Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 8 February 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160

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

I'm A New User Who Has Been Blocked

Hi Courcelles,

I just signed up for an account today and edited out a citation on Thor Heyerdahl's Article that I felt was frivolous and defamatory. It reappeared and not knowing why I edited it out again. Then after a 3rd time I realized it was another user and not something I was doing wrong in the editing process. I've done a little ore reading of the policies, instructions and how the system works but I apparently was blocked for violation of the 3 edit - 24 hour rule. My talk page is blocked also by someone. Please unblock me and I know now how to resolve these issues better using the other utilities and procedures.

Thanks, DixieDear — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're not blocked. If you were, you would see a message like this when you tried to edit. You were advised by another editor that you had made three reverts and would therefore likely be blocked if you reverted again (in accordance with the three-revert rule, which prohibits making more than three reverts on one page in 24 hours). The best thing to do would be for you to go to Talk:Thor Heyerdahl and explain why you think the material you were removing shouldn't be there, then wait for other editors to comment, and discuss it with them if they disagree with you. You haven't done anything wrong, you just need to stop and talk about it (we call it the bold, revert, discuss cycle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Misplaced Pages, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

14th century AH and 15th century AH

• Courcelles, I noticed that you deleted these two articles as part of a "Delete all" decision that you made in the discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/320 AH. However, I cannot see where a mass nomination had been made, nor whether there was any discussion on these. It is possible that these were nominated, but I cannot find any discourse. Hence, I need you to explain when these articles were nominated, with links to the discussion. As an administrator, my policy has been to not rule on a discussion without determining (a) whether the articles had been tagged and nominated in accordance with the procedures for nominating and (b) whether contributors to an article were given fair notice of the nomination so that they could participate. At the very least, however, I would not have deleted any article that was not specifically nominated. Your explanation will make things more clear and will be appreciated. Thank you. Mandsford 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The whole list of articles is in the AFD (check the collapse box), and the few deleted ones I spot-checked were AFD tagged by the nominator in an AWB run, so I assume all of them were.
    • I'll see whether they were or not. If they weren't, I'll restore the ones that weren't. I was active in AfD back in January 2011, and I think I would have seen this one if it had been properly nominated, regardless of whether the nominator extended anyone any courtesies. We'll see. Mandsford 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • User:Koavf is very clever, using a collapsible box and giving no notice to any contributors about what he's doing. Collapsible boxes are just fine for compacting large discussions, but never to conceal what's actually on the table in a deletion nomination. I have to admit, I've never seen that maneuver before. I'll have to watch out for that one in the future. Mandsford 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It is actually common for bulk nominations when the test case has already been proven to et rid of a system of articles. (and it was at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1114 AH). Further, for the record, your saying you will restore any articles that weren't tagged is rather improper. Even though you have he buttons, admins are expected to use DRV to overturn an AFD close, just as other editors. Courcelles 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are an arbitor

You wrote "it would be improper for any single admin to undo this block and it needs to be discussed on AN before it is done." . You have the ability to move to strip users of the buttons. I do not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct me (and perhaps a link), but I was under the impression that any established editor was free to either initiate a RfC, or request a case at wp:rfar. Is that not the case, or am I misunderstanding the meaning of "move to strip users of the buttons"? — Ched :  ?  13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I can ask that arbiters move to do something. I cannot move something myself, so yes, you are misunderstanding the meaning of move. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies then sir - carry on, and have a great day/night all. — Ched :  ?  19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

oops .. or ma'am if that's the case. I try to have a short wiki-memory in many ways. Either way - no offence intended. — Ched :  ?  20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm involved in this mess up to my eyeballs, so I could never hear i as an Arbitrator. I'm still considering whether to let this one go, or bring a wheel-warring case, however... Courcelles 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)