User talk:Local Panel

August 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fascism, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Fascism was changed by Local Panel (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854377 on 2011-08-21T00:34:36+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fascism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. No reputable scholar will back up what you keep posting, and it is borderline vandalism. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not discussing these controversial changes to the Fascism article

You are refusing to cooperate and discuss your changes to the intro that have been opposed by three users including myself. Many major scholars hold the widely accepted view that fascism is far right. Your behaviour is becoming highly disruptive and uncooperative, I can see from your talk page that you have been warned repeatedly about such behaviour. Please discuss your position that is in conflict with other users' positions.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do not agree with you on a number of things I am informing you that you have the right to report Bryonmorrigon for his personal attacks against you

It is ultimately up to you to decide what course of action to take. But on the talk:Fascism article, Bryonmorrigon has repeatedly interrupted debate with blatant personal attacks against you. Personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia etiquette policy. I feel obligated to inform you of your right to report his personal attacks to an administrator, as I have urged him to desist from personal attacks because they are violating Wiki policy and he has told me in bold "I don't care". As I said, I completely disagree with you on some points, and agree more a number of Bryonmorrigon's more rational points, but he has personally attacked you and you do not have to put up with it and neither should the Wikipedia community put up with such behaviour. I will support you if you choose to file a complaint against him on the grounds of personal attacks, he has demonstrated to me that he has no intention of desisting. The choice is ultimately up to you, and you can and may prefer to try to resolve your differences with him or ignore it.--R-41 (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I appreciate that. From his behavior, I just figured maybe he was just a little kid with emotional problems or even intoxicated so I haven't let it bother me much. But you're probably right that it should be reported, or he's going to get worse. How do I do it? Local Panel (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done it for some time. You need to find an administrator. I think that there is something called the administrators' noticeboard that you can select an administrator to address a complaint. Regardless, the user who posted the 1 revert rule at the bottom of the discussion page is an administrator, User:EdJohnston, you could contact that administrator.

1RR violation at Fascism

Though you've reported FormerIP for 1RR violation at Fascism, you too have broken the 1RR restriction. Please leave a comment at WP:AN3 and agree not to edit the article for a week. That way you may be able to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the 1RR restriction means to do more than 1RR in a 24 hour period. I didn't do that. And the reverts I did do over several days were not reverting the same thing over and over again, but different edits. This is crazy. The guy I reported actually did break the 1RR but he was allowed to unrevert and not be blocked. Local Panel (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've got me blocked for 3 days! What did I do????? Local Panel (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't get why I'm blocked for 3 days. The claim is that I did more than 1 revert on the Fascism article, which has a rule to 1 revert max. I guess the belief I is that I did two reverts. But I didn't. Please look and see for yourself. I got blocked when I was reporting someone else for violating the 1RR, but he was allowed to revert back and not be blocked. But I'm for three days even though I only did 1 revert in the 24 hour period. What did I do that was so bad? This is totally unfair.

Decline reason:

I did go away and check carefully. Your first edit restored content that had been removed previously, hence was a revert. Your second edit restored the information again, after Former IP removed it. Hence two reverts in one day. This may have been a good faith error, but Former IP reverted himself, hence managed to avoid a block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (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.

Your edit is currently in the article (because FormerIP reverted himself). I have fixed the reference formatting - which was pointing to the wrong reference - and amended the wording slightly to more closely coincide with the source. I don't know what the other objections are. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the first was considered a revert. And I wasn't given the opportunity to revert myself. And if it's a good faith mistake, why such a harsh sentence? The block doesn't expire until Nov 4. Local Panel (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin has reduced the block to 24hrs, so you should be unblocked in around 3 hours. When unblocked, have a rational discussion (or at least try to - I do appreciate it depends on all participants behaving sensibly) about this right/conservative/far right thing. There is something in the definition of words I feel, but I wouldn't like to say what the answer is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It says "This block has been set to expire: 03:40, 4 November 2011" when I click to try to edit. Maybe it's just not reflecting the reduction, or maybe they forgot to actually reduce it. I'll check in a few hours. I agree about trying to have a rational discussion. Local Panel (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the block duration. It appears that Magog intended to reduce it to 24 hours. It should now expire 03:40 on 3 November per his intention. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Local Panel (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still says "this block has been set to expire: 00:18, 4 November 2011." Local Panel (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now... Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That did it. Thanks a lot :) Local Panel (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]