| Revision as of 05:17, 16 July 2014 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,254 edits →WP:AE: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:13, 16 July 2014 edit undo84.106.11.117 (talk) →WP:AENext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| A case has been filed at ]. Please see it, and respond when your block expires. ] (]) 05:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | A case has been filed at ]. Please see it, and respond when your block expires. ] (]) 05:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :These discussions: | |||
| * "]" | |||
| * "]" | |||
| * "]" is about: "Is there a ''compelling'' reason why the supporter(s) of ] have to post from (shifting) IP addresses?" | |||
| * "] | |||
| I didn't think it was helpful to the article. I have explained which parts of the talk page guidelines apply on each reverting editors talk page. (including yours) It might be that you believe it is useful to talk about editors in the 3rd person. I don't see how that is in line with the guideline. | |||
| If you think editors are 1) disrupting the talk page you may collapse the discussion. If you think editors 2) need further reminding about disrupting the talk page, you can use their user talk page. If you want to know 3) if there is a compelling reason why editors use their IP, you can read the guidelines and ask them on their talk page. If you 4) claim that I have an account, you may fill a report. | |||
| All those things exist for a reason, it is never a good idea to clutter up the article talk page with such topics. This is because if there are many topics the older ones get archived in favor of the newer ones. In my opinion your new "proposals" are not valuable enough to dispose of older proposals that do involve article improvements. | |||
| Hope this helps, | |||
| ] (]) 12:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:13, 16 July 2014
July 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
84.106.11.117 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello there!
I think I'm simply following the talk page guidelines. If one wants to claim that I claim to have an account one should do so elsewhere, my talk page would be a good place.
The other discussions are not constructive either.
I don't think they (the discussions) are more important than having an editor but that is up to you to decide.
Good luck!
P.S. : I don't have an account and I don't claim to have one either. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie 01:39, 16 July 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.
- You were warned about edit-waring and ignored it. Talkpage guidelines are not exempt from 3RR. Acroterion (talk)
- Hello Acroterion,
- I sure did, and it is entirely appropriate to ban me for refusing to accept the talk page violations.
- I will however take the opportunity to explain the situation. How editors, by consensus, violate guidelines that are perfectly obvious.
- Hope that explains it.
- Good day!
WP:AE
A case has been filed at Arbitration Enforcement. Please see it, and respond when your block expires. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- These discussions:
- "Edit Warring and Disruption on Talk Page"
- "Disruptive Editing of Talk Page - Further Reminder"
- "question" is about: "Is there a compelling reason why the supporter(s) of cold fusion have to post from (shifting) IP addresses?"
- "IP Addresses
I didn't think it was helpful to the article. I have explained which parts of the talk page guidelines apply on each reverting editors talk page. (including yours) It might be that you believe it is useful to talk about editors in the 3rd person. I don't see how that is in line with the guideline.
If you think editors are 1) disrupting the talk page you may collapse the discussion. If you think editors 2) need further reminding about disrupting the talk page, you can use their user talk page. If you want to know 3) if there is a compelling reason why editors use their IP, you can read the guidelines and ask them on their talk page. If you 4) claim that I have an account, you may fill a report.
All those things exist for a reason, it is never a good idea to clutter up the article talk page with such topics. This is because if there are many topics the older ones get archived in favor of the newer ones. In my opinion your new "proposals" are not valuable enough to dispose of older proposals that do involve article improvements.
Hope this helps,