| Revision as of 16:43, 15 November 2014 view sourceAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,583,440 editsm Substing templates: {{uw-3rr}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:04, 16 November 2014 view source Peacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,460 edits →November 2014: review requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| == November 2014 == | == November 2014 == | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 Week''' for '''Edit Warring and Personal Attacks'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 Week''' for '''Edit Warring and Personal Attacks'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | ||
| {{unblock|reason=I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on ] contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, ] (]) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Edit warring == | == Edit warring == | ||
Revision as of 00:04, 16 November 2014
G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please follow the rules). There are three rules here:
- If you post on this page, I will (usually) reply on this page, in order to stop conversations from becoming fragmented;
- If you are the type of editor that rarely contributes in article space, one that prefers to moan endlessly about mouseshit on article talk pages without actually editing those articles using reliable sources, you will soon find that I am not interested in encouraging what I consider to be disruptive behaviour. If I don't respond to you, and you are wondering if this might be what I think about your approach to editing, don't be surprised if I refuse to engage in discussion with you; and
- If you are an editor that has posted here and had your post deleted without a response, or with an edit summary telling you to go away, don't post here again. If you have a complaint against me, there are places on WP to do that, this is not one of them. If this is you, repeated postings will result in a complaint by me against you for wikihounding. If you are intent on demonstrating that you are completely delusional, especially in areas covered by Arbitration Committee rulings, then you may find that you reap the whirlwind.
This is NOT the place to ignore all rules...
 My Talk Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Your GA nomination of Yugoslav monitor Sava
The article Yugoslav monitor Sava you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Yugoslav monitor Sava for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
GAN
Sorry for taking too long to respond on the GAN nomination page. I was away from town for a few days without internet access. I'll get to it in the next day or two.--Saxum (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, if you could just address the two major issues, I'll finish up the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones 16:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on Tomb Raider contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)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=I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on ] contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, ] (]) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (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=I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on ] contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, ] (]) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (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=I request a review of this block. I fully accept that several of my edits regarding the ENGVAR issue on ] contained unacceptable personal attacks on one or more IP editors, for which I unreservedly apologise to the IP/s and the community in general. I would apologise directly to the IP concerned, but given they appear to be dynamic, that seems rather pointless. I undertake not to edit the Tomb Raider article in future, and to follow WP policy regarding edit warring, which I submit means that the block is no longer necessary. I also draw the reviewing admins attention to my block history, one block in nearly three years (over 30,000 edits) of productive contributions, and that was in the early days when I was still getting used to WP policies. I submit that, given my unreserved apology and commitment to change the demonstrated behaviour, this block is effectively punitive rather than preventative. If the reviewing admin believes that some block remains necessary, I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances, considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question. Sincerely, ] (]) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Tomb Raider shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Category: