Ideally, please at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)
Contents
200.83.165.120
Do not block my IP for no reason. Send a message on the talk page and discuss.
Question about recent sanctions.
I just noticed something about the recent sanctions and wanted to ask you a question. In reading here [1] I took the sanction to be a 1RR on the Southern Strategy page. The notice left on my talk page said all American Politics. I'm not clear what that scope entails. Also, is it reasonable to ask, at least in your view via the appeals process, to have a narrower scope/shorter duration given I had a clean record prior to this. I assure you I will be hyper aware on the Southern Strategy page. What I fear is simply missing something on some totally unrelated page and finding myself in violation of the sanctions. I'm not asking you to change the sanctions, just asking if you think it is a reasonable request. Thanks Springee (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the entire area, though any one article at any given time (e.g., 1 revert on "Some Political Page" and 1 revert on "Beer Party of America" within the same day) is fine. You've quick-fire revert warred on Chicago-style politics and FreedomWorks as well. The latter, I believe, was the WP:AN3 report that led to your (and others') initial
{{Alert}}
within the area. --slakr\ talk / 04:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)- Also, to be clear, this is post-1932 American politics, not the entire subject area. Sorry if that was vague, and it not be apparent from the templated messages either, but the actual case itself. :P --slakr\ talk / 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. In looking back at the warning you posted here [2] and the follow up comments it wasn't really clear that this was targeted at something I was doing vs just because I happen to be editing in a page that was subject to controversy. Might I use that, a previously clean record, and a promise of good behavior to ask that this sanction be lifted early, say 1-2 weeks. I don't think I'm the sort who normally tries to bend the rules but I don't like having the scarlet letter on my account.Springee (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I reported Springee for Wikihounding a user, HughD, back in mid September. He suggested a self-imposed 30-day interaction block with Hugh D and the ANI post roughly came to an end on Sept. 16. Immediately after 30 days, on October 15, Springee went right back to reverting HughD's posts on multiple article pages.[3][4][5][6][7]Scoobydunk (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Slakr, I would like to ask that my 1RR restriction be lifted. As I mentioned earlier, prior to this incident I had a clean record. I would ask that, based on a promise of good behavior, the restriction be lifted with the understanding of "message received". Thank you. Springee (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason, apart from this being your first AE sanction? Do you feel an urgent need to start making multiple reverts per page per day within the topic area? --slakr\ talk / 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have any plans like that. Hopefully we can get some 3rd party input to resolve the Southern Strategy content dispute. The NPOV discussion was started by the other editor and we are awaiting comments.
- Anyway, I would like the sanctions lifted for a few reasons. First, I am a bit worried about making a minor change on one part of an article, someone else edits, then making an unrelated change later to that same article. Even if both edits uncontroversial it would be a technical violation of the 1RR rule. I don't want to have to worry about that sort of inadvertent technicality, especially if it were to occur on a page that is totally unrelated to the Southern Strategy. I also just don't like the idea of having any sanctions on my account. It simply bothers me. The guidelines say that restrictions are not meant to be punitive but instead are to protect the project. Part of my promise of good behavior is an understanding that I need to justify the faith that you would be showing to reverse the decision and illustrate that additional "protections" are not needed. If it maters I would be willing to address the comments of the other editor. Springee (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please let me know if there is additional information you need. Thanks Springee (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason, apart from this being your first AE sanction? Do you feel an urgent need to start making multiple reverts per page per day within the topic area? --slakr\ talk / 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. In looking back at the warning you posted here [2] and the follow up comments it wasn't really clear that this was targeted at something I was doing vs just because I happen to be editing in a page that was subject to controversy. Might I use that, a previously clean record, and a promise of good behavior to ask that this sanction be lifted early, say 1-2 weeks. I don't think I'm the sort who normally tries to bend the rules but I don't like having the scarlet letter on my account.Springee (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also, to be clear, this is post-1932 American politics, not the entire subject area. Sorry if that was vague, and it not be apparent from the templated messages either, but the actual case itself. :P --slakr\ talk / 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions
He Slakr, I am not familiar with much of the discretionary sanctions (as I avoid editing them mostly because of the chilling effect of all the notes on the talk page ;-), but saw one appearing on Trans-Pacific Partnership. There is arguably some discussions (and also some edit warring) going on, but I didn't see any reason for discretionary sanctions. The link relates to US politics (and related people), but this agreement is one of many agreements to which the US is a negotiator (e.g. ACTA). Are you sure this is in the scope? Or has there been some kind of discussion regarding adding this? L.tak (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- @L.tak: — there aren't any active sanctions on the page; it's more as a heads up for the talk page. Should any actual restrictions be enacted, there will almost certainly be an edit notice added by the admin who places them (or, at the very least, some sort of notice posted to the talk page). --slakr\ talk / 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- O, ok, so this is a kind of-pre-stadium. Still I wonder what the scope is of these -potential- discretionary sanctions regarding american politics. I couldn't find any decision on the scope, but there is lots of text in the link to the arbcom decision. Is there any way to get this a bit clearer, or a system to review whether the placement of the template on TPP was within its scope? L.tak (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @L.tak: It's semi-broad. The idea is that there's a lot of WP:SPA/meat/disruptive editing, particularly when it comes to partisan issues, that disrupts articles (which led to an arbcom case, much like other topics with similar issues). For example, Denali is mostly not political. It's a mountain. But, as of a couple of months ago, edit wars broke out because it was being politicised due to a recent name change. Particularly in cases like these, discretionary sanctions are aimed to help keep articles functional so that the rest of its content can continue to be edited. An admin can, instead of protecting the page, enact, say WP:1RR "on any edit related to the subject's current and/or former name" to push people to come to consensus instead of edit warring. --slakr\ talk / 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- O, ok, so this is a kind of-pre-stadium. Still I wonder what the scope is of these -potential- discretionary sanctions regarding american politics. I couldn't find any decision on the scope, but there is lots of text in the link to the arbcom decision. Is there any way to get this a bit clearer, or a system to review whether the placement of the template on TPP was within its scope? L.tak (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings
Hello Slakr. I hope you don't mind a bit of humor every now and then. I see you are from Dallas. My daughter goes to school in Dallas so I have a little experience with its hellish summer heat, but in general I think it's a nice enough place, especially the food and the football. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The food's pretty good, though to be honest, I could go for some hills or something. Mountains, maybe? A random boulder? I dunno. I know asking for a beach might be a bit much, but the scenery is starting to get boring. :P --slakr\ talk / 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Just having some fun.
Derp.. Derpity Derp Derp... I am derpier than you! LOL Hi. I just wanted to say "Hi." and.. of course, DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haha, sorry if it was too long. Anyway, bye!
P.S. DERP (:P) 4ChanX (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Derpier than me?! Clearly you haven't seen me when I'm trying to do math in the early morning. :P --slakr\ talk / 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
SineBot problem
I take this out of your archive, because the problem hasn't been solved.
Hello, SineBot signed two messages I already signed using ~~~~: [8] and [9]. Maybe it is because my signature has unusual characters? Regards, Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ You talkin' to me? 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Your bot still signs some of my messages already signed, and now, it starts to put messages on my talk page, saying I should sign with four tildes, but I always sign my messages like this...
Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ You talkin' to me? 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SyntaxTerror: It's because it's an interwiki link. (you've pointed directly to your userpage on fr.* --slakr\ talk / 04:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I removed this redirect, it should be good by now. Regards, Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ You talkin' to me? 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyntaxTerror (talk • contribs)
Unblock requests on hold
On 6 November you placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:Christopher.akiki. I suggest that after that much time the matter should probably be settled one way or the other. The blocking admin asked the blocked editor for further information, which has not been provided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I now see you placed another unblock request on hold on the same day, at User talk:Dsdeepak33. Different circumstances, but again I suggest it should now be closed one way or the other. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Thanks for the reminder! :D The first one was purely procedural (and awaiting input from the user), so I declined it since nothing else has happened. The latter has now been unblocked. --slakr\ talk / 04:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Check your bot talk page. 2 creepy thing found
Extended content |
---|
I seek revenge Courcelles betrayed me You'll never sign me! Muhahaha! --The anonymous commentator! |
- Dunno. I've removed the most ominous one. --slakr\ talk / 01:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
IRC Nick Confirmation
I am once again in control of "Prodego" on freenode. Prodego talk 20:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)