User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles/Talk Archive3
User Factstraight stalking you
editI feel that user Factstraight it stalking you and acting in bad faith, and i therefore added it to the incident board.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_FactStraight_is_stalking_and_acting_in_bad_faith Omegastar (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The incident and its discussion is now located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_FactStraight:_edits_to_multiple_talkpages. There was also some discussion on user_talk:FactStraight about it. To be honest, you and FactStraight and anyone else involved need to simply have a discussion together and work out your differences and work out an approach to the articles in question in which you can both agree in, or atleast in which you two arent constantly in conflict with each other. Because the way it is now going is that the two of you are arguing across multiple articles over basically the same thing, wasting alot of time that you two would probably like to use in a much more productive way, and each time the central issue remains unresolved, making it almost inevitable that another conflict will come up. Omegastar (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for one month
editThis is a convenience link for other administrators to your last unblock request for a week long block for moving pages without building a consensus for the move.
As was explained in the second warning that placed restrictions on your moving pages the wording of which was:
As you seem to lack the level of judgement that most other editors show regarding page moves as part of consensus editing: In future if you want to make a page move that you think is uncontroversial you must announce you intent to move a page on the talk page of the article 24 hours before you make the move. If you think that the move MAY be controversial, or if anyone objects, or if another editor reverts the move then, if you still want the move made, you must put in a Requested move for under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves". Breach of this warning (as with my last warning to you) will be considered disruptive and will lead to administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You moved the following pages within a minute:
- 15:41, 20 November 2010 m Francesco Maria I della Rovere, Duke of Urbino (moved Francesco Maria I della Rovere to Francesco Maria I della Rovere, Duke of Urbino)
- 15:41, 20 November 2010 Guidobaldo II della Rovere (moved Guidobaldo II della Rovere to Guidobaldo II della Rovere, Duke of Urbino: over a week)
- 15:41, 20 November 2010 N Francesco Maria II della Rovere (moved Francesco Maria II della Rovere to Francesco Maria II della Rovere, Duke of Urbino: over a week)
Although it is a week since you announced you wish to move these pages page on talk pages of the article. In each case there was an objection to the move see:
- Talk:Francesco Maria I della Rovere, Duke of Urbino
- Talk:Guidobaldo II della Rovere, Duke of Urbino
- Talk:Francesco Maria II della Rovere, Duke of Urbino
Therefore under the conditions of the warning reprinted above, I am blocking your account for one month. -- PBS (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind the warning given to you by Od Mishehu -- PBS (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l
lists.wikimedia.org.
LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I took into account all that had been said and did nothing wrong. There is actually a case about the user in question "stalking" me, as silly as that sounds. I did not reply to him as I did not want him to start a conflict therefore am completely innocent, as ironic as that sounds :-\ Look at the case and you will see! I avoid that user as much as possible
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (postdated)
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.
- Saying "I did not reply to him as I did not want him to start a conflict" is exactly the sort of misjudgement that these restrictions are meant to prevent you making. If you ignore the person on the talk page and then make an edit or a move to which that person has indicated (s)he objects you are inviting a revert and an edit war. Far better to either discuss it further to the talk page, or put the page move up for a WP:RM as you are warned to do. A WP:RM will bring in other editors to talk page and the discussion and a closing administrator who will decide whether there is a consensus for the move. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked for breaching a specific restriction placed on you to do with moving pages which originates from your cut and past moving of pages many pages which caused copyright problems and in part negated WP:RM requests. Your argument as to why you breached this restriction, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how conflicts should be handled as laid out in WP:dispute resolution.
You were blocked from editing for 24 hours for breaching the 3RR multiple times reverting against several other editors (one of whom also breached the 3RR rule) on the article Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. In that case I reverted the article back to the version of the article by another editor who had not breached the 3RR rule and initiated a conversation on talk page of that article which I was acting as mediator. Instead of answering my last question to you, you have chosen to edit out of the article part of the name "Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" which was the primary topic of our conversation and for which I had asked you to provide a source. The idea was that you provide a source, I say but we need a translation and a quote, you provide them. If the two of you can not agree on which source is more authoritative and agree to use that, then we go to an RFC etc (see WP:dispute resolution). What the two of you should not be doing, is pre-emptively changing the page, while the dispute resolution process is ongoing. That you do not seem to understand this is a problem.
So I would like you to ponder on what I have written and if on reflection you agree with me that in this case discussion is better than pre-emptive editing, as you can not make a revert, ask me to revert the changes you made to the article Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg on 17 November. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I was considering but he has reverted and no one else had a problem with the sourced and reliable info on her page. And he has now changes all the info on her sisters pages yet he is not blocked?! =\ unfair maybe? LPC (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- This really irritates me LPC (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hmm, regarding the Dukes of Urbino, they have not been reverted!? Was it not a constructive move?! Is it not true that minor nobility (Estes? Medici etc) must have their most senior/important title within their name?! Why should I be criticised for making a move which has not been contested by anyone nor moved back by an admin such as yourself. As for FS and his constant harassment, I will ignore him. He insists on causing problems for me - and for no reason. Look at the way he edits and the rubbish he plasters on people/talk pages!! I have done nothing of the sort. Moving pages for no reason (I have never done this regardless of the C/P) is completely different to moving pages to names which are not part of their subject matter. Why must I be punished for one silly thing :\ I have created nearly 200 pages and god knows how many categories :\ As for Polyxena, look who reverted (maybe a little immature on his part?) merely a few hours ago. The Queen is not my issue in all honesty, it is him who I have tried to ignore and even compromise with on various occasions. It is soooo frustrating :\ Just to clarify making a move which has not been contested by anyone nor moved back by an admin such as yourself is a pretty good reason for being unblcoked, regardless of what I have placed on a page, written referenced or removed LPC (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests that attack others are declined. See WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 20:26, 23 November 2010 (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.
- When you made a move for which you were blocked for 24 hours, you moved a page twice within a minute and then fixed the double redirect from the original page. This made it impossible for an non administrator editor to move the page back without administrator intervention, so I intervened by removing the history of the original page location. This allows an editor who has read the sources and wants to move the article back to Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Bevern from Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Queen of Prussia to do so, but I did not move the page back because I have not read the sources so I have no idea what is the most suitable name for the article, and even if I did I would not have done so as that could be seen as inappropriate. Similarly I have no idea if the three pages you moved on 20 November are now residing under more appropriate article names, but as they can be moved back without administrator intervention, there is no need for administrator intervention.
- You were not blocked for moving pages from good names to a bad names (or from bad names to a good names), you were blocked for not following a simple procedure: "If you think that the move MAY be controversial, or if anyone objects, or if another editor reverts the move then, if you still want the move made, you must put in a Requested move under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves".". The length of you block has been imposed because to date you have shown no indication that you intend to abide by the restrictions placed upon you.
- The blocks for non-compliance has been incrementally extended each time you have moved pages without meeting the condition in the two warnings paced upon you: 24h->48h->one week->one month. If by word and deed you do not agree to abide by the conditions of the two warnings that placed restrictions on your moving pages without a clear consensus to do so you will face a longer block still. I suggest, that as you seem to find the current restrictions complicated, that to make it simple, you agree not to make any more article moves without using Requested move under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves". -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
LouisPhilippeCharles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
agree not to make any more article moves without using Requested move under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves", Truly. LPC (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Accept. But if you do not want these sections on you talk page then archive them do not delete them PBS (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)