User talk:Matthead: Difference between revisions

Archives

User talk:Matthead/Archive2006 User talk:Matthead/Archive2007 User talk:Matthead/Archive2008 User talk:Matthead/Archive2009

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

26 September 2024
In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws" Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections? Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Rika Nakagawa

• ... that Rika Nakagawa (pictured) won a national debate competition as an active tarento?
• ... that in 1989 the Barcelona women's second football team was knocked out of the Catalan Cup in the same round as the Barcelona women's first team?
• ... that Tuhi Martukaw led youth delegations to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for ten years in a row?
• ... that unused placeholder sounds from Smash Hit were reused in Teardown?
• ... that announcers at a Virginia radio station were warned that playing more than three rap songs an hour could get them fired?
• ... that of the 16 aircraft which took part in the Doolittle Raid, only the one piloted by Edward J. York landed intact?
• ... that "Bed Chem" and "Juno" are the "horniest" tracks on Short n' Sweet, according to one critic?
• ... that Moses Benjamin Wulff founded a printing press that reprinted The Guide for the Perplexed for the first time in centuries?
• ... that New York City's Queens Zoo once received a lion cub despite having no lion enclosure?

oh dear, yea, thanks for reminding me. --Farras^{La Poste} 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.-- Matthead  Discuß   21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your accepted request, I have added rollback rights to your account. Ensure you only use rollback correctly, ie its intended usage of reverting vandalism only. For information on rollback see: Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback in the future, just let me or any admin know. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.-- Matthead  Discuß   21:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean when you said "we'd better delete that"? Chrisrus (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Whales are among the most popular animals, with millions of fans and supporters worldwide. is not quite encyclopedic. Many people have cats and dogs or other pets, or feed wild birds in winter, but I doubt anybody keeps an Orca in his backyard pool, or operates a whale feeding station. Even dinosaurs, even though extinct, still have many fans. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:06,

24 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that the statement is "not quite encyclopedic", but the facts that "people have pets" and that "people feed birds" do not argue against it. Instead, these facts show that the statements "many people like dogs", "many people like cats", and "many people like birds"; that those three statements are also true, which has no bearing on whether "many people like whales" is also true or not. More than one kind of animal is among the most popular.

While, for obvious reasons, nobody keeps orcas as pets, you can be sure that millions of people wish they could. After all, they pay untold millions of dollars for tickets to see them; orcas are one of the biggest draws for aquariums worldwide.

You're absolutely right, operating whale feeding stations is not a popular passtime. It is, however, a brilliant business idea, if you could pull it off somehow. People would line up for tickets, for sure, just look at the popularity of whale watching tours. And you are absolutely right to compare their popularity with that of dinosaurs, they're probably even more popular than whales. Awesomeness impresses humans. But all of that only supports the statement "dinosaurs are also among the most popular animals." It says nothing about what is wrong with the statement "whales are among the most popular animals, too".

So what you've done here is argued against the statement "whales are THE most popular of all animals" or "Whales are more popular than any other animal ever." You've thoroughly defeated THAT statement, because you've pointed out that there are other animals that are very likely even more popular, or at least as popular, as whales.

Unfortunately, you blew it. You were supposed to have argued against the statement "whales are AMOUNG the most popular animals." You must have some other reason for being against that statement, but until now, I still don't know what that is and would very much like to. So I invite you if you could to explain to me what there is about that statement that seems to rub you the wrong way. Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this before, but I just realized that you are restricted to 1RR on Eastern Europe topics, per this. On West Germany you reverted twice, [1][2]

Because I don't know the exact terms of enforcement for this restriction, I have notified User:Sandstein (the user who placed the restriction) so he can verify whether or not the block length is appropriate. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

West Germany "related to Eastern Europe"? On what map? Did Continental drift speed up recently? I am German, and I get wikistalked by a Polish user:Jacurek even at articles on my home country, in an attempt to bait me into violating said 1RR restriction "related to Eastern Europe" which Sandstein has applied on me (and on Radeksz with respect to any edits by me). Rjanag, at your own talk, in User_talk:Rjanag#Jacurek_at_West_Germany, I had pointed out Jacurek's conduct, and that I consider it an attempt to provoke me. Just like you self-reverted your error at Elisabeth Hevelius, you could have retracted this embarrassing block yourself, stating a misunderstanding on your behalf. And next time, please ask another admin for a review before you spill administrative beans that leave permanent stains.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; unblock requests that accuse others are not considered, see WP:NOTTHEM. In my opinion as the sanctioning admin, the edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction. A shorter block might be warranted for edit warring as such, jointly with the new Flroian River (talk · contribs); but in this case, the other edit warriors on West Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ought also to be sanctioned.  Sandstein  05:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 edit warring, at best, and there was no concensus reached to remove the infobox, and YOU had the power to discuss the right move with the other party, and so yes, your disruptive edits DO warrant a block. Also, I wouldn't accuse other editors of Wikistalking unless you have solid evidence to back up YOUR claims.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and discussed the article about West Germany many times in the last two years or so, and I have reverted twice, when once again an exceptional claim was made, without any source, comparable to adding a tombstone on the article of a living person. This country is my home land, mind you, and I know very well that it did not cease to exist in 1990, and that it never was part of Eastern Europe, no matter how broadly that may be defined. I am not restricted to 1RR in that article. When you, having never edited nor discussed the article before, showed up to revert at it, it was me who at your very own talk page inquired about your rationale, as you did not discuss on article talk, and gave no explanation in the edit summary. You did not to answer, but you showed up here to attack me, kicking while down. So much about your way of discussing the right move with the other party and reaching consensus. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe or not, West Germany HAS in fact ceased to exist as an INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED country. The Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989 and Germany eventually reunited. The inlcusion of the table WOULDN'T be compared to "adding a tombstone on the article of a living person" if the area of Germany was once independant on its own in the past.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially per Sky Attacker: so maybe Jacurek was trying to "bait" you, but you're the one who let him get a rise out of you. In the end, you're only responsible for your own actions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Rjanag, are responsible for still not lifting this block despite you by now must have learned from Sandstein that "the edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction" as "West Germany is indeed not understood to be in Eastern Europe". You have committed an error in blocking me for "violation of 1RR sanction http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=288301554&oldid=288296827#Matthead ". You still have the chance of rectifying this by unblocking me with the statement that it was you who made an error, not me. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this may support your claim that you haven't actually violated a ban on Eastern Europe, Rjanag's block was still appropiate as a result of YOUR failure to reach a concencus to remove the table BEFORE acting. Although, I think your block was also influenced by your other actions. Jacurek may have been baiting you (although it would be safe to WP:AGF and assume that it was not the case) but as an editor you have the power to "Not feed the trolls" (that is, only, if we assume Jacurek was a troll at all. If you are being Wikistalked, the best thing to do is not take the bait. This is not to say that I am endorsing Jacurek's actions either, but YOUR edits are the only ones that can get you blocked, not the edits of others.

Look on the bright side. Your block is only for 72 hours, you'll be back editing in no time at all. and if Jacurek troubles you again, remember that you don't have to in Rjanag's words "Let him get a rise out of you". If you don't want him to "Wikistalking" you, (if that is what you feel he is doing), try not responding to him, and maybe he'll leave you alone. If he doesn't leave you alone, well, I guess that's up for the admins to decide. Anyways, the "permanent stain" as you call it shouldn't really be all bad. Heck, once the block has expired, you will be able to edit again, all can be shelved and we just move on from there.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{To follow proper procedure, according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Give_a_good_reason_for_your_unblock, 3. State what is wrong about your block, I'm stating that this block was issued wrongly. Rjanag's block notice says "with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (violation of 1RR sanction)", pointing out above that I reverted twice on West Germany. Said sanction issued by Sandstein says "observe the WP:1RR rule with respect to all other editors in all pages related to Eastern Europe for six months". Rjanag had also notified Sandstein asking for verification, and Sandstein has confirmed my notion that "edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction". Rjanag has made an error in assuming West Germany would be part of Eastern Europe and/or the sanction, so this block with an unfounded rationale is thus unwarranted and needs to be lifted.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As per Sandstein's procedural decline above, the block was based on a mistaken assumption about the nature of the revert limitation. Moreover, judging the situation fairly and without the misinformation about 1RR, other participants, especially Jacurek, would have had deserved a block more; this makes this block objectively inappropriate. Given the fact that the false claim of 1RR was made by an opponent in the revert war, who was evidently hounding Matthead and wanted to get him blocked, and who is part of the infamous EE Mailing List cabal, we must avoid anything that could be interpreted as rewarding such wiki-hounding behaviour. – Finally, the article is now protected, so there is no immediate danger of further revert warring. Request handled by: Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.