Misplaced Pages

User talk:Unbroken Chain

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 12:52, 7 December 2009 (→Blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:52, 7 December 2009 by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) (→Blocked)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Please do not feed the trolls.

Recent Changes

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

22 January 2025

New Articles

22 January 2025


Your apology

Thanks, and don't worry, no hard feelings. It was obvious that you were getting caught up in the heat of the moment, and I was sure that you wouldn't normally talk that way. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue came up recently regarding plaques in Massachusetts. You can find better advice than I can give in the "copyright issue for photos of plaques" section of this talk page archive. By the way, I've expanded the district article a bit. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I like it. There is quite a bit more to add to this section. I think that it can be fleshed out to be a featured article, It regularly hosts large city events, Octoberfest and is also the site of our biggest natural diseaster yet. If you don't mind I will be asking you to help reword as you did above, I think we can get this one on the Main page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If the information can't be found in print, I'm not very sure that we should consider these plaques reliable sources. Have you researched this area in-depth in your local public library or in the CSU-Pueblo library? You could find lots more information if you were to get a copy of the district's NRHP nomination form, which is available for free from the National Park Service. If you're interested in doing this, email a request to nr_reference@nps.gov, saying that you want this district's nomination form (perhaps including its reference number, 82001021, to make it easier for the NPS staffer) and giving them your name and address. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Was the Obama visit directly relevant to the district's history in the grand scheme of things; are you sure this isn't recentism? Individual visits by prominent individuals generally don't belong in articles unless they're really turning points — of course we mention Lincoln's visit in November 1863 at Battle of Gettysburg, but that was because of the significance of the Gettysburg Address — and I don't see how Obama's presence in Pueblo was transformative for anyone or anything. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but the article is far from FA quality: among other things, it's definitely not comprehensive. But thank you for the compliment on my writing :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello Amigo, thanks, that is only my second barnster, the other one was for editing in the bipartisan hell that is the political fields here, I am certain you would do the same for me, respect to you, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Helpme|I am attempting to fix the references on article Union Avenue Historic Commercial District. Some references are used more hten once and I'm used to seeing the A,B,c thingy. Can you help me how to do this?}}

If you use <ref name="xxx">...</ref> for the first ref, you can use <ref name="xxx" /> to place the same reference at another place in the article. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Helpme}} If I need to use the phrase "contributing properties" but want to link it to Contributing Properties in the Historic Union Ave Commercial District. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Format the link like this: ] which gives contributing properties. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 16:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln Heights Jail

Thank you for noticing that Lincoln Heights Jail was unreferenced. I had added a reference in this edit, but another editor removed it. I have restored the reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for attacks. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

 GARDEN  15:28, 6 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Describing behaviors on a one time basis is no reason for a block. I disagree entirely with what I percieve to be a miscarriage of justice and a witchhunt to ban two good contributoers. I find that I was incorrectly warned and that this block is not intended to prevent furthur damage, but a punitive one for disagreeing and calling a spade a spade.

Decline reason:

Based on the diff, it appeared to me that you violated policies of decorum. Per policy stated in WP:ATTACK, this was a case of an "egregious" verbal attack which can result in blocking without warning. Willking1979 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 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.

Well the same behaviors were used by the church for former heretics where used during the inquisitions and the Nazis in World War 2 if you can't control the people you silence them, Some people won't be silenced. I won't. I will continue to describe a spade as a spade and if this results in further blocks you never know maybe in a few hundred years or so someone will rehabilitate my image like they did for Galileo. I'll have to be patient. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

"The policy clearly states, Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. Where in this did I attack anyone in paticular or question their character? I have only described their behaviors, without naming anyone specific. I call it Nazi because it is like that ideology, this doesn't count as a "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You completely fail to acknowledge what you did was inappropriate, and instead are wikilawyering in an attempt to get out of it. Declined, obviously. If you continue, your block will probably get extended, so please take the hint. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 6 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I really don't understand this, I read the policy that was cited to me in a block log and I disagreed. Is policy, policy or is it wiki-lawyering? How can I disagree that the policy isn't being followed when I am being directed that way by the unblock denials? I am being wikilawyered by pointing out a policy that has clear exemptions and at the same time told I can't use the same policy to justify a unblock. Is there something wrong with this picture? I wrote why in a clear and concise and CIVIL manner thus showing a personal attack block is not needed to prevent furthur instances. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, are we supposed to sit by and let people make decisions that harm our encyclopedia? How are we supposed to respond to (trying to stretch my own definition of good faith ) at best misguided actions? If I find the actions entirely innapropriate and I describe them in a way that gets the person to consider what they are doing and I do it in a historic matter which as you can tell I like history. ? I study history, I believe that it is a good teacher if we are a good listenre. The decisions made by Arbcom in this case amounted to a witchunt which is expanding to me now since zI disagree. Would it be possible to rephrase and describe the behaviors as communist or dictatorial does this makae it slightly less distasteful? I'll strike the Fucking Nazis Part or Schutzstaffel but it doesn't change the fact that he behaviors were in that manner of aqgree or be silenced. Seriously how is one to go about disagreeing without being silenced for disagreeing?

Decline reason:

You not understanding is really the problem. You are still trying to explain how it was somehow not an attack. The block was clearly justified, and most likely too short. Please stop requesting unblocks, you have received plenty of review. 17:36, 6 December 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.

How you can see this edit as not violating our no personal attacks policy? 17:39, 6 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have also offered to strike or reformat it. I have tried showing that I am willing to attempt to change and make my comments abode within policy. I am being declined on technicalities and accused of using technicalities . I am not going to say the Arbcom decision decision was justified when it wasn't. The actions are reminiscent of a communist form of government or a inquistion I believe that I've exhibited a attitude that says I disagree, however I am willing to make changes. Reread the entire thread. I made one sympathizing ocmment to a webpage, I was blocked quire questionably when I exhibit that he block isn't needed. What I fail to understand is how I can argue unblock without being accused of wikilawyering. Wilf made a specific point and linked to it. I read it and there was a clear exception, I offered to refactor, or change the phrasing. How is that not exhibiting a block isn't nec?

Decline reason:

I see no indication that you have any understanding of why you are blocked. --jpgordon 18:25, 6 December 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.

You have had your block request reviewed by 4 different admins now. If you post another one I will revert it and disable talk page editing. The unblock template is not meant to be used over and over when you do not agree with the response. 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there are positives to everything. At least if I am forced to do the time I can at least stand by my comments. Truth silenced is still truth, and sometimes it hurts. Next time I'll try to use lube. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Do as you wish, but any more of the same sort of "truth" delivery will result in escalating blocks. --jpgordon 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Get real. No part of telling the truth requires the resorting to childish name calling. This sort of false nobility using convoluted logic does not hold water. You can pretend you are being blocked for telling the truth and try to be the martyr but the fact remains you were blocked because you were acting nasty. 02:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can't read the intent in my original post or subsequent ones you missed my point which is unfortunate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the criticism of actions against me that you expressed on my talk page, which landed you in block. I am unclear why this blocking action was undertaken so suddenly and without a prior warning, clearly misinterpreting and misusing the policy WP:ATTACK, and why appeal against its false rationalization was followed by threats of worse sanction rather than explanation. Violent administrative actions (supported by echoed "me too"s) without evident care and a clear, well-argued basis undermine every editor's confidence that their support of WP is worthwhile. Brews ohare (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Unbroken Chain Add topic