User talk:RafaAzevedo/2008/May

look at the end of the page the article says clearly that juninho it has marked 88 goal (“but” in French) modernized 7 to March 2008 http://www.espnsoccernet.fr/news/story?id=514288 but juninho in 23 March 2008 has marked the 89 goals for lyon look that http://www.olweb.fr/index.php?lng=fr&m=933&pid=105001 --Babboleolr (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey!!! what are you doing! look this is the real references from the official site with 90 goal (but) in french and 37 freeekicks scored at lyon! http://www.olweb.fr/index.php?lng=fr&a=39367&pid=101002

--Babboleolr (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok adesso ho capito...se guardi nella pagina vedrai che ho cambiato e ho inserito il giusto nome della referenza come volevi...il fatto di questi giorni di aver cambiato è perche la referenza che tu hai messo e si nella pagina ufficiale del lione ma è vecchia e il numero dei goal si ferma alla stagione 2005/2006 come puoi vedere.... mentre oggi sulla pagina ufficiale hanno inserito il numero dei goal aggiornato ad oggi...ossia 90....grazie per il tuo aiuto!--Babboleolr (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much and sorry!!!--Babboleolr (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless glottal fricative

I guess nothing is wrong, but if you look at uvular trill, alveolar trill, voiceless uvular fricative, and voiced uvular fricative, they use the same example. I figured using the same example for all of them is best since readers might assume that [h] is an allophone of /ʁ/ rather than the two being dialectal variants. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime next week, I'll try to address that. Hopefully the notes column can be used to easily fix any confusion for readers. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

Hi, just saw that you are on the verge of 3RR. So just thought of leaving a message. Shovon (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 16:26, 20 May 2008 (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).

RafaAzevedo/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was a totally unrelated incident to the previous reverts; please examine the page in question before enforcing the decision. Admin who did the block did not bother to a) check what the conflicts were all about, and how they were unrelated to each other, and b) my previous history as an active editor, who contributed in a positive way to an extensive number of articles.

Decline reason:

The block correctly upheld the 3-revert rule, which does not require that reverts be related. — B (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (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.

Simply take a look at the page history, it says it all right there. Tiptoety ^talk 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, please examine the page itself in question (not just its history) before enforcing the decision: the last reversal was a totally unrelated incident to the previous two reverts.
Also, 24 hours is the maximum punishment for 3RR incidents, destined to the more serious incidents -- do you really consider my case was worthy of such a punishment? I see you have been elected quite recently for adminship, please consider the use of restraint and pondering in your decisions. Regards, Rsazevedo ^msg 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - You're wrong about the "maximum punishment for 3RR incidents"; actually, 24 hours is the standard for the first offense, and it escalates from there. Regardless, you weren't blocked for 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The block was correct. The only possible issue is whether Chenyangw (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of a banned user (undoing edits of a banned user made after their ban are exempt from revert limitations). This is obviously not this individual's first foray into editing. I'm not at all familiar with this topic area - is there someone that this user jumps out at you as being a reincarnation of? --B (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't recall any other user of whom he might be a "reincarnation", but it seemed clear to me as well that he was merely editing with the purpose of disrupting the article, and including the Chinese POV -- which is the only reason why I reverted his edits. I never wanted to engage in an edit war, I don't usually do so, I was merely preserving the article.

It seems to me tremendously unfair to equal me, with this block, to a user whose account was created merely for disruptive behaviour and edit-warring; as I mentioned before, I have a previous history as an active and responsible editor, who contributed in a positive way to an extensive number of articles.

Isn't there any way that this block can be revoked or, at least, decreased? 24 hours for any edit-warring seems exceedingly strict, let alone for this one, highly atypical; and, furthermore, I have no reason to proceed with such actions after what just happened. I am not a vandal nor a troll in this project, just check my history.

Regards, Rsazevedo ^msg 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you can discuss with the blocking admin via email if you would like. Part of the problem here is that from looking at the edits on both sides, someone who doesn't know anything about Tibet can't tell if it's just two people with different opinions (not exempt from 3RR) or if one side is putting in obvious fact vandalism (exempt from 3RR). There is no emergency and so my suggestion is to discuss it on the talk page rather than immediately revert it. If 5 people who know what they are talking about agree that what he is adding is nonsense/propaganda/whatever, then that's one thing. But as of now all we have is your assertion and his and no way to evaluate between the two. --B (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked with the editor's promise to desist from edit warring. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]