User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 9

Archives

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Polarscribe: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Polarscribe, I got your message regarding adding reference to the article "Syed Rehan Ahmed"

I've edited the fore mentioned reference and the link is now working, its a collection of news from 20 different newspapers providing validity about my article.

Please review. Thank you.

Youthofpak1 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: List of american rappers

Hello Polarscribe. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of american rappers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I cannot understand your rationale. Clearly its notable, it's full of blue links. If you want this deleted, you'll have to try AfD, but i'm 99.99999% sure it'll fail. Thank you. Ged UK 11:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auto racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Observer

I started a thread here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Occidental Observer if you care to contribute. O.O. deny the validity of the term "white supremacist" all together. He iro 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN notice

On 18 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article West fertilizer plant explosion, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Circuit Trois-Rivières, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CASC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Rajoy article

Reason for revert the last commit? There are references. Thanks --85.91.82.65 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5soS'er

Whats wrong with this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrine555 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrine555

Hi Polarscribe,

I noticed that you were dealing with a user named Andrine555. He has deleted your deletion notice on his page as well as recreated similar pages.5sos'er and Sos'er are the two pages I've seen.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States propaganda comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yokosuka Naval Base (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tsernaev

My feeling was that it sounded like he was "allegedly struck" (when he was obviously struck) rather than he was "allegedly struck by" (which is an accusation). I suppose it could be read either way.WQUlrich (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not entirely proven that he was struck while alive. The police certainly claim that he was, but there's yet to be an autopsy released determining the cause of death. If he was already dead from gunshot wounds, other injuries, etc. then all Dzhokhar did was run over a dead body. What police say and what is true are not always one and the same. There's probably a better wording for it, as you're right that this is pretty confusing. Let's try and clarify it. polarscribe (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

3RR report about you was filed [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW

I've reviewed the report at WP:ANEW. I'm not as much troubled by the technical violation of WP:3RR as I am by this edit, which fell outside the 24-hour windows. I tend to agree with the reporter that this indicates a intention to continue edit warring over the additional material about Nidal. I see there's been some discussion about the material on the article talk page, but not enough to establish a consensus.

So, here's the deal. If you agree not to edit Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev for 5 days, you will avoid a block. You would still be able to contribute to the talk page. Please let me know if you accept this condition.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per WP:BLP, reverting contentious material about a living person is not subject to 3RR, and I believe in good faith that it represents contentious material subject to WP:BLP. I will refrain from further reverts, but I will take the subject to the indicated noticeboard immediately and I do not agree to a topic ban. polarscribe (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. 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 appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the dispute is over contentious derogatory material in an article covered by WP:BLP, no, those who wish to include the material are required to develop consensus for its inclusion. No such consensus existed, and I had good-faith reason to believe that material connecting the acts of terrorists, even if tangentially, to a living person may constitute guilt by association. This block therefore is contrary to established policy. polarscribe (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good-faith belief that the material I was removing was covered by the Biographies of Living Persons policy, which specifically exempts reverts from 3RR. I have already agreed to cease reverting to avoid further edit-warring [2]. polarscribe (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical decline - block has expired -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2013 (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.