19:53:35. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21198 was submitted on Apr 12, 2018 21:17:48. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21242 was submitted on Apr 16, 2018 19:23:03. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- UTRS Admin note: Due to repeated unsuccessful appeals that displayed the same exhaustive wiki-lawyering as presented here, UTRS access has been blocked for 3 months.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:
Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23537 was submitted on Dec 10, 2018 17:20:12. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Metrication of British transport for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metrication of British transport is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Road junction list templates
A tag has been placed on Category:Road junction list templates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Liz 01:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #26990 was submitted on Oct 09, 2019 17:39:28. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27159 was submitted on Oct 15, 2019 21:00:49. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #27396 was submitted on Oct 30, 2019 22:36:44. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Information relating to recent attempts to get round the block
I provide the following information in case it may ever be of help to any administrator if Martinvl should make further attempts either to get unblocked or to evade the effect of his block.
- As can be seen above, two months ago Martinvl 3 times in short succession posted at UTRS requesting that his block be reviewed. I have read those UTRS appeals, and the replies given by the declining administrators. More recently he has emailed OTRS, requesting that the email be forwarded to me, which was done. I have also read his UTRS appeals from previous years, including the three made in rapid succession within a few days in April 2018, which led to UTRS access being temporarily removed. None of the recent UTRS appeals contains anything substantially new: they largely repeat things he has repeatedly said previously, including in the UTRS appeals made in previous years.
- The post to OTRS was both an attempt to use OTRS to circumvent his removal of email access. It was also an attempt to get proxy editing done for him. As has been the case in the past, his UTRS appeals showed no understanding at all of the reasons which led to the block, nor any indication that he will not do the same again; on the contrary, two of the UTRS appeals explicitly stated that he was asking for email access to be restored so that he could abuse that email access to lobby and canvass editors. (In view of his persistent practice, commented on in the past, of ridiculous wikilawyering about the exact words used in statements, I will explicitly state that he did not use such words as "lobby", "abuse", and "canvass", but he did indicate that that was his purpose.) Such abuse of email was what led to his email access being removed in the first place, and the idea that it should be restored so that he can continue doing the same thing shows a truly astonishing inability to understand.
- He has also more than once attempted to evade the effect of his block on English Misplaced Pages by posting about it to one or more other Wikimedia projects. (Fortunately, and unsurprisingly, he got nowhere by doing so.)
- Every piece of evidence indicates that Martinvl either does not understand or chooses not to understand the reasons for his block and for his loss of talk page and email address, and that he thoroughly intends to return to doing exactly the same things again if his block is removed or if talk page and/or email access is returned. His practice of repeatedly posting appeals which say essentially the same, and which make no attempt whatever to address the reasons given for the decline of the previous appeals, is disruptive and a waste of other editors' time, and will not lead to his being unblocked. It is now more than six years since his current indefinite block was imposed, and in that time he has had ample opportunity to make a constructive unblock appeal, but he has instead persistently made numerous futile appeals which make no progress whatever towards either showing an understanding of the block nor indicating that he has any intention whatever of changing his ways. Either he has considerable difficulty in understanding what he is told, he understands but stubbornly refuses to accept consensus because he is "RIGHT" and sees no reason to collaborate, or he is trolling. Whichever of those possibilities is in fact the case, unfortunately I see no reason to think that after making no change in six years he is likely ever to do so. I therefore find it difficult to imagine any realistic possibility that unblocking will ever be appropriate.
I hope that my writing all this has been a waste of my time, because he has at last got the message and sill stop his time-wasting unblock requests and his abusive attempts to evade the effects of his block. However, if that turns out not to be the case, perhaps some or all of what I have written will be of help to another administrator who has to waste her or his time reviewing the situation. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:OIML blue logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:OIML blue logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Metric system
Metric system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for International System of Units
International System of Units has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Information on removal of email access
I've seen this repeated a couple of times now at Meta, so it may be worthwhile to put the record straight here for the benefit of any future editor unfamiliar with what happened. Martin has been claiming his email and talk page access was removed because he attempted to use the talk page to alert people to information related to the Lindt Cafe siege. When he posted about the siege it had been over for 15 hrs and in any case this is simply untrue.
Revocation was for an entirely different incident on 4 January 2015. I noticed a message posted by an editor responding to an email request from Martin to change the article en:International Bank Account Number, Martin immediately removed it . I discussed this with my mentor Nick-D . Nick suggested this was prima facie evidence of an attempt to recruit meat puppets with the email functionality and as this was not the first occasion advised I post at en:WP:AN asking for review by an uninvolved admin. I did so , it was reviewed and JBW as an uninvolved admin chose to revoke his talk page and email access . WCMemail 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)