|
|
Hey. You might want to discuss Talk:Argylle#Billing_block -- 109.79.74.142 ( talk) 19:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not a Wiki person but I frequent that location and can vouch it's been upgraded to GT aka Dual-Laser on a 1.9:0 canvas. 47.147.230.147 ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Barry Wom ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Oh go on then, I'll submit an appeal. Not out of any particular desire to edit the Warner Bros. Pictures article within the next week, just to make a couple of points.
Firstly, mea culpa. I did indeed perform three reverts in 24 hours and five within 48 hours.
As a glance at my user contributions will show, 90% of my time on Wikipedia is spent patrolling for disruptive editing. On reverting, I'll normally check the other edits made by the disruptive user, revert any troublesome ones and leave a talk page warning if necessary.
In my experience, in the vast majority of cases (particularly where an IP user is involved) the disruptive editor doesn't return. In this particular instance this obviously didn't happen. When I checked the user's talk page I spotted that they had been warned for edit warning three days previously, indicating that this was obviously someone with a very recent history of disruption.
The note from the admin at the 3RR noticeboard states "This was an issue that could have been resolved through discussion." I'm firmly of the belief that attempting to discuss the insertion of this material would have been fruitless. In any case, the reason for my reversions was included in my edit summaries:
"poorly worded"
"Restoring last good version"
"Your edit summary is unintelligible and your edit is still poorly worded"
Contrast with the IP's edit summaries, when they even bothered to provide one:
"now it’s well written" (it wasn't)
"First unless we shorted this information, we should keep it and second who said that the WIZARDING WORLD is over?"
"unless you shorted this info, it should stay here and the Wizarding World doesn’t sound over yet"
Does this sound like someone who would have engaged in discussion? And what could I add to a talk page discussion other than "this edit is poorly worded", i.e. parroting what I'd already pointed out in the edit summaries? At least one established editor agreed that this IP was being disruptive in this particular case [1].
Finally, while I do realise that the disputed content is largely irrelevant in 3RR cases, did any admin check out what this user was actually inserting (and which, of course, remains on the current version)? Have a game of grammatical error bingo.
In 1918, during
WW1, to kickstarted their business, the four Warner Brothers chose to produced an adaptation of the book
My Four Years in Germany by
James W. Gerard to be their first full-scale picture, as they were considered by the sensitivity of both the content and the war for their very first production at the time.
I've seen enough block appeals to know that I now need to do a contrite summary of "what have I learned?" and "what I would do differently in the future?".
I've certainly learned to be much more wary of submitting a 3RR report without triple checking that I've not fallen foul of the rule myself. That was an idiotic move that I won't be repeating again.
In retrospect, instead of reporting 3RR I should have requested semi-protection on the article, which would almost certainly have been implemented. That way we wouldn't have the current situation where a badly worded edit is allowed to stand. For another week, at least. Barry Wom ( talk) 11:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted below, this not exactly a persuasive request. A partial block from one article is not a big deal. You can establish consensus on the talk page for your preferred version. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (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.
I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at Transformers: The Last Knight. I notice in your previous edits on that article you have also tried to cut back the bloat and make sure the WP:LEAD section summarizes succinctly.
I have attempted to reduce the paragraph long premise summary in the lead section down to just one sentence.( diff) I'd appreciate a second opinion, but I really don't think very much detail is needed in the lead. -- 109.255.172.169 ( talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Personally I feel it is redundant to write "In the film," (where else would we be talking about) and I fear that having the premise in a separate paragraph will only encourage the type of person who will bloat it back up again (not that they need much encouragement), but I will check back again in a few months and see how it goes. Not having seen the film is better actually, the single line of premise in the lead section should more or less make sense with little or no prior knowledge (you know like in an encyclopedia). The lead section shouldn't be inflicting trivia like "the order of the Wittwicans" on normal readers. [2] The film itself is spectacularly bad, it is a bad film and a spectacular noisy mess full of Bayhem.. If you've seen film 2, 3, or 4, you should be able to guess what film 5 TLK is like, and it is more absurd than that even. -- 109.255.172.169 ( talk) 14:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Barry Wom!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok look I know I was objectively wrong beforehand trying to force sources onto the article that couldn't be used but trust me this time there's nothing wrong with anything on the edit. Please do not take it off. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:E4D1:7F1F:141F:1EB3 ( talk) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia page, I always edit this one. It should be used to fix stuff, not to disrupt edit., by the way it’s a holiday. Exteahans71 ( talk) 17:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
There is an abusive user constantly edit-warring on The Pandemic Special by inserting piped links to redirects. I’ve already got a complaint filed but I also need to stop my edit warring. Can you please review the edits and assist as needed? Thanks. - SanAnMan ( talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at South Park shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuestFour ( talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Hey. You might want to discuss Talk:Argylle#Billing_block -- 109.79.74.142 ( talk) 19:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not a Wiki person but I frequent that location and can vouch it's been upgraded to GT aka Dual-Laser on a 1.9:0 canvas. 47.147.230.147 ( talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Barry Wom ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Oh go on then, I'll submit an appeal. Not out of any particular desire to edit the Warner Bros. Pictures article within the next week, just to make a couple of points.
Firstly, mea culpa. I did indeed perform three reverts in 24 hours and five within 48 hours.
As a glance at my user contributions will show, 90% of my time on Wikipedia is spent patrolling for disruptive editing. On reverting, I'll normally check the other edits made by the disruptive user, revert any troublesome ones and leave a talk page warning if necessary.
In my experience, in the vast majority of cases (particularly where an IP user is involved) the disruptive editor doesn't return. In this particular instance this obviously didn't happen. When I checked the user's talk page I spotted that they had been warned for edit warning three days previously, indicating that this was obviously someone with a very recent history of disruption.
The note from the admin at the 3RR noticeboard states "This was an issue that could have been resolved through discussion." I'm firmly of the belief that attempting to discuss the insertion of this material would have been fruitless. In any case, the reason for my reversions was included in my edit summaries:
"poorly worded"
"Restoring last good version"
"Your edit summary is unintelligible and your edit is still poorly worded"
Contrast with the IP's edit summaries, when they even bothered to provide one:
"now it’s well written" (it wasn't)
"First unless we shorted this information, we should keep it and second who said that the WIZARDING WORLD is over?"
"unless you shorted this info, it should stay here and the Wizarding World doesn’t sound over yet"
Does this sound like someone who would have engaged in discussion? And what could I add to a talk page discussion other than "this edit is poorly worded", i.e. parroting what I'd already pointed out in the edit summaries? At least one established editor agreed that this IP was being disruptive in this particular case [1].
Finally, while I do realise that the disputed content is largely irrelevant in 3RR cases, did any admin check out what this user was actually inserting (and which, of course, remains on the current version)? Have a game of grammatical error bingo.
In 1918, during
WW1, to kickstarted their business, the four Warner Brothers chose to produced an adaptation of the book
My Four Years in Germany by
James W. Gerard to be their first full-scale picture, as they were considered by the sensitivity of both the content and the war for their very first production at the time.
I've seen enough block appeals to know that I now need to do a contrite summary of "what have I learned?" and "what I would do differently in the future?".
I've certainly learned to be much more wary of submitting a 3RR report without triple checking that I've not fallen foul of the rule myself. That was an idiotic move that I won't be repeating again.
In retrospect, instead of reporting 3RR I should have requested semi-protection on the article, which would almost certainly have been implemented. That way we wouldn't have the current situation where a badly worded edit is allowed to stand. For another week, at least. Barry Wom ( talk) 11:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted below, this not exactly a persuasive request. A partial block from one article is not a big deal. You can establish consensus on the talk page for your preferred version. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (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.
I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at Transformers: The Last Knight. I notice in your previous edits on that article you have also tried to cut back the bloat and make sure the WP:LEAD section summarizes succinctly.
I have attempted to reduce the paragraph long premise summary in the lead section down to just one sentence.( diff) I'd appreciate a second opinion, but I really don't think very much detail is needed in the lead. -- 109.255.172.169 ( talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Personally I feel it is redundant to write "In the film," (where else would we be talking about) and I fear that having the premise in a separate paragraph will only encourage the type of person who will bloat it back up again (not that they need much encouragement), but I will check back again in a few months and see how it goes. Not having seen the film is better actually, the single line of premise in the lead section should more or less make sense with little or no prior knowledge (you know like in an encyclopedia). The lead section shouldn't be inflicting trivia like "the order of the Wittwicans" on normal readers. [2] The film itself is spectacularly bad, it is a bad film and a spectacular noisy mess full of Bayhem.. If you've seen film 2, 3, or 4, you should be able to guess what film 5 TLK is like, and it is more absurd than that even. -- 109.255.172.169 ( talk) 14:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Barry Wom!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok look I know I was objectively wrong beforehand trying to force sources onto the article that couldn't be used but trust me this time there's nothing wrong with anything on the edit. Please do not take it off. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:E4D1:7F1F:141F:1EB3 ( talk) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia page, I always edit this one. It should be used to fix stuff, not to disrupt edit., by the way it’s a holiday. Exteahans71 ( talk) 17:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
There is an abusive user constantly edit-warring on The Pandemic Special by inserting piped links to redirects. I’ve already got a complaint filed but I also need to stop my edit warring. Can you please review the edits and assist as needed? Thanks. - SanAnMan ( talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at South Park shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuestFour ( talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)