Misplaced Pages

User talk:CvyvvZkmSUDowVf: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:34, 18 March 2008 view sourceRjd0060 (talk | contribs)33,499 editsm Protected User talk:Timneu22: blocked user being disruptive with unblock templates; protection corresponds with block time (expires 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC))← Previous edit Revision as of 23:34, 18 March 2008 view source Rjd0060 (talk | contribs)33,499 edits Undid revision 199214590 by Timneu22 (talk) restore pageNext edit →
Line 65: Line 65:


: This code appears in my EditPage.php verbatim. :( ] (]) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC) : This code appears in my EditPage.php verbatim. :( ] (]) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

== Personal attacks and incivility... ==

...are both inappropriate here, as you should know. I've reverted edit from your userpage. Please refrain from these types of comments in the future. - ] (]) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:And, I didn't see from earlier. This is your last warning to stop with the personal attacks. - ] (]) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

::# First, it is '''''my user page''''', so you shouldn't be editing it.
::# Did I attack anyone? No. Are my notes/comments visible? No.
::# I cannot believe you're accusing me when I haven't put anyone's comments on ANYONE'S PAGES. Ridiculous.
:: Just ridiculous. ] (]) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:Disruptively re-adding personal attacks on userpage after several warnings|'''Disruptively re-adding personal attacks on userpage after several warnings'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:] (]) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)|] (]) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 -->

{{unblock reviewed|1=I have not left any uncivil messages. People are raiding my user page and then calling me uncivil. Look at my edits. They are constructive and civil. If I've been "uncivil" it has only been since people have EDITED MY USER PAGE and then called ME UNCIVIL. This is completely unfair. '''There is no reason to block me.''' LOOK AT MY EDITS!!!!!!!|decline=Then what do you call that? That is exactly what you where blocked for in the first place, keep it up an your block will be extended. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1='''This is absolutely unfair.''' I didn't do anything. People edited my user page, then called me uncivil. Look at the beginning of this mess. I didn't do anything to anyone. PLEASE REVIEW AGAIN.|decline=But you were uncivil. You can't put that sort of stuff anywhere; plus, you don't get to exercise ] over your userpage. I used to be all ], but when I saw what you said about Rjd0060, I became ]. ]}}

{{unblock reviewed|1='''Respectfully disagree.''' Again, look at my edits. What have I done? Called people ridiculous? It ''is''. Surely I can have an opinion. I didn't tell anyone to f** off or anything close to that. This is a sham. An absolute joke. People ganged up on me and then I paid for it. ''I didn't do anything offensively; I'm only playing defense here.''PLEASE UNBLOCK.|decline=It all started with revert of your user page, and you were not to make these types of comments. You then did it , which resulted in another , which was noted as your final warning. You chose to continue, . So now you are blocked. I invite you to review ] and ] and when the block expires, do not make these types of comments. — ] (]) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1='''AGAIN, I didn't make comments on others' pages.''' People are watching edits I make to ''my'' pages and then telling me to read up on ]? '''YOU MUST SEE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS.'''|decline=Same reason as before. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 23:34, 18 March 2008

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

Archive box

Please note that some articles have additional information in their "manual" archive boxes, such as date ranges, issues addressed within the archive and so on. I have reverted your change in the archive style at Talk:Albert Einstein (I hope you don't mind). Anyway, I trust you will use sound judgement on whether an automatic archive box works for a particular talk page or not. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I updated Talk:Albert Einstein to use the "archive banner" template again. I think you'll like the improvements I made. Thanks for your suggestion. Timneu22 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Silly rabbit (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson

I completely agree with your comment to this. Please see my comment, and then based off of that - shall we ask for a reassessment? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I added more notes to it. I think they should just add the {{fact}} tags and then we'd have a starting point. Otherwise, it is just vague -- you need more references, but I won't tell you where. How is that helpful? ;-) Timneu22 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Regarding your assertion that copyvio tags aren't necessary... copyright infringement is a very serious issue and must be dealt with swiftly and properly. I'm sure you didn't insert copyrighted material in the article, however I find it worrisome that you object to copyvio tags being placed on articles that clearly are in violation of legal copyrights. Please review our policies regarding copyrights. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply; you missed the whole point. Timneu22 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After section edit, return to section

{{helpme}}

I have asked this question all over the place... surely someone must know the answer... http://www.mwusers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6987

