User talk:HTML2011

The old talk page before I found out about deletions of language articles carried out by Kwamikagami is here

Without talking User:Kwamikagami deleted articles that I did create. I want that he gets de-admined. Deleting articles of non-admin users is no little thing - we non-admins cannot see the article content anymore. Also it is unfair to advance ones position in a dispute by using admin rights.

It UGLY, MEAN, ARROGANT TO delete articles in a CONTENT DISPUTE. HTML2011 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at Maryana (WMF)#Please help me!'s talk page. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For which edits am I blocked? HTML2011 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For which edits am I blocked? HTML2011 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know for which edits am I blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know for which edits am I blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know for which edits am I blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2012 (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).

HTML2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Neither the block nor the admin that installed it provide a link to the "edit war" that User:Boing! said Zebedee proclaimed. In absence of such a link or links, I don't know what I am blocked for. In absence of knowing what I am blocked for I would like the block being lifted OR the links provided.

Decline reason:

You have been told repeatedly, for instance by Dennis Brown in this message. Favonian (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (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.

Admins, please feel free to browse the history of this talk page for the three times the information he requested was provided. Dennis Brown ® © 15:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HTML2011 if you do not understand what Dennis Brown has been telling you after each of your requests above, the answer is not to delete his answer and ask again. The way to handle that is to explain what you don't understand and engage in a conversation. Just continuing to ask the exact same question does not accomplish anything. GB fan 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry to see that a good guy like HTML2011, who has been helpful in the past, has been blocked for edit warring. It does look a little suspicious though, as I have never known HTML2011, use capitalised words before, as if he's shouting. HTML has been a reasonable and polite person in my previous dealings with him; and I've never known him to "shout" on here before. One other think that I find a little disturbing is GB fan telling the user off for deleting answers from his own talk page; yet another user tells HTML off for reinserting comments from a users page, that had been previously removed per WP:BLANKING. One would assume that HTML is within his rights to remove any content from his talk page without providing a reason. As I was once told, if a user removes content from their talk page, when we are to assume good faith that the removal is a sign of acknowledgement. Anyhow, like I said before, pity to see someone blocked for what appears to be a silly error. Wesley☀Mouse 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he just got overly frustrated, and I'm hoping after the block he comes back and begins contributing once again in a productive manner. The sad thing is, I felt there was merit to his claims and we are still actively investigating the other editor he reported. But once you report potential abuse by another editor, you need to back off a little and let the process work instead of continuing to edit war. I've said it 100 times, but it isn't enough to be right, you also have to work with others, including those that are trying to help you. Dennis Brown ® © 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I did not tell HTML off for removing the answer. I was just trying to provide some advice on how to get the answer they are looking for. If you ask a question, someone answers it, removing the answer and then asking the exact same question probably won't get a better answer. It is completely within HTML's rights to remove things from their talk page and if I gave the impression that I didn't think so above I apologize. As I said I was just trying to offer a different course on how they can get a clarification of the answer. GB fan 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that a peaceful resolution can be found in all of this. And yes, I agree, it is wise for the reporter to be seen as cooperative as possible by backing off, while an investigation into the reported claims take place. I have come across a few other users who behave in similar ways as this, and have often wondered if we should look into ways to "teach" users who received short-term blocks, the correct procedures on the issues for which they were blocked in the first place. Whether it be via adoption process, or even a Wikipedia Kindergarten (or Nursery School for the British speaking Wikipedians). Wesley☀Mouse 17:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that I'm getting HTML2011 confused with a different user, who has a similar name. HTML2011 has been known to have a disruptive manner in the past. And even resorted to incivility by posting personalised insults, despite warnings about WP:NPA and refactoring users comments on article talk pages, as well as one users talk pages that don't belong to him - even as far as refactoring warning templates that have been issued to him, which I'm sure is against several policies. Also he tends to remove any references to "meridian" on various articles, and replacing them with exact coordinates, and creating articles for the respective coordinates. Perhaps a 48-hour block is a little too generous, and an extension would be feasible? Wesley☀Mouse 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I "refactor user comments on article talk pages"? You seem to invent stories to support the case of Kwamikagami, who is the reason for all the recent mess in the last 48 hours or so. HTML2011 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wesley, me neither, I cannot remember to have used CAPITALIZED words like shouting before. But I am super frustrated by Kwamikagami's behavior. That's all. HTML2011 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2012 (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).

HTML2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes Dennis, I am frustrated. Reason Number 1: Kwamikagami can run around and delete valid articles without talking to anyone before about the deletion! This was the first big change to my experience here. Reason Number 2: Nobody provides one or two links showing where I did edit warring. Your comments regarding this are not helpful. On the WP:ANI page there is massive content. I just want one or two links, telling for WHICH EDITS AM I BLOCKED FOR. Favonian decline with "You have been told repeatedly, for instance by Dennis Brown in this message. " - But in the message he posts there is no link to a diff of me! Noone provides the evidence for editing warring by me that lead to the block. HTML2011 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A simple look at the edit history Palatal nasal makes it obvious where the edit warring was, and who was doing it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:25, 22 April 2012 (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.

@Jpgordon - Thanks for providing at least a hint for what I may have been blocked for. My last edit there was 13:28, 22 April 2012 [1] - you don't refer to that, I assume? Please correct me if I am wrong. The edit before was 12:59 [2] where I reverted the deletion of a dispute tag and asked the remover to use the talk page before deleting this tag. So the edit at 13:28 on the article, and all my edits on the talk after 12:59 show, that there was no ongoing "edit war" or so. I was discussing disputed content with Taivo. I stayed away from reverting, was calmly discussing and in the middle of the discussion I get blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2012 (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).

HTML2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above, there was no ongoing edit warring at Palatal nasal. Instead the block kept me away from the discussion were I was actively trying to solve the dispute in a discussion with Taivo. HTML2011 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There was no dispute to solve. Hmm ... the organization for which the alphabet is named puts a chart on its webpage that confirms the cited statement in the article and you don't believe it because it's a chart? Just because you were discussing something does not automatically mean there was a dispute. You have now had three unblock requests rejected by three different admins. I strongly suggest you go out for a walk or sit in a corner somewhere or do whatever it takes to distract you for the remainder of your block, because if you can't and you post another unblock request along these lines I would highly recommend that your access to this page be revoked for the duration along with the decline. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2012 (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.

The chart has no phrase like the disputed one. But what the chart proves and not belongs to the article talk page. What I request here is a valid reason for blocking or in absence a lift of the block. The fact is that I did not put the "dispute"-tag again. So what am I blocked for? I was taking part in a discussion, there was no ongoing edit warring. HTML2011 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2012 (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).

HTML2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Daniel Case seems to suggest I may have been blocked for having a different opinion to Taivo in the talk page. But the block reason given was edit warring. There was no ongoing edit warring.

Decline reason:

Yes, there was. Talk page access revoked. T. Canens (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2012 (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.

Meridians[edit]

H, the work I did to adjust capitalization and such in the meridians articles was persuant to discussions at a bunch of WP:RMs and on the MOS:CAPS talk page. There was pretty much uniform support for my edits. When you came in and started undoing and pushing in the opposite direction, you found no support for that in the discussions that ensued. Today I have been trying to clean up the mess that you left. When you get off your block, I hope you'll engage in discussion and seek consensus before trying that again. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were specific move requests. And e.g. Greenwich Meridian was moved with the supporting comment "Five separate Greenwich meridians are recognized". That does not apply to your mass moves. Also some of your RMs used n-grams, but the same n-gram logic did not apply to the other moves made by you. 95% or more was uppercase before your mass moves. HTML2011 (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A message to Taivo[edit]

I strongly regret that I am currently not being able to talk with you about the IPA content in WP. There is some inconsistency that I would like to solve. Because if the disputed statement is correct, then I think there are others that are not. HTML2011 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "disputed statement" is unequivocally correct. The IPA chart is the official chart of the IPA, there isn't any further discussion to be had about it. If there are other pages where the text does not match the official IPA chart, then they should be fixed. Tell me where they are and I will fix them. --Taivo (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Telephone numbers in the Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page +1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. →B music ian 01:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]