Jump to content

User talk:Unbroken Chain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.22.175.149 (talk) at 15:51, 22 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


New Editors Guidance
Wikipedia is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to Wikipedia...

You have come here because you need help, probably because I left you a comment that you find puzzling.

First: Don't panic! Wikipedia is not on a deadline. There are few things that can't be fixed by a dose of calmness and reasoned debate. If something looks wrong to you, instead of demanding it be fixed, try asking nicely why it was done. You'd be amazed how much more effective that is.

Here are some useful places to go:


Please do not feed the trolls.

Recent Changes

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

7 November 2024

7 November 2024


Drmargi

I notice you are a seasoned editor in Wikipedia and are probably an editor or administrator or someone of importance. Are you able to check and make sure that this person is not able to disparage and baseless accusations against other people like he/she is currently doing in Talk:Kitchen Nightmares? This person has been deleting other people's posts as such. Much appreciated.58.168.101.160 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seasoned but I am not anyone of importance or an administrator. I would suggest if you are not able to engage in discussion with Drmargi then you may wish to raise the issue with the ANI board. From the look of things she thinks you are a banned user, that's a hard pill to crack because if they can convincingly show people evidence you are a banned user what they are doing is common practice. I'd suggest doing the above if you aren't indeed a banned or blocked user evading a block. I will however watch the talkpage and if they are deleting things or attacking people not in accordance to wikipedia policies I will weigh in. I'm reluctant to do so now without a full background and I am moving stuff around at the casa so I can't sit and research history at the moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaaand, he's blocked. --Drmargi (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you, kind sir!! We'll keep fighting the good fight. --Drmargi (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara

Could you explain your reasons for reverting my edit to the Western Sahara article? I undid a recent change (June 30th) which added a blatant Moroccan bias to the article and was not discussed on the talk page, and restored it to the way it has been since forever. I don't have any personal bias on this conflict, I just happened to read this article trying to learn about it, and I didn't think it was appropriate that Wikipedia would pick sides in this conflict by declaring it to be Moroccan land.

2A02:1812:1312:CC00:552E:CF6D:BAFC:5728 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it precisely because of that reason. It appeared to be sourced and these issues can be very hard to address as obviously there is two sides to every conflict. I was passing by and did that revert so I'd suggest taking it to the talkpage and see if consensus is that the change is ok or the other version should be used. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. There was no reason given for the original change, that's why I reverted it initially. I've checked some older versions of the page, and those words ("disputed territory") have been the same since at least 2012. The rest of the introduction clearly explains the different sides, so I thought it was unnecessary to talk about "disputed Moroccan territory" in the introduction.
There has been no discussion about it on the talk page, and I think the original change is controversial enough that it shouldn't be done without consensus (or without even an explanation in the page history). I don't think I should be the one that has to get consensus from the talk page before reverting a change as controversial as that and restoring a page to the way it has been for years. 78.22.175.149 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]