Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 21 January 2014

re: userpage

It doesn't need undeleting. Just edit it and click save to create it again. S.G. _ping! 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I was just following instructions that said, "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page...please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." Holdek (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries :) S.G. _ping! 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Please comment on Talk:Romano-Chinese relations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romano-Chinese relations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Main

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Main. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe my reverts fall under exception 7 since I am removing unsourced contentious BLP content about ratings for shows centered around living persons, and these shows are named after them. Holdek (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

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

Request reason:

Blocked after making this reply to the blocker at an ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=591474527. Seems to be retaliation, considering he was in the process of continuing the ANI by asking me questions such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=591472960&oldid=591471746, and making statements such as this: "I'd hate to see anybody get blocked here," (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs&diff=591469269&oldid=591448093) after his accusation of bad faith gaming the system. Request uninvolved admin to review what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to a response that I took pains to phrase as benignly as I could given the accusation and its tone. Holdek (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

OK, here is the review by an uninvolved admin that you requested. I see much disruptive editing, including edit warring, an obstructive approach in discussions, attempting to wriggle around criticisms of what you were doing by methods which have been described as trying to game the system, and a form of ownership approach in which you try to deny equal editing right to particular editors you disagree with, inventing ridiculous pretexts for doing so, such as that they have not put their name down on a so-called "project" page. I see an administrator who was at pains to try to give you every chance, including stating that he would prefer that nobody be blocked, and asking you to clarify a statement that you had made. I see you continuing to exhibit a battleground approach, even in a discussion about a possible block of your account, where one might expect that motivation to be seen as being reasonable and cooperative might be maximal. I see the administrator finally give up on any hope of encouraging you to respond constructively, and block you. I see that, dealing with a persistently disruptive editor with a history of numerous blocks over a period of seven years, the administrator chooses to be so remarkably lenient as to block for only one month. I see you make an unblock request which is pure WP:NOTTHEM, in which you quote such facts as that the blocking admin expressed the hope that a block would not be necessary, and that he asked you for clarification of a statement, not as evidence of his good faith and his willingness to try to help, but as evidence that his behaviour was somehow reprehensible. The depressing thing is that I get the impression that this bizarre unblock request was actually made in good faith, and that you really cannot see the nature of the things you have said and done. That is how it all looks to an uninvolved outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 21 January 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.

Indefinitely blocked

I've taken a further look at your editing since I blocked you. It has become clear that you have repeatedly used 68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a disruptive manner since 2012 and you did once again in your latest edit war at List of most-listened-to radio programs. That coupled with your history and your post-block bad-faith behavior including attacking the uninvolved admin who declined your block above is enough for me to change this block to indefinite, which I have done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=False charges. No evidence. And admin did not go through SPI procedure. Further evidence that this is a personal issue. Requesting block to be reduced to previous block length, preferably removed entirely. ] (]) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=False charges. No evidence. And admin did not go through SPI procedure. Further evidence that this is a personal issue. Requesting block to be reduced to previous block length, preferably removed entirely. ] (]) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=False charges. No evidence. And admin did not go through SPI procedure. Further evidence that this is a personal issue. Requesting block to be reduced to previous block length, preferably removed entirely. ] (]) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Please do not remove comments from blocking admin

They are provided for other admins who may review your block. You may lose the privilege to edit this page if it continues. Toddst1 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You significantly amended your comment above my reply to it without noting so. Read: Misplaced Pages: Talk#Own comments. Holdek (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock