User talk:M. B., Jr.

Long Pointer

Long Pointer has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this is more a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the relevant policy. If you can expand the article to address these concerns, please do so, or explain your plans on the talk page.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:05, 28 December 2006 (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).

M. B., Jr. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, my name is Marcio Barbado Junior, and I am an almost inactive Brazilian contributor for Wikipedia. Today I have tried to edit my "user page", when I was told: "... You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia..." This would be caused by the use of an open proxy. User "Freakofnurture" is the one who has disabled it, and the referred user has probably left Wikipedia, according to its "User talk" page. Well, I often access the Internet through my customer's proxy server, which is not an open proxy. So, please, this so called "innocent victim" here, needs some help.

Decline reason:

As noted below, since you're not directly blocked you will need to use the unblock-auto with the IP address, and we will then be happy to provide additional help. You may indeed be caught in something meant for someone else, but without the IP info requested, we cannot investigate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 24 July 2010 (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.

Hi, since you weren't directly blocked, I can't see what the block was. Can you use Template:Unblock-auto and list the IP address blocked? That could help clarify the situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of DGtal (software library)

Hello, M. B., Jr.. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, DGtal (software library), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about DGtal (software library)

Hello, M. B., Jr.,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether DGtal (software library) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DGtal (software library) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Jbh ^Talk 18:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DGtal (December 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by K.e.coffman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Please also see WP:PROMO.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:DGtal (software library)

Hello, M. B., Jr.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DGtal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:DGtal

Hello, M. B., Jr.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DGtal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gang of the leading lowercase for the Web name

This section regards a controversy involving the capitalization of the word web in the Website article, when referring to the World Wide Web. The point here shows how many editors act against the benefit of Wikipedia. Even though I have provided other editors with strong evidences for spell correction, as in the Web disambiguation page and in the World Wide Web article itself, a conservative collusion was formed to threaten me, and to avoid the implementation of obviously pending improvements.

I'm not really sure why but as side effect, I have discovered people have a problem with the term "Web site", that way, separated and with a capitalized Web. I agree it's quite ugly but, if one needs to separate the word website in two, that's how it is done, and the aforementioned Wikipedia pages already enforce that.

What would a "web site" be other than a fancy spot for predaceous arachnids?

There is also a bit of discussion on Talk:Website.

7 December 2022

You made a change and it was reverted. The next step is to discuss, not edit war. You need to get consensus for such a change if it is disputed. The first line of the article starts with A website, it links to web pages which uses lower case for web, and to web server which does the same. I don't see that web is usually capitalized. You also broke case-sensitive hatnotes in the article. MB 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21 December 2022

Your recent editing history at Website shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy the dog 17:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, I just took a Look at your Edit history, and You were edit warring a couple of weeks ago. Do Stop, wont You? -Roxy the dog 17:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for this case was reached long ago. Get informed, and stop trying to repeat old discussions. M. B., Jr. (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show me How tHere iS a consensus please, or I will ask for sanctions agaInst U For edit warring. - Roxy the dog 18:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask politely and nonthreateningly, and then maybe I'll think of some way to deal with your laziness in searching. M. B., Jr. (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On your bike. You claimed a consensus, now you need to provide evidence for your claim, but if that's the way you want to go, fine. - Roxy the dog 08:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 December 2022

Comment - To add to this, I won't put a template here but please be aware that you have tried to insert these changes into the article 8 times this month and have been reverted each time, yet as of writing this have not made a single edit to the article's talk page. Per WP:BRD, you should discuss the changes once they have been reverted, yet that has not happened. Please do not continue to edit war to try to push the contested changes through, because even though you aren't violating 3RR it's still edit warring and if you continue you may be reported to WP:3RRN. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aoidh. You are dishonest and toxic to Wikipedia. Eventually, it seems reasonable to expect you may have to respond for your actions. Regards, M. B., Jr. (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're responding out of frustration for being reverted, which I get, so I'm not going to get into the specifics of your comment. However, I do urge you to take your concerns to the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoidh. Trying to help many, and being prevented by a few, is certainly frustrating. And that is far from meaning you acted correctly. I have provided you with all of the evidences necessary to enforce the spell correction already. Hardly will a talk page section discussion succeeds in fixing cognitive dissonance. Regards, M. B., Jr. (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we see this quite differently then. Given the continued nature of your responses, forgive me if I do not engage with you here further. Take care. - Aoidh (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]