| Revision as of 08:19, 8 July 2015 editWarKosign (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,013 edits →DS alert: new sectionTag: contentious topics alert← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:23, 8 December 2023 edit undoB-bot (talk | contribs)Bots533,262 edits Notification that File:CR76 Summer15.jpg is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5 | ||
| (190 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == September 2018 == | |||
| <!-- Template:Welcomelaws --> | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| ;Welcome! | |||
| Hello and ] to ]. Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->.] (]) 06:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ;Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages: | |||
| * ] – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites. | |||
| * Maintain a ] – this is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies. | |||
| * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a ] to any Misplaced Pages page and follow ]. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be ] with multiple ]. | |||
| * No ] or ]. | |||
| * If you are testing, please use the ] to <span class="plainlinks"></span>. | |||
| * Do not add troublesome content to any ], such as: ]ed text, ], advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered ]; doing so will result in your account or IP being ]. | |||
| * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Misplaced Pages is ]. | |||
| * I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed. ] (]) 07:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!{{z129}} | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (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. | |||
| :You may have broken ] at ]. It might be in your interest to respond to and promise to wait for consensus before editing the article again. ] (]) 03:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've continued to revert the article while making no response. Study of your block log shows a lot of past problems including a six month block, suggesting you were ]. . You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you, ] (]) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not ]. I did ONE revert today. ] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit? ] (]) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Long term pattern of edit warring == | |||
| 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--> ] (]) 07:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Welcome!== | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for Long term pattern of edit warring. No understanding of consensus. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. </div></div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> Per . The most recent article where you have been warring is ]. As explained above, this is a long term problem and there is not much hope for the future. ] (]) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ]]] ], Garageland66! Thank you for ]. I am ] and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on ]. You can also check out ] or type {{tlx|help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Also, when you post on ] you should ] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! ] <span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small>If you reply here, please ] by adding <nowiki>{{U|I dream of horses}}</nowiki> to your message. </small></span> {{small|(]) (])}} @ 07:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason= I wrote yesterday "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not ]. I did ONE revert today. ] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" Yet I got no reply; only a message telling me I'd been indefinitely blocked. Blocked for what? For asking when I can and cannot revert an edit. An edit that was done without having achieved a consensus! Please could somebody independently look at this. I didn't even do any editing on Misplaced Pages yesterday. All I did was ONE legitimate revert the day before. ] (]) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)|decline=I looked at your mainspace contributions . What do I see? Revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. You need to look at our ] closely; I would advise any future unblock request to have some sort of pledge such as a self-imposed 1RR restriction. ] ] ] 13:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Garageland66, you are invited to the Teahouse! == | |||
| :It is hard to see how some of those were reverts not covered by (for example) BLP. Moreover it is hard to see how making one edit well after 24 hours if an edit war breach.] (]) 09:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::] #7 explains what reverts are exceptions under the BLP policy. Unsourced defamation is an example. The reverts in question here were mostly in the area of ] where all the information is sourced but editor consensus is required to determine if a balanced summary is being provided. Reverting in the service of ] is not excused from revert-counting under 3RR; you still need to wait for consensus.] (]) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::] Shouldn't you have explained this when I asked what I'm entitled to do and what I'm not; instead of blocking me in spite of me having done NO further edits. I'd only asked for help. I did no more edits, yet I was blocked. ] (]) 16:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You were warned above for edit warring by ], yet you kept on reverting. You were told about the complaint at ] and were given a chance to answer it, but you didn't do so. At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice. You are not a beginner at this edit warring business. ] (]) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Apologies for keep getting things wrong. I'm not always able to respond quickly (due to work) and I made a deliberate decision to not do any more edits or reverts precisely because of the warning. ] You've stated that "At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice." Please would you look again at the sequence of events. | |||
| *At 15:02, 17 September 2018 I did my very last edit and made no more edits. Indeed this edit still stands; it was even reinstated by another editor. | |||
| *At 15:36, 17 September 2018 you said "I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block." | |||
| *At 15:48, 17 September 2018 you then said on my Talk Page (above) "You've continued to revert the article while making no response... You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you," | |||
| *At 18:39, 17 September 2018 I DID indeed respond stating "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not... Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" | |||
| *At 03:17, 18 September 2018 I was suddenly blocked even though I HAD made a response, I had asked about reverts and I had done NO more edits at all. I honestly thought I had done what was needed. | |||
| I am sincerely sorry that I keep getting things wrong. I find knowing when to revert and when not to such a minefield. I regularly have edits reverted, so didn't realise the danger of reverting. Please could you reconsider this ban. Thank you ] (]) 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="margin: 2em 4em;" | |||
| :Your was made while you were already under notice for edit warring, and without you having made any response to the noticeboard complaint. You seem to feel that your confidence that you are right is enough to justify making any number of reverts, with no reference to the opinions of others. Your block might be lifted if we were sure you would behave differently in the future, but after six previous blocks your credibility is low. In your above unblock request you ask questions that could easily be answered if you had read the ] policy. For example, "Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" In this case, no you are not. You are expected to wait for consensus. By this time, your ignorance of the edit warring policy doesn't deserve much sympathy. ] (]) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| |- valign="top" | |||
| ::So the block was for the edit whilst I was under notice for edit warring. Sorry, I didn't realise it was as serious as this. Apologies once again. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| | ] | |||
| | <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;"> | |||
| Hi '''Garageland66'''! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at ]! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! {{noping|Technical 13}} (]) | |||
| <div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">]</span></div><small><span style="text-align:right;">This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, ] (]) 17:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)</small></span> | |||
| </div> | |||
| |} | |||
| ]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation --> | |||
| :::Just an idea - agree a voluntary bad on any reverts for three months as a gesture of good behaviour. Agree to propose them on the talk page and allow other editors to act (or not to act). I'm sure a few of us would be happy to mentor you if Ed would buy into that as a solution. -----] <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, and ]. You appear to be engaged in an ] with one or more editors according to your reverts at ]. Although repeatedly ] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the ], and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a ] on the ]. | |||
| ::::Thank you ]. I'm wary of putting in another appeal. I don't want to cause any more trouble. ] (]) 19:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 13:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you ]. Having now read ] I can see what I've been doing wrong all along. I had thought that controversial edits could be reverted regardless of the number of them. I can't believe how stupid I've been by not being fully aware of the ]. Rather embarrassed actually. ] (]) 19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == DS alert == | |||
| ::You are wikilawyering here and its unlikely to get a positive response. I've seen a lot of people getting banned by arguing detail when the overall behavioural pattern is seen as problematic. Thats where you are so accepting a self ban on reverts and mentoring is (in my opinion) one of the few ways forward -----] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| :::Okay thanks for the advice. ] ] (]) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:CR76 Summer15.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 --> --] (]) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding the ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me. | |||
| }} ]]] 08:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC){{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:23, 8 December 2023
September 2018
Your recent editing history at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed. Garageland66 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2018 (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. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- You may have broken WP:3RR at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. It might be in your interest to respond to the AN3 complaint and promise to wait for consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- You've continued to revert the article while making no response. Study of your block log shows a lot of past problems including a six month block, suggesting you were WP:NOTHERE. I've proposed you should now be indefinitely blocked. You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not EdJohnston. I did ONE revert today. ] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit? Garageland66 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- You've continued to revert the article while making no response. Study of your block log shows a lot of past problems including a six month block, suggesting you were WP:NOTHERE. I've proposed you should now be indefinitely blocked. You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Long term pattern of edit warring
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. The most recent article where you have been warring is Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. As explained above, this is a long term problem and there is not much hope for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Garageland66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wrote yesterday "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not EdJohnston. I did ONE revert today. ] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" Yet I got no reply; only a message telling me I'd been indefinitely blocked. Blocked for what? For asking when I can and cannot revert an edit. An edit that was done without having achieved a consensus! Please could somebody independently look at this. I didn't even do any editing on Misplaced Pages yesterday. All I did was ONE legitimate revert the day before. Garageland66 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I looked at your mainspace contributions here. What do I see? Revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. You need to look at our edit warring policies closely; I would advise any future unblock request to have some sort of pledge such as a self-imposed 1RR restriction. Ritchie333 13:10, 19 September 2018 (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 is hard to see how some of those were reverts not covered by (for example) BLP. Moreover it is hard to see how making one edit well after 24 hours if an edit war breach.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:3RRNO #7 explains what reverts are exceptions under the BLP policy. Unsourced defamation is an example. The reverts in question here were mostly in the area of WP:DUE where all the information is sourced but editor consensus is required to determine if a balanced summary is being provided. Reverting in the service of WP:DUE is not excused from revert-counting under 3RR; you still need to wait for consensus.EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- EdJohnston Shouldn't you have explained this when I asked what I'm entitled to do and what I'm not; instead of blocking me in spite of me having done NO further edits. I'd only asked for help. I did no more edits, yet I was blocked. Garageland66 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- You were warned above for edit warring by User:Icewhiz, yet you kept on reverting. You were told about the complaint at WP:AN3 and were given a chance to answer it, but you didn't do so. At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice. You are not a beginner at this edit warring business. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies for keep getting things wrong. I'm not always able to respond quickly (due to work) and I made a deliberate decision to not do any more edits or reverts precisely because of the warning. EdJohnston You've stated that "At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice." Please would you look again at the sequence of events.
- You were warned above for edit warring by User:Icewhiz, yet you kept on reverting. You were told about the complaint at WP:AN3 and were given a chance to answer it, but you didn't do so. At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice. You are not a beginner at this edit warring business. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- EdJohnston Shouldn't you have explained this when I asked what I'm entitled to do and what I'm not; instead of blocking me in spite of me having done NO further edits. I'd only asked for help. I did no more edits, yet I was blocked. Garageland66 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:3RRNO #7 explains what reverts are exceptions under the BLP policy. Unsourced defamation is an example. The reverts in question here were mostly in the area of WP:DUE where all the information is sourced but editor consensus is required to determine if a balanced summary is being provided. Reverting in the service of WP:DUE is not excused from revert-counting under 3RR; you still need to wait for consensus.EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- At 15:02, 17 September 2018 I did my very last edit and made no more edits. Indeed this edit still stands; it was even reinstated by another editor.
- At 15:36, 17 September 2018 you said "I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block."
- At 15:48, 17 September 2018 you then said on my Talk Page (above) "You've continued to revert the article while making no response... You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you,"
- At 18:39, 17 September 2018 I DID indeed respond stating "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not... Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?"
- At 03:17, 18 September 2018 I was suddenly blocked even though I HAD made a response, I had asked about reverts and I had done NO more edits at all. I honestly thought I had done what was needed.
I am sincerely sorry that I keep getting things wrong. I find knowing when to revert and when not to such a minefield. I regularly have edits reverted, so didn't realise the danger of reverting. Please could you reconsider this ban. Thank you Garageland66 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your article edit of 15:02 on 17 September was made while you were already under notice for edit warring, and without you having made any response to the noticeboard complaint. You seem to feel that your confidence that you are right is enough to justify making any number of reverts, with no reference to the opinions of others. Your block might be lifted if we were sure you would behave differently in the future, but after six previous blocks your credibility is low. In your above unblock request you ask questions that could easily be answered if you had read the WP:Edit warring policy. For example, "Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" In this case, no you are not. You are expected to wait for consensus. By this time, your ignorance of the edit warring policy doesn't deserve much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- So the block was for the edit whilst I was under notice for edit warring. Sorry, I didn't realise it was as serious as this. Apologies once again. Garageland66 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just an idea - agree a voluntary bad on any reverts for three months as a gesture of good behaviour. Agree to propose them on the talk page and allow other editors to act (or not to act). I'm sure a few of us would be happy to mentor you if Ed would buy into that as a solution. -----Snowded 17:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Snowded. I'm wary of putting in another appeal. I don't want to cause any more trouble. Garageland66 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Ritchie333. Having now read edit warring policies I can see what I've been doing wrong all along. I had thought that controversial edits could be reverted regardless of the number of them. I can't believe how stupid I've been by not being fully aware of the WP:3RR. Rather embarrassed actually. Garageland66 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are wikilawyering here and its unlikely to get a positive response. I've seen a lot of people getting banned by arguing detail when the overall behavioural pattern is seen as problematic. Thats where you are so accepting a self ban on reverts and mentoring is (in my opinion) one of the few ways forward -----Snowded 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for the advice. Snowded Garageland66 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:CR76 Summer15.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CR76 Summer15.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) 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
