Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by D.Creish (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 14 December 2018 (→December 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SamHiggle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SamHiggle! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Misplaced Pages works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sactions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Proud Boys. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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 block. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Tsumikiria: Hello, thank you for reaching out. However, you are reverting my contributions, and I am simply reverting your reverts, so your advice applies more to you than to me.

While I have your attention on the subject, let me point out a few things.

• First, only two of those sources mention the White genocide view of a Proud Boy, and they both refer solely to exactly what I wrote.
• Second, one of those sources even calls Proud Boys a "men's club", which is even more suggestive of a fraternity than "men's group", and many of the page's sources use "men's organization", which is directly synonymous to "men's group".
• Finally, if you do not want anything about what you call "lies" about the left, then you will have to remove the whole thing about the man's view that White Western men are under assault, because that it exactly what the cited source for that bit of information is about – you cannot validly support a vague (and misleading) insinuation being on the page but object to a clearer version of it because of what it means.

If you have further objections, please feel free to raise them with me. I think you will find that I am quite reasonable, and I am happy to change my mind when shown a good argument.

SamHiggle (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You were warned about edit-warring, and since you are the initiator of the edit,it is incumbent on you to gain consensus after your edits have been rejected, not to keep on reverting to your preferred version immediately after being warned. Use the talkpage to present your case and to gain consensus. If this continues you may be subject to discretionary sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

SamHiggle (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=<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> I was only warned about my reverts, which were in direct response to ''other'' reverts, whose reasons I've debunked. How is that edit warring when the initial reverts were not? I was ], but only as bold in my reverts as the reverters of my contributions, so how was I to know it was too much? The three-revert rule was unbroken. |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=<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> I was only warned about my reverts, which were in direct response to ''other'' reverts, whose reasons I've debunked. How is that edit warring when the initial reverts were not? I was ], but only as bold in my reverts as the reverters of my contributions, so how was I to know it was too much? The three-revert rule was unbroken. |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=<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> I was only warned about my reverts, which were in direct response to ''other'' reverts, whose reasons I've debunked. How is that edit warring when the initial reverts were not? I was ], but only as bold in my reverts as the reverters of my contributions, so how was I to know it was too much? The three-revert rule was unbroken. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You were warned about repeated reverts to your preferred version and proceeded anyway. You are not entitled to edit war because you think you're right, nor are you entitled to revert because somebody else disagrees with you. Your are expected to find consensus on the talkpage, and not to revert based on an assertion that you're the one in the right. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This seems heavy handed. SamHiggle, are you aware of WP:3RR? You made a 4th revert within 24 hours which is almost never allowed. If you had been asked to undo your revert would you have, and will you pledge not to violate 3RR when your block expires? D.Creish (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock