Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs) at 21:58, 5 July 2014 (→Block notice: not true). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

Three Days Grace

Sorry... still had more to say. This appears to be sourced yet you still reverted it. Surely you see what I'm getting at; I'm not trying to pester or belittle you, I merely want to justify this IP's actions and make it clear there was no wrongdoing. I also see that you issued the user a final warning. The concerned edit is of course not vandalism at all, but furthermore please understand 4im warnings are appropriate for severe cases of vandalism and defamation only. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. You do understand that it was the lack of discussion and changing IPs. The former could be controlled. The latter may not be withing anon's control. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And the source may meet WP:V, but certainly not RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Bro, I'm not being unconstructive, I'm just trying to help out. I asked you for support as to why the band belongs in the Christian Music portal since they are not Christian anymore.SkaterLife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask, you reverted a section that clearly belonged and left an edit summary. Only add or remove projects that you're a member of or that are obviously wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in that edit summary I clearly said, can you give me a reference. Please double check before you accuse someone of being unconstructive.SkaterLife (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the edit summary is not discussing. Talk pages are discussing. Reading the article would have also answered your question. It's fine. You'll learn how to be a constructive editor eventually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I apologize. I should have read through more clearly.SkaterLife (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles (cont. from archive)

I found this on the forum boards of Skillet's website. It is not much for reliability as it is a forum, but is is a mention somewhere online of F&F being a single - this says relased in October. So iI say for now not necessarily cite this as it is a forum, but leave F&F on Misplaced Pages as a single, plus it has charted. http://skillet.com/boards/index.php?topic=22022.0 Hard to Find i think i will remove as a single cause I have found no such evidence like that about it being a single, plus it has not charted at all. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the best. It was released to Christian CHR formats, but without a charting source, it's not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I overhauled the Rise discography on Skillet discography with correct dates and chart info that was missing, and removed H2F. However there are some coding errors i guess and a few parts of the table are jacked up. I cant figure out what coding error I put in. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nvm figured it out. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that part of the request. Glad you got it figured out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hello! Could you run your WP:ENGVAR script on the List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies article, as well as the knockout stage article and the other group articles? Thanks in advance, Heymid (contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A user's causing a problem

A user with the name Dan56, keeps reverting edits on the Unapologetic page, there are ones that provides sources that the album uses R&B, dubstep and pop and he keeps reverting the edits and tells the users that they will be blocked for persistent vandalism, genre warring, etc, I'm not the only one who has picked up on his behavior and quite frankly I think it is unfair and he is not really a good Wikipedian, can you please help? 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvmeorHateme (talk • contribs)

It seems as though there was a poll on the talk page that was evenly split and the closing admin argued that consenus was weak toward excluding the genre. The real issue is that there is only one source to support that genre.

1. Find another reliable source
2. Add it to the music and lyrics section
3. Re-open the discussion on the talk page with the new source, but expect optimism and skepticism.

There's no need to edit war. While I don't agree with Dan56's approach—the editor should be opening a new discussion when new editors not involved in the earlier consensus discussion want to change the consensus—the editor is mostly correct in stating that a consensus exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back at me, I'll just do what you said; would you like an update? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a new discussion, can you have a look and see if it is OK please? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this user's complaint came soon after I had reverted the blocked @Lisa Bathgate:, who had been reverted and warned several times for edit/genre warring at articles like Unapologetic and A.K.A. (album), which LuvmeorHateme has also edited, I find this pretty dubious. It wouldn't be the first time either that socks tried to undermine this article's consensus (Talk:Unapologetic#Genre_change_poll). Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are solutions if you think there's sock-puppetry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Block notice

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Mike V • Talk 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I was editing within football project guidelines and have requested that other editors monitor the page so that I'm not the only editor doing so.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (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.

If my block is not lifted, I would expect an extension to the anon's block as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit is nonsense. He wasn't edit warring, he was dealing correctly with an article that was being vandalized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of all-information being available, the edit has a history of this. Please see my warning from earlier this evening which was removed by the user. Panyd 21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am an editor not a user and the removals were explained. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing further, anon was reported well before I reached three reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

• 1. I understand what I was been blocked for (editing within football project guidelines, but exceeded 3RR),
  2. That I would not continue to cause damage or disruption (I have raised the issue at the project), and
  3. I will make useful contributions as the majority of my edits have shown.

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 clearly stated that *# I understand what I was been blocked for (editing within football project guidelines, but exceeded 3RR), *# That I would not continue to cause damage or disruption (I have raised the issue at the project), and *# I will make useful contributions as the majority of my edits have shown. |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 clearly stated that *# I understand what I was been blocked for (editing within football project guidelines, but exceeded 3RR), *# That I would not continue to cause damage or disruption (I have raised the issue at the project), and *# I will make useful contributions as the majority of my edits have shown. |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 clearly stated that *# I understand what I was been blocked for (editing within football project guidelines, but exceeded 3RR), *# That I would not continue to cause damage or disruption (I have raised the issue at the project), and *# I will make useful contributions as the majority of my edits have shown. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock