Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:41, 19 December 2018

Welcome!

Hello, IntelligentName, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Jogi 007 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi,

I saw that you made edits to Fractional Reserve Banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you.--IntelligentName (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert H. Hemphill

Hi,

You posted a quote from Robert H. Hemphill which was apparently in the first edition of Irving Fisher's 100% Money.

Your help in writing an article about this man will be much appreciated. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, 1RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Stephen Miller is under 1RR - that means no more than 1 revert per 24 hours. I'm gonna suggest a self revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering you and your friend ignored consensus required I don't think a complaining would end well for you. But you can try it! D.Creish (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you Wikilawyers missed the part about the page being under 1RR -- you know, no more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period. So you can revert back, or you can explain yourself at WP:AE. --Calton | Talk 09:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and a reminder: what's being challenged is your DELETION of material. So, backwards. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, what's being challenged is the addition of material. It is not longstanding text, it was added only one day ago. According to the BLP policy, it should not be re-inserted without consensus.--IntelligentName (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@Black Kite: Hello, may I ask why you have not blocked Calton and PeterTheFourth for violating the arbitration decision on Stephen Miller ? I am referring to the second arbitration remedy (quoted below) :

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

--IntelligentName (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• You were edit-warring on Miller (where you made multiple reverts) and Elizabeth Warren. If the others had reverted as many times as you, and/or had been edit-warring over multiple articles, I would have blocked them too. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus required". YOU made the change being challenged, so it's up to YOU to justify it, guy. --Calton | Talk 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Block Appeal

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. ] (]) 07:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. ] (]) 07:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. ] (]) 07:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The blocking admin decided to block me for violating the arbitration decision on Stephen Miller, but did not block two other users who were doing the same. This admin later clarified that I was blocked because of multiple reverts on Stephen Miller and because of edit warring on Elizabeth Warren.

However, I only did one revert on Elizabeth Warren, and the definition of edit warring provided on WP:Edit warring states that edit wars occur "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" For these reasons, I do not believe the characterization that I was edit warring on Elizabeth Warren is accurate.

As for the edit warring on Stephen Miller, I really did only two reverts (one above the 1 RR policy). The first three reverts was simply undoing the recent additions of one editor which I did not know how to revert them all at once. In addition to that, according to the 7th exemption on the exemption section on the edit warring page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions), my reverts on Stephen Miller should be exempt from the edit warring policy. For this reason, I do not believe the characterization that I was edit warring on Stephen Miller is correct.

I am not sure if being exempt from the edit warring policy is also being exempt from the 1 RR policy. If it is not, then I still believe I should not be blocked, considering that I have no prior blocks and the other two editors that have also broke the arbitration remedy on Stephen Miller around the same time as myself were not given a block. --IntelligentName (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock