| Revision as of 15:40, 4 March 2020 editMs96 (talk | contribs)435 edits →March 2020← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:58, 27 February 2023 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,385,862 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Saff V./Archive 3. (BOT)Tag: Manual revert | ||
| (67 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| |box-advert=yes | |box-advert=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020 == | |||
| <div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px"> | |||
| {| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF; | |||
| |- style="font-size: 86%;" | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, | |||
| ;Source Guide Discussion | |||
| The first ] discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success. | |||
| ;Redirects | |||
| New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the ]. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at ]. | |||
| ;Discussions and Resources | |||
| *There is an ] around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles. | |||
| *A recent discussion of whether ] restraunts are notable was ]. | |||
| *A ] with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month. | |||
| *A ] to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn. | |||
| ;Refresher | |||
| ] generally do not need ] type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of ] for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline. | |||
| Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095 | |||
| <small>To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ] | |||
| </small> | |||
| </div>16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=940512118 --> | |||
| == February 2020 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing from certain pages (] and ]) for ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on 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 ~~~~''}}. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-pblock --> | |||
| :I've warned you several times about the need to edit collaboratively at the page about the MEK. While none of the editors there have demonstrated particularly good behavior, your edit warring over content that did not have consensus, and your inability or unwillingness to understand the page restrictions, suggest you need a break from that page. When you reported another editor to ANEW, you were that the article had a consensus required restriction; then you chose to violate it anyway, with some extremely wiki-lawyerish arguments on the talk page. Please demonstrate an ability to work constructively and collaboratively on other related articles, otherwise I will likely expand this block to a topic-ban. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Yes, I should have observed the consensus required and I really did in previous cases. Also, please review ALL of MY edits on 19 February in MEK. Ypatch was roll backing all my changes. Some of them were removal of duplicated things. I promise to be more careful about observing this restriction and give me another chance. Please take a look at my constructive contributions. Indef block for the first time during my editing history was very sever here ] (]) 14:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) | decline = This is generally inappropriate. See ]; you are expected to talk about your inappropriate actions, not those of other editors. You can demonstrate constructive contributions and the ability to resolve disputes by editing other articles appropriately for a period of time, then requesting this block be re-reviewed. ] (]) 11:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I will let another admin judge this unblock request, but in opinion Saff V. will benefit from a break from ]. The violation of the restriction was the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I am concerned. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 19:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that the indef block is only from editing the named articles, you can still edit other articles freely. ] (]) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping| 331dot}} What is the difference between me and ? I ask for change the indef block to temporary period such as others.Thanks!] (]) 06:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What's different is that you are now partially blocked after being under a brief restriction previously. I am evaluating the block in front of me. You need to do as you have been asked, "Please demonstrate an ability to work constructively and collaboratively on other related articles". ] (]) 09:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you recently removed 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 ]. ''You wrongfully deleted correct, cited info in . Further disruptive edits will not be tolerated.''<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> ] ] 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :@Ms96 , You just with 220 edits in English Misplaced Pages need to study wiki policies more carefully. I explained my reason for removing the material in "is n't supported by the source". But you it with no reason. You have to know that only mentioning "disruptive edit" is n't enough. The ] asked editors to provide a valid and informative explanation for reverting. I started a discussion and gave more explanations in ].] (]) 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2020 == | |||
| ] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of ], such as the edit you made to ], did not appear constructive and has been ]. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our ]. You can find information about these at our ] which also provides further information about ]. If you only meant to make test edits, please use ] for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ] ] 15:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Really, a ''uw-disruptive1'' template? You couldn't just take a few minutes to ] what the actual problem is? ] 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :And you did it twice, I see above. These are not what these warning templates are for, {{u|Ms96}}. That is not how content disputes are resolved. ] 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Dear ], I understand your concerns but please also check other edits by this user, on ] for instance. Also, have you forgotten this user's lies whose mother tongue is Persian? ] ] 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:58, 27 February 2023
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |