User talk:Londo06/Archive 34

Karl Filiga

What I have heard from sources is that he is mixed but no factual information to backup these statements. Various sources I have seen that have seemingly disappeared state that Filiga is of "Lebanese, Puerto Rican and Samoan" heritage. Until There is factual information which cites these statements of his actual ethnicity I think it should be left blank.Filiga is a common name in Tongan,Tuvaluan and Tokelauan. Lets see if anyone can cite a source which states what he actually is

cheers, robbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boraboradude (talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RRR

I have reported you for a clear violation of 3RRR at WP:CONTEXT. Tony (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Londo06_reported_by_Tony1_.28Result:_.29 Tony (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. WRT Lobieski, I wouldn't be linking either "NYC" or New York" on that line, so the problem is solved. In fact, the infobox looks far neater with just "Official website" blued out at the bottom. Who does not know where NYC is? ANd may I ask why "actress" is linke in the opening line? It's in contrast with the high-value links in the rest of the article.

But this will not resolve the blue black blue issue in all instances. Perhaps we do need to write into CONTEXT a slightly more detailed guideline that discourages the blueing of "United States" in infoboxes unless it occurs with other linked items on the same line, where editors have the option of linking it for neater appearance.

Would you be agreeable to that kind of wording? I know that Woody would support something like that at CONTEXT, so we could put a proposal there ...? Tony (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for edit warring on Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 16:57, 23 October 2008 (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).

Londo06 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I abided by the 3RR; more than three reversions, something that I kept to, whilst offering to move discussion to the talk page. Discussion has since moved forwards. I am unaware of any protocol I have broken. I am a little at a loss for the reason for my block. My understanding of the 3RR may well be off; but I had made only three reversions, and kept it at that. As stated previously I had opened up the lines of communication and declared my intentions to not break the 3RR directive.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, 3RR is not an entitlement and users may be blocked for edit warring even if they have not broken 3RR. It is the type and nature of the edits that are taken into account when deciding to block, not just the numerical number. Unblock declined. — MBisanz ^talk 19:07, 23 October 2008 (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.

{{unblock|I was unaware of a move away from 3RR. I can honestly say if someone came along and reverted my edit, as has happened, that I would be fine with that. I feel that I had abided by the rules, as set down, and also moved the discussion from the talk page to individual talk pages. I also advised of discussions going on elsewhere. I would welcome a commuting or a reduction of the sentence. I have no plans to revert that page, I also will take the new guideline under advisement.}}

I am willing to unblock if you agree to no longer edit war at all, not just on the page in question. That means you get no more reverts today, and need to take further concerns to the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that more than acceptable.Londo 06 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the 3RR guideline means you are allowed to make three reverts per article per day without any repurcussions? 3RR is a limit, not an allowance. Please make it clear that you understand this. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do.Londo 06 19:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per users agreement to no longer edit war

Request handled by: Tiptoety ^talk 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Templates

Dude, I'm not sure what you did with all the templates, but they are now stretching off the page, can you pliz fix it yourself or I might have to [rollback] you..thanks..--Comet styles 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]