| Revision as of 00:11, 28 February 2017 editBarek (talk | contribs)83,022 edits →Bar Keepers Friend: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:43, 29 December 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tag: AWB | ||
| (57 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| == December 2016 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you recently removed some content from ] without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate ]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> ] (]) 05:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| == January 2017 == | |||
| ] ] and thank you for ]. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a ], talk pages such as ] are for discussion related to improving the article, ] about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-chat1 --> <font face="Georgia">''']'''</font><font face="Courier New"><sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been ]. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the ] for that. ''Also, please be careful making changes from St. Petersburg -> Leningrad - most of these have been decided on the talk page by ]''<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> ] (]) 14:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] Anonymous users from this IP address have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours''' for ] other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}. – ] (]) 15:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)</div> | |||
| : ''If this is a ] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by ]''.{{z8}}<!-- Template:uw-hblock --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=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. ] (])3:06 pm, Today (UTC+0) | decline = 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, <u>or</u> | |||
| *the block is no longer necessary because you | |||
| *#understand what you have been blocked for, | |||
| *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and | |||
| *#will make useful contributions instead. | |||
| Please read the ] for more information. <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">] ]</span> 15:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==January 2017== | |||
| ] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ] (]) 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ] (]) 03:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Your edit summary on ] 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. ] (]) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with ], 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. ] article has been massaged five ways from Sunday, mostly to his benefit. You'd have to have your monitor turned off to miss it.] (]) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did with <span class="plainlinks"></span> to ]. <!-- Template:Huggle/warn-4 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> ] (]) 03:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :That you characterize my edit as vandalism does not show good faith. The ] 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.] (]) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> ] (]) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 04:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :edit conflicted with block. I will add notice to the ANI. ] (]) 04:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=My good-faith edits were reverted wholesale by ], who stalked my edit history and reverted EVERY SINGLE EDIT I MADE ON 18 JANUARY, following up with some insults on my talk page. ] piled on with a block threat, calling my addition of ] tag to ] ], 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. ] (]) 04:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC) | decline = 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, <u>or</u> | |||
| *the block is no longer necessary because you | |||
| *#understand what you have been blocked for, | |||
| *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and | |||
| *#will make useful contributions instead. | |||
| Please read the ] for more information. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Level_of_debate.2C_edit_wars_and_harassment | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Addressing your edit summary ; 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. ]] 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless my counting is off, second para is ]. 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.] (]) 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.''" --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 02:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but absent another definition as outlined in ], 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.] (]) 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 ]. You even say on the talk page that that is the material you find the most promotional . Stop messing around. ] (]) 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 ]. 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.] (]) 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not going to argue the semantics of edit warring, but I'll just say that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. On the bright side, thanks for (indirectly) pointing me to the Bratton article--see . ] (]) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bar Keepers Friend== | |||
| Sorry to say I've had to revert your edits. I just don't see this article as advertising, or the external links as being problematic. There was some promotional material there in the past, but I removed it. Please discuss on talk page if you have any further concerns. ] (]) 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh...then why didn't you just remove the tag instead of reverting ALL my edits? Do you feel the product maker's website and TWO advertorials are befitting a Misplaced Pages article? It's OK, though. I'm just gonna deflate the article now, so as to eliminate the need for the tag. Cheers.] (]) 23:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also reverted your edits. Your wholesale blanking of sourced and unsourced content alike is disruptive. Also, the external links section appears to follow ] guidelines, so I'm not clear on what grounds you're using to blank that section. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 00:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:43, 29 December 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.