User talk:Dr Marmilade - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

Hello, Dr Marmilade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

At this point, I believe the following changes need to be made to the map, the Hanano and Layramoun situations. Opposition source here [1] confirming that the attack on the barracks was repelled which means the whole area around the barracks should be red (PS no reports of fighting anywhere around the barracks has been reported since than). As for Layramoun report by SOHR here [2] stating renewed fighting in the district, which means that southern corner of the district should be a marked more largely as contested. And once again, I have seen no reports of fighting in Al-Wafa (youtube videos don't count per Wikipedia policy), so that too should be fully red. For the other changes Sopher and that other guy made I don't mind at this time (Ramouseh and Zahra). EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Replied to your comment on [3] Moester101 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I ask you. How is it possible to revert images, like the one in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Aleppo_map.svg? Or, if I build a new image, how can I replace the existing one? Thank you for the reply.--Paolowalter (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Kuru (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You were previously warned about the 1RR restriction at Battle of Aleppo (2012–present). Kuru (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The source I used was declared reliable, yet Coltsfan continued to remove it for no reason at all, which is vandalism, and is thus exempt from the 1RR restriction. He cited this- WP:SELFSOURCE - but it is not relevant to the source as it comes from Elijah J Magnier, who is AL RAI's (Kuwaiti newspaper) Chief International Correspondent and is thus a reliable source. Also, I thought that a self-revert request is extended before a block is issued. I see only 40 minutes between the time the case was brought up and your verdict was brought down. You should really review cases more thoroughly before issuing penalties. Thank You.Dr Marmilade (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

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.

So what you are saying is the any edit done, under assumed good faith, is not vandalism. That means that any other editor and me can just remove piece of a page because we do not like the editor or the section? That is what I just understood from you. Also, that means that the 1RR is just a tool for a majority to use to step all over Wikipedia guidelines and impose their will. I used a completely valid source and someone reverted it, so I reverted, so another user allied with him reverted, then I reverted him and got blocked. A summery: I abide by wiki guidelines with my use of sources, but a group [or two editors] didn't personally like the sources and reverted them, and I undo what they did and get punished, while the other group just got away with their personal agenda. Also, another reason I feel this block is unfair is because I got no say in it. This all took place overnight [Literally]. Had they asked me to self-revert, I would have done so, but I came back to find I had been blocked and can't do anything now. I thought Wikipedia was about assuming good faith, not "Good Morning, here is your ban for the day".Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, a rejection notice, who would have guessed? Definitely not me, the guy going through the Wikipedia appeals page and seeing about 20 cases with 20 rejections. Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I unblock many people if they submit a WP:GAB-compliant request. You describe edit-warring to a "t". You should not have to be asked to self-revert, 1RR is very clear. This is not punishment, it's prevention - your actions run 180 degrees contrary to WP:BRD, which is a key method to obtain WP:CONSENSUS - as you know consensus is a pillar of Wikipedia. So yes, you can get unblocked ... read WP:GAB and WP:AAB the panda ₯’ 23:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
" You should not have to be asked to self-revert, 1RR is very clear"- Doesn't that fly in the face of good-faith, which is another pillar of Wikipedia?. Also, let me see if I understand you. 1RR cannot be exempt under any circumstance [a group will have their way all the time]. It is my job to initiate WP:BRD and not the other person undoing my edits. Also, would you care to describe how I "describe edit-warring to a "t" ". Finally, I looked at 20 appeal requests and 20 rejections, are you saying they all failed to follow WP:GAB? Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply