![]() |
Hi there! StressOverStrain,
you are invited to
The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please
join us!
I JethroBT (
I'm a Co-op mentor)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
Sorry about that. I added the publisher "Marvel Comics" to the references using the copy and paste method, but apparently must've neglected to including the closing arrow when copying, and that error repeated itself. Thanks for fixing it. Nightscream ( talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Why did you remove this essential information from the page on Máriapócs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.137.3 ( talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
While The Presidency of Barack Obama is well over the preferred limit under WP:LENGTH (something I feel since I've been involuntarily reverted to a dial-up connection for the past three years), I wasn't trying to trim it by that unnoticed and unexplained deletion.
When we feel enough grief at seeing our work reverted or changed by others for what we feel are poor reasons, I also think it's just as important to acknowledge when such an edit has corrected, improved or broadened one's own work.
And it's certainly better than unintentionally allowing some goof to sit around, misleading outside readers for years, simply because no other editor still notices or cares about an article.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 10:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello M. Re: this edit. It is June rather than May. The category shows up as a red link if the month isn't correct. No worries as I got to fix the refs but I wanted to let you know for future reference. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 23:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
All stuff is supported with newspaper artcle.. Why are you deleting ?? Gewin007 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Read the newspaper artcle before delete or update Gewin007 07:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
utcursch please let him Gewin007 07:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Utcursch Gewin007 07:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Utcursch: Gewin007 07:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewingewin ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
{{reply to|Utcursch}}
.
Modulus12 (
talk)
00:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Many thanks for catching "the the" (ouch!) It may sound odd, but there are readers out there who actually read your language as "tag teams that are part of the Midnight Express", so I'd rather change it. Maybe, "tag teams, including The Midnight Express"? Or something else? - Dank ( push to talk) 16:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
English is not my native language, perhaps I need help. Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D - 2 pieces combined under one title, abbr. Mag&Nunc, but setting 2 canticles, and performed at different times during Evensong. It feels more like plural to me, and the singular in the article is for "a setting". Perhaps you can reword it in the article? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad you're taking an interest, but the usage notes in modern dictionaries deprecate the practice of throwing out every restrictive "which". I get rid of them myself sometimes, but only if they're in one of the known-exception categories, or if I think I'll be able to justify doing it on the grounds of some possible ambiguity. If there's a nearby nonrestrictive "which", that's generally a good enough reason. Thoughts? Did I misunderstand? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just got in trouble for editing one of your "added context" edits which added incorrect information, and my edit was blamed as well. You should not be adding information to the hook without the nominator's approval. Unless you are fixing a typo or grammatical issue, please leave a note at WT:DYK with the hook in question and your suggested alterations, and ping the nominator and DYK reviewer too. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 01:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Possessive of "United States". Thanks for raising the issue. Jmar67 ( talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It's great that you're taking a lot of interest in the Main Page. The following is my take on how TFA works (but rules can be changed at any time by discussion). Changing "twelfth" to "12th" is fantastic ... I do a check each month for MOS:NUMERAL violations, but I missed this one. Fixing any kind of violation of MOS or standard procedure in Main Page sections is welcome at any time. There's a gray area of "fiddly" edits, especially punctuation ... I think you'll find FAC and ERRORS people don't mind discussing those kinds of edits sometimes, but it's not their favorite thing to talk about. Before major changes, people really prefer discussion (at WP:ERRORS, or elsewhere). My talk page is always open for discussion about anything TFA-related, anytime. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The last relevant discussion at WP:ERRORS was here. I looked at how editors responded back then, and the current blurb looks good to me. Do you see any issues? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Highway 58 (CA) article after vandals totally messed it up! :)
Pf1127 (
talk)
23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
About this, the problem with WP:NUMERAL is that no two people will interpret "comparable" the same in all situations. So ... personally, I like your edit, but eventually someone will complain that it needs to be "thirteen" to parallel "five". - Dank ( push to talk) 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Our longstanding practice is to place the item associated with the section's image above all others labeled with the same date (but not later dates). This doesn't necessarily affect the duration for which items appear, as the order can be inverted when the image is replaced. — David Levy 22:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Short version: it's time to hold a series of RfCs discussions to let people argue over blurb text. One effect is that that will make it easier for you to suggest as many changes as you want, and get feedback on those changes. - Dank (
push to talk)
14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually SciShow Yotube videos are a good source! ConfidentFungus ( talk) 23:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Do not add Somerhalder to Nikki Reed unless every other page or profile of her does. Her last name may LEGALLY Somerhalder, but she does not PUBLICLY go by it. Unless she changes it on IG, IMDB or Facebook, then you can add it. Kay girl 97 ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't even notice that - it's a bug in the script. I'll report. Giant Snowman 07:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Regards your 'Fixed threading' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Innican Soufou at 00:15, 1 May 2021. Though I used lynching as a starting point, the main argument/comment (by User:Berchanhimez) I was responding to now comes after my response. It's generally not okay to move anyone's comment, I respectfully request that you do not move my comments in future, unless you check first. Because other editors in the thread seem happy I am not sure if my comment can be moved back. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
the main argument/comment (by User:Berchanhimez) I was responding to now comes after my response.Your comment was a response to JzG. If somewhere in there you are making reference to Berchanhimez's comment that is now lower on the page, that's OK. That's just the nature of Wikipedia threading, and I don't see how the meaning of your comment is changed in any way. Fixing indenting/layout problems is allowed under WP:TPO. Modulus12 ( talk) 01:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixing layout errors. If you know of consensus somewhere that says editors are not obligated to thread their replies properly, then I will stop. Until then, I will continue to bring discussion pages into conformance with the guideline and standard practices when I come across them.
you're likely to move a reply that changes its meaning in a way that will make people angry. Mmmm no. The comment is still indented under (and therefore replying to) you. The reply was made after ProcrastinatingReader, Levivich, and A.A Prinon had already replied to you, and therefore it goes below their replies. The only way I could change its meaning is if I make a mistake, but "Hey, don't do that, because you could make a mistake" is not how Wikipedia works. Modulus12 ( talk) 19:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
i see you aren't taking the advice well, but the edit you appear to be complaining about was made on May 30, and Ivanvector did not show up here until May 31. (His block below is presumably based on my June 2 edits that aren't relevant to your complaint.) Now, surely it's quite obvious in your diff that you made two comments. You replied to Jason Rees (with the correct
*:
indentation), and you added a !vote to the discussion (with a a single *
). These are different comments; they should both be signed separately. If other people reply to Jason Rees or your reply, it becomes unclear who wrote the fragment "Thank you for the ping, Jason." Ultimately, the content of the comments is irrelevant; comments must be signed. I feel that the
WP:Talk page guidelines firmly back me up on this, and I believe a large majority of the community (maybe even Ivanvector) would agree with my edit. If I have misunderstood your complaint or the policies/guidelines, please let me know. If you have specific complaints about any of my other edits at ANI, I am happy to discuss them.
Modulus12 (
talk)
22:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Modulus12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bad block, in violation of the blocking policy. In the block notice, Ivanvector links to
WP:Disruptive editing, which states This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
If the reviewing admin looks just up the talk page at the discussion between me and Ivanvector, they can see Ivanvector presents a single diff, and links to no policies or guidelines (let alone fundamental ones) when telling me to stop doing what I'm doing. I did link a guideline and a Help page that explains and (IMO) justifies my edits, but Ivanvector refused to engage with these points or cite any consensus opposing my edits, and stopped replying. Ivanvector's argument above is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which, of course, is not a valid reason to threaten a block, or to implement one.
Modulus12 (
talk)
23:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I have unblocked per the discussion below. This block was an unambiguous error on my part. 331dot's decline was in good-faith and a reasonable interpretation of the information available at the time; it is copied below, outside the template. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Original decline rationale: You were told that what you were doing was problematic, but persisted. You might have better luck if you first inquired as to if a post was written the way the person wished it to be written or not before adjusting it, or first discussing any perceived formatting issues with the editor involved instead of just changing it the way you think it should be. At least some of what you attempted to do would be fine except at least one editor involved told you their post was the way they wanted it and that they did not want it changed. I think a week block from a single page is appropriate, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 08:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC) }}
except at least one editor involved told you their post was the way they wanted it and that they did not want it changed.? Yes, a very small number of my edits were reverted, but I have never touched those again. If a user insists on keeping their comments in non-compliance with guidelines and standards, I have let them.
Hi. I have just closed the thread you raised on WP:ANI. I cannot see any means why HJ Mitchell would get sanctioned, and there are genuine reasons why we sometimes block users without comment. You may find discussions such as Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change helpful to see why.
Can I offer another bit of advice? A couple of editors also suggested to topic-ban you from ANI at the discussion I just closed. I'm not agreeing with that course of action just yet, but I think I need to tell you to stay away from ANI. We are primarily here to write an encyclopedia; and areas like ANI are best reserved for experienced administrators who are skilled in reducing disruption with the minimum of fuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
spiritof the policy is more important, but your block-option choices were the opposite of what the policy says, and so don't follow its spirit or letter. This can't be me, some poor new editor, misunderstanding cultural norms, because, again, there was an admin on your talk page confused as well. (I'm also not new and don't need to be given explanations of what an LTA is or what ANI is or what our primary goal here is.)
Penny for your thoughts?) outright encourages commentary, so you're throwing mixed signals when you immediately start acting exasperated that I showed up to discuss something. Modulus12 ( talk) 00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
20:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Prior post-block discussion
| ||
---|---|---|
@
RickinBaltimore: This seems like an over-reaction. I do not see how the bold edits were
WP:POINT. Nobody has yet explained to me how the subjects I added in those edits are already covered (or not contradicted) by the blocking policy. This is the process by which we improve the blocking policy: I boldly edit, somebody reverts, we discuss on the talk page.
Modulus12 (
talk)
21:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the compliments from you two, but I really don't need encouragement on how to enjoy a new second-class-editor life. No thanks. An editor blocked from project-space is no editor. I will be appealing this block. Now, RickinBaltimore, can you please answer the following questions so I can narrow the issues in my appeal.
Thanks. If you don't want to answer, just say so, so I can move forward. Modulus12 ( talk) 21:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I'm going to think for a bit. Cancel my requests for an appeal for now. Modulus12 ( talk) 23:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC) A breakI read HJ Mitchell's latest comment here [5], thought about it, and as much as I wish it were the opposite, his frank assessment of what will happen is probably right. (Other people tried to tell me that, but I guess this one finally sank in.) So I'll save you from going through the motions and we'll just skip to the end. I spent the last two days thinking about where I want to go from here, and I'm confident now that it's time for a break. I don't really want to think about Wikipedia for a while. A few parting thoughts:
HJ Mitchell, I apologize for whatever stress I caused by singling out your block. It really was just the first one of this nature I stumbled across. JBW, you might regret ever having crossed paths with me, and I wouldn't blame you for it, as it seems I've bungled this whole thing and induced another admin to attempt to shame you. But thank you for speaking up on HJ Mitchell's talk page. That is something that the other 90-or-so page watchers did not do, and maybe this whole thing could have been avoided if they did speak up. I think that's pretty much all I have to say. I didn't write all this because I think my leaving is a big deal, or because anyone has to care about my opinions. In all likelihood, it probably looks like a bunch of rambling followed by a rage-quit. Maybe somewhere a ways down the road, when my frustration has gone away, I might get the urge to start editing articles again. Until then, farewell. Modulus12 ( talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
|
@
RickinBaltimore: I presume you're still standing by this block? I'd like to renew my previous request for all of the diffs that you believe constitute disruptive editing that led to the block. The block reason was Continuing to disrupt WP:ANI to make a WP:POINT, moved to changing the blocking policy again to make a WP:POINT.
I guess you would definitely include these three:
[6]
[7]
[8]. What other ANI edits were disruptive, if any? Thanks.
Modulus12 (
talk)
23:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi there! StressOverStrain,
you are invited to
The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please
join us!
I JethroBT (
I'm a Co-op mentor)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
Sorry about that. I added the publisher "Marvel Comics" to the references using the copy and paste method, but apparently must've neglected to including the closing arrow when copying, and that error repeated itself. Thanks for fixing it. Nightscream ( talk) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Why did you remove this essential information from the page on Máriapócs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.137.3 ( talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
While The Presidency of Barack Obama is well over the preferred limit under WP:LENGTH (something I feel since I've been involuntarily reverted to a dial-up connection for the past three years), I wasn't trying to trim it by that unnoticed and unexplained deletion.
When we feel enough grief at seeing our work reverted or changed by others for what we feel are poor reasons, I also think it's just as important to acknowledge when such an edit has corrected, improved or broadened one's own work.
And it's certainly better than unintentionally allowing some goof to sit around, misleading outside readers for years, simply because no other editor still notices or cares about an article.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 10:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello M. Re: this edit. It is June rather than May. The category shows up as a red link if the month isn't correct. No worries as I got to fix the refs but I wanted to let you know for future reference. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 23:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
All stuff is supported with newspaper artcle.. Why are you deleting ?? Gewin007 07:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Read the newspaper artcle before delete or update Gewin007 07:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
utcursch please let him Gewin007 07:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Utcursch Gewin007 07:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Utcursch: Gewin007 07:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewingewin ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
{{reply to|Utcursch}}
.
Modulus12 (
talk)
00:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Many thanks for catching "the the" (ouch!) It may sound odd, but there are readers out there who actually read your language as "tag teams that are part of the Midnight Express", so I'd rather change it. Maybe, "tag teams, including The Midnight Express"? Or something else? - Dank ( push to talk) 16:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
English is not my native language, perhaps I need help. Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D - 2 pieces combined under one title, abbr. Mag&Nunc, but setting 2 canticles, and performed at different times during Evensong. It feels more like plural to me, and the singular in the article is for "a setting". Perhaps you can reword it in the article? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad you're taking an interest, but the usage notes in modern dictionaries deprecate the practice of throwing out every restrictive "which". I get rid of them myself sometimes, but only if they're in one of the known-exception categories, or if I think I'll be able to justify doing it on the grounds of some possible ambiguity. If there's a nearby nonrestrictive "which", that's generally a good enough reason. Thoughts? Did I misunderstand? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just got in trouble for editing one of your "added context" edits which added incorrect information, and my edit was blamed as well. You should not be adding information to the hook without the nominator's approval. Unless you are fixing a typo or grammatical issue, please leave a note at WT:DYK with the hook in question and your suggested alterations, and ping the nominator and DYK reviewer too. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 01:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Possessive of "United States". Thanks for raising the issue. Jmar67 ( talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It's great that you're taking a lot of interest in the Main Page. The following is my take on how TFA works (but rules can be changed at any time by discussion). Changing "twelfth" to "12th" is fantastic ... I do a check each month for MOS:NUMERAL violations, but I missed this one. Fixing any kind of violation of MOS or standard procedure in Main Page sections is welcome at any time. There's a gray area of "fiddly" edits, especially punctuation ... I think you'll find FAC and ERRORS people don't mind discussing those kinds of edits sometimes, but it's not their favorite thing to talk about. Before major changes, people really prefer discussion (at WP:ERRORS, or elsewhere). My talk page is always open for discussion about anything TFA-related, anytime. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The last relevant discussion at WP:ERRORS was here. I looked at how editors responded back then, and the current blurb looks good to me. Do you see any issues? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Modulus12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Highway 58 (CA) article after vandals totally messed it up! :)
Pf1127 (
talk)
23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
About this, the problem with WP:NUMERAL is that no two people will interpret "comparable" the same in all situations. So ... personally, I like your edit, but eventually someone will complain that it needs to be "thirteen" to parallel "five". - Dank ( push to talk) 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Our longstanding practice is to place the item associated with the section's image above all others labeled with the same date (but not later dates). This doesn't necessarily affect the duration for which items appear, as the order can be inverted when the image is replaced. — David Levy 22:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Short version: it's time to hold a series of RfCs discussions to let people argue over blurb text. One effect is that that will make it easier for you to suggest as many changes as you want, and get feedback on those changes. - Dank (
push to talk)
14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually SciShow Yotube videos are a good source! ConfidentFungus ( talk) 23:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Do not add Somerhalder to Nikki Reed unless every other page or profile of her does. Her last name may LEGALLY Somerhalder, but she does not PUBLICLY go by it. Unless she changes it on IG, IMDB or Facebook, then you can add it. Kay girl 97 ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't even notice that - it's a bug in the script. I'll report. Giant Snowman 07:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Regards your 'Fixed threading' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Innican Soufou at 00:15, 1 May 2021. Though I used lynching as a starting point, the main argument/comment (by User:Berchanhimez) I was responding to now comes after my response. It's generally not okay to move anyone's comment, I respectfully request that you do not move my comments in future, unless you check first. Because other editors in the thread seem happy I am not sure if my comment can be moved back. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
the main argument/comment (by User:Berchanhimez) I was responding to now comes after my response.Your comment was a response to JzG. If somewhere in there you are making reference to Berchanhimez's comment that is now lower on the page, that's OK. That's just the nature of Wikipedia threading, and I don't see how the meaning of your comment is changed in any way. Fixing indenting/layout problems is allowed under WP:TPO. Modulus12 ( talk) 01:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixing layout errors. If you know of consensus somewhere that says editors are not obligated to thread their replies properly, then I will stop. Until then, I will continue to bring discussion pages into conformance with the guideline and standard practices when I come across them.
you're likely to move a reply that changes its meaning in a way that will make people angry. Mmmm no. The comment is still indented under (and therefore replying to) you. The reply was made after ProcrastinatingReader, Levivich, and A.A Prinon had already replied to you, and therefore it goes below their replies. The only way I could change its meaning is if I make a mistake, but "Hey, don't do that, because you could make a mistake" is not how Wikipedia works. Modulus12 ( talk) 19:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
i see you aren't taking the advice well, but the edit you appear to be complaining about was made on May 30, and Ivanvector did not show up here until May 31. (His block below is presumably based on my June 2 edits that aren't relevant to your complaint.) Now, surely it's quite obvious in your diff that you made two comments. You replied to Jason Rees (with the correct
*:
indentation), and you added a !vote to the discussion (with a a single *
). These are different comments; they should both be signed separately. If other people reply to Jason Rees or your reply, it becomes unclear who wrote the fragment "Thank you for the ping, Jason." Ultimately, the content of the comments is irrelevant; comments must be signed. I feel that the
WP:Talk page guidelines firmly back me up on this, and I believe a large majority of the community (maybe even Ivanvector) would agree with my edit. If I have misunderstood your complaint or the policies/guidelines, please let me know. If you have specific complaints about any of my other edits at ANI, I am happy to discuss them.
Modulus12 (
talk)
22:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Modulus12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Bad block, in violation of the blocking policy. In the block notice, Ivanvector links to
WP:Disruptive editing, which states This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
If the reviewing admin looks just up the talk page at the discussion between me and Ivanvector, they can see Ivanvector presents a single diff, and links to no policies or guidelines (let alone fundamental ones) when telling me to stop doing what I'm doing. I did link a guideline and a Help page that explains and (IMO) justifies my edits, but Ivanvector refused to engage with these points or cite any consensus opposing my edits, and stopped replying. Ivanvector's argument above is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which, of course, is not a valid reason to threaten a block, or to implement one.
Modulus12 (
talk)
23:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I have unblocked per the discussion below. This block was an unambiguous error on my part. 331dot's decline was in good-faith and a reasonable interpretation of the information available at the time; it is copied below, outside the template. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 19:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Original decline rationale: You were told that what you were doing was problematic, but persisted. You might have better luck if you first inquired as to if a post was written the way the person wished it to be written or not before adjusting it, or first discussing any perceived formatting issues with the editor involved instead of just changing it the way you think it should be. At least some of what you attempted to do would be fine except at least one editor involved told you their post was the way they wanted it and that they did not want it changed. I think a week block from a single page is appropriate, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 08:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC) }}
except at least one editor involved told you their post was the way they wanted it and that they did not want it changed.? Yes, a very small number of my edits were reverted, but I have never touched those again. If a user insists on keeping their comments in non-compliance with guidelines and standards, I have let them.
Hi. I have just closed the thread you raised on WP:ANI. I cannot see any means why HJ Mitchell would get sanctioned, and there are genuine reasons why we sometimes block users without comment. You may find discussions such as Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change helpful to see why.
Can I offer another bit of advice? A couple of editors also suggested to topic-ban you from ANI at the discussion I just closed. I'm not agreeing with that course of action just yet, but I think I need to tell you to stay away from ANI. We are primarily here to write an encyclopedia; and areas like ANI are best reserved for experienced administrators who are skilled in reducing disruption with the minimum of fuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
spiritof the policy is more important, but your block-option choices were the opposite of what the policy says, and so don't follow its spirit or letter. This can't be me, some poor new editor, misunderstanding cultural norms, because, again, there was an admin on your talk page confused as well. (I'm also not new and don't need to be given explanations of what an LTA is or what ANI is or what our primary goal here is.)
Penny for your thoughts?) outright encourages commentary, so you're throwing mixed signals when you immediately start acting exasperated that I showed up to discuss something. Modulus12 ( talk) 00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
20:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Prior post-block discussion
| ||
---|---|---|
@
RickinBaltimore: This seems like an over-reaction. I do not see how the bold edits were
WP:POINT. Nobody has yet explained to me how the subjects I added in those edits are already covered (or not contradicted) by the blocking policy. This is the process by which we improve the blocking policy: I boldly edit, somebody reverts, we discuss on the talk page.
Modulus12 (
talk)
21:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the compliments from you two, but I really don't need encouragement on how to enjoy a new second-class-editor life. No thanks. An editor blocked from project-space is no editor. I will be appealing this block. Now, RickinBaltimore, can you please answer the following questions so I can narrow the issues in my appeal.
Thanks. If you don't want to answer, just say so, so I can move forward. Modulus12 ( talk) 21:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I'm going to think for a bit. Cancel my requests for an appeal for now. Modulus12 ( talk) 23:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC) A breakI read HJ Mitchell's latest comment here [5], thought about it, and as much as I wish it were the opposite, his frank assessment of what will happen is probably right. (Other people tried to tell me that, but I guess this one finally sank in.) So I'll save you from going through the motions and we'll just skip to the end. I spent the last two days thinking about where I want to go from here, and I'm confident now that it's time for a break. I don't really want to think about Wikipedia for a while. A few parting thoughts:
HJ Mitchell, I apologize for whatever stress I caused by singling out your block. It really was just the first one of this nature I stumbled across. JBW, you might regret ever having crossed paths with me, and I wouldn't blame you for it, as it seems I've bungled this whole thing and induced another admin to attempt to shame you. But thank you for speaking up on HJ Mitchell's talk page. That is something that the other 90-or-so page watchers did not do, and maybe this whole thing could have been avoided if they did speak up. I think that's pretty much all I have to say. I didn't write all this because I think my leaving is a big deal, or because anyone has to care about my opinions. In all likelihood, it probably looks like a bunch of rambling followed by a rage-quit. Maybe somewhere a ways down the road, when my frustration has gone away, I might get the urge to start editing articles again. Until then, farewell. Modulus12 ( talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
|
@
RickinBaltimore: I presume you're still standing by this block? I'd like to renew my previous request for all of the diffs that you believe constitute disruptive editing that led to the block. The block reason was Continuing to disrupt WP:ANI to make a WP:POINT, moved to changing the blocking policy again to make a WP:POINT.
I guess you would definitely include these three:
[6]
[7]
[8]. What other ANI edits were disruptive, if any? Thanks.
Modulus12 (
talk)
23:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)