Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ohms law: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:16, 21 April 2012 edit완젬스 (talk | contribs)1,075 edits Cliffnotes of my struggle against Equaczion: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 00:17, 21 April 2012 edit undo완젬스 (talk | contribs)1,075 edits Cliffnotes of my struggle against EquaczionNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
== Cliffnotes of my struggle against Equaczion == == Cliffnotes of my struggle against Equaczion ==


He and I have had some edit warring and disagreements in the past. He is proposing that I am topic banned for 4 separate reasons: spi, coi, bias, and false flag. I have immediately enacted "damage control" (no editing to the article or its talk page) until our dispute is over, or until it is moved to WP:COI. Also, admin Lihaas stated, ''"While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boad] (]) 22:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)"'' He and I have had some edit warring and disagreements in the past. He is proposing that I am topic banned for 4 separate reasons: spi, coi, bias, and false flag. I have immediately enacted "damage control" (no editing to the article or its talk page) until our dispute is over, or until it is moved to WP:COI. Also, admin Lihaas stated:
:''"While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boad] (]) 22:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)"''


I am very apologetic and regretful for my shameful behavior today. I wish I could take it all back, but I'm an active editor since September 2011 and have 3 barn stars, zero warnings, zero blocks, just a really-really bad day and I can't undo my mistakes. :( ] (]) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I am very apologetic and regretful for my shameful behavior today. I wish I could take it all back, but I'm an active editor since September 2011 and have 3 barn stars, zero warnings, zero blocks, just a really-really bad day and I can't undo my mistakes. :( ] (]) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:17, 21 April 2012


Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14
Baseball Archive


This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Current conversation

u1 deletions

Hi. Is there a list somewhere of all the pages? We can delete them in bulk instead of tagging each one. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that would be great! There's Category:Ohms Law Bot cleanup, which contains all of the pages. That cat page can go as well. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I started a while ago - script is still running. Won't be much longer. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated. I've asked about getting this done twice before (and then forgotten about it), but I guess that I just didn't ask the right person. hehe
Not that it was a huge deal. It's nice to finally have the mess that I made a while back cleaned up, though (and I so hate having to ask others to clean up my crap... grrrr).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done. No problem. I have not deleted the category page as some of the pages contain over 5,000 revisions so a Steward must perform the deletions. You might want to poke MBisanz for that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha, and thanks again.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thehelpfulbot

Hi! Thanks for your message, the bot runs every 15 minutes on a crontab, but it looks at the pages in the missing reflist category, instead of last edited of the page itself, I could bump this up to every 30 minutes so users are less likely to experience edit conflicts? The Helpful One 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me (I don't think that telling you to rewrite your software is reasonable, really). Thanks for listening!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs)

Cliffnotes of my struggle against Equaczion

He and I have had some edit warring and disagreements in the past. He is proposing that I am topic banned for 4 separate reasons: spi, coi, bias, and false flag. I have immediately enacted "damage control" (no editing to the article or its talk page) until our dispute is over, or until it is moved to WP:COI. Also, admin Lihaas stated:

"While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boadLihaas (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)"

I am very apologetic and regretful for my shameful behavior today. I wish I could take it all back, but I'm an active editor since September 2011 and have 3 barn stars, zero warnings, zero blocks, just a really-really bad day and I can't undo my mistakes. :( 완젬스 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)