→Please review WP:SOCK: new section |
Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
You have been blocked for a period of one week, your sock [[User:Soup's On, Mister]] was engaged in disruption. When you return from your block, do not sock and do not disrupt the project. Thanks. This CU finding of mine was confirmed by another CU. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) |
You have been blocked for a period of one week, your sock [[User:Soup's On, Mister]] was engaged in disruption. When you return from your block, do not sock and do not disrupt the project. Thanks. This CU finding of mine was confirmed by another CU. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
{{unblock|This was not me. I use Juno.com and Netzero.com for dial-up, which yields a dynamic IP, that shows up anywhere from Chicago to Kalamazoo to various locations in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky, depending on how it turns up. Such a type of IP can produce IP numbers that can certainly pop for any editor, given the moment of connection. This is a situation that can conceivably catch ''anyone'' in a net of connection that does not actually exist. I am not a sock puppet or sock master, nor am I interested in that sort of activity. [[User talk:Lar#Soup's off|This conversation]] with an editor who has engaged herself with continued and on-going harassment of other users and whom I filed an [[WP:AN/I]] report just a few hours earlier says everything and being handed a guilty verdict based on her suspicions and an inability to defend myself in a sock case made this entire thing a set up. I did not send e-mails to that editor nor did I post those messages to her talk page.}} |
Revision as of 22:14, 15 January 2010
A question
Is there any particular reason you reverted my efforts at copyediting Brad Pitt? For the record, Think Blue has asked me to look at the prose on that article, which I was doing. Thus, one might see why I was slightly disgruntled to find myself arbitrarily reverted with an edit summary of "overlinking and the statement is clearly cited". Again for the record, the tag I added did not refer to the citation but, as I explained to Think Blue, to who gave him that label. If I were questioning the references, I would have used a "fact" or other tag. Please take a little more time in future before getting trigger happy on the undo button. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, in fact, there are good reasons why I decided to revert it and I'll gladly go through why. I delinked the added [[United States of America|American]] because "American" is a common country term and it is unnecessary. Even if it were, it would not need to be linked to "United States of America", but either "United States" or some variation on "The American people". I returned the full stop at the end of that sentence because linking William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and film producer" with "He has been cited as one of the world's most attractive men, a label that entices the media to report on his off-screen life" is contrary to standards for WP:LEAD#First sentence, which states the lead sentence should simply convey who the subject is and why is the subject notable. Linking the sexy man part with the actor part implies that he is notable for being an attractive man, which isn't the case. He may well be one of the world's most attractive men, but he's notable as an actor who happens to now be considered one of the world's most attractive men. He didn't attain that distinction until well after he became a notable actor. The attractiveness would be the icing on the cake, as it were, but not the substance. It is the same rationale for not including "is an Academy Award nominated actor". As for the "by whom", the sourcing itself says who, and that wasn't explained by the tag clearly enough to know that. Then I asked what is different between reporting on his off-screen life and "particularly" reporting on his off-screen life, and the only answer I could think of was that it implied that his on-screen life then became secondary in comparison, and I do not believe that is true. It was, to me, an unnecessary adverb, when his on- and off-screen life are both covered in detail. I think the linking of soap opera is arguably unnecessary since it is a widely common term.
- Finally, your revision of the lines at the end were simply confusing. You read them in comparison:
- Your revision: Pitt's biggest commercial successes came with Troy, in 2004, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith in 2005, followed by his second Academy Award nomination for 2008 film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
- Original version: He has had his biggest commercial successes with Troy (2004) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005). Pitt received his second Academy Award nomination for his performance in the title role in the 2008 film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
- What do the biggest commercial successes have to do with the second Academy Award nomination that would link them into one sentence when neither of those roles were nominated for acting merit? Why would it be necessary to break with the style which uses the dates in parentheses following the name of the film? And finally, it is unclear for what he was nominated in your version. Acting? The film itself? And there is a pronoun missing.
- Those were my reasons. It wasn't a "trigger happy" undo, it was reasoned and rationale. You may have told one editor on a user talk page, but you didn't tell anyone else and I didn't view the edits as progressive for the reasons I stated. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to add your rationale to your edit summaries in future. I take your point- my version wasn't perfect but the prose (not just there) needs work. I intend to take another look at the article (I won't revert you because my version was no better than the original and I have much better things to do than start an edit war) but I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss any reversions you might be considering. Might be worth starting a discussion (here, my page, Think Blue's, the article talk page...) on how we can improve the prose since this seems to be a recurring theme in the failed FAC. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable request. Consider, though, that this is one of "those" articles that ended up being indefinitely semi-protected due to questionable edits. I'm not sure though, if my rationale would have fit in the edit summary box (tongue in cheek comment). I'm not sure that my talk page would be the best location for discussion. I am here sporadically, depending on my work schedule, but any pointers I might have to offer, I will post either to you, ThinkBlue or the article talk page. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I saw the indef semi and I'm sure there have been issues with the article in the past, but I'm not just some random "passer-by" (though, obviously, I see why I could be mistaken for such). I'll start a discussion about how best we can improve the prose and let you know where it ends up. All the best, HJMitchell You rang? 20:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable request. Consider, though, that this is one of "those" articles that ended up being indefinitely semi-protected due to questionable edits. I'm not sure though, if my rationale would have fit in the edit summary box (tongue in cheek comment). I'm not sure that my talk page would be the best location for discussion. I am here sporadically, depending on my work schedule, but any pointers I might have to offer, I will post either to you, ThinkBlue or the article talk page. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to add your rationale to your edit summaries in future. I take your point- my version wasn't perfect but the prose (not just there) needs work. I intend to take another look at the article (I won't revert you because my version was no better than the original and I have much better things to do than start an edit war) but I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss any reversions you might be considering. Might be worth starting a discussion (here, my page, Think Blue's, the article talk page...) on how we can improve the prose since this seems to be a recurring theme in the failed FAC. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hilary Duff infobox image - discussion at Talk:Hilary Duff
Hi, I started a discussion at the Hilary Duff talk page, and I would appreciate it if you could provide explanation as to why you and the other editor reverted my addition of a larger and more distinguishable picture of Duff, so that consensus can be more easily formed among other editors. Thank you! Chase wc91 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note about 3RR warnings
Upon reaching the third revert, you warned the user whose version you disagreed with, but didn't warn the other one, who had made just as many edits. Firstly, I understand the tendency towards this is natural, but I'm just saying for the future you should keep in mind to warn both parties in an edit war. Also, warning a user of 3RR in a dispute that you plan to get involved in, especially when you plan to revert them knowing they then can't (or at least shouldn't) do anything about it is likely (and probably has) inflamed the situation further. Finally, a template warning is never as good as a personal, polite message, especially during a heated dispute -- and again, especially in a heated dispute in which you plan to get involved on the opposing end.
I'm not accusing you of being intentionally malicious. These are just things to be careful about in the future. In may help you resolve conflicts more easily. Equazcion (talk) 04:39, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't leave a 3RR notice to the other editor because that editor did not continue editing on the Bundy page, even after the last revert the editor made. Nearly a full hour had passed and nothing else was edited on that page and when I looked at the edit history, I noted the editor that I warned had engaged in such behavior over other issues which led to Moonriddengirl being asked in to comment on a copyright violation issue about which SkagitRiverQueen had said she didn't trust Wildhartlivie's word on it. I didn't see that the editor I warned had any intention of not edit-warring. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Hi, there is a new discussion going on to see if there is a consensus one way or the other about the video or the Ann Rule book on the judge’s comments. This note is to let you know about this discussion so that if you wish you can voice your opinions. It’s time to put this dispute to rest so hopefully a real consensus will show up for one or the other of these references. If not interested, please feel free to just ignore. I am notifying every editor that I see on the talk page who has been in the recent discussions. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
From the Manson article
I guess you can see what I'm trying to do there on the talk page. Looking back through the discussions there, a whole lot of ad hominem remarks have been thrown around. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, nor suggesting punishing anyone for anything. I would, however, like to ask if we can draw a line under all of that, and go forward from here with a renewed agreement to use that talk page only for discussion of the article? I'm committed to being impartial regarding how everyone uses that talk page. Does that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
AN/I
I hadn't seen what SkagitRiverQueen posted in response to my remark — and I certainly do appreciate your coming to my defense — but unless you personally think the AN/I posting necessary, maybe you should withdraw it (if it may be withdrawn). Unless protection of an article's content itself becomes impossible, talk-page conflict doesn't bother me.
Again — thank you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I hereby withdraw my own post, immediately above. I've just been to the AN/I page, where I saw everything you wrote. I now appreciate the full range of your concerns and, moreover, the full range of your defense of me. My post above reflected my disinclination to see trouble made for another editor — whether SkagitRiverQueen or anyone else — but to say it again: I now understand your concerns. Thank you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Please review WP:SOCK
You have been blocked for a period of one week, your sock User:Soup's On, Mister was engaged in disruption. When you return from your block, do not sock and do not disrupt the project. Thanks. This CU finding of mine was confirmed by another CU. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
LaVidaLoca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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=This was not me. I use Juno.com and Netzero.com for dial-up, which yields a dynamic IP, that shows up anywhere from Chicago to Kalamazoo to various locations in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky, depending on how it turns up. Such a type of IP can produce IP numbers that can certainly pop for any editor, given the moment of connection. This is a situation that can conceivably catch ''anyone'' in a net of connection that does not actually exist. I am not a sock puppet or sock master, nor am I interested in that sort of activity. [[User talk:Lar#Soup's off|This conversation]] with an editor who has engaged herself with continued and on-going harassment of other users and whom I filed an [[WP:AN/I]] report just a few hours earlier says everything and being handed a guilty verdict based on her suspicions and an inability to defend myself in a sock case made this entire thing a set up. I did not send e-mails to that editor nor did I post those messages to her talk page. |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=This was not me. I use Juno.com and Netzero.com for dial-up, which yields a dynamic IP, that shows up anywhere from Chicago to Kalamazoo to various locations in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky, depending on how it turns up. Such a type of IP can produce IP numbers that can certainly pop for any editor, given the moment of connection. This is a situation that can conceivably catch ''anyone'' in a net of connection that does not actually exist. I am not a sock puppet or sock master, nor am I interested in that sort of activity. [[User talk:Lar#Soup's off|This conversation]] with an editor who has engaged herself with continued and on-going harassment of other users and whom I filed an [[WP:AN/I]] report just a few hours earlier says everything and being handed a guilty verdict based on her suspicions and an inability to defend myself in a sock case made this entire thing a set up. I did not send e-mails to that editor nor did I post those messages to her talk page. |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=This was not me. I use Juno.com and Netzero.com for dial-up, which yields a dynamic IP, that shows up anywhere from Chicago to Kalamazoo to various locations in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Kentucky, depending on how it turns up. Such a type of IP can produce IP numbers that can certainly pop for any editor, given the moment of connection. This is a situation that can conceivably catch ''anyone'' in a net of connection that does not actually exist. I am not a sock puppet or sock master, nor am I interested in that sort of activity. [[User talk:Lar#Soup's off|This conversation]] with an editor who has engaged herself with continued and on-going harassment of other users and whom I filed an [[WP:AN/I]] report just a few hours earlier says everything and being handed a guilty verdict based on her suspicions and an inability to defend myself in a sock case made this entire thing a set up. I did not send e-mails to that editor nor did I post those messages to her talk page. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}