| Revision as of 12:13, 16 July 2014 edit84.106.11.117 (talk) →WP:AE← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:25, 18 July 2014 edit undo84.106.11.117 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == July 2014 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' 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.<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 ]. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Hello there! <br> I think I'm simply following the ]. If one wants to '''''' one should do so elsewhere, my talk page would be a good place. <br> The other discussions are not constructive either. <br> I don't think they (the discussions) are more important than having an editor but that is up to you to decide. <br> Good luck! <br> P.S. : I don't have an account and I don't claim to have one either. ] (]) 00:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | decline = Per ]. <b>] ]</b> 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| :You were warned about edit-waring and ignored it. Talkpage guidelines are not exempt from 3RR. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' | |||
| ::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! | |||
| ::] (]) 00:56, 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) | |||