| Revision as of 17:03, 20 April 2015 editPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators126,547 edits remove duplicate← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:36, 20 April 2015 edit undoMighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk | contribs)132 edits →Regarding your blockNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Yes, general references are cited at the bottom, but inline citations are preferred because "The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short." That's why ] has about ten times as much about inline citations as it does general citations (and why we ]). ] (]) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | Yes, general references are cited at the bottom, but inline citations are preferred because "The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short." That's why ] has about ten times as much about inline citations as it does general citations (and why we ]). ] (]) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Patience is one thing, especially if it's clear one knows what it is that is being waited for. Being expected to sit here and twiddle my thumbs, even though it's now clear that at least three people know I am waiting for a response and I have given all the information I have, is just taking the mick. I would liken that to ritual humiliation. If my answers are not sufficient, then why leave the appeal open? As for general agreement, are you sure? A far more likely explanation to me is that Drmies' slurs against my version have been taken on trust, and nobody has checked to see if he was right. Let's take a couple of examples - if you have read the source, to take one glaring example of things he slashed out, do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic article would have no mention of his wife? And if you have read the source, would you agree the one sentence Drmies added that was his own to replace my writing, contained basic factual errors that actually misrepresent the source? Since he cannot possibly have found a single thing in the article that was not supported by the source provided as a general reference, I can only conclude he added the claims about me adding unverified information (and elsewhere of misrepresenting sources) to 'sex up' the rather less serious and entirely subjective issues of tone and 'encyclopedic'ness, which really are not so serious as to require the hostile and wholly inadequate approach he took, as per everything quoted above. ] (]) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:36, 20 April 2015
Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry for disrupting Misplaced Pages. I came here to improve the article on Gunther Holtorf. Having read this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html I thought it would be a valuable addition to Wikiepdia to put some of that into the Misplaced Pages article https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=651511593, which appeared to be below par at best when compared to the BBC piece. Obviously I was wrong. Obviously on this collaborative project, it doesn't matter if you spend many hours of your free time reading, interpreting and adding information from that BBC article and creating a much better one https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656850534 I was obviously completely wrong to be angry at Drmies ripping out half of that work on the basis it was made up/promotional "facebook chit chat". And it was obviously myself who was being impolite in that interaction. I'm so sorry for "vandalising" the original poor article in my anger. I can see now why the few minutes that message remained on Misplaced Pages would have been every bit as damaging to your reputation as having my facebook chit chat version in place for the few minutes it was allowed to exist as well. I am truly shocked at my failure to realise that the way people collaborate on Misplaced Pages is that one person spends hours on adding material, another spends seconds removing it, and the thanks and praise should go to the latter not the former. I'm so sorry also for not living up to your high standards of citing sources, I see now the error of putting the BBC link at the bottom under a heading called References and clearly identifying that it covered everything, obviously I was not counting on experienced Misplaced Pages people like Ian not noticing that. I must do better next time with my few hours of rigourous training. And finally I am extremely sorry for trying to improve the version you restored it to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656852120 . I tried to take your advice to heart, and remove all the bits of that version that I know were wrong having read the BBC source, and were also pretty poorly worded for an encyclopedia. My efforts were clearly so bad, so disruptive, so vandalistic https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656854756 that the original version just had to be restored I guess. I'm sure all my fellow Facebook chit chatters would be suitably embarrassed if they were ever caught trying to add the most basic information to this article or trying to remove the most basic errors. Lastly, I'm extremely sorry for calling Drmies a jerk, he's clearly an extremely nice and thoughtful person. It is of course entirely my fault for not understanding the minimalist form of communication he decided to employ on me. I am of course totally negligent in not realising which part of my improved version was made up or promotional as he claimed. Oh what a foolish and reckless person I was for calling this man an explorer. And even though that's quite literally the only piece of information I even remotely came up with myself rather than relying on the BBC source, I'm sure it's entirely my fault for not going to Drmies to politely ask what else I had made up. I'm sure he had a very long list of inventions, distortions, promotions and general chit chat crap that I had added, it must have just got lost in the post.
