Jump to content

User talk:Wikid77

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 2 October 2010 (→‎wikilawyering: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User_talk:Wikid77   
This is the talk-page for User:Wikid77 (checked for messages every few days).
Archives: Arch.1 (May06-Feb08) Arch.2 (Mar08-) Arch.3 (Oct08-) Arch.4 (May08-) Arch.5 (Oct09-)

Barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
For fixing a complex coding error in Template:Google Inc. when no one else could figure it out! - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth

Your essay Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth looks very good. I would suggest to add an introduction and a link to Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. As you might know I introduced the 3, 4 and 5M limit as the maximum number of articles on the english wikipedia (the logistic model). This as contrast to the belief that growth was exponential. My model was created in March 2006, THREE YEARS ago. Until this essay I have not seen new models. HenkvD (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for the work on image placement

Thanks for the effort you put into dealing with the issue of placing images when there is already a floating table. I fear that there were quite a few nights put into it. I'd given up worrying about a response after a week. I'll have to look more carefully at it when I can find the headspace. And thanks for the border + cellpadding tip. Cheers. -- spincontrol 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
For fixing the convert template's ft-in to cm conversion and eliminating significant conversion errors in thousands of articles, I award you this barnstar. And so should WikiProject Basketball! JN466 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you could do the same thing for {{convert|36|m|ft}} {{convert|37|m|ft}} {{convert|38|m|ft}}, which at the time of writing comes out as 36 metres (120 ft) 37 metres (120 ft) 38 metres (120 ft), ... JN466 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

getprecision bug?

When {{getprecision}} is used on a number betweeh 0 and 1, it does seem to be showing the correct precision.

Just wondering if you could take a look? Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other examples:
The problem was {Getprecision} has used {ordomag} for amounts < 1, so I submitted an edit-request to round the amount to avoid the problem. Thanks for checking those results. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of your topic ban

As you had just acknowledged yourself here that you are fully aware that your topic ban is set to expire on the 11th, your contributions to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher starting on the 9th, here are difficult to see in any light other than yet another attempt to make a point, in particular since it would have taken nothing more than another 72 hours to avoid this situation. As a consequence, I have blocked you for 1 month, subject to ANI review. (link to follow). MLauba (Talk) 08:27, 10 September 2010 (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).

Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for a month, due to charges of violating a 3-month topic ban which forbid AfD participation or new-article creation about Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox, after a period of 91 days (19+31+31+10, from June 11 to Sep. 10). Meanwhile, I had asked admin User:Amalthea for his advice on how to proceed further after this 3-month ban, in User talk:Amalthea#Expanding MoMK (this edit). This block prevents me from discussing these issues at ANI, including no access to edit "wp:ANI#Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban", which is disruptive to the process, and hence this block should be lifted. If 91 days was not considered "3 months" then I should have been warned on my talk-page, not instantly blocked for an additional 1 month. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Three months" is not synonymous with "90 days." Anyone over the age of eight should know that not all months are the same length. Consider whether you violated the spirit of the restriction rather than the letter anyway. There has been some suggestion that you be permanently topic banned from this area, if you can agree to that, that is probably your best way forward here. Trying to play WP:LAWYER is, in this admins opinion, very unlikely to lead to an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (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).

Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for a month, due to charges of violating a 3-month topic ban which forbid AfD participation or new-article creation about Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox, after a period of 91 days (19+31+31+10, from June 11 to Sep. 10). Meanwhile, I had asked admin User:Amalthea for his advice on how to proceed further after this 3-month ban, in User talk:Amalthea#Expanding MoMK (this edit), and asking another admin for advice is not a vio of WP:CANVAS. This block prevents me from discussing these issues at ANI, including no access to edit "wp:ANI#Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban", which is disruptive to the process, and hence this block should be lifted. If 91 days was not considered "3 months" then I should have been warned on my talk-page to wait 1 day (or 2?), not instantly blocked for an additional 1 month. Please tell me when my topic ban will expire, based on this notice of topic ban, as expiring at what precise hour/minute. I'm sorry if that seems petty, but several people are extremely upset that I had waited only 91 days so far. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 7:36 am, Yesterday (UTC+3)

Decline reason:

I'm not buying this 90 day nonsense either. Appeals that refuse to accept fault and blame other people really give no confidence that you will not repeat the behaviour if you are unblocked Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 12 September 2010 (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).

Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yesterday, admin RegentsPark had resolved the "Block review" to clear my username, at ANI: "wp:ANI#Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban". However, the unblock didn't happen, and it seems admin RegentsPark did not rule on the block, just rejected the topic ban. Because of the confusion of combining a "block review" with a "proposed topic ban" (now rejected, firmly), the block issue has been left undecided. The offer was made that the block would be lifted if I agreed to accept an indef topic ban, but I agreed to a plan raising fewer suggestions for the topic article ("Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher"), and the topic-ban issue was dropped in favor of that plan. Hence, that leaves no grounds to continue the block, which was to be dropped contingent upon the topic-ban issue now settled. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Again with the wiki-lawyering. I suggested that you accept a topic ban. That does not mean your block and that ban are irrevocably joined, you just made that up. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (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.

  • Note to block reviewing admin:
The admin "DID NOT" at all decide on Wikid's block, only on the proposed topic ban (which is still under dispute BTW). See the admin's talkpage "I am aware of the block and have no comment on it and don't see why the topic ban thread (which is what the ANI complaint is primarily about) cannot be dealt with independently of the block.". Wikid is "again" making things up as he goes along. Very tiresome, very! TMCk (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikid's summary above is misleading. User:RegentsPark did not "clear" Wikid's username, he objected that consensus was not wide enough to impose a topic ban, which is another matter. It is also not clear that the idea of a topic ban is "rejected, firmly", since all other admins and univolved editors support a topic ban (although there are SPAs that support Wikid). Since a topic ban was proposed as an alternative to the current block, it does not follow from a failure to gain consensus to apply it that the block should be undone. Wikid is a very disruptive editor who has been blocked or topic banned for more than half this year in total. The current block was imposed for breaching the topic ban (a kamikaze breach IMO, since it was clearly deliberate and he must have known what the consequences would be) and for an immediate repeat of the WP:BATTLE behaviour that led to the ban he was breaching (talkpage disruption aimed at the creation of article forks). There is no sign that this behaviour will change (rather, Wikid's response is that everyone else is wrong and WP's policies are at fault), so there is no basis to unblock. --FormerIP (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Even by your own standards you have violated your ban. Not counting user talkpages, your first edit to the MoMK talkpage was made 07:25, September 9, 2010 here [1]. Being unblocked just to comment at ANI is not needed (which is only done on rare occasions) as you can post your comments here and I or someone else will copy and paste it to the appropriate board of your choosing.TMCk (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused. If you thought your ban expired on Sep 9th, why did you state more than once that it expired on Sep 11th (link above, and also the latest comment on User_talk:PhanuelB for example) and then edit on the 9th? You can hardly complain about the length of the ban if you were clearly aware of when it expired. Having said that, I have suggested you are unblocked with terms at ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because User:PhanuelB had been warned about inappropriate messages, I did not want him to be seen as participating in a topic-banned conversation, in case he would be viewed as violating policies on a technicality, such as 3 months being considered 92 days instead of 91 days (as it appears has been the viewpoint). My topic ban prohibited discussing Knox or Kercher at AfD, plus not creating spinoff articles, while not announcing discussions to like-minded individuals (WP:CANVAS). On September 9, at the 90-day mark, I notified people I was returning from the 3-month topic ban, but I did not join an AfD, nor create any spinoff articles, nor announce any discussions to only like-minded individuals. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The June 11 note under Topic ban and disruption final warinng says "3 months", not "90 days". I haven't seen the direct wording of the decision, but if it said "3 months", that's the 11th, not the 9th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikid, the wording of the ban prevented you from "participating in article-creation or deletion discussions...", not just from AfD discussions. But you came back early to propose the creation of multiple new articles ([2], to point out that Amanda Knox has been in the news a lot (your previous argument as to why a fork should be created) (this is in the same diff), to propose that substantial new material be added to the article saying "if the article becomes too large, we can re-split into a separate article" ([3]) and to propose the creation of a new sandbox version of the existing article ([4]).
If you were, as you seem to be implying, under the impression that your ban did not prohibit these edits because they were not happening in AfD discussions, then that raises the question of why you observed the ban for so long (ie why you didn't feel free to make the suggestions you did at any time) and why you announced on the talkpage that you were returning from a ban which had previously restrained you from making the comments you wanted to. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I waited 91 days before discussing details of the Kercher case, because I thought 3 months = 90 days, and 91 days was even longer. -Wikid77 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
...and why you acknowledged yourself on PhanuelB's talkpage that your ban will expire on September 11th. Only after getting blocked you somehow changed your mind to reset the expiration date to your convenience.TMCk (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was advising him not to expect discussion of details until September 11, because it was September 6 when I advised him to focus on events rather than stating a "person is-a something". -Wikid77 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That diff is a smoking gun that shows clearly that you did in fact understand it to mean literally three months, not 90 days. So it is really in your best interest to abandon that line of argument as it has been clearly refuted with your own words. Again, your best way forward at this point is to own up to what you did and accept a permanent topic ban in this area. It will likely be forced on you anyway, so if you want out of the block that is your best choice right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I indicated to that user not to expect discussion of details, with him, until September 11, as a day after the ban. As you see it, I waited only 91 days not 92, and so that means I should be forced into a permanent topic ban? Do you conclude because of the technicality, of not waiting 1 more day, then I should be topic banned for all the rest of days until the end of time? -Wikid77 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you said was "Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11)." Nowhere in that statement is there any qualification or hedging or anything about "a day after the ban". You would be better served by admitting you messed up and promising to do better in the future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This excitement over the difference between 3 months and 90 days is unbecoming to the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A different proposal

Wikid,

I won't pretend to understand what in that particular case leads you to abandon all caution, to throw your years of otherwise productive edits on the line, or, for that matter, to provide advice to others that only leads them further down a spiral which ends badly for them.

I do however remember you suggesting to Zlykinskyja to move on to other cases of wrongful conviction. Perhaps you may want to consider following your own advice.

If you do, the following might interest you. A couple of years back, a user started uploading content from victimsofthestate.org. It is quite likely that he was the webmaster himself. However, his contributions were identified as copyrighted materials, and at that stage, he didn't receive the correct advice that would have enabled Wikipedia to verify that the content was his to donate if he so chose. The user left the project. As we had no way to ascertain that the material was indeed his, we later ran a WP:CCI and much of the material was removed. Much more didn't make it into Wikipedia in the first place.

On that site, there are currently 1234 cases of proven wrongful convictions from all over the world, and I believe many of these should be sourceable. The names, places, years and the write-up can provide with a starting point for research (Please understand that I'm not suggesting that you copy the content in order to trick you into creating copyvios, just that we're clear on that).

Face it: the Knox case is a red flag for you, and it will end up badly. If you attach so much importance to it due to a strong sense of repairing an injustice, perhaps you will be able to satisfy that sense by recounting some of those other cases waiting to be written about instead. Many of them being firmly in the past and closed, I can't see how this would lead you to controversies that have plagued your interaction with others for the past year. MLauba (Talk) 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77 here. Due to my topic-ban period being considered, by some admins, to last until 11 September 2010 (at some specific hour?), I had best wait some days to explain the 20 or 30 disgruntled users upset with MoMK. I would like to see a "compromise solution" so that admins would not feel the situation is a hopeless series of bans against experts in the subject. I think the hostilities are not gone, just concealed by locking the article. You might need to consider changing your admin username, based on hostile comments I've read about you and other admins. Also, I specifically avoided articles of "wrongful convictions" because I think that was considered to be part of the topic ban, as well as NOT writing essays about such crime articles. Hence, although I appreciate the information you presented above, I think it could be considered a violation of the current wide-ranging topic ban, or someone might accuse me of "advocacy" as trying to fix 1,000 cases of "WP:WRONG" (Righting Great Wrongs). Fundamentally, the problem is "Censorship" which has plagued mankind for thousands of years, such as partially overcome by the über-famous "Recovery of Aristotle" during the Early Middle Ages, through translations of Aristotle by scholars in the Muslim world. Ultimately, I was hoping the admins would craft a broad solution for MoMK to appease the concerns of most editors. It is important to explain to people to describe a burglary event, not call a suspect a "burglar" in a Wikipedia article. When my topic-ban period has expired (to the hour/minute?), then I will discuss the endless months of conflict that are facing the MoMK article. Getting rid of me is a big mistake. I am not the enemy here. More about this later. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikid, since the ANI thread seems to be going in that direction, will you accept an indefinite topic ban on Kercher-related subjects? If you answer in the affirmative, since the blocking admin has indicated that he agrees, I will unblock you straight away. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask users to redact comments that I made a "lie" about thinking 3 months was "90 days". In the U.S. there is a U.S. Federal Calendar of 30-day months, and thus February will not be treated as a short cut to spanning a month. However, this is a lesson learned: in the future, consider bans of 30 days, not "1 month" and such. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself said it expired on the 11th. And crying "censorship" is not likely to win you any support either. From time to time, articles are besieged by a small army of editors who want to use wikipedia as a vehicle for pushing a personal agenda, to "tell the true story", or whatever; as, for example, the "birthers" constantly attacking the Barack Obama articles. That kind of thing is not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I indicated to that user not to expect discussion of details, with him, until September 11, as a whole day after the ban expired. I am not part of any such "small army of editors" and Wikipedia does not condone stereotyping everyone in that manner. -Wikid77 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Your continued debating over what the length of 3 months is, is not doing you any favors either. If they had meant "90 days" they would have said "90 days". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting rid of me is a big mistake. I am not the enemy here. Yet in this edit you propose going so far as to turn a small dispute into a WP:ANI issue, having "met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page"? I would recommend that you accept Black Kite's offer, and admit that returning before 11th September really was an ill-considered move. If you found the "3 months" wording of the topic ban duration at all ambiguous, couldn't you have just asked DMacks or another administrator for clarification rather than risk a long block? SuperMarioMan 01:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be stating that I am the "enemy" and I should be blocked to prevent discussion of issues at ANI. What policies are you following to prevent users from joining ANI discussions? -Wikid77 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You are not being prevented from joining the ANI discussion: just as August has 31 days, it is standard policy that a blocked editor who wishes to participate in an ANI discussion about themself can create an "ANI Replies" section on their talkpage, and make their replies - then they use {{adminhelp}} to request it be copied to ANI by an admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Wikid: erm ... no, where have I stated that you should remain blocked? Black Kite has offered to rescind the block (I'm not talking about the topic ban, which I agree with, and which seems pretty much inevitable), and I have recommended compliance. Please read through the diff linked above, in which you write "I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.?" Why so drastic, dare I suggest incivil, a proposal? In light of the query at Amalthea's talk page, to declare later that "I am not the enemy here" seems to me like a case of glass houses and people throwing stones when it is unadvisable. SuperMarioMan 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:SuperMarioMan: Going through a Wikipedia process to resolve disputes is not an incivil action (does not violate WP:CIVIL). In the case of mediation, the opposing issues of various editors are combined to see if a joint agreement can be crafted which satisfies most of those involved. It is not incivil, but rather formalized, to follow a structured solution. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since WP:ANI is not actually part of the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, I am at a loss as to why you would mention it in the same sentence as mediation. Returning early (yes, it was indeed too soon) from a topic ban, initiating multiple talk page discussions proposing sweeping changes to the nature of an article, and then raising the point of instigating an ANI thread upon encountering objections to the aforementioned sweeping changes, breaks the boundaries of what is acceptable. And, really, all this is side-stepping the crucial point that it is your conduct that is the subject of the continuing ANI discussion, not article content. SuperMarioMan 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP concerns about Knox and Sollecito

In reviewing discussions at "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" I have noticed concerns that the current article seems to violate WP:BLP balance. In particular:

  • Even though they went to trial in January-December 2009, with sentences of 26 & 25 years, upon appealing, their convictions were overturned, and they have been granted a new trial on the evidence, as "presumed innocent" (else why have a trial of a guilty person). They should be considered "suspects" in the case, no longer convicted. Because Guede has already completed his 1st appeal, I am not sure if he can be "presumed innocent" during his 2nd appeal, which is not a full re-trial.
  • Their backgrounds, as good students, should be clearly noted for significance, as often noted in news reports. Knox had attended a Prep school and was an honors student while attending the University of Washington, and has continued correspondence classes while in custody, as a college student. Sollecito completed his degree in computer engineering at Univ. of Perugia, while in custody, and has been accepted into graduate school. Such background details are as significant, to their reputations, as noting someone was working as a NASA astronaut when arrested. The point is not that the information is highly-crucial for the reader, but rather it provides a more-balanced view about each person, and has been reported in sources.
  • The DNA evidence connecting either Knox or Sollecito to the crime has RFU peaks < 50, whereas the DNA samples matching Guede have RFU peaks above 300. U.S. courts typically do not allow DNA RFU below 50 to be admitted into evidence, and similar levels for British courts should also be noted (+sources), because Knox is American and Kercher was British.
  • The heated disputes about the bare blood footprint on the bathmat, as matching either Guede or Sollecito, should be described in a dedicated section, because that was noted in news reports as crucial evidence in the Judge Massei Motivation report.
  • The heated disputes about the partial Nike-pattern shoe print on Kercher's white bed pillow, as matching either Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 or Knox's shoe size, should be described in a dedicated section, because that was noted in news reports as crucial evidence in the Judge Massei Motivation report.
  • In general, any major evidence that was disputed in linking suspects to the crime should be described, in balance as noted in sources, so that there is no hinting or inferrence that the evidence is considered solid proof if strongly contested.
  • In general, major reports which contest the guilt or innocence of the subjects should also be noted, to protect the BLP balance of the article, rather than overly focus on either positive or negative aspects of their lives.
  • When it comes to a conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty" for these suspects, then neither option is an original idea, so the notion of WP:SYNTH is very restricted in this case.

More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support at ANI

13-Sep-2010: I wish to offer a general note of thanks to those who wrote on rejecting the topic-ban being proposed against me (announced by MLauba above). I also thank those who issued negative remarks because it gives me an idea of how much hostility is still out there, even though I have been "gone" for 3 months from MoMK. Typically, happy people don't dwell on negatives, so it seems Talk:MoMK has retained a hostile aura, even with me gone. Perhaps a better system would have announced this ANI incident and canvassed all concerned to offer opinions within a comfortable time-frame of several days to gain more opinions, assuming some difficulting in judging all the sub-issues involved. So, anyway, I thank those who took the extra time to find my incident and reply. I have no idea when it will be decided; the prior topic ban was rushed by the original admin to be closed within 2 days "before anyone was objecting". So, having several people respond, and object already, has avoided that shortcut condemnation from being used in this case. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. And again I perceive a bitter, "it's-not-fair", "I'm-being-censored", "there's-a-conspiracy", "they-all-have-it-in-for-me" tone to your words which, ironically, only provides further justification for an indefinite ban so that the topic is protected from similar disruption. The blind support of a group of SPA users ultimately means little here. SuperMarioMan 08:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you should take a break from the MoMK article for a period 3 months, as I have done, to focus on numerous other articles, then we can talk again in 3 months (or 92 days), to compare notes. I am sorry that the article has upset you to this extent. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Upset" at the article? The article, in its rewritten form, is now far more readable that it used to be, although full protection has become necessary given a suspicious influx of single-purpose accounts with various agenda. All my edits on this topic have been at the talk page. SuperMarioMan 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI replies #4

{{adminhelp}} Please move my last ANI reply to the END of section "Conclude this" at WP:ANI. I am still under a 1-month block, after 3 unblocks were denied, and I need to post the following ANI reply.

Please update section "wp:ANI#Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban" moving the following copy/paste text, to be appended at the end, at the bottom tail end, NOT the top, but at the very extreme final end, of the section "Conclude this" fixing the phrase "Response from from" to have 1 one "from" in the phrase:

'''''Response from Wikid77:''''' Due to my current edit-block, I have had trouble replying (by admin-edit) at specific points of this ANI discussion. I want to further clarify:
* I did apologize for posting 1 or 2 days before the end date of the prior topic ban, because based on past hostile reactions, I should have asked an admin for the exact date when in doubt about ''anything'' in the hostile area.
* I acknowledge how ''"[[Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher]]"'' has grown into a larger mix of intense disputes, so I will refrain from posting several major suggestions there at one time.
* Some people have imagined that I have watched the numerous MoMK disputes every day during the past 3 months, but I have been distracted by other issues for the summer, so I was unaware of many arguments among 20 new people at Talk:MoMK.
* I further pledge to reduce participation at Talk:MoMK, because finally, I understand the level of disputes which had occurred while I was gone, and now I can see how I returned "like gangbusters" in the middle of disputes I did not realize were hotly contested.
* When people said "disruptive" I was thinking ''disruptive-editing'' such as edit-wars, but finally admin [[User:MLauba]] used the word "inflamed" so I realize that I was seen as raising the level of disputes and hostility which was brewing while I was gone.
* Please remember that I have been blocked or topic-banned for 5.5 months of the past 9 months, so I have had only limited contact with MoMK editors. However, I finally understand that Talk:MoMK was already contentious enough without much input from me, so I will reduce participation due to the current conflicts between the 20-30 people already there.
* I will try to spend more time reading over those 5.5 months of Talk:MoMK while I was gone, before offering more suggestions. Again, I apologize that I came back so strong and caused alarm along with the current disputes ongoing there, which raised stress for the admins who are juggling the current disputes.
I hope you will realize how I was unaware of the numerous severe issues brewing while I was gone, but now I understand why so many people here seem filled with rage, as though I were "adding fuel to the fire" of those prior hostilities, by posting major new suggestions among numerous ongoing disputes. -Wikid77 ([[User_talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 04:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, fix the first phrase "Response from from" to have only 1 "from" in the phrase, and move that ANI reply to the tail end of the section "Conclude this" after time-stamp 01:36, 16 September 2010, at the bottom of that section, NOT above it.

Thank you for moving that reply within the WP:ANI page. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  pablo 11:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Convert/numdisp for parser errors

{{editprotected}} The number-display Template:Convert/numdisp needs to be changed to use parameter questionmark "{?}" to avoid parser errors. Line 1 of the template should be the following copy/paste text:
{{Convert/numdisp/a<noinclude>{{{?}}}</noinclude>|{{#titleparts:{{{1}}}|1|1}}|{{#titleparts:{{{1}}}|1|2}}}}<noinclude>
After update, the template should simply display the template coding, rather than red parser-error lines.

Expected: {{Convert/numdisp}} gives:  {{Convert/numdisp/a{{{?}}}|{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}}}
Currently: {{Convert/numdisp}} gives:  Template:Convert/numdisp
Expected: {{Convert/numdisp|2+1/3}} gives:  Template:Convert/numdisp
Currently: {{Convert/numdisp|2+1/3}} gives:  Template:Convert/numdisp

Inserting parameter {?} should stop the red errors, while having no effect on a calculated conversion, in any article, because of using <noinclude> tags. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikilawyering

I see people have accused you of wikilawyering. Yet some of those accusations have wikilawyering themselves.

The best course of action is to act like a model Wikipedian. I do not know exactly if you have or haven't but try to start. Be the better man (or woman).

I know nothing of you except your interest in Amanda Knox. I am puzzled why the resistance to an article for her. If it is because they want Wikipedia to be upright and proper, I understand. However, there are lots of articles about less famous murderers and lots of articles about popular stuff, like video games. Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikid77&oldid=388316685"