Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.145.42.19 (talk) at 04:56, 25 January 2017 (→Edit warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

December 2016

Hello, I'm Lemongirl942. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Human rights in Singapore without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2017

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:A Clockwork Orange (film) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Scoville scale, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Also, please be careful making changes from St. Petersburg -> Leningrad - most of these have been decided on the talk page by consensus among editors Garchy (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.Template:Z8

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

Request reason:

Misplaced Pages is flaming dog shit, a game to be played by people whose jobs either allow, or indeed, pay them to edit it so as to slant is favourably. I don't give a flying fuck about your block. I am a real Wikipedian. I stay to the facts, even as motherfuckers ruin what was SUPPOSED to be a means to share information by pumping it full of advertising and shitty political takes. In conclusion, eat shit and die. 184.145.42.19 (talk)3:06 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} 15:09, 18 January 2017 (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.

January 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Scoville scale. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Murphy Oil Soap . If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Meters (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary on William Bratton was not appropriate either. Do not comment on other editors in edit summaries. You added some questionable tags. They were undone. You came back from your block, restored the tags without discussing them and vented on the editor who removed them. That's a very short path to another block. I happen to agree with the removal of those tags. If you don't, then discuss them on the talkpages. Meters (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:Advert, and the conditions which may require its use. It is NOT strictly used to mark language as used in commercial advertising. I reverted your revert. If you disagree, have the intellectual honesty to get another editor to comment. William Bratton article has been massaged five ways from Sunday, mostly to his benefit. You'd have to have your monitor turned off to miss it.184.145.42.19 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did with this edit to William Bratton. Jim1138 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That you characterize my edit as vandalism does not show good faith. The William Bratton article is written as if it's his official NYPD or LAPD bio. Threats of the nature you're making are turning WP into a cesspool. You should refrain.184.145.42.19 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (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.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Meters (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

edit conflicted with block. I will add notice to the ANI. Meters (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

My good-faith edits were reverted wholesale by User:Garchy, who stalked my edit history and reverted EVERY SINGLE EDIT I MADE ON 18 JANUARY, following up with some insults on my talk page. User:Jim1138 piled on with a block threat, calling my addition of WP:Advert tag to William Bratton WP:Vandalism, which it damn well wasn't. I fully expect my request to be rejected, as the usual WP hangarounds have decided to prop up the corporations and governments who pay people to edit this site for the purpose of slanting it in their favour. So do what you will, I guess. 184.145.42.19 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon 05:05, 20 January 2017 (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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Level_of_debate.2C_edit_wars_and_harassment

Edit warring

Addressing your edit summary here; please re-read the second paragraph of the policy linked in the title of this section. You are edit warring. Stop reverting and discuss your version on the article talk page. Tiderolls 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless my counting is off, second para is WP:3RR. I trust you've put a notice on the other user's page, too. Also, I've made a single reversion in 24 hours, not three. Please recount and try again.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The 3RR item you mention is a bright-line rule, but not the definition of edit warring. Misplaced Pages's definition of edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". As stated on that policy page, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, but absent another definition as outlined in Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules, how do you suggest I intuit how many reversions are acceptable to any random editor who trashes me on my talk page away from prying eyes, Barek? Please, say something constructive.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

When you have just come off a block for edit warring, even one suspicious edit might get you blocked. This one, for example where you restored a maintenance template that had already been removed by two editors. It's up to you to discuss it on the talk page and get consensus before restoring it again. And this edit where you restored promotional material so that you could justify re-adding the advert tag is very WP:POINTY. You even say on the talk page that that is the material you find the most promotional . Stop messing around. Meters (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In your haste to Wikihound me, you may have forgotten that "consensus" does not mean unanimity. Neither of the other editors in question raised any specific points to rebut my tagging of the article in your first diff. As for "stop messing around", I suppose you've also forgotten about WP:NPA. You are quite a forgetful editor! In any event, my re-adding the hours was inadvertent (I mistakenly thought I was reinstituting the advert tag, which still damn well belongs there). Have you ever assumed good faith of other editors? You might like to try that right now, instead of bullying to score points with your fellow hardcores. Oh, and per your third diff, I did not say the business hours were the material I find most promotional! Seriously, you need to apologise for your tone. I'm rather disgusted that supposedly experienced editors act like petulant schoolyard thugs, if not surprised.184.145.42.19 (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. (WHOIS  Geolocate  Proxy Checker Current blocks XTools Global contributions) (RIRs: Africa America Asia-Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean)