User talk:Mabelina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Triesman, Baron Triesman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Belarusian and Migration (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) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Archibald Cameron of Lochiel[edit]

Hi, well spotted. It seems to me you correctly identified the misspelling (which I think was mine some years ago). However, if an article needs moved to a new title, it needs to be done not by cut and paste, but by using the "move" function. This is so that the article history, necessary for copyright attribution, moves with the text. It's not something a new user would be expected to know, but it does matter. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for further info.

Again, thanks.--Scott Mac 22:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you too. M Mabelina (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at David Cameron. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  —Darkwind (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron[edit]

Hello Darkwind - I'm disappointed by your adjudication especially since you state that being right or wrong doesn't matter & moreover since the protagonist refers on his Talk Page to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (WP:DR); yet given that he failed to provide any substantive reasons in reply to my reversions (of his reversions thereby precipitating Edit warring). Perhaps you would be so kind as to confirm that we both have been treated equally as a consequence? Many thanks.
Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

PS. I am not aware that is controversial to describe one's patrilineal ancestry when so much of that person's maternal lines of descent are detailed - please advise.

Appealing block[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mabelina (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Hi there - I should be grateful if you were to unblock me for the following reasons: a) I provided edit summaries b) I discussed the matter on the article's Talk page c) I explained my sources and reasoning on Brianann MacAmhlaidh's Talk page & d) sought advice from a knowledgeable third party, namely DrKiernan (although sadly events unfolded before he could reply). Having followed all suggested routes to avoid Edit War, could I be considered for being unblocked? Many thanks & looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

None of your comments is a justification for violating WP:3RR. Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Halo Bbb23 - Noted & perhaps you might be so kind as to confirm whether both parties have been treated equally as a consequence of this violation? I hope to hear from you - many thanks.
M Mabelina (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
First, it's irrelevant. Second, you can look yourself. Focus on your own conduct, not the conduct of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)