Category:Pages with script errors

User talk:97.117.29.41 added to category

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:15, 22 June 2016
Line 30:		Line 30:
	{{unblock reviewed | 1= <span class="template-ping">@[[:User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]:</span>, I already ''did'' make a constructive unblock request, and this is one too. What better can I do than just commit to continuing to edit in the way you guys ''want me to'', ''which is what the guide to unblock requests even tells us to say'', which is what I was ''already doing'' when ritchie wrongfully blocked me, and then ask questions about why there's this contradiction between "do this" and what you then do to me ''for'' "doing this"? And how can I say, ''also from the guide'', that "I know what I did 'wrong'," when my questions here actually show that: 1. I don't have any clue how I could have done anything wrong after their last reversions to the articles, and... 2. I ''didn't'' really do anything wrong since that time--the time between their last reversions and my edits that falsely got me blocked--(as adding edits that complete an article's following of the MOS rules--which those two guys told me to do, follow the MOS [at least the part that seems to match with what they're trying to do]--isn't wrong)? And then why do you act like I shouldn't have the right to know answers to my questions? Why should someone who had just made an unblock request that you don't like for whatever reason, and who simply wants the discussion properly concluded (read: not cut short or left hanging) have their talk-page access revoked? I don't understand what you mean by "polemics and wikilawyering." I'm not saying like, "I'm gonna... uhh... 'wikisue'... you" or anything like. What's your point with that? What do you mean? I'm simply saying that it's wrong to block someone for doing '''''more''' of what you told them to do''. How do you figure that doing ''more'' of what I was told to do is "uncollaborative"? And why do you imply to me that it's "unbeneficial to the project" for me to finish fixing the "The" back to "the" on the band names with them if ''you guys'' were already doing that, which obviously means you ''do'' think that's beneficial to the project? And how do you figure that posting a clarification to the essay, getting that reverted, but then ''waiting for discussion to happen,'' and then, when ''nobody would discuss it'', posting an even ''better'' clarification, is "uncollaborative"? How long must someone wait to see if anyone's willing to discuss anything before making another change? Why do you believe it's "okay" for <span class="template-ping">@[[:User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]]:</span> to jump to conclusions that I was doing more of the edits that he told me not to do instead of for him to have to look at the new edits I was making in order to determine that they were actually ones ''in line'' with what he told me were the accepted format? [[Special:Contributions/97.117.29.41|97.117.29.41]] ([[User talk:97.117.29.41#top|talk]]) 16:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) | decline = Having looked over your edits - you were very clearly [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] across multiple articles. If [[WP:BRD|a change you make gets reverted - you shouldn't revert back. Instead go to the talkpage and DISCUSS that change]]. It isn't sufficient to announce the change, and continue reverting. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 17:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed | 1= <span class="template-ping">@[[:User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]:</span>, I already ''did'' make a constructive unblock request, and this is one too. What better can I do than just commit to continuing to edit in the way you guys ''want me to'', ''which is what the guide to unblock requests even tells us to say'', which is what I was ''already doing'' when ritchie wrongfully blocked me, and then ask questions about why there's this contradiction between "do this" and what you then do to me ''for'' "doing this"? And how can I say, ''also from the guide'', that "I know what I did 'wrong'," when my questions here actually show that: 1. I don't have any clue how I could have done anything wrong after their last reversions to the articles, and... 2. I ''didn't'' really do anything wrong since that time--the time between their last reversions and my edits that falsely got me blocked--(as adding edits that complete an article's following of the MOS rules--which those two guys told me to do, follow the MOS [at least the part that seems to match with what they're trying to do]--isn't wrong)? And then why do you act like I shouldn't have the right to know answers to my questions? Why should someone who had just made an unblock request that you don't like for whatever reason, and who simply wants the discussion properly concluded (read: not cut short or left hanging) have their talk-page access revoked? I don't understand what you mean by "polemics and wikilawyering." I'm not saying like, "I'm gonna... uhh... 'wikisue'... you" or anything like. What's your point with that? What do you mean? I'm simply saying that it's wrong to block someone for doing '''''more''' of what you told them to do''. How do you figure that doing ''more'' of what I was told to do is "uncollaborative"? And why do you imply to me that it's "unbeneficial to the project" for me to finish fixing the "The" back to "the" on the band names with them if ''you guys'' were already doing that, which obviously means you ''do'' think that's beneficial to the project? And how do you figure that posting a clarification to the essay, getting that reverted, but then ''waiting for discussion to happen,'' and then, when ''nobody would discuss it'', posting an even ''better'' clarification, is "uncollaborative"? How long must someone wait to see if anyone's willing to discuss anything before making another change? Why do you believe it's "okay" for <span class="template-ping">@[[:User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]]:</span> to jump to conclusions that I was doing more of the edits that he told me not to do instead of for him to have to look at the new edits I was making in order to determine that they were actually ones ''in line'' with what he told me were the accepted format? [[Special:Contributions/97.117.29.41|97.117.29.41]] ([[User talk:97.117.29.41#top|talk]]) 16:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC) | decline = Having looked over your edits - you were very clearly [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] across multiple articles. If [[WP:BRD|a change you make gets reverted - you shouldn't revert back. Instead go to the talkpage and DISCUSS that change]]. It isn't sufficient to announce the change, and continue reverting. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 17:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)}}
		+
		+
		+	{{Unblock|
		+	But, {{ping|SQL}}, here's the first problem with that: You didn't pay close enough attention to ''when'' I was blocked. I was not blocked right after reverting those articles more than once. {{ping||Ritchie33}} left me '''un'''blocked after that, until he saw that I made these latest editions to those articles, but his problem was that he didn't pay good enough attention either, thinking I was just reverting them again, when in fact I was '''not''', but in fact ''finishing'' their conformity to the rule. So I should not be blocked because it's ''false'' punishment for ''doing the '''right''' thing.'' I was not edit-warring that time, but ritchie wrongfully thought I was.
		+
		+	2. I already ''tried'' to talk about it with piriczki just like he expected me to, but he refused. And then he just reverted my edits back without explanation ''or'' talking in the talk pages with me even though he expected me to talk there. That's hypocritical. So why should piriczki not get blocked for edit-warring on those? And why doesn't any admin. tell him to do his part to talk to me in talk pages like he expected me to do?
		+
		+	3. At [[WP:BANDNAME]]'s talk page ''I already did give people an opportunity to talk to me about the change I was thinking of making, for a day or so.'' If my edit to the project page after that is a supposed "problem" still, then how long does someone have to wait for others to reply before just acting ''nobody was willing to discuss''?
		+
		+	4. Since when does edit-warring span across multiple articles? If you revert someone three times on one article in the same day, that doesn't yet count towards 3RR, and adding one reversion to another article doesn't count towards 3RR or even edit-warring in general because it's ''a different article''. How can it be claimed that you were edit-warring over more than one article if you were only reverting 3-4+ times on ''one'' of them?
		+
		+	5. Even when I told piriczki that if he wanted to put my multiples of "The" back to "the" on [[The Moody Blues]], he kept on editing ''unrelated'' things back instead of doing his reversions the smart way. So my reversions of those ''other'' things should not count towards warring either, because my reversions by then were only intended to change those ''unrelated'' things back, but happened to change the "The" things back at the same time, just because I was being as lazy as piriczki was. So why should ''I'' get the rap for that but he, doing the same amount of reverting there, should not?
		+
		+	But again, I should not even stay blocked for that reason or reasons 2-4, because ''I was not blocked '''until I started putting more stuff back''' to fit the rule they were showing me''. So even though I brought up these second through fourth reasons, the reasoning for my not being blocked should stand on just the merit of the first reason alone: ''I was not even blocked for the reason that you claimed.'' So please, unblock me now because in my last request ''I already followed the unblock guideline by committing to fit more articles '''to''' the rule they showed me, as I had already been doing anyway'', and I was not blocked for the reason you said, so I can't even ''honestly admit'' to doing anything wrong (as the unblock guide would have me do), ''based on block timing'', even if I ''want'' to, since the timing for that blocking was not until after I did what was '''''RIGHT'''''.
		+
		+	Do you understand ''now''? [[Special:Contributions/97.117.29.41|97.117.29.41]] ([[User talk:97.117.29.41#top|talk]]) 18:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)