Decline reason:
No sensible reason to unblock given. If you apply again do not give us a wall of text, and avoid both sarcasm and irony. --Anthony Bradbury 13:00, 17 April 2015 (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.
Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The Gunther Holtorf article is poorly written, 95% incomplete, and more importantly wrong on several points of fact. As I appear to be the only person here who cares about that, and has actually researched the subject enough to expand the article, I should be unblocked so I can get on with that task. It's a complete disgrace that such an epic journey gets such a poor writeup here. And no, Drmies, he's not my uncle and I'm not here to promote his memoirs. Have you ever considered just how arrogant and condescending you come across as? If it is deemed to be disruptive to get angry when someone like Drmies treats me with such complete and total disrespect as he did, and continues to do, then I guess I'll have to try and not let him aggravate me and work around him, if he insists on continuing to block improvements. How long that lasts depends on how willing he is to explain how my version is the trash he claims it is. So far it seems to be the case that I should simply accept his judgement. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's nothing in this request that indicates that you understand why you were blocked. See also WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie 16:51, 17 April 2015 (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.
Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If you need a specific reason, I suppose I got blocked for replacing the article with a message, that's really all I can see is indicated by the 'disruptive editting' page - point making as it's described there. But I don't see how me saying that is any different to me saying I got blocked because I got angry and reacted poorly? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What edits would you make if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (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.
Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am completely at a loss why this appeal has stalled. I would appreciate being treated with some dignity and being given some sort of response. I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful Gunther Holtorf article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days.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=I am completely at a loss why this appeal has stalled. I would appreciate being treated with some dignity and being given some sort of response. I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful ] article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days. |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=I am completely at a loss why this appeal has stalled. I would appreciate being treated with some dignity and being given some sort of response. I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful ] article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days. |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=I am completely at a loss why this appeal has stalled. I would appreciate being treated with some dignity and being given some sort of response. I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful ] article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing
Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism
Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section.
Misplaced Pages:No original research
Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research...To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Misplaced Pages:Consensus
All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Repeated reversions are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy under WP:Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism.
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.
Misplaced Pages:Civility
Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably,
Misplaced Pages's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Misplaced Pages
Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.
Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith
When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.
If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns
Regarding your block
A bit of patience would go a long way. I wouldn't recommend further appeals, or statements like "I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith," as both could make you look extremely impatient (not a trait we need here). I also recommend you drop the stick regarding Drmies. No one has reverted Drmies's reverts because there's a general agreement that "the content you added was totally conversational, unverified, chatty, and very unencyclopedic."
Yes, general references are cited at the bottom, but inline citations are preferred because "The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short." That's why WP:CITE has about ten times as much about inline citations as it does general citations (and why we even have a whole page about inline citations). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Patience is one thing, especially if it's clear one knows what it is that is being waited for. Being expected to sit here and twiddle my thumbs, even though it's now clear that at least three people know I am waiting for a response and I have given all the information I have, is just taking the mick. I would liken that to ritual humiliation. If my answers are not sufficient, then why leave the appeal open? As for general agreement, are you sure? A far more likely explanation to me is that Drmies' slurs against my version have been taken on trust, and nobody has checked to see if he was right. Let's take a couple of examples - if you have read the source, to take one glaring example of things he slashed out, do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic article would have no mention of his wife? And if you have read the source, would you agree the one sentence Drmies added that was his own to replace my writing, contained basic factual errors that actually misrepresent the source? Since he cannot possibly have found a single thing in the article that was not supported by the source provided as a general reference, I can only conclude he added the claims about me adding unverified information (and elsewhere of misrepresenting sources) to 'sex up' the rather less serious and entirely subjective issues of tone and 'encyclopedic'ness, which really are not so serious as to require the hostile and wholly inadequate approach he took, as per everything quoted above. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Category: