Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 13 May 2018

Orphaned non-free image File:Dish TV logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dish TV logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dish truHD Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dish truHD Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Mohd.maaz864, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mohd.maaz864. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fox+ (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Fox+ (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Misplaced Pages page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Misplaced Pages pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox Networks Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fox Movies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Alex 00:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn how to go to editor or article talk pages to discuss their disputed edits, instead of blank-reverting entire formatting edits because you didn't like one section of it. My edits reformatted the entire article, all four of them, to match the standard format of television articles as contributed to by WP:TV - simply because you didn't like the caption, doesn't mean you get to revert the entire thing. This can very easily be categorized as vandalism and disruptive editing; if you continue, you may be reported to the Administration noticeboard. -- Alex 00:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's kinda amusing you found my reverts to be outright “disruptive” whereas you yourself have a pretty long history of reverting contributions of others using Twinkle and citing vague references. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That would likely be amusing because you are unaware of the various polices and guidelines that Misplaced Pages runs by. Twinkle was created to combat vandalism and disruptive editing, such as, you know, reverting entire formatting edits because you didn't like bout eight characters of it. -- Alex 00:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

“Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other’s eye for an instant?” — Henry David Thoreau

Whoa... You really went aggressive. First of all, I didn't know changing colour-schemes which you changed to your liking citing a single discussion and terming as "consensus" without any clarification (as is usually the case) would be such a transgression. But I'm Really Sorry if it personally caused any pain to you. But just tell me one thing, is the usage of Twinkle to revert the entire edit (no matter how much of time and efforts went into "the target") citing vague policy-documents on Misplaced Pages and then not bothering to followup on talk-page to a practice reserved for editors with a certain minimum level of achievement-status on the Wikimedia project? I'm not itching to "dredge up the past" but the least you need to do is at least acknowledge that to me over a private mode-of-communication given that is indeed the case. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The colour changes were based on MOS:TV#Formatting and WP:COLOR; that is, picking the most prominent colour on the cover art, and making sure that the colour is compliant, not simply basing it off a bar across the top of the cover.

I'm not sure where your issues are coming from, but given that you directly reverted my entire edit across four separate articles, I don't believe that you have the right to accuse others of doing the same in a malicious attempt directed at you. Your reverts are exactly the same as if I did it via Twinkle, whether you did it manually or not. Now. If you want to actually discuss the topic, instead of attempting to insult my "achievement status", then we can do so - what is your issue with the entirety of my edits, or is it simply that one line that you had an issue with? -- Alex 01:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Given you apparently want the discussion to be exclusively centred across this one-off case only , getting to the answer you need: that “one line” only. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You started this case by reverting my edits, so yes, the discussion will be focused on that. Thank you for your response. Now that you've admitted that you vandalized the articles due to your personal issues with me, based on only eight characters you disagreed with, if you do it again, you will be reported. Learn how to be a collaborative editor. -- Alex 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoa... Hold-up! Are you professionally just an orator, or a lawyer?? I've ever been treating your words as Holy Gospel doesn't mean I'm debilitated or naive. So, is it merely glaring-oversight or something to do with selective-amnesia, too?? I never said I "wilfully vandalised" the article because of my "personal vendetta" against you (which may or may not be true, independent of this incident). So where's that coming from, Mr Sherlock?? Also, about that "your actions forced me to start this discussion so I'm binding this conversation to this case and my deductions only," let me jog your memory from few minutes earlier, I said: “...not bothering to followup on talk-page to a practice reserved for editors with a certain minimum level of achievement-status on the Wikimedia project?.” What about that?? 'Cause if you're that much excited to "have the last laugh" ASAP by your deductive-fallacy, then I guess it would be perfectly fine to accuse you of WP:GBU due to narcissism in the same-breath?? Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm an editor who's dealt with his fair share of editors like you, who vandalize based on previous encounters that went sour for their side. Funny how you're not "denying" it. Either you discuss the content that you have an issue with, or, again, learn how to edit collaboratively. There was zero need for your reverts, and you've given zero reason for it. I'm not an admin; GBU does not apply. What does apply is your constant personal attacks per WP:PA. That's a nice policy for some light reading. Cheerio. -- Alex 01:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're really circling-around the same point by using different words, aren't you?? And funnily enough, you are also taking your deduction-skills a notch higher by saying you gave me the full chance to justify my actions of using Twinkle to revert (your regular exercise) when you didn't even explicitly asked me patiently that what's the causes of me using a Twinkle to revert rather doing it manually (the same way you did on the very same articles months earlier and still used to others, as already described twice). Instead, you've been aggressive from the get-go and after delivering your stern sermons, have now reached the level of suggestive character-assassination by calling me a "personal attacker" when you were yourself the one to conclude me as a "Wiki vandal" courtesy of Sherlock-esque skills you gained from somewhere. Guess what, I've also seen a fair share of "super"users who start tackling outright different voices by citing the title of a certain policy-document. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am, until you get it. Your personal observations (huh, Sherlock-esque skills, wonder where else that's been mentioned) have been duly noted. Cheerio. -- Alex 02:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tags require accompanying talk page discussion

You need to point out specific issues, how they violate policy and how they should be changed. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, neither I've read it as a mandate nor this has been a necessity in almost entirety of my experience on here. I mostly elaborate on my edits (including the taggings in the mandatory edit-description itself, largely owing to the fact that I do make a a long-winded statements for non-work communications). But given you're subscribing to his stand, no worries. So, I do hope that: given I'm being forced to start a relevant talk-page discussion to maintain the probabilities of WP:♥ from dwindling further, you may like to bless 'us' with your wisdom by chiming-in there, too. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Template:POV.

Template usage notes Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the public.

When to use

Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Misplaced Pages's content policies.

An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Misplaced Pages editors or the public are irrelevant.

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

You've used it improperly I've removed it as it is not clear what the neutrality issue is and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

Fair warning - continue in this way (including the accusations) and you will probably end up at WP:ANI. I note the March discussion above shows similar behavior on your part. I'm involved so I won't block you for your interactions with me. You also need to stop using obscure redirects. Doug Weller talk 06:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you're acting factual, I tried explaining both in the brief and lengthy fashions.

Also, there's no such section on the POV-guidelines page titled "When to remove". But nevertheless, unlike many of you, I investigated on my part and got reminded that it's on the {{]}} page. Huh...?? So it means as much as I've right to tag articles, anyone who disagrees is also within her/his rights to undo it. Such a fair resolution.

Also, again it's amusing that you're accusing me of “using obscure redirects” when your references are itself of not the same page you link at all. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(edited at 11:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

No, you didn't give any specifics, only generalities. I don't know what you mean by "your references are itself of not the same page you link at all". I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was quoting from the template instructions. I'm also not sure what you mean by "unlike many of you," but it's that sort of comment that got you blocked. You've misread it by the way. You don't have a right to tag articles without following the template instructions on when to use it. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Errmmm... Your refusal to respond in sequential order is what makes it even more confusing, for worse. Also, I guess your repetitive rhetoric ("the generalities") is about the WP:NPOV tag only , right? And I choose not to comment on the validity of the ban imposed on me . And as far as my understanding goes, I always used "Neutral" tag rather "POV". But again given the benefit-of-doubt that "it's a redirect, after all" — yeah, as I've already indicated, I've originally read those instructions long ago and I still assert that it's not mandatory, at least that's what the phrasing in those instructions tell me. Also, aren't the template instructions are superseded by their relevant guidelines, instead? Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC) (edited at 16:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

I'm not refusing anything (or is that just a poor choice of terminology) - nor am I sure what sequential order you mean. Just the NPOV tag, and I wasn't the only one to ask for specifics. To avoid any confusion, what do you mean by the "relevant guideline" for the NPOV tag? I think you mean our WP:NOV policy, and at the top (above the nutshell) it links to the template with the instructions I've quoted. Looking at the two templates above, what do you see as the difference between them? Doug Weller talk 15:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your nitpicking on my grammar aside: your constant avoidance to respond sequence-wise was what I pointed-out. Yes, I know that. No need to spell out the obvious. The thing is: None of you liked my specifics by basically saying "it's too-long and still doesn't nit-pick a single example for us" which is certainly not the requirement, and that was the final comprehensible response from your side after I complied with both guidelines and your insistence to explain it on the talk-page repetitively. And yes, you're correct about my indication, I'm talking about the actual, base policy. At last, I didn't say any difference exists between the supposed application of both "Neutral" and "POV" templates. That's why like always, I myself pointed-out “it's a redirect”. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that my question about the templates makes no sense now that you r edited the post I replied to. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank You So Much for being consistent at least in your core behavioral-stratagem. I.e.=Proving my inference about your pattern accurate everytime by tirelessly reiterating that how my "words don't make sense" when I already predict the same you're gonna do when devoid of reasonings, till the time another excuse is ready. My edit was merely a WP:MINOR (which could've been confirmed when reading the raw script of response ), yet I didn't mark it . And on top of that, I added the edit timestamp as a token of transparency. All of that to display I'm behaving as gracious as practically feasible for an average urban H.S.S. with the same predicament as mine. Or perhaps, it could simply be that in spite of being an WP:ADMIN, you don't look at raw-scripts even while responding to a "talk", which makes it reasonable why you fail to respond chronologically.

Well, my point about your interaction-pattern stands regardless. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are edit warring at Steven Emerson to insert some tags with no comprehensible explanation on the article talk page:

• 21:38, 24 March 2018
• 19:45, 8 May 2018
• 20:02, 8 May 2018
• 19:28, 11 May 2018
• 01:45, 12 May 2018
• 02:59, 12 May 2018

Collaboration is not optional, and edit warring is prohibited. Further, the second last diff above shows an accusation of WP:WIKIHOUND which is irrelevant as far as justifying a tag is concerned, and is completely wrong as a glance at my contributions will show. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Define “collaboration” in the context.

About the WP:WIKIHOUND, nope they're fairly accurate in my perspective given none of you seem to be interested in looking-back at the history of the dispute everywhere per se. Also, I'm not in the business of judging your behaviour on Misplaced Pages as a whole, I merely inferred on your interactions with me. And practically, given your number of edits (good or bad, right or wrong), it's impossible to comb through each single one of them to point-out anything. Contrasting mine. (In case that interests you.)

Also define “justifying a tag”, given a lot of you are ordering me to do it and then exclaim it's "not to" your "satisfaction (read liking)". Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Health care ratings

Please follow the NPOV template instructions at this article as well. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Define “account creation blocked” on the main page. Is it an WP:EVASION measure suspecting WP:SOCKING?

And I don't have any questions from you about the intent of other phrasing in this application of the blockade. Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(edited at 11:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Main page? Do you mean in the block log? No, account creation blocked is the normal restriction with a normal, or "hard", block. It's only softblocks that don't have it, in cases where people have an unsuitable username and are encouraged to create a new account. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC).

Yeah, I was talking about the block-notice imposed by you on my main page.

Thanks for clarifying, nevertheless. :) Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Mohd.maaz864 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So the point being, even if we assume their arguments to be perfectly okay given their UAL, then it's like charging a motorist for accidentally hitting a pedestrian who suddenly ran towards her/his vehicle over a fudged zebra-crossing, only charging that motorist would suffice given authorities status makes them auto-immune from getting charged under manslaughter. After all, I'm too-tired for getting behind someone to rationally explain how many of my acts contravened WP:PIA without provocation. As if that's not enough, apart from the blockban, it appears that if a rational member of general-public have to laugh at the 9/11 Truther conspiracy-theories while nearby qualified Truthers, particularly Civil/Structural Engineers and First-Responders, he would've to convince/satisfy them to change their beliefs else it's perfectly okay to declare her/him a "lunatic" instead and exile her/him from that society "for better", right? 'Cause I couldn't see any conceivably perfect analogy for the same.

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=First of all, here's hoping that only that admin assigns herself/himself to the case who's ready to spare enough of her/his mind and time. Given the policy-disclaimer that an admin may choose to not look beyond the reasoning (i.e. investigating ) and thus adding all relevant points is recommended, this can't be brief but I'll try keeping it as concise as feasible: I tagged ]'s article with ] and ] templates and explained my action in edit summaries , then Mr יניב הורון "wholesale-reverted" my additions saying there's "no discussion on talk-page". Due to oversight, I couldn't pay attention to it owing to the fact that in spite of settings to the contrary, I still don't get notified for each of the updates on my "watchlisted" pages and I've already have significant-numbers of pages marked on "watchlist" which I've no choice but to keep a check on, regularly. Cut to 1½ months later — since I didn't get the intent of his action and reiterated my edit summary in case he missed it. He repeated himself only by expanding a little saying "there's no concern raised on talk-page". Oblivious to his intent, I tried gaining a clarification from him on his user talk-page but rather responding to anything, his first and quick interaction was to wholesale-revert my message (yet again) but the shocking part was his summary was merely name-calling ("labelling") me. So I re-added them as "good-faith edits" (still) pleading him to avoid the escalation into ] due to consistent ]. Now he accused me of ] as the mere summary apart from reiterating himself. Then, an admin-user named Doug Weller chimed-in on my user talk-page proclaiming POV tags "do REQUIRE" detailed explanation on related talk-pages. I did inform him of my inference of the policy as well as my experience upto that point, also asking him to 'tag along' if he wishes. When I striked the discussion and explained as <s >requested</s>insisted. He slapped a ] notice to me saying to be "brief" more than 12 hours later (note that I cautioned interested-parties against a limited timeout period failing which they can't or refuse to elicit a rational response or any response at all, the dispute will be deemed resolved), I reminded him that he should've expected so given I clearly cautioned him upon their insistence that "the explanation will be thorough" in our earlier conversation . Also reminded him that "TL;DR" is an essay rather guideline/policy and given my predicament upto the point, I chose not to follow it. About half-an-hour later, I posted a pre-planned reminder of the countdown saying "about 4 hours are left for culmination of the deadline". It made him revert back to me within half-an-hour protesting my deadline-placement as well as proclaiming "no arbiters exist on Misplaced Pages". For the first and last time, he displayed a will for understanding. He posited some questions alongwith collecting some web-sources on the public-fugue in question and also cautioning me against re-adding tags given he "won't be available for 4 hours afterward". As usual, I responded him in the order of sequence expressing my agreement-disagreement and pointed out the issues in the article by elaborating on them and why they're problematic per my view and also asked if further clarification is required, rationally. I even went as far as promising him to list every single relevant error in a fairly-lengthy article given he takes personal-liability to fix the issue (note in spite of issue being clearly out in the open now, I was still prevented from going ahead). He responded by reiterating his earlier arguments (a cliché ''formulae'' in Wiki arguments, per my observation) that I'm "not being specific" and went back to edit-summaries in an apparent "attempt to dissect answers from them" and terming my arguments as "generalities" whilst completely dodging my offer to "painstakingly list the every single error if a guarantee to fix rather ''permission'' to tag is granted". Apparently, he was implicitly asking me for him to "have a cake and eat it, too". I pointed-out his conduct as well as reiterating that there's no " mandate under the POV policy which restricts an editor" like the way they were restricting me and for the first time in the entire history of interactions, subtly expressed my suspicion of their ] in ] the article (none of them ever contributed on it, this was their first, too). As if that's not enough, I still bent over significantly more by pointing-out exact policies under POV which were contravened in the interim. Also asked him to have a radical candor of his intent or any Misplaced Pages documents which either at least okays, or warrants such a conduct. Then few hours later, a new "super"user named Johnuniq came and archived/locked/sealed the entire discussion directing to explicitly-unaddressed party (presumably, me) to "start a new discussion" alongwith slightly mimicking Mr Weller's line by saying "with succinct proposal to add or remove specific TEXT". Given that there was still no rational contention, I re-added those "tags" and this time, Mr Johnuniq assumed the former's role by judging me and reiterating his words in an expansive fashion. Given my history with talk-page conversations and even in the exact same case, I urged him to avoid ] me (in reflection, it seems like an action to display solidarity with contentious editors predominantly due to their ]) and also reiterated on my part that I will agree to BEND OVER BACKWARDS if at least a single one of them is willing to guarantee me personally. In a clear-case of his ignorance in paying attention to the talk-page discussion he himself abruptly sealed, he crossquestioned me to explain something which I've already answered there beforehand and unsolicitedly. Like Mr Weller, he went on to posit his insistence by deflecting on my words. While reverting this time, I also reiterated this yet again but with clear assertion that "there's no compulsion expressed in launching a talk-page discussion before or after the template-application, yet I'm willing to do so once someone willing to do anything effective on her/his part demands the same from me". He then increased his mimicking of Mr Weller by creating an altogether different section on my talk-page pointing-out every single edit from my side and terming them as "edit-warring" and even going as far as declaring all of my supportive arguments for those templates as "incomprehensible". Like a cliché higher-"UAL" editor, he dictated that "neither collaboration is optional nor edit-warring is allowed" while also defending himself against my accusation of stalking me by clearly terming them as "irrelevant". I defended my motive of accusation and mimicking them, also asked to "be specific" on his definition of 2 operative terms in his message. So far, there's not a slightest response. Afterwards, Mr Weller wholesale-reverted my edits once again and made his comeback-entry to my talk-page within a span of 10 minutes copy-pasting the ] document without a single alteration . He reiterates his older arguments saying "nothing's clear" and becoming honest in his intent that he demands "satisfaction" from me . He takes it a notch-higher by subtly ] that I'll "end-up on ] if I continue" to do the same they've been doing to me whilst also dredging-up-the-past by mentioning a ''circa'' March argument which I had with another disruptive-editor possessing higher "UAL" and apparent speciality in ] (note that I don't archive/delete conversations on my talk-page as a gesture of transparency, given both of the deleted and archived interactions are still gonna stay on the serverspace but depriving involved parties from reigniting the discussion for good) as a basis to substantiate his "warning". Last but not the least, he accused me of using "obscure redirects" (apparently talking'bout my preference to link shortcuts of Wiki documents) and commanded to stop it. Then yet-another '''SUPREME Wikipedian Bishonen jumps-in to enforce a minimum of "72 hours" <s >block</s>ban under the charges of (I quote): ''edit warring against multiple editors, rudeness, aggression''.''' But still, respecting the chronology of messages, I somehow regained my composure and replied to Mr Weller firstly. As earlier, I reiterated assertively that I was the one to originally extend the courtesy of "trying to" explain both in brief and thorough and consequently ended-up doing both multiple number of times, pointed-out his citation error and for argument's sake, pretended that their arguments had substance while also pointing-out the hypocritical conduct of "ordering someone else to do things ''right'' when oneself at fault" for that “obscure redirects” command. Then moved to merely ask from Ms Bishonen from what did "account creation blocked" meant for me given I had been grilled a lot lately, for good reason or not. Meanwhile, Mr Weller replied back and apart from reiterating his catchphrases, also expressed a surprising confidence over my blockade . And thinking my rhetorical assumption of agreeing to his standards as sincere expression of retreat, he "corrected" me again by reiterating that I've "not followed template instructions whilst ''tagging''". I countered whether his unproven claims are only restricted to that POV tag only or there's still some "total confusion". Also reasserted my position while expanding on it concisely that the terminology in those documents doesn't support their views, and lastly cross-questioning whether he suddenly deems template-docs to supersede the respective guidelines/policies, for argument's sake. In response, he concluded inaccurately (as if that was still a new thing) and nit-picked my grammar while once again expressing "confusion" on the latter part. He answered that his "dilemma" is only about the POV ''tag'' and unsolicitedly pointed-out how others on his side also "asked for specifics" . Also cleared one of the "confusion" by assuming accurately (most rarely) and soliciting clarification for my mistakenly-placed template scripts in the reply leading to their disappearence on Mobile Web. I responded with clarifications as well as settling the frequent usage of "specifics" as a catchphrase by reminding him that "when I did specifics, none of you were happy". He replied back with merely a "food-for-thought". I responded with an acknowledgement. END OF STORY. So the point being, '''even if we assume their arguments to be perfectly okay given their UAL, then it's like charging a motorist for accidentally hitting a pedestrian who suddenly ran towards her/his vehicle over a fudged zebra-crossing, only charging that motorist would suffice given authorities status makes them auto-immune from getting charged under manslaughter. After all, I'm too-tired for getting behind someone to rationally explain how many of my acts contravened ] without provocation.''' As if that's not enough, '''apart from the <s >block</s>ban, it appears that if a rational member of general-public have to laugh at the 9/11 Truther conspiracy-theories while nearby qualified Truthers, particularly Civil/Structural Engineers and First-Responders, he would've to convince/satisfy them to change their beliefs else it's perfectly okay to declare her/him a "lunatic" instead and exile her/him from that society "for better", right? 'Cause I couldn't see any conceivably perfect analogy for the same. '''But no need to worry, this is my first and last plea to have a benefit-of-doubt called "hope". I don't expect you to challenge ''status quo''.''' ] (]) 04:19, 13 May 2018 (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=First of all, here's hoping that only that admin assigns herself/himself to the case who's ready to spare enough of her/his mind and time. Given the policy-disclaimer that an admin may choose to not look beyond the reasoning (i.e. investigating ) and thus adding all relevant points is recommended, this can't be brief but I'll try keeping it as concise as feasible: I tagged ]'s article with ] and ] templates and explained my action in edit summaries , then Mr יניב הורון "wholesale-reverted" my additions saying there's "no discussion on talk-page". Due to oversight, I couldn't pay attention to it owing to the fact that in spite of settings to the contrary, I still don't get notified for each of the updates on my "watchlisted" pages and I've already have significant-numbers of pages marked on "watchlist" which I've no choice but to keep a check on, regularly. Cut to 1½ months later — since I didn't get the intent of his action and reiterated my edit summary in case he missed it. He repeated himself only by expanding a little saying "there's no concern raised on talk-page". Oblivious to his intent, I tried gaining a clarification from him on his user talk-page but rather responding to anything, his first and quick interaction was to wholesale-revert my message (yet again) but the shocking part was his summary was merely name-calling ("labelling") me. So I re-added them as "good-faith edits" (still) pleading him to avoid the escalation into ] due to consistent ]. Now he accused me of ] as the mere summary apart from reiterating himself. Then, an admin-user named Doug Weller chimed-in on my user talk-page proclaiming POV tags "do REQUIRE" detailed explanation on related talk-pages. I did inform him of my inference of the policy as well as my experience upto that point, also asking him to 'tag along' if he wishes. When I striked the discussion and explained as <s >requested</s>insisted. He slapped a ] notice to me saying to be "brief" more than 12 hours later (note that I cautioned interested-parties against a limited timeout period failing which they can't or refuse to elicit a rational response or any response at all, the dispute will be deemed resolved), I reminded him that he should've expected so given I clearly cautioned him upon their insistence that "the explanation will be thorough" in our earlier conversation . Also reminded him that "TL;DR" is an essay rather guideline/policy and given my predicament upto the point, I chose not to follow it. About half-an-hour later, I posted a pre-planned reminder of the countdown saying "about 4 hours are left for culmination of the deadline". It made him revert back to me within half-an-hour protesting my deadline-placement as well as proclaiming "no arbiters exist on Misplaced Pages". For the first and last time, he displayed a will for understanding. He posited some questions alongwith collecting some web-sources on the public-fugue in question and also cautioning me against re-adding tags given he "won't be available for 4 hours afterward". As usual, I responded him in the order of sequence expressing my agreement-disagreement and pointed out the issues in the article by elaborating on them and why they're problematic per my view and also asked if further clarification is required, rationally. I even went as far as promising him to list every single relevant error in a fairly-lengthy article given he takes personal-liability to fix the issue (note in spite of issue being clearly out in the open now, I was still prevented from going ahead). He responded by reiterating his earlier arguments (a cliché ''formulae'' in Wiki arguments, per my observation) that I'm "not being specific" and went back to edit-summaries in an apparent "attempt to dissect answers from them" and terming my arguments as "generalities" whilst completely dodging my offer to "painstakingly list the every single error if a guarantee to fix rather ''permission'' to tag is granted". Apparently, he was implicitly asking me for him to "have a cake and eat it, too". I pointed-out his conduct as well as reiterating that there's no " mandate under the POV policy which restricts an editor" like the way they were restricting me and for the first time in the entire history of interactions, subtly expressed my suspicion of their ] in ] the article (none of them ever contributed on it, this was their first, too). As if that's not enough, I still bent over significantly more by pointing-out exact policies under POV which were contravened in the interim. Also asked him to have a radical candor of his intent or any Misplaced Pages documents which either at least okays, or warrants such a conduct. Then few hours later, a new "super"user named Johnuniq came and archived/locked/sealed the entire discussion directing to explicitly-unaddressed party (presumably, me) to "start a new discussion" alongwith slightly mimicking Mr Weller's line by saying "with succinct proposal to add or remove specific TEXT". Given that there was still no rational contention, I re-added those "tags" and this time, Mr Johnuniq assumed the former's role by judging me and reiterating his words in an expansive fashion. Given my history with talk-page conversations and even in the exact same case, I urged him to avoid ] me (in reflection, it seems like an action to display solidarity with contentious editors predominantly due to their ]) and also reiterated on my part that I will agree to BEND OVER BACKWARDS if at least a single one of them is willing to guarantee me personally. In a clear-case of his ignorance in paying attention to the talk-page discussion he himself abruptly sealed, he crossquestioned me to explain something which I've already answered there beforehand and unsolicitedly. Like Mr Weller, he went on to posit his insistence by deflecting on my words. While reverting this time, I also reiterated this yet again but with clear assertion that "there's no compulsion expressed in launching a talk-page discussion before or after the template-application, yet I'm willing to do so once someone willing to do anything effective on her/his part demands the same from me". He then increased his mimicking of Mr Weller by creating an altogether different section on my talk-page pointing-out every single edit from my side and terming them as "edit-warring" and even going as far as declaring all of my supportive arguments for those templates as "incomprehensible". Like a cliché higher-"UAL" editor, he dictated that "neither collaboration is optional nor edit-warring is allowed" while also defending himself against my accusation of stalking me by clearly terming them as "irrelevant". I defended my motive of accusation and mimicking them, also asked to "be specific" on his definition of 2 operative terms in his message. So far, there's not a slightest response. Afterwards, Mr Weller wholesale-reverted my edits once again and made his comeback-entry to my talk-page within a span of 10 minutes copy-pasting the ] document without a single alteration . He reiterates his older arguments saying "nothing's clear" and becoming honest in his intent that he demands "satisfaction" from me . He takes it a notch-higher by subtly ] that I'll "end-up on ] if I continue" to do the same they've been doing to me whilst also dredging-up-the-past by mentioning a ''circa'' March argument which I had with another disruptive-editor possessing higher "UAL" and apparent speciality in ] (note that I don't archive/delete conversations on my talk-page as a gesture of transparency, given both of the deleted and archived interactions are still gonna stay on the serverspace but depriving involved parties from reigniting the discussion for good) as a basis to substantiate his "warning". Last but not the least, he accused me of using "obscure redirects" (apparently talking'bout my preference to link shortcuts of Wiki documents) and commanded to stop it. Then yet-another '''SUPREME Wikipedian Bishonen jumps-in to enforce a minimum of "72 hours" <s >block</s>ban under the charges of (I quote): ''edit warring against multiple editors, rudeness, aggression''.''' But still, respecting the chronology of messages, I somehow regained my composure and replied to Mr Weller firstly. As earlier, I reiterated assertively that I was the one to originally extend the courtesy of "trying to" explain both in brief and thorough and consequently ended-up doing both multiple number of times, pointed-out his citation error and for argument's sake, pretended that their arguments had substance while also pointing-out the hypocritical conduct of "ordering someone else to do things ''right'' when oneself at fault" for that “obscure redirects” command. Then moved to merely ask from Ms Bishonen from what did "account creation blocked" meant for me given I had been grilled a lot lately, for good reason or not. Meanwhile, Mr Weller replied back and apart from reiterating his catchphrases, also expressed a surprising confidence over my blockade . And thinking my rhetorical assumption of agreeing to his standards as sincere expression of retreat, he "corrected" me again by reiterating that I've "not followed template instructions whilst ''tagging''". I countered whether his unproven claims are only restricted to that POV tag only or there's still some "total confusion". Also reasserted my position while expanding on it concisely that the terminology in those documents doesn't support their views, and lastly cross-questioning whether he suddenly deems template-docs to supersede the respective guidelines/policies, for argument's sake. In response, he concluded inaccurately (as if that was still a new thing) and nit-picked my grammar while once again expressing "confusion" on the latter part. He answered that his "dilemma" is only about the POV ''tag'' and unsolicitedly pointed-out how others on his side also "asked for specifics" . Also cleared one of the "confusion" by assuming accurately (most rarely) and soliciting clarification for my mistakenly-placed template scripts in the reply leading to their disappearence on Mobile Web. I responded with clarifications as well as settling the frequent usage of "specifics" as a catchphrase by reminding him that "when I did specifics, none of you were happy". He replied back with merely a "food-for-thought". I responded with an acknowledgement. END OF STORY. So the point being, '''even if we assume their arguments to be perfectly okay given their UAL, then it's like charging a motorist for accidentally hitting a pedestrian who suddenly ran towards her/his vehicle over a fudged zebra-crossing, only charging that motorist would suffice given authorities status makes them auto-immune from getting charged under manslaughter. After all, I'm too-tired for getting behind someone to rationally explain how many of my acts contravened ] without provocation.''' As if that's not enough, '''apart from the <s >block</s>ban, it appears that if a rational member of general-public have to laugh at the 9/11 Truther conspiracy-theories while nearby qualified Truthers, particularly Civil/Structural Engineers and First-Responders, he would've to convince/satisfy them to change their beliefs else it's perfectly okay to declare her/him a "lunatic" instead and exile her/him from that society "for better", right? 'Cause I couldn't see any conceivably perfect analogy for the same. '''But no need to worry, this is my first and last plea to have a benefit-of-doubt called "hope". I don't expect you to challenge ''status quo''.''' ] (]) 04:19, 13 May 2018 (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=First of all, here's hoping that only that admin assigns herself/himself to the case who's ready to spare enough of her/his mind and time. Given the policy-disclaimer that an admin may choose to not look beyond the reasoning (i.e. investigating ) and thus adding all relevant points is recommended, this can't be brief but I'll try keeping it as concise as feasible: I tagged ]'s article with ] and ] templates and explained my action in edit summaries , then Mr יניב הורון "wholesale-reverted" my additions saying there's "no discussion on talk-page". Due to oversight, I couldn't pay attention to it owing to the fact that in spite of settings to the contrary, I still don't get notified for each of the updates on my "watchlisted" pages and I've already have significant-numbers of pages marked on "watchlist" which I've no choice but to keep a check on, regularly. Cut to 1½ months later — since I didn't get the intent of his action and reiterated my edit summary in case he missed it. He repeated himself only by expanding a little saying "there's no concern raised on talk-page". Oblivious to his intent, I tried gaining a clarification from him on his user talk-page but rather responding to anything, his first and quick interaction was to wholesale-revert my message (yet again) but the shocking part was his summary was merely name-calling ("labelling") me. So I re-added them as "good-faith edits" (still) pleading him to avoid the escalation into ] due to consistent ]. Now he accused me of ] as the mere summary apart from reiterating himself. Then, an admin-user named Doug Weller chimed-in on my user talk-page proclaiming POV tags "do REQUIRE" detailed explanation on related talk-pages. I did inform him of my inference of the policy as well as my experience upto that point, also asking him to 'tag along' if he wishes. When I striked the discussion and explained as <s >requested</s>insisted. He slapped a ] notice to me saying to be "brief" more than 12 hours later (note that I cautioned interested-parties against a limited timeout period failing which they can't or refuse to elicit a rational response or any response at all, the dispute will be deemed resolved), I reminded him that he should've expected so given I clearly cautioned him upon their insistence that "the explanation will be thorough" in our earlier conversation . Also reminded him that "TL;DR" is an essay rather guideline/policy and given my predicament upto the point, I chose not to follow it. About half-an-hour later, I posted a pre-planned reminder of the countdown saying "about 4 hours are left for culmination of the deadline". It made him revert back to me within half-an-hour protesting my deadline-placement as well as proclaiming "no arbiters exist on Misplaced Pages". For the first and last time, he displayed a will for understanding. He posited some questions alongwith collecting some web-sources on the public-fugue in question and also cautioning me against re-adding tags given he "won't be available for 4 hours afterward". As usual, I responded him in the order of sequence expressing my agreement-disagreement and pointed out the issues in the article by elaborating on them and why they're problematic per my view and also asked if further clarification is required, rationally. I even went as far as promising him to list every single relevant error in a fairly-lengthy article given he takes personal-liability to fix the issue (note in spite of issue being clearly out in the open now, I was still prevented from going ahead). He responded by reiterating his earlier arguments (a cliché ''formulae'' in Wiki arguments, per my observation) that I'm "not being specific" and went back to edit-summaries in an apparent "attempt to dissect answers from them" and terming my arguments as "generalities" whilst completely dodging my offer to "painstakingly list the every single error if a guarantee to fix rather ''permission'' to tag is granted". Apparently, he was implicitly asking me for him to "have a cake and eat it, too". I pointed-out his conduct as well as reiterating that there's no " mandate under the POV policy which restricts an editor" like the way they were restricting me and for the first time in the entire history of interactions, subtly expressed my suspicion of their ] in ] the article (none of them ever contributed on it, this was their first, too). As if that's not enough, I still bent over significantly more by pointing-out exact policies under POV which were contravened in the interim. Also asked him to have a radical candor of his intent or any Misplaced Pages documents which either