Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:20, 10 August 2009

Welcome!Last edited: Last edited by:16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Kralizec! (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, 162.6.97.3, is registered to American Red Cross National Headquarters and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

June 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Gonzaga College High School. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. JGHowes - 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to Mobile Web has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Catgut (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Go to a lottery website or find a Mega Millions betslip. Either will tell you the odds of winning the $2 prize is 1 in 75, for matching ONLY the Mega Ball, since there is a chance you will win a higher prize for matching AT LEAST ONE white ball. Ask your math teacher if you don't believe me. 207.210.134.83 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Scientologists. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Adolf Eichmann. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 14:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Oscar Wilde

See the Misplaced Pages style guide regarding "logical quotation marks" here and WP:MOST for using italics for titles of works. However, the changes to the text were largely an improvement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

Please note: You are being reported. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Tan | 39 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Why am I being punished for 3 days? What was wrong with my contributions today?

Decline reason:

This appears to be the same person as the blocked User:76.114.133.44. --jpgordon 17:08, 20 July 2009 (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.

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

Request reason:

I did read the notes of User:76.114.133.44, but it's obvious I also read, and responded to, a number of other entries on this matter. There's nothing in the correspondence today warranting a 3-day block.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. block evasion Enigma 17:21, 20 July 2009 (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.

There's no block evasion occurring (see reference to above activity today). Thus no behavior warranting a 3-day block.

Also, I would like to respond to KeltieMartinFan's outrageous attacks in a Sockpuppet investigation he is trying to launch. I mean, good lord, he can't even spell "evidence"! (His spelling: "evidents.")

It should be obvious that evading a block results in another block -- otherwise, what would be the point of blocks? If you want to see it in black and white, let's quote Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks:

"An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked." (emphasis added)

The block under discussion at User talk:76.114.133.44 has not expired, nor has it been removed or reduced. If you'd like to offer a reasonable appeal to the block, we can discuss that. If you'd like to engage in behavior identical to that which led to the first block, you should pretty well expect we're just going to block you again. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Luna - I have no interest in addressing the block of User talk:76.114.133.44, other than the fact that another editor User talk:KeltieMartinFan is clearly the main antagonist driving all the drama surrounding a minor Misplaced Pages edit. Being blocked is far less of a concern than responding to the poor approach of this other editor (who has a much more contentious Wiki history, based on a casual view of the record). My contributions today were minor, civil and, I believe, constructive. But by niftly navigating the Wiki ropes of retribution, KeltieMartinFan continues to engage in unproductive activity (again, as can been seen in this individual's activities over the past three days).

I'm sure, in time (even if it has to be three days), that enough rope will hang the right transgressor.

Thanks for your response! :)

Here is your edit: . Here is 76.114's edit: . I am extending blocks in light of deliberate socking and block evasion. Tan | 39 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Another editor User talk:KeltieMartinFan is niftly navigating the Wiki ropes of retribution, engaging in reckless behavior while driving all the drama surrounding a minor Misplaced Pages edit. Being blocked is far less of a concern than responding to the poor approach of this other editor (who has a much more contentious Wiki history, based on a casual view of the record). My contributions today were minor, civil and, I believe, constructive. Nonethless, User talk:KeltieMartinFan continues to engage in unproductive retribution (again, as can been seen in this individual's activities over the past three days, including his latest punishment efforts left with User talk:Woody). I'm sure, in time (even if NOW two weeks), that enough rope will hang the right transgressor.

Decline reason:

As stated below, this addresses none of your action. If you're blocked, you're blocked, and shouldn't be switching IPs to get around it. Hersfold 02:40, 21 July 2009 (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.

Nothing in this unblock request addresses the reason for the block: block evasion. Nor do you address the reason for the first block: edit warring. Please do so. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Luna Santin - There was no block today for edit-warring. As for block evasion, this is an issue trumped up by User talk:KeltieMartinFan. Despite my efforts this Monday, User talk:KeltieMartinFan has now been running amuck for days, swirling punitive actions over a minor Misplaced Pages edit. I'm confident time is on my side, even if it's two weeks away! :)

Thanks for your response. (All the ones that User talk:KeltieMartinFan provokes my way are not as helpful.)

"There was no block today for edit-warring." OK, so there was a block yesterday for edit-warring. Really, what do you accomplish with that statement? You were blocked, and then used at least one other IP to circumvent the block. I would decline this request, but I've already declined one, so I'll leave it for another admin. You may be reblocked with talk page editing disabled. Enigma 00:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A block yesterday which had not yet expired, I find the need to stress. Editing under another IP while blocked under 76.114.133.44 is a textbook example of block evasion. It's all well and good that you don't want to address the original block, but unless you do, it's not likely that either block will be overturned. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(Another day. What procedural occurrence will a certain lurker leap on to report?) : )

Anyone interested in User:76.114.133.44 should really engage with that talk page.

User:Luna Santin, thanks for the unblocking consideration.

Also, User:Onorem, thank you as well! (Maybe I'm not the only one running astray of procedure!)  : ) But, to be fair, you may have missed the "important exceptions" covering anonymous editors and shared IP header templates. "These notices and templates are necessary in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about blocks...with other users." User:KeltieMartinFan may have advanced yet another procedural pawn in a Gallipoli strategy to victory.

User:Onorem All right, I guess, but nothing's under block review, and nothing seems remotely appealable for unblocking. (And, frankly, why is a deemed...sockhopper?...still being allowed to comment?)

Talk page locked

Since you have persisted to abuse this talk page by removing block, unblock and shared ip notices while blocked, something you are not allowed to do, I have removed your ability to edit this page while your block is in place. Once the block expires, you still are not allowed to remove the shared ip notice, regardless of if you want it there or not. If you don't want the notice there, I suggest registering an account instead of editing anonymously. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Signing posts etc.

Re : Sorry about that. However, When WMC (William M. Connolley) has specifically asked you to sign your posts, then you really should. I think all he means by "sign" is for you to put four tildes, ~~~~, which will show your IP address (if you're not logged in) or your username. I think getting an account is germane. The page has been semi-protected. If you register an account and become autoconfirmed (which I think requires a certain number of days and a certain number of edits) then you can edit semi-protected articles. However, you would have to get along with others and follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines or else you would probably be stopped from editing it anyway. To attempt to answer the question you were asking WMC: Continue discussion on the talk page, and if you and others arrive at consensus then the ones who are registered editors can put the material into the page. (Rebecca Quick). I don't know why you don't want to register an account. However, if you register an account, become autoconfirmed, and then re-add information about a second marriage, your account will probably be blocked. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you want to add information to an article, you need to convince other editors ... not editwar. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Repeated refusal to sign is impolite. CT has just explained the process, if you were unaware of it. Repeated re-introduction of unwelcome material is edit warring, for which you can be blocked. Finally, please be aware that this isn't *your* talk page: this is the talk page belonging to this IP, which you don't own, so you can't blank it. Don't do so. Or I'll block you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

162, I replied on my talk page.

162, you've re-added the material about a previous marriage too many times. People are given more leeway at first but things get stricter if they don't follow expected procedures, especially after being asked. As a result you also have less leeway about re-adding other material. If you push things too far you may be blocked from editing. Use discussion, not editwarring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your questions here: Not signing is germane because if you would like to communicate with WMC you need to treat him with respect. He's a volunteer, like all of us, and is not required to spend time communicating with people treating him in a way he considers rude. Re communication on the talk page: Although editors didn't reply on the talk page, if you look at the page history (go to the Rebecca Quick page and click "history" at the top) you will see that when people reverted your changes they explained their reasons in their edit summaries: "rv. source is not a reliable source. per BLP)" and

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Also, I've restored the previous talk page for this IP: don't remove it, or I'll just protect this page and you'll lose all ability to talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, though I *said* 24h I actually did it for indef. Oops. I've added 3h as of now; that should be about right William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the jailhouse now

User:Coppertwig - Well, that didn't take long.  : )

Other editors will have to weigh in -- on something other than impolite signings, that is. (WMC and I are clearly not going to agree on that.) I've submitted credible data today for a minor edit, and took exceeding steps to engage in discussion, not edit warring. (It's there in the action history of this page today.} In fact, I'm not sure what further steps could have been taken.

WMC is sure to block me further, even though other editors have spoken for what can and can't be blanked on this page. I'll leave that for others, too, to address at some point.

It pains me to address yet another...non-germane...argument, but WMC and I don't know each other from Adam, but apparently both feel disrespected. And for no good reasons at all. Unless stubborness became valid in the last 5 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

This page protected

As I said Also, I've restored the previous talk page for this IP: don't remove it, or I'll just protect this page and you'll lose all ability to talk. You've removed it. It is now protected. You can email me at wmconnolley(at)gmail.com if you want to talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)