Lootbrewed (talk | contribs) |
Lootbrewed (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
::Thanks for the reply. Yes, I reverted more than three times, but I believe there are clearly extenuating circumstances, which I really wanted an admin to look at. That's why I welcomed the noticeboard review. In fact, I was about to report myself and explain what was going on. It's all about censorship of an editor (not me). So here's what I had attempted to post on the noticeboard: |
::Thanks for the reply. Yes, I reverted more than three times, but I believe there are clearly extenuating circumstances, which I really wanted an admin to look at. That's why I welcomed the noticeboard review. In fact, I was about to report myself and explain what was going on. It's all about censorship of an editor (not me). So here's what I had attempted to post on the noticeboard: |
||
::I indeed reverted beyond 3RR on the talk page because several editors have attempted to close a clearly legitimate and important discussion that was opened by another editor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikIan WikIan], in violation of [[WP:TPO]]. For the record, I do not know WikIan at all and have never crossed paths with him. But I could immediately see he simply wanted to discuss an important issue - why the article was moved without proper consensus since the move was made after only 54 minutes of discussion, even though it was clearly a potentially contentious issue (after the Obama administration changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali). A follow-up discussion (after the move had already taken place) |
::I indeed reverted beyond 3RR on the talk page because several editors have attempted to close a clearly legitimate and important discussion that was opened by another editor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikIan WikIan], in violation of [[WP:TPO]]. For the record, I do not know WikIan at all and have never crossed paths with him. But I could immediately see he simply wanted to discuss an important issue - why the article was moved without proper consensus since the move was made after only 54 minutes of discussion, even though it was clearly a potentially contentious issue (after the Obama administration changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali). A follow-up discussion (after the move had already taken place) lasted a mere six hours. So, editors closing the thread WikIan started with the reason "Not helpful" is not only disrepectful to the editor's concern, but it is also pure censorship. Closing a legitimate discussion, after only a couple of (angry) replies, is wrong and violates talk page guidelines. Therefore, I uncollapsed the discussion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali&diff=678861304&oldid=678858178 detailed my reasoning] in the discussion. Not only did [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winkelvi Winkelvi] collapse the discussion again, he also removed all of my comments.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali&diff=678862116&oldid=678861304] Are we now going to allow editors to close a discussion, right after it's started, simply because they don't believe it's "helpful" or because they disagree with the editor's concern? Please keep in mind that I was not reverting to maintain my own content; I did it to protect the rights of another editor with a legitimate concern about a very rushed move. |
||
::Finally, please note that another editor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VictorD7 VictorD7], whom I also do not know, restored my edit to open the discussion a few minutes after you blocked me. I was very appreciative of his edit summary because it echoes precisely what I was saying. He said, "Restoring. You can't close and archive a completely legitimate section a couple of hours after its posted, or delete a perfectly valid post."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali&diff=678867433&oldid=678866941] What's interesting is that no one has reverted ''him''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali&action=history] |
::Finally, please note that another editor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VictorD7 VictorD7], whom I also do not know, restored my edit to open the discussion a few minutes after you blocked me. I was very appreciative of his edit summary because it echoes precisely what I was saying. He said, "Restoring. You can't close and archive a completely legitimate section a couple of hours after its posted, or delete a perfectly valid post."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali&diff=678867433&oldid=678866941] What's interesting is that no one has reverted ''him''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denali&action=history] |
Revision as of 03:47, 1 September 2015
Welcome
Welcome to my talk page. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Supporting good sourcing in the face of cynicism by problem editors. BlueSalix (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
Haha, thank you! I don't know you, but based on the reason for the barnstar I can only assume that you are familiar with the difficulty I've had with one particular editor who likes to remind me about my "newbie" status. Well, nice meeting you and thanks again. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- No prob. I tend to give out barnstars like candy, but I do empathize with your specific situation. BlueSalix (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing
In my opinion you are dead on there. I looked into it, and it's very odd to say the least. Winkelvi even went to the wrong talk page to ask for backup a second time. Beach drifter (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. Actually, when I saw what he had done, I wasn't even sure if there was a rule against doing it. All I knew was that it sure seemed inappropriate and unethical. So I did some searching on Google and, voilà, I found WP:CANVASS. Thanks again for validating my thoughts on the matter. And thanks, also, for finding your way to the Fogle discussion... without anyone canvassing you to go there. Haha. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Denali
Point taken about WP:TPO. Since you're uninvolved in that talk section, do you mind closing it? There's nothing constructive coming from it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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. Swarm ♠ 02:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Lootbrewed (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=You blocked me three minutes after I was informed about the noticeboard. I was in the process of replying on the noticeboard, then when I clicked to post it I realized that I had already been blocked. I would like a chance to post my comments on the noticeboard. Thanks. [[User:Lootbrewed|Lootbrewed]] ([[User talk:Lootbrewed#top|talk]]) 03:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) |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=You blocked me three minutes after I was informed about the noticeboard. I was in the process of replying on the noticeboard, then when I clicked to post it I realized that I had already been blocked. I would like a chance to post my comments on the noticeboard. Thanks. [[User:Lootbrewed|Lootbrewed]] ([[User talk:Lootbrewed#top|talk]]) 03:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) |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=You blocked me three minutes after I was informed about the noticeboard. I was in the process of replying on the noticeboard, then when I clicked to post it I realized that I had already been blocked. I would like a chance to post my comments on the noticeboard. Thanks. [[User:Lootbrewed|Lootbrewed]] ([[User talk:Lootbrewed#top|talk]]) 03:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- You're free to post your comments here and I or someone else will gladly copy them over for the record. That being said, I don't think anything you would have posted would have changed the result. 3RR vios are pretty straightforward. Swarm ♠ 03:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Yes, I reverted more than three times, but I believe there are clearly extenuating circumstances, which I really wanted an admin to look at. That's why I welcomed the noticeboard review. In fact, I was about to report myself and explain what was going on. It's all about censorship of an editor (not me). So here's what I had attempted to post on the noticeboard:
- I indeed reverted beyond 3RR on the talk page because several editors have attempted to close a clearly legitimate and important discussion that was opened by another editor, WikIan, in violation of WP:TPO. For the record, I do not know WikIan at all and have never crossed paths with him. But I could immediately see he simply wanted to discuss an important issue - why the article was moved without proper consensus since the move was made after only 54 minutes of discussion, even though it was clearly a potentially contentious issue (after the Obama administration changed the name of Mount McKinley to Denali). A follow-up discussion (after the move had already taken place) lasted a mere six hours. So, editors closing the thread WikIan started with the reason "Not helpful" is not only disrepectful to the editor's concern, but it is also pure censorship. Closing a legitimate discussion, after only a couple of (angry) replies, is wrong and violates talk page guidelines. Therefore, I uncollapsed the discussion and detailed my reasoning in the discussion. Not only did Winkelvi collapse the discussion again, he also removed all of my comments.[1] Are we now going to allow editors to close a discussion, right after it's started, simply because they don't believe it's "helpful" or because they disagree with the editor's concern? Please keep in mind that I was not reverting to maintain my own content; I did it to protect the rights of another editor with a legitimate concern about a very rushed move.
- Finally, please note that another editor, VictorD7, whom I also do not know, restored my edit to open the discussion a few minutes after you blocked me. I was very appreciative of his edit summary because it echoes precisely what I was saying. He said, "Restoring. You can't close and archive a completely legitimate section a couple of hours after its posted, or delete a perfectly valid post."[2] What's interesting is that no one has reverted him.[3]
- So I hope you'll please consider the circumstances and send a message to editors that they cannot ever close a talk page discussion when it's obviously not appropriate and a clear violation of the talk page rules. And I certainly won't edit war any more about it since VictorD7 seems to have gotten the point across that I was making. Haha. By the way, I'm not sure if you've actually read the thread I kept trying to restore, but I hope you will. Thank you. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)