Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 331dot (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 8 August 2023 (→August 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nigej (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Johnsmith2116 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was called by a concerned editor in Misplaced Pages about this block and they recommended that the block should be taken away for two reasons.

First, I did not even know about any such violation, if I had known, I would not have made the edit in question. I should not be penalized with a block for a violation I did not know.

And second, the topic in question concerns something that has to do with loading a grid for leaderboards, leaderboards which will end up being loaded in a matter of days anyway when they will be loaded with the leaders, and this was not an issue at all in previous versions of the page including last year; take a look at this example from last year. You will see that no one attempted to remove the leaderboard grid even though it was put there several days in advance. ... https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2022_FedEx_Cup_Playoffs&diff=prev&oldid=1104124428 ... You see that no one had a problem with it. And why would they? It was going to be used in a short time, so it was natural for it to be there.

So, there are two things happening simultaneously; the disallowance of a grid for a leaderboard which will be there within a few days anyway (which was always accepted up to now), and penalizing me for putting that grid there as a violation which I did not even know about anyway. I would not have done that grid KNOWING it was a violation. And the fact that suddenly a grid is not supposed to be there, is not rooted in logic anyway, because, in a few days' time, when the leaders need to be put into the article, they cannot be put into there unless there is a grid there to put them into in the first place. For these things I am requesting to be unblocked. I had not even known about the block until someone had brought it to my attention, and it took my be surprise because of my not having any idea of a possible violation; the pink box at the top of this page says "seemingly deliberate violation" but that is not accurate at all. I would not deliberately violate. And the fact that loading in a needed leaderboard is somehow a violation in the first place boggles the mind. If it is, suddenly, that important to the community to not have that grid in there a few days in advance, then I will not put it in there in advance, but I do not think I should be blocked for this because of my not knowing about it suddenly being a violation; the Fed Ex Cup pages traditionally had the grids loaded long in advance. Also, we editors have had our differences over time, but this situation took me by surprise and I had no idea about this. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Last year you didn't have a topic ban. You were informed of the topic ban by Girth Summit on July 29th. You removed the notice yesterday and seemed to be aware of its contents based on your comment "Me 1, them 0". Based on these facts I find it virtually impossible to believe that you "had no idea" about the topic ban. If you truly didn't think that your FedEx Cup edit was a violation, then I would have to question your competence to edit. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2023 (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.

331dot, thanks for reviewing this, but when I removed much of the things on my page yesterday, I did not know that was there. I was removing mostly everything and leaving only a little. I did not know about a notice. I rarely go to this page and I did not see a / the notice. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI I've placed this outside the block notice, the Reply function is not designed to accomodate unblock requests well. I find that difficult to believe, you wrote "This is not allowed, no one can remove a same day leaderboard. Hours after this removal, it had to be put back in to be available for the leaders. Inexcusable." In any event, removal of content from a user talk page is considered an acknowledgment that it was read- if you didn't know, you should have. You can make another unblock request for someone else to review, any decision will be up to them. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

331dot, the "This is not allowed, no one can remove a same day leaderboard. Hours after this removal, it had to be put back in to be available for the leaders. Inexcusable." is the portion you were peaking of? Then that is even more reason; I had that portion there months ago. Take a look in this link, that was from April: .. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJohnsmith2116&diff=1147607732&oldid=1147457491 .. Now you see, correct? As I said, I did not see a / the notice, I was simply going through and getting rid of a lot of stuff on here yesterday. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I was going by the "replaced content with" in the edit summary, I see it was there the day before. Nevertheless, as I said, removal of content is considered an acknowledgement that it was read. If you failed to read it, that's your error. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)