User talk:Lieutenant of Melkor

RULES:

1. If you post here, I will reply here.
2. If I post on your talk page, please reply there. However, if you move the dialogue here, it will continue here.
3. Bear in mind, under talk page guidelines, except in rare circumstances, I have the right to remove your posts in their entirety, and, contrary to popular misinformation by poorly-worded policy, my removal of them does NOT immediately constitute my having read them; there is a convenient tool called pop-ups which allows the registered user to revert edits without having seen them!

Climate Data Dispute

From now on, I will make my negotiate to edit only normal temperatures(high/mean/low) and precipitation(rain/snow) data limitation in American cities. This is the case when your official link has made put additionally. Hope we don't argue with this problem later again. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk • contribs) (75.191.173.190 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

The climate data in the Oslo article links to a reliable source, eKlima, official data from the national Met Office, ufortunatley data is behind some login wall. Take some effort to check details. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Changsha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital (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) 08:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Taipei Comment

Hi, I've restored your version of the article but please be careful - edit comments like "pathetically has nothing better to do" is a personal attack and should be avoided. Maybe reporting the issue at WP:AIV would be a better option instead of engaging in an edit war. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your eyes—it was not intended as a personal attack, and instead a summary of their "contribution" pattern, which is likely intent to indefinitely edit war regardless of the lectures by others, moreover established editors. I question the notion that this silent IP warrior views the "|rain colour = green" parameter as vandalism, since (s)he has made no comment in that regard, and even some established editors are hell-bent against colouring the precipitation or rain in {{Weather box}}, when there was no consensus to remove that option from the template altogether. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 07:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I understand where you're coming from but that's not how it would look to everyone. As for "rain colour = green" issue, it is a real pain. This is (at least) the third time I've seen edit warring over the issue - at Keelung I put a note in the source indicating that the parameter is valid but there are far too many instances of the template to do that for every one. I saw the discussion about removing the parameter altogether and it's a pity that there was no consensus. Maybe it would be worth restarting the discussion as there is now further evidence of the problems it causes. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: It's started again so I've requested page protection on Taipei. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you 24 hours for edit warring with 75.191.173.190 (talk) across multiple articles. The IP is blocked for 72 hours. Edit warring is unacceptable, even if you think you are right, and I see that you have broken 3RR on multiple pages. I don't think that your edits fall under any of the exceptions at WP:3RRNO. Also, edit summaries like "Unexplained revert of a clearly superior established user" are not accurate, as Wikipedia policy is to try and treat editors equally when that is possible. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius:, you likely are aware of my attempts (all rebuffed) to initiate discussion with that IP, and do you seriously believe that 72 hours is going to change this IP's behaviour? There are plenty of multiple-day breaks in editing from this IP, so they may well come back to this immediately after the 72 hours are up. Nothing short of a few weeks for them will do the job.

And why did you not act against me earlier this month? The circumstances were nearly identical, so if it was not edit-warring then, it isn't now.

"as Wikipedia policy is to try and treat editors equally when that is possible": So long as they continue this heavy-handed attitude (collateral damage), behave contrary to WP:NOTTHEM, refuse all attempts at discussion, and not improve their competence, IPs are never equals in discussion. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 21:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius:: as an involved party, it's my duty to inform you of this discussion I had with Lieutenant of Melkor back when they were known as Guardian of the Rings. I encourage that you read through the whole diff, but I'd like to highlight the 1RR section in particular; in my opinion, the recent behaviour is in direct violation of those terms. m.o.p 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: When you say you are "involoved", is that involved in the content dispute here, or involved because you reviewed Lieutenant of Melkor's previous block? If it's the latter, I don't think it forbids you from taking further administrative action here, especially seeing as you accepted the unblock request. With the 1RR restriction, am I correct in assuming that this was a condition you made for unblocking Lieutenant, and not a sanction imposed by community consensus or by Arbcom? If so, then as I understand it, the 1RR restriction is more of a suggestion than an official sanction. You could certainly block Lieutenant again for violating your unblock terms, but other administrators would be free to unblock, or to change the block duration, etc., if they thought the conditions to be unfair or against policy. If the 1RR restriction was imposed by community consensus or by Arbcom, then other admins wouldn't be able to do that. Because of the subtleties involved here I would rather open an ANI discussion than increase the length of Lieutenant's block unilaterally, although I have no objections to you altering the block if you wish to. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Also - I know that you know all of this already, but I'm just spelling it out for the sake of argument.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets:—Your capacity as an administrator is irrelevant to WP:TPG. I have every right to remove a post on my own talk page for any reason, however arbitrary or irrational in others' eyes. And as I have not (and do not intend to) posted an unblock request, this DOES NOT fall under WP:UP#CMT.

Any notion that I, or anyone else (most especially you), specified how long 1RR would apply is delusional. Per this, I also intend to subject myself to a 1RR (usual exceptions for vandalism, spamming, etc.) to minimise the risk of edit wars, not use edit summaries exceeding one sentence, and abide by a strict WP:NPA policy (my words), and Editor is subject to 1RR and has promised to avoid using alternate accounts. (M.O.P.'s words). Nowhere did I say "subject myself to 1RR indefinitely", "subject myself to 1RR X number of days". To claim otherwise is to delude oneself. We can make those terms clearer, but my words then should be taken at face value, and not be appended to by others. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 23:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lieutenant: The situation earlier this month (March 11) was different, as the IP hadn't edited for a few days. Blocks for edit warring are preventative, not punitive, so there is no reason to block when nobody is reverting. If I had noticed the reverting on March 14-15, I would have probably blocked back then. About the short duration - now even shorter due to reasons I have outlined on the IP's talk page - the IP is aware of the block, and should be under no illusions as to what will happen should they continue to revert. If you spot them adding the material back without consensus, please ping me - and please don't edit war. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)