Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 24 October 2010

Welcome to Off2riorob's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Fact tag

Howdy, we don't usually add content (particularly potentially negative content about a living person) to articles with a {{fact}} tag included. Even if true, content like that needs a reliable source. As a general rule, you should never be fact tagging your own sentences. (I realize, of course, this is demonstrable on wiki using primary sources, so I can see where you're going, but a reliable source is still needed before content is added.) --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Its totally indisputable, added fact tag and will cite in the near future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is silly to argue about BLP in this circumstance. But absent a source it is still original research, which is impermissible on Misplaced Pages. If you have a reliable source which indicates it (off Misplaced Pages), then add it. If not, then I would request your revert yourself until you do have such a source. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please note, I am not going to revert you since you have a source. But I may block you if you continue to revert. TeaDrinker (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please note this is not a reflection of the value we place on your contributions or a particular viewpoint on your recent edits, only as a protective measure. If you promise to revert yourself (if necessary) and take the matter to the talk page, I would be happy to unblock you. You may also request an unblock using the {{unblock}} tag. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Agree to Tea drinkers conditions for unblocking.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Agree to Tea drinkers conditions for unblocking. Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you Todd. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Formal notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Climate change if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision. T. Canens (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Off2riorob

I wanted to notify you of this discussion concerning you at the Administrator's notice board. I know that you're currently blocked, but it won't go anywhere until you have a chance to respond. My offer to lift your block if you promise to desist the edit war still stands as well (Any admin has my permission to carry this out as well). --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't wish to respond there, the community consensus is welcome to restrict me in whatever way it wishes. I will say that to be placed on a 1RR restriction for this is imo totally excessive and if that is the communities decision I will take the advice and go contribute elsewhere.Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

offline. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I've not studied your CC contributions, so I've no reason to complain about them. However, as an uninvolved admin I've been trying to de-escalate this, on the basis that no matter who's right and who's wrong the community has rather had enough of it. I wondering rather than topic bans and 1RR, you might be willing "for the sake of the peace" to agree to move away from CC for a self-declared number of months. If you are willing to do that, I am willing to close down all discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at. As I say, I've no reason to think you've acted inappropriately here at all - so I'm uninterested in rebuking you. If your answer is no, then I respect that and I withdraw.--Scott Mac 12:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in climate change and have little only exploratory contributions there, voluntarily agree not to edit in that area for a number of months, three or four... Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I've hatted the thread. Can I suggest you empty your watchlist of the related articles and the pages of the users involved and enjoy your freedom for a bit?--Scott Mac 13:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Suits me. Off2riorob, thanks for this, it really helps to lower the temperature on this overheated topic. --TS 19:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I appreciate I should not edit that area and will comply in all regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

around - Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocked

As per this, still autoblocked http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:BlockList&ip=%232131196 - Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - you should be OK now - I've removed the autoblock. When I get a chance I'll need to look into the full gory history of how you managed to get blocked ;-) TFOWR 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, it is gory indeed. Thanks TFOWR, a period of personal reassessment may be required (me not you), best. 15:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeating suggestion regarding editing on Jewish topics

I am going to repeat the suggestion that I made on the Geim talk page: I think it would be best if you stopped editing on Jewish topics. You clearly know very little (evident also in your question to JoshuaZ), and for some reason you are allowing your personal opinions to override proper editing practices (mainly, being guided by what is verified by reliable sources). Given your usual approach to BLPs, this is strange -- you don't normally approach BLPs this way. The fact that you are doing this on BLPs in relation to Jewish issues suggests to me that you and the encyclopedia would be better off if you avoided them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)