Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 15 May 2013

April 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Robert B. Bell, you may be blocked from editing. Even if you disagree with the close, you can't remove others talk page comments and doing so will eventually lead to a block. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

:You're right, when I pressed "Undo" to reverse the close, I forgot that it would also delete the associated talk comment. My apologies. Actually, his edit summaries didn't indicate any text written. --68.50.128.91 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries about that then. It happens to the best of us sometimes. However, I am going to close your request because it's not the proper use of the editsemiprotected template. The template is used when an anonymous editor such as yourself wants an edit made to an article that they can't make because anonymous editors have been stopped from editing the article itself. However, you have the capability to edit the article, hence why the template doesn't make sense (it'd be analagous to trying to file your taxes at the DMV. It's just not the proper use of it....). If you want to continue to discuss potential edits on the talk page that isn't a problem. Nor is editing the article IF you have appropriate sources to back up your edits. However, I tried to find sources on CWC (not even CWC+rob bell) and was unsuccessful, so I don't think that you're going to get the rest of us to agree with your edits. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I explained on the page, I am unable to make that edit because it triggers a false positive edit filter. I asked about this at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I was told to make an edit request. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome at any time to remove content from her or his own talk page, since the very act of removal is an admission that one has read the content being removed. You are misinterpreting the section you quoted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

If you have their permission. " 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, removing stuff from your own talk page is allowed with or without the author's permission, excepting shared IP templates, active block notices, and declined unblock requests, the latter two provided the block is still active. Users do have wide latitude to adjust their talk pages as they see fit. —Jeremy v^_^v 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

And, I have sent the proper link to Sailsbystars as well. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One more revert on Talk:Robert B. Bell will result in blocking your account from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You and I have no understanding. You need to give a reason for your threat. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times above, on ANI, on the talk page, and continue edit warring. At some point (which is really close) blocks will start to be given out.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring, but a few others have. I suggest you take a look at the complaint that editor Sailsbystars made at on Administrator's Noticeboard. You will see that there was no determination by the administrators that I was in the wrong. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and I came to the talk page as the result of that request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that. You should have made a judgement on the noticeboard and closed it, if that was the case. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no policy which says so. Anyway, now you know.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't accept your word for it. You need to follow proper Misplaced Pages procedure. Feel free to create a new incident on the discussion board if you want. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not want. My business was to warn you that next revert on the talk page will result in blocking your IP. I am at this point not really interested in the rest of the story. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not want to follow proper procedure, then refrain from edit warring. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Block May 1, 2013

I blocked your IP for 24 hours for edit warring, as discussed in details above. Please after the block expires, consider contributing constructively.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I was told by an administrator (feel free to check the archives) to use the edit request template because the edit filter is returning a false positive on my edit. This was explained to Ymblanter on the administrator's noticeboard and no action was taken there, but he started an edit war instead.

Decline reason:

The reason for your block appears to have been patiently explained to you. Since your expressed intent is to return to the problematic behavior, unblocking you would seem unwise. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2013 (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.

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

Request reason:

Requesting more than a cursory response to my appeal 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: your block has expired, so we can't unblock you. Favonian (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2013 (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.

WP:3O

I have again removed your request for a third opinion - third opinions are strictly for cases where two editors are involved in a dispute. In this case, the dispute is between you and (at the last count) five other editors; a third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion has therefore already been provided. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The third opinion request is about Ymblanter blocking me due to trying to keep the edit request open, not the edit request itself. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who declined your 3O request. Beyond just the number of parties involved, the 3O forum is primarily for content issues and is informal. It is not a good forum for conduct disputes. Purely as an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that there is no point in continuing to raise this issue. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The third option is the first step listed under conduct disputes in the dispute resolution template. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A more thorough explanation is available in the lede of WP:3O: Some disputes may involve both content issues as well as issues regarding the conduct of an editor. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard or a request for comment on user conduct. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out. As such, the now struck-out sentence I wrote above would have been better phrased, "Due to the number of editors involved and the nature of the question, 3O is not the best forum for this conduct dispute." VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification and your help! 68.50.128.91 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Robert B. Bell ‎

Consider this your only warning. If you open the edit request at Talk:Robert B. Bell once more, you will be blocked. It is simply a resumption of the same edit warring for which you have already been blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)