Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rowssusan (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 11 February 2016 (→February 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rowssusan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rowssusan! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Blatt

Thanks for adding more context to David Blatt's article on his firing. I added his record because it's notable, but didn't have the time then to add more balanced details. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment, so I was sure someone would eventually build on it. I can understand why you initially reverted it, but I think there can be some leeway when it is a work in progress as opposed to an obvious soapbox. Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sacks in the Super Bowl

Why did you revert my change of "seven" to "six"? Newton was sacked six times, irregardless of how many sacks the Broncos recorded. Powers 15:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, most every source I can find indicates that Matlin performed the anthem. Consider this: if Lady Gaga had screwed up the words, or omitted a line, or sang nonsense syllables, do you think Matlin would have switched to interpretation of her words, or continued on with the proper ASL performance of the anthem? Powers 20:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Super Bowl 50. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super Bowl 50. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Bagumba, I truly apologize for the edit-warring, and did not even realize I had warnings on my talk page until I received a popup that said I was blocked. Here's the situation. The other editor not only repeatedly removed sourced, notable content, but also the highly reliable sources that verified that content. Please take a look at what he did. This was the original time the other editor did it. So instead of simply adding his own content, he inexplicably chose instead to repeatedly replace the existing, sourced content with his own. Further, the content he added is a misleading, out-of-context presentation of the facts, which I clearly explained to him via edit summary, as you'll see in the editing history of the article. In any case, I was in the midst of replying on the article's talk page, but was blocked while I was in the process of finishing. One other point. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but if someone removes content that is clearly notable and well sourced, without an explanation of why it's being removed, doesn't that exempt one from the revert limit rules? If he had simply added his own content without removing other existing content and its sources, then this battle would never have happened. So please allow me to finish my comments on the article's talk page. I promise not to edit war again. Thanks. Rowssusan (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, what you're describing isn't an exemption to the rules on edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2016 (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.

Rowssusan (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 read what I said again. I didn't say it was an exemption. I was simply ''asking'' if it was an exemption. Most importantly, I apologized for edit-warring and promised not to do it again. I would like to resolve this matter, so please unblock me so that I may finish my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 01:04, 11 February 2016 (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 read what I said again. I didn't say it was an exemption. I was simply ''asking'' if it was an exemption. Most importantly, I apologized for edit-warring and promised not to do it again. I would like to resolve this matter, so please unblock me so that I may finish my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 01:04, 11 February 2016 (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 read what I said again. I didn't say it was an exemption. I was simply ''asking'' if it was an exemption. Most importantly, I apologized for edit-warring and promised not to do it again. I would like to resolve this matter, so please unblock me so that I may finish my comments on the article's talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 01:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Bagumba This unblock request process is enlightening. Just 25 minutes after I was blocked, I put in my request in which I apologized, promised not to edit war again, and stated my desire to resolve the dispute properly. Yet here I am 7.5 hours later, still blocked. The admin who replied, 3 hours after my initial request, chose to leave me blocked and no other admin has even responded to my second request. Is this how this process is supposed to work? Rowssusan (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unblock requests sometimes get left for a very long time before being dealt with. A wait of a few hours is quite likely to happen because no administrator gets round to checking the request in that time. However, some unblock requests get left for days, and my experience suggests that a major reason for this is that administrators tend to be unwilling to deal with unblock requests which are not clear-cut. Perhaps you may think that admins shouldn't shy away from difficult cases, but having seen administrators torn to pieces at the admin noticeboards for perfectly good-faith decisions, I find it perfectly understandable that an administrator may be reluctant to unblock an editor where the grounds for unblocking are not 100% clear, but also unwilling to decline a request from an editor who probably has a reasonable case. It seems to me that your unblock requests are a little equivocal: yes, in the first one you said you were sorry for edit-warring, and that you wouldn't do it again, but those comments were rather swamped by a long explanation of why you thought you were justified, and it is not clear that you have really accepted that what you were doing was contrary to the edit-warring policy. Whatever may have been your intention, comments of the form "If he had simply ... then this battle would never have happened" tend to give the impression that you are trying to say "It wasn't my fault that I edit-warred, it was his", and administrators tend to be reluctant to unblock editors who are unable or unwilling to accept that they are solely responsible for what they have done, no matter what anyone else may have done. I suggest that you re-word your latest unblock request to make it clear that you recognise that you were edit-warring, and that you and you alone are responsible for that fact. That, together with your undertaking to avoid edit-warring again, may have a good chance of getting you unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I appreciate your response and know you meant well, but your excessively long explanaton was unnecessary. This was a very simple situation. Two people had a short-term, non-egregious edit war that resulted in being blocked. I quickly apologized, said I wouldn't do it again, and was ready to resolve the dispute. Even so, my request for unblocking, at this point, has gone ignored by admins for almost the entire length of the 24-hour block. I've seen numerous editors unblocked within minutes or a just a couple hours of asking to be unblocked. The bottom line is that if someone who has never been blocked apologizes and makes the promise to stop, yet still remains blocked almost a full day later, then something is seriously wrong with the unblock request process. Also, there are only 9 editors on the requests for unblock list, and I'm the only one who isn't indefinitely blocked. So it's not like there was a backlog. And as a result of your reply, the time that shows on the table for the last admin responding to my request started all over again, even though you weren't even here to decide on my request. Which leads to my final point. You're an admin, so it would have been nice if you had made a decision on my request instead of posting your comment. Rowssusan (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My "excessively long explanation" was not only unnecessary, but also ineffective, as you seem to have completely failed to take in the main point of what I said. Oh well. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I understood your point completely. Perhaps you failed to understand mine. Don't take it personally. I told you I appreciated your response and I meant it. And here we are, on the doorstep of this block's expiration. Rowssusan (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, it is very likely that Bagumba has never seen the message you posted above. Simply putting @ before a username does not alert the user to your post. However, if you put {{ping|Bagumba}} in a message, and also sign that message by putting ~~~~ at the end of it, then the software should notify her or him of your post. It shows up in the readable text as a blue @Bagumba, but simply typing @Bagumba doesn't achieve the same effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Rowssusan (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock