User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive7

Active discussions
ARCHIVED TALK PAGES
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6
08/12/2005 | 10/03/2005 | 10/24/2005 | 11/27/2005 | 12/23/2005 | 01/27/2006
ARCHIVED TALK PAGES
Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12
02/17/2006 | 03/12/2006 | 03/21/2006 | 04/07/2006 | 04/23/2006 | 05/07/2006

Have a nice weekend

Best wishes. Neutralizer 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On complaint resolution and the realities of effective interaction

MrMiscellanious, for consideration. You have, in the past, refused multiple request from multiple users to specify identifying details that exist outside of your own mind for complaints that are enforced by your use of community granted abilities. I make this declaration as a means of forcing you into either modifying your identification methods for functionality or to set myself as opposed to every possible future instance of and excuse for only making inadequate explanations for complaints raised and most importantly against your refusal to clarify them adequately when told of their ambiguity by multiple persons as a means of providing you impetus for such change. This is for your benefit and for the benefit of the community in the long term. I accept any required procedural censure provided that such censure is based on community authority and not attempted vengeance against what may only be misunderstood to be any attack against you. Once this matter is settled, I hope to work with you for the improvement of this project. The following has not been written as a statement of revolt against any of the Wiki projects, against any characteristics of WikiNews, or against you personally, and applies only in regard to your actions as an editor and as a means of reminding you of the necessity of adequate identification and to make you aware of the harm done to the community and to the functioning of the project by your present refusals to adequately explain or identify your complaints by any line detail:

I declare that I will make efforts to understand your complaints on articles I am involved in editing in the future in every conceivable way but that when identification of their meanings are inadequate for their resolution and if requests for appropriate clarifications are ignored or refused by you, that I am forced to ignore your complaints until the are so adequately identified and must continue to do for each and every one until they are so adequately identified as to be acted on for their resolution, in which I will take part where ever I am able to. Opalus 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

image src

for Image:Natalee-holloway3.jpg can you please provide the url for the government website. Bawolff ☺☻  01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Relicensing

Oh...I figured that since it was for Wikinews it would be CC-by 2.5, but since they're all PD I really don't mind relicensing. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


WV Source?

Gday Mr M. Re: BHP halts operations after mine death in Western Australia "Coal mines in the United States' West Virginia district were also suspended earlier this week, due to increased amounts of miners' deaths." Can you get supply a source for that statement? Thanks, --elliot_k 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! --elliot_k 14:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not entitled to do so

Please be specific with respect to your claim of POV and unsourced. Please note that you have removed sources. StrangerInParadise 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not, in your capacity as an admin, an arbiter of POV. Your statement, I am not here to debate you. is especially out of order. I have made today to this article two reverts,

  • one of Amgine when he stepped on my edits (that is, he reverted me)
  • one of you, when you reverted me

You have made two reverts just now.

I grant you the comment on potency is unsourced, but common knowledge and easily remedied with a source.

My edits (#205658 to #205676) are not reversions, as they preserve the bulk of Amgine's edits, but restore certain material removed in error. I am happy to discuss the matter, but will pursue with aggression any further abuse of power on your part. With respect to your threats, I refer you to policy re when blocking may not be used.

StrangerInParadise 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"And you may not be aware, but if there is basis for a block that is supported by policy, it does not matter who performs the block"

-MrM

Plase cite authority, that appears to be untrue. Also, cite where, as an admin, you may arbitrate POV unilaterally and without explanation, or where this may be enforced with the block. StrangerInParadise 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

4 days

Hi,

why the block of Stranger for 4 days? Our policy is to block for 24 hours in cases of 3RR violations.--Eloquence 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

THis needs to be looked at. How can user's follow policy when Administrators fail to? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
the block for four days seems a bit iffy on following the policy notwitstanding that its his second offense (not enough for me to revert it, but iffy). Note MrM responded to eloquence's origional question on Eloquence's talk page. Bawolff ☺☻  00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also note that the block has been reduced by another admin to 12 hours. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That really doesnt change the fact that the original block was not supported by policy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't unblock him, Brian McNeil did. I personally think it should be 24 hours though as theres no provision in policy for extending blocks because of neumours offenses for a 3RR violation. Bawolff ☺☻  04:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I was initially forgiving in reducing the block to 12 hours, overly so as it turned out from Stranger's attitude in IRC. The original block could be qualified if applied as "disruption", not as 3RR which has an upper limit of 24 hours. I think continuing to place disputed material into an article which has an {{inuse}} tag on it qualifies as disruption. As does Stranger's marked reluctance to accept the validity of the views of others. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuppa

☻ Someone has poured you tea

about WNN

  • I read the page called "about WNN", but what about Commons ??? Jacques Divol

Please review NSW Article and comment on talk page

There are several threads towards the bottom. I've asked that no aggressive edits occur prior to discussions, and that no publication occur prior to consensus. Note also that I have placed the cleanup flag, and haven't given my chop to remove it. StrangerInParadise 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved question

Apologies, question formerly misplaced. Will you clarify the meaning of "the proposal in whole" segment of your comment in the first vote on the addition to 3RR policy currently in progress? The initial suggestion subject to discussion made by Borofkin is not what is voted on there, only the detailed singular change listed in bold is what is voted on there, if I read Brianmc's poll post correctly. Are you opposed to it or are you mistakenly still continuing on that initial suggestion made by Borofkin? REF: Current addition to 3RR Opalus 23:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tea

☻ Someone has poured you tea

I would like to put it(Pennsylvania terrorist story) back to "develop"

as Chiacomo did yesterday with this notation; "develop -- until editors work this out on the talk page". However, first I need to know whether I am allowed to do what Chiacomo did or whether I will be blocked? Neutralizer 13:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked

You are blocked for 24 hours for disruption on talk page, and encouraging a user to violate WN:NOT. I may be reached on IRC, via e-mail, or you may contact me on my talk pag after your block is expired. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Mrmiscellanious/Archive7".