Misplaced Pages

User talk:Colonies Chris

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tennis expert (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 25 March 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:40, 25 March 2009 by Tennis expert (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello Colonies Chris, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- GraemeL 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all bout it!

Even Rubin and Cole say Tennis expert has lost it. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dardasht (Isfahan)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dardasht (Isfahan), and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: Dardasht. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Per a temporary injunction issued on January 13, visible and noted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking, in which it explicitly states:


“ Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. ”

I have blocked this account for 24 hours due to edits such as these: , , , , , , , , , , .

Tiptoety 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


  • I have been blocked with no warning and no opportunity to respond to this accusation. This block is not warranted by the terms of the injunction. The injunction prohibits a "program of mass delinking”. It does not prohibit all unlinking, and earlier decisions have established that unlinking in the course of other improvements is acceptable.

Here is a detailed analysis of the list of my alleged crimes:

  • No.11: I made around 10 changes to that article, of which one was a delinking of a bare year
  • No. 10: I made around 20 changes to that article, of which two were unlinking of decades (the second of which was a duplicate link)
  • No. 9: I made over 30 changes to that article, of which 1 was a delinking of an autoformatted date
  • No. 8: I made 7 changes to that article, of which 3 were delinking autoformatted dates
  • No. 7: I made a large number of changes to that article, including quite a few date fragment unlinkings, almost all of which were bare day-month links
  • No. 6: I made around 15 changes to that article, of which 3 were delinking bare years
  • No. 5: I made 6 changes to that article, of which 1 was delinking an autoformatted date
  • No. 4: I made 7 changes to that article, of which 1 was delinking an autoformatted date
  • No. 3: I made 9 changes to that article, of which 2 were delinking autoformatted dates
  • No. 2: I made 13 changes to that article, of which one was delinking a bare year, 2 were delinking autoformatted dates, and one was delinking a date incorrectly autoformatted inside an {{as of}} template
  • No. 1: I made 4 changes to that article, of which 3 were delinking autoformatted dates (the other was a spelling correction).

This is a total of about 140 changes, of which less than 30 involved delinking, and several of those were either unlinking duplicates or removing incorrect formatting. Colonies Chris (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Please see this. Tony (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Colonies Chris, I'm a fan of date autoformatting/autolinking too, but please refrain from making any edits to dates, while the ArbCom case is ongoing (or more properly, while the associated injunction is in place.) It's only fair, if we expect other people to abide by the injunction as well. Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sapphic, I think you'd be best to keep your bib out of this. Your comment could be construed as inflammatory. Tony (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way Chris. Some Arbitrators are aware of your comments here, just so you know. Tiptoety 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, what does that mean? Is it a threat? A comfort? Tony (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, he sent me a email asking how he could bring his concerns to the attention of some Arb's and I told him to post here. I was just letting him know that I made some Arbitrators aware of his comments here. Please assume good faith. Yeesh. Tiptoety 03:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I'm very upset about the apparent one-sidedness of your actions, but am open to reconsidering—maybe I'm wrong. Now I see the context here, that is fine. I'm just making things worse, it seems. Tony (talk)

Notice

Your continuing date delinking activities in apparent violation of the injuction have been noted here. Tennis expert (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)