User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Middayexpress. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Orphaned non-free image File:Yasmin Warsame.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Yasmin Warsame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC

He Middayexpress, apologies, moved on before reading the discussion on Somalia... Can you give a link to the RFC that was mentioned? L.tak (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The RFC expired [1], and only an anonymous IP weighed in. It seems the page has attracted one too many socks. Time to do something about that. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Socks

I would recommend writing up an SPI case, if you feel the edit history backs it up (I haven't yet looked closely). I don't think page protection is warranted, unless it's a bunch of different IP addresses from different ranges (or ISPs). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I think that's the best solution in the long run. Middayexpress (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Gyrofrog. It looks like the best idea. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice guys. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

African people

You're up to three reverts today on this matter. I've warned Analyzer99 (talk · contribs), as he's up to four reverts. Acroterion _(talk) 19:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually at two reverts (my first edit was me sourcing something [2]). But your point is taken. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I've left a direct warning on the other editor's talkpage. Five reverts and it's off to WP:AN3. Acroterion _(talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Middayexpress (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at African people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

You made one less revert than Analyzer, but you were both clearly engaged in an edit war here. Courcelles 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Middayexpress (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Another administrator was already involved in the present dispute, and warned the other party not to revert again because he had already surpassed three reverts; but the other party ignored the warning and reverted anyway. All I did in my last edit was restore the sources that the editor unjustifiably removed (i.e. reverting passage blanking). If you check the page's edit history and consult the discussion above [5] with the administrator in question, you'll see that I did not actually surpass three reverts. The involved administrator also makes it clear on the other party's talk page that it's the other party that is way out of line, not me [6]. He also reported him (not me) to the revert-warring board. I understand that this was probably just a routine stop and nothing personal, but now that the situation has been explained, the matter can be properly redressed. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You violated 3RR. The first edit of the four discussed below is also a revert because it undid, if only in part, the action of another editor. Sandstein 23:43, 10 January 2011 (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.

You were less involved, but on review of the history, I have to agree that you passed 3RR. You should have stopped when I warned you, as I expected you to. Putting back references is not exempt from 3RR: nothing but biographical violations, copyright violations and clear-cut vandalism are exempt from 3RR. The other party was more aggressive in my opinion, but that doesn't give you a pass. I apologize if you took my comments as an indication that you were "in the right," but it was my intention that neither of you pass 3RR. Since you both continued, the result was appropriate. You both engaged on the talkpage, which was a good thing, but that doesn't mean that you can talk and revert at the same time. Acroterion _(talk) 22:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand and apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. However, I didn't actually pass three reverts. I only made four groups of consecutive edits. My first edit was not a revert at all, but simply me indicating what the source actually stated ([3]). My other three edits were, however, admittedly reverts, and I've never denied this. Middayexpress (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see:

1 [4]
2 [5]
3 [6]
4 [7]

There are minor differences between them, but they amount to substantially the same thing. Acroterion _(talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like I stated, the first edit was not a revert. I wasn't reverting back to anything (c.f. [8]); the editor added sources that misquoted the material and I corrected it . The other three edits, on the other hand, were all admittedly reverts (c.f. [9], [10], [11]). That's three reverts, not four or more. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth pointing out that the rule is actually against edit warring, and that breaching 3RR is the "bright line" you may not cross? Edit warring does not require four reverts- as WP:EW says, "An administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Notice which block notice I left, as well. You were edit warring, whether you made four reverts or three is largely an intellectual exercise. Courcelles 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an explanation I can accept. However, edit-warring or not, the notion that my first edit was a revert is false. I even fixed the broken formatting for the other editor. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)