User talk:Johan Rachmaninov

Opeth genre

I am restoring this page to how it were before some Ip users change, with some cosusions to make both those who whaned prog death and commas in the page. These user changed the page without consenus, therefore I see fit to revert these edits. While I did go overboard, I wish to make an effort so we don't go though a very messy edit war. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The state i have reverted to reflects discussion consensus, and is also the state the infobox was in when the article was promoted to featured article status. Please leave it at that. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, This version has only been up for a week, and I can't find any kind of consenus. Of cource, your kind of famous for being a very, fanaticle supporter of line breaks, so excuse me if I don't take your word for itJohan Rachmaninov (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure if i understand what you are trying to say. You think i support line breaks? Wrong, on the contrary. I just noticed though, that the current version uses commas. Although this is to my liking, it is not how the article used to be the longest time, so i have changed it accordingly. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply

But for those pages, especially my good friends in 'Voivod, I agree with the earlier consensus of the different IP editors to use commas. So I am simply restoring that consensus. No overall consensus was ever reached. However a brilliant idea was put forward in the delimiter discussions that said if there were 3 or more genres then commas should be used to avoid undesired box length. It was a great idea and many editors unofficially follow it. And so do I. Every field in the box uses commas except current/past member fields and the notable instrument field (which should only have 1-2 entries in it anyways) And unless you're looking for 2 weeks maybe you'd better consider this infobox style as well. And that doesn't mean deleting all the genres so that only 2 remain either as that usually goes against previous discussion. You should discuss all your proposed changes and wait for replies before attempting anymore edits that will just result in you being blocked again. I am familiar with all Wikipedia policy/rule/guideline pages. If you have any questions feel free to ask.(everyone else does) Libs (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If a whole bunch of different editors agree with the way a page should look... then yes that is consensus. The edit history of the page supports it. You are one against many. The only edit war is yours... sorry to say. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone" can edit. Anyone can be just that... anyone. And an IP/anon contribution is... whether your realise it or not... just as important as the contribution of any logged in editor. In the end we're all anons. Does your drivers license say Johan Rachmaninov on it? If a group of IPs... especially when they are serparated by 10s of thousands of miles... all see one direction for an article. Then that is WP:CON and there is nothing that can be done about it. Libs (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PS... do you want 2 weeks or a full month to ponder that? Libs (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2 week block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Was not engaging in edit war

Decline reason:

WAS TOO! Seriously, that's not a reason for an unblock, not without evidence. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2008 (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.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)