Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 17 June 2013 (→Unblock III: good enough for me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

Unblock II

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

Request reason:

I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit summary and then mine. I also explained on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the update tag was added after I said we are meant to use the most recent and high quality sources available for our articles I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also mentioned, albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some new content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There doesn't need to be a certain number of reverts in a timeframe to be considered edit warring; when the reverts are disruptive, that would be sufficient grounds for a block. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 16 June 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.

Just so you know

I am on you Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bihari atrocities

Hi,

What's your take on this proposed deletion? It would be great if peers and neutral editors could take charge of that article. And also, shouldn't the atrocities against Biharis also be considered as part of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and hence be covered in the 1971 article?--ArmanJ (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arman. Unfortunately DS is currently blocked (till the 23rd I think) and it wouldn't be wise for him to comment on anything other than the block. Best to wait for a response after he returns. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ArmanJ Sorry but while I am blocked I cannot really comment on an AFD. I will comment on your being reported for edit warring though, the IP you were reverting is an IP sock of user:Nangparbat and as such your reverts are exempted from 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nang?

Hi Darkness Shines. Sorry to find my favorite ed blocked. Anyway, do you thing this could be Nang?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He has used the Three mobile network before so it is possible Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock III

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

Request reason:

How is one revert and adding maintenance tags to an article, all of which was discussed disruptive editing? I just looked over WP:DISRUPT and see nothing there to justify this block, let alone two weeks. Darkness Shines (talk) 4:20 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Editor has accepted a one maintenance tag restriction per 24 hours restriction. regentspark (comment) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

DS, just as an FYI, you did sort of transgress 3RR with the maintenance tags. Though the tags were different, they were similar in intent. You need to acknowledge that and recognize that edit warring is not merely something technical and commit to trying to avoid that sort of thing in future. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My commitment to avoid edit warring should be obvious given how long it has been since I was involved in an edit war. I freely admit that adding the tags can be seen as gaming the system, but I had discussed them on the talk page. If you hope to extract a promise from me that I will not add tags to an article again, well obviously I cannot make such a promise given the POV pushing and tag teaming done in the topic area. I had one revert, I discussed everything I did, this block is bollocks and I will not be browbeaten because two editors violated policy in removing said tags and reliably sourced content for no reason other than they do not like the truth. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. Horses and water and all that. I don't see the block as 'bollocks', the length of the block is a different question though. (PS. You should read my statement above with a little more care.) --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, it is most amusing that the two editors who did in fact break 3RR got short blocks which were lifted early, yet the editor who followed policy gets two weeks which is obviously going to run the full course. So yes, it is bollocks. You know as well as I do that the topic area is full of POV pushers, there are no promises I can make which will be of any use, I have to be able to tag articles for factual and NPOV issues, I have to be able to revert when reliably sourced content is removed due to POV pushers not liking it. So how you expect me to try and avoid adding tags or content to articles in future is simply not feasible. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I can offer to add no more than one maintenance tag per 24hr period to an article, but that is about the best I can offer. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To do