Timneu22 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I administer my own Wiki, and I return to the edited section, or at least the first section with the same header text. What version are you running? Have you customized the URL at all? Bovlb (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The primary wiki is on 1.9.3. (I have another wiki on 1.7 or something; same behavior.) There is some customization, but nothing related to this. Where do I even look in the PHP files? I'd just like a place to start! Timneu22 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Let's start with the URL. Do you end up with a URL with an anchor fragment in it? Bovlb (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No. It shows:
It could be a technical problem.--Sunny910910 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This happens without customization, for two installs. I'm sure there's some php setting that differs, but I don't know where. Timneu22 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the {{helpme}} template, as this is not a question regarding using Misplaced Pages. Greeves 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to follow up. Is it possible that you're creating sections with <Hn> tags instead of the wiki === headers? I think that that might cause this effect as they don't behave quite like normal sections. Bovlb (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Always using wiki syntax "==". Timneu22 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
When you go into section edit, and view the source, is there a line like:
 <input type='hidden' value="4" name="wpSection" />
with some value? Bovlb (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, sir.. <input type='hidden' value="2" name="wpSection" /> Timneu22 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the relevant code from includes/EditPage.php: 

        } elseif( $this->section != '' ) {
            # Try to get a section anchor from the section source, redirect to edited section if header found
            # XXX: might be better to integrate this into Article::replaceSection
            # for duplicate heading checking and maybe parsing
            $hasmatch = preg_match( "/^ *({1,6})(.*?)(\\1) *\\n/i", $this->textbox1, $matches );
            # we can't deal with anchors, includes, html etc in the header for now,
            # headline would need to be parsed to improve this
            if($hasmatch and strlen($matches) > 0) {
                $sectionanchor = $this->sectionAnchor( $matches );
            }
        }
        wfProfileOut( "$fname-sectionanchor" );

I can't really see why this would fail. I suggest that you check this code in your installation. Does this fail uniformly with every possible section content? Bovlb (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This code appears in my EditPage.php verbatim. :( Timneu22 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility...

...are both inappropriate here, as you should know. I've reverted this edit from your userpage. Please refrain from these types of comments in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And, I didn't see this from earlier. This is your last warning to stop with the personal attacks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. First, it is my user page, so you shouldn't be editing it.
  2. Did I attack anyone? No. Are my notes/comments visible? No.
  3. I cannot believe you're accusing me when I haven't put anyone's comments on ANYONE'S PAGES. Ridiculous.
Just ridiculous. Timneu22 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for Disruptively re-adding personal attacks on userpage after several warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have not left any uncivil messages. People are raiding my user page and then calling me uncivil. Look at my edits. They are constructive and civil. If I've been "uncivil" it has only been since people have EDITED MY USER PAGE and then called ME UNCIVIL. This is completely unfair. There is no reason to block me. LOOK AT MY EDITS!!!!!!!

Decline reason:

Then what do you call that? That is exactly what you where blocked for in the first place, keep it up an your block will be extended. — Tiptoety 23:09, 18 March 2008 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This is absolutely unfair. I didn't do anything. People edited my user page, then called me uncivil. Look at the beginning of this mess. I didn't do anything to anyone. PLEASE REVIEW AGAIN.

Decline reason:

But you were uncivil. You can't put that sort of stuff anywhere; plus, you don't get to exercise unilateral control over your userpage. I used to be all , but when I saw what you said about Rjd0060, I became . east.718 at 23:16, March 18, 2008

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Respectfully disagree. Again, look at my edits. What have I done? Called people ridiculous? It is. Surely I can have an opinion. I didn't tell anyone to f** off or anything close to that. This is a sham. An absolute joke. People ganged up on me and then I paid for it. I didn't do anything offensively; I'm only playing defense here.PLEASE UNBLOCK.

Decline reason:

It all started with this revert of your user page, and you were warned not to make these types of comments. You then did it again, which resulted in another warning, which was noted as your final warning. You chose to continue, here. So now you are blocked. I invite you to review WP:NPA and WP:CIV and when the block expires, do not make these types of comments. — Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

AGAIN, I didn't make comments on others' pages. People are watching edits I make to my pages and then telling me to read up on WP:CIV? YOU MUST SEE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS.

Decline reason:

Same reason as before. — Tiptoety 23:29, 18 March 2008 (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.

User talk:CvyvvZkmSUDowVf: Difference between revisions Add topic