User talk:Sc2timeloc

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sc2timeloc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! IQinn (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

May i ask you if you have edit Wikipedia before under a different user name? Cheers IQinn (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your message on my talk page. Have you edit Wikipedia before under a different user name? IQinn (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because you started your initiative at this article Abdulli Feghoul where i have a debate over NPOV on the talk page shortly before you removed the tag there. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do people know what Alphabetical order is? .....Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You told me on my talk page that i can ask you. So i would appreciate an answer to my question as your edits come so close to my NPOV discussion at Abdulli Feghoul Have you edit Wikipedia before under a different user name? Kind regards IQinn (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see all the questions below and above that are not answered? Now you know how I feel, or probably not. I mean you aren't blocked, are you? Sc2timeloc (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have ask you only one simple question and you are not willing to answer me. Kind regards IQinn (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_Way_Blocked_Users_Are_Treated

Please pause

This account has been removing POV tags from many articles, in a bot-like way. Please pause to explain why you are doing this. It has the appearance that this account is actually an unapproved bot; I don't believe that a bot to remove all NPOV tags would gain approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is stated at each edit. Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that another admin has already blocked this account. We can use this downtime to discuss the motivation behind removing POV tags from so many articles. It is one thing to remove them on a case-by-case basis when you are editing as usual. But removing tags on a mass basis is usually frowned upon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) How many articles is "so many articles"? There are proportionality many more NPOV disputed articles.

2) All the edits are "on a case-by-case basis." If you noticed, many of the NPOV tags that had details on the talk page did not have their tags removed.

3) Do you not want me to fix up the mess? Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using your regular account to discuss "the mess" at Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals. I do think it would be worthwhile to fix the over-tagging problem, but only if there is some sort of general agreement what "fix" means. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my regular account. What is wrong with you? Accusing me of being a bot. Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very doubtful that this is your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? And when you find out you're mistaken, are you going to regret your injustice? Or better yet, just not care? Sc2timeloc (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: Are NPOV tags without explanations valid?

If you Wikipedia policy says that it is, then there's no reason to remove any tags. Then anyone can just tag anything randomly without any explanations. Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest asking at the village pump; I am not in charge of such things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask on the NPOV talk page, but I didn't think anyone would care. I'll go ask at the village pump to see if anyone knows what is the policy for tagging. Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) but it says that I am "currently unable to edit pages." Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like I said, another admin blocked this account from editing based on the unusual editing pattern for a newly created account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now what? Is there an appeal process? I don't really think it's a reasonable block. Sc2timeloc (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can place {{unblock|your reason here}} template on your talk page to ask for another admin to review the block. However, I can say that I was also willing to block you if you had not given an actual explanation of what you were doing (including why you felt the need to create a second account to do it). Any mass removal of NPOV tags needs to be discussed thoroughly before it is implemented. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are unfounded and false. You are a horrible person. Please don't write on this talk page again. Sc2timeloc (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_Way_Blocked_Users_Are_Treated

Mass-removal of POV tags

Why are you removing POV tags from a whole bunch of articles at a rate a bot would edit? You may not be aware, but some people consider that as disruptive to do so unless you have checked and have good reason to remove them. Regards, MuZemike 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is stated at each edit. Sc2timeloc (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I had "checked and [had] good reason to remove them" ................What is the problem? Sc2timeloc (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2009 (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).

Sc2timeloc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reason given for each edit. Explanation expanded below on this talk page. Had "checked and [had] good reason to remove [the tags]"

Decline reason:

Regardless, it is plainly obvious this is a new account from an experienced user who is using it to avoid scrutiny on their main account. This account has not been linked to your main account, nor is it being used for one of the allowed purposes of a secondary account. Given that, I see no reason to unblock you. Jayron32 04:36, 29 November 2009 (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.

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).

Sc2timeloc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block is unjust. I am not a bot. Unfounded paranoia of some of these people should not have cause a block. The claims and accusations made are not proper. Explanation was already given and expanded on. You can't just block any user because you feel like it. How can you have admins who ignores the reasons? This is corruption. This is not right.

Somebody do something.

Decline reason:

This is either a sock or disruption. Take your pick- it isn't "unjust". tedder (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2009 (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.

POV tags

I reviewed some of your removals, the one on ABC Muirend/Toledo looks fine to remove, on Abdulli Feghoul there was a discussion on the talk page, Adam F is clearly NPOV "2009-2010 It’s amazing to think it was back in 2001 when Adam F released his flawless ‘KAOS: The Anti-Acoustic Warfare’ album that converted him overnight", Ibrahim Bin Adham has "The quote was to support the approach of white supremacy, which was the focus of that Constitution, which still exists today." at the end, and may have other NPOV problems "murdered countless Sayyids for the sake of their throne " "countless" definately is, "murdered" probably...

So summary is not OK to remove an NPOV tag simply because there is no talk page section devoted to it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I asked a related question, over on ANI, a few years ago. How much notice should I give a tag placer, who placed a tag that, when instantiated, told readers to look to the talk page for an explanation of the tag. I thought I would be told (1) leave a note on their talk page; (2) if they don't respond in a week, go ahead and remove the tag.

What I was told was: if 24 hours had passed since they left the tag, and they hadn't left an explanation, I should feel free to remove the tag, with a clear conscience, without leaving a prior note on either the article's talk page on the the tag placer's user talk page.

That was a couple of years ago. But, if the consensus has changed I would be curious as to how it evolved.

FWIW I do either contact the tag placer, or leave a note on the talk page, and wait a reasonable period of time before I remove an incomplete tag. I usually aim to return in a week. But, sometimes it ends up being a lot longer.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that that {{npov}} and some related tags are all, too frequently, used irresponsbily by those with no intention to engage in a dialogue. I too see these abandoned tags as a problem that needs further attention.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]