User talk:Malinaccier/2017/July

Unusual block message

Hello Malinaccier - I just noticed you left an unusual block message on the aforementioned talk page. Do bear in mind that when blocking someone, you must show them where, and how, to appeal their blocks. The correct template is below; change "x" for time and reason:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of x for x. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

As you can see, the guide to appealing blocks is mentioned within this one - do use this message from now on. Regards, Patient Zero^talk 10:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, check out Template:Uw-block for more parameters. Patient Zero^talk 10:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your concern, but keep in mind that there is no formal obligation or reason for an administrator to explain how to request to be unblocked (please see the blocking policy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). Just so you know, the block message displays information on appealing an unblock (see MediaWiki:Blockedtext). I do not think it is a bad idea to explain on the talk page how to appeal a block, but the blocked user is already given instructions on how to do so. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peter Schmidt (economist)

Hello! Your submission of Peter Schmidt (economist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Schmidt (economist)

On 15 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peter Schmidt (economist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that economist Peter Schmidt's 1977 work on stochastic frontier models is considered one of the most influential Journal of Econometrics papers of all time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Schmidt (economist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Peter Schmidt (economist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yay, thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB approved user list

Thanks for approving my request. Could you also move my username up in the list. It is in the wrong place due to the capitalized 'B'. Due to the protection, I can't make even such a minor change myself MB 16:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Differentiating between capital and lowercase letters is strange; however, I have done it at your request. Malinaccier (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Languages

Your user page is available in two different launaguges may i ask how you did that so I can do the same? Dinah In Wonderland 16:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Once you create a userpage on another language's Wikipedia, you just add an interlanguage link at the end of your userpage like this [[fr:Utilisateur:Malinaccier]]. See Help:Interlanguage links for more options! Malinaccier (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks! I do have a page on the Italian and Japanese wiki but that's helpful to know! Dinah In Wonderland 19:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Thank you very much for enabling rollback. Rhinen

No problem! Malinaccier (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Malinaccier,

Thanks for the permission. I will do well to contact you if i need any guidance. Zazzysa (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Not sure if my ping worked (I've had trouble with them not working before, even when I follow the advice at Help:Fixing failed pings) so I'm posting here. Would you mind explaining what you meant by "recent edit warring concerns"? I have, to my knowledge, never even been seriously accused of edit warring, let along had any problem with it.

After trying to figure out what you meant on my own, I realized that my block log contains a block for supposed edit warring, but this thread (particularly, my longer post in the middle with all the diffs in it) should be ample enough proof that the block was a mistake, and Ritchie's subsequent correction and apology are there as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work and MjolnirPants: I am willing to believe I made a mistake here, but what happened here, and here, and here? Malinaccier (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure I remember what was up with the IPv6 editor, though I seem to recall it was retaliation for several editors templating them for edit warring. I believe I only reverted once at Mark Dice, though several other editors also reverted the IP.

PraiseTheShroom is a blocked sock of Perfect Orange Sphere (the first and last link you gave are about the same 3RRN report), and even if you want to ignore the result (no violation) and the summary by Ian and Neutrality, I can provide you with diffs of some truly egregious and over-the-top deception by that sockmaster. Hell, as far as I can tell, they've discovered the magic of VPN's and continued socking and lying about sources, as of a couple days ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work and MjolnirPants: My interpretation of the last case is that you were both engaged in an edit war, but the admins declined to block either of you. Since there was no violation of 3RR and the other cases do appear to be spurious (it was hard to tell without really going in depth), I will enable rollback on your account so long as you understand not to use rollback as part of an edit war. Sound good? Malinaccier (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that if you dive into that 3RRN thread, reading the whole thing and checking the diffs out for yourself, you will change your mind. But since I honestly have no intention (or even inclination) towards edit warring, I'll happily make such a promise. I'd go so far as to take an oath against edit warring. Hell, I'll even... (drumroll please) pinky swear not to. I've explained to others before that I normally limit myself to 2 reversions per day, and it's no trouble to apply that to a new tool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done deal! Malinaccier (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and please accept my apologies if I seemed overly defensive. Your comment kind of caught me off guard, as I just came back from a weeks-long wikibreak and the recent drama I've been involved in wasn't fresh in my mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally understand. It is difficult on Wikipedia to not feel like every comment on your edits is an indictment. And for my part, when I saw the three links above it appeared to be edit warring pretty cut and dry. I am glad that you helped me get to the bottom of things so that I knew I could trust you with the permission. Enjoy your editing! Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)