at least okays, or warrants such a conduct. Then few hours later, a new "super"user named Johnuniq came and archived/locked/sealed the entire discussion directing to explicitly-unaddressed party (presumably, me) to "start a new discussion" alongwith slightly mimicking Mr Weller's line by saying "with succinct proposal to add or remove specific TEXT". Given that there was still no rational contention, I re-added those "tags" and this time, Mr Johnuniq assumed the former's role by judging me and reiterating his words in an expansive fashion. Given my history with talk-page conversations and even in the exact same case, I urged him to avoid ] me (in reflection, it seems like an action to display solidarity with contentious editors predominantly due to their ]) and also reiterated on my part that I will agree to BEND OVER BACKWARDS if at least a single one of them is willing to guarantee me personally. In a clear-case of his ignorance in paying attention to the talk-page discussion he himself abruptly sealed, he crossquestioned me to explain something which I've already answered there beforehand and unsolicitedly. Like Mr Weller, he went on to posit his insistence by deflecting on my words. While reverting this time, I also reiterated this yet again but with clear assertion that "there's no compulsion expressed in launching a talk-page discussion before or after the template-application, yet I'm willing to do so once someone willing to do anything effective on her/his part demands the same from me". He then increased his mimicking of Mr Weller by creating an altogether different section on my talk-page pointing-out every single edit from my side and terming them as "edit-warring" and even going as far as declaring all of my supportive arguments for those templates as "incomprehensible". Like a cliché higher-"UAL" editor, he dictated that "neither collaboration is optional nor edit-warring is allowed" while also defending himself against my accusation of stalking me by clearly terming them as "irrelevant". I defended my motive of accusation and mimicking them, also asked to "be specific" on his definition of 2 operative terms in his message. So far, there's not a slightest response. Afterwards, Mr Weller wholesale-reverted my edits once again and made his comeback-entry to my talk-page within a span of 10 minutes copy-pasting the ] document without a single alteration . He reiterates his older arguments saying "nothing's clear" and becoming honest in his intent that he demands "satisfaction" from me . He takes it a notch-higher by subtly ] that I'll "end-up on ] if I continue" to do the same they've been doing to me whilst also dredging-up-the-past by mentioning a ''circa'' March argument which I had with another disruptive-editor possessing higher "UAL" and apparent speciality in ] (note that I don't archive/delete conversations on my talk-page as a gesture of transparency, given both of the deleted and archived interactions are still gonna stay on the serverspace but depriving involved parties from reigniting the discussion for good) as a basis to substantiate his "warning". Last but not the least, he accused me of using "obscure redirects" (apparently talking'bout my preference to link shortcuts of Wiki documents) and commanded to stop it. Then yet-another '''SUPREME Wikipedian Bishonen jumps-in to enforce a minimum of "72 hours" <s >block</s>ban under the charges of (I quote): ''edit warring against multiple editors, rudeness, aggression''.''' But still, respecting the chronology of messages, I somehow regained my composure and replied to Mr Weller firstly. As earlier, I reiterated assertively that I was the one to originally extend the courtesy of "trying to" explain both in brief and thorough and consequently ended-up doing both multiple number of times, pointed-out his citation error and for argument's sake, pretended that their arguments had substance while also pointing-out the hypocritical conduct of "ordering someone else to do things ''right'' when oneself at fault" for that “obscure redirects” command. Then moved to merely ask from Ms Bishonen from what did "account creation blocked" meant for me given I had been grilled a lot lately, for good reason or not. Meanwhile, Mr Weller replied back and apart from reiterating his catchphrases, also expressed a surprising confidence over my blockade . And thinking my rhetorical assumption of agreeing to his standards as sincere expression of retreat, he "corrected" me again by reiterating that I've "not followed template instructions whilst ''tagging''". I countered whether his unproven claims are only restricted to that POV tag only or there's still some "total confusion". Also reasserted my position while expanding on it concisely that the terminology in those documents doesn't support their views, and lastly cross-questioning whether he suddenly deems template-docs to supersede the respective guidelines/policies, for argument's sake. In response, he concluded inaccurately (as if that was still a new thing) and nit-picked my grammar while once again expressing "confusion" on the latter part. He answered that his "dilemma" is only about the POV ''tag'' and unsolicitedly pointed-out how others on his side also "asked for specifics" . Also cleared one of the "confusion" by assuming accurately (most rarely) and soliciting clarification for my mistakenly-placed template scripts in the reply leading to their disappearence on Mobile Web. I responded with clarifications as well as settling the frequent usage of "specifics" as a catchphrase by reminding him that "when I did specifics, none of you were happy". He replied back with merely a "food-for-thought". I responded with an acknowledgement. END OF STORY. So the point being, '''even if we assume their arguments to be perfectly okay given their UAL, then it's like charging a motorist for accidentally hitting a pedestrian who suddenly ran towards her/his vehicle over a fudged zebra-crossing, only charging that motorist would suffice given authorities status makes them auto-immune from getting charged under manslaughter. After all, I'm too-tired for getting behind someone to rationally explain how many of my acts contravened ] without provocation.''' As if that's not enough, '''apart from the <s >block</s>ban, it appears that if a rational member of general-public have to laugh at the 9/11 Truther conspiracy-theories while nearby qualified Truthers, particularly Civil/Structural Engineers and First-Responders, he would've to convince/satisfy them to change their beliefs else it's perfectly okay to declare her/him a "lunatic" instead and exile her/him from that society "for better", right? 'Cause I couldn't see any conceivably perfect analogy for the same. '''But no need to worry, this is my first and last plea to have a benefit-of-doubt called "hope". I don't expect you to challenge ''status quo''.''' ] (]) 04:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock