User talk:HTML2011


 * The old talk page before I found out about deletions of language articles carried out by Kwamikagami is here

-- Without talking User:Kwamikagami deleted articles that I did create. I want that he gets de-admined. Deleting articles of non-admin users is no little thing - we non-admins cannot see the article content anymore. Also it is unfair to advance ones position in a dispute by using admin rights.

It UGLY, MEAN, ARROGANT TO delete articles in a CONTENT DISPUTE. HTML2011 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC) For which edits am I blocked? HTML2011 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For which edits am I blocked? HTML2011 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to know for which edits am I blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to know for which edits am I blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to know for which edits am I blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Admins, please feel free to browse the history of this talk page for the three times the information he requested was provided.  Dennis Brown   &reg; &copy; 15:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

HTML2011 if you do not understand what Dennis Brown has been telling you after each of your requests above, the answer is not to delete his answer and ask again. The way to handle that is to explain what you don't understand and engage in a conversation. Just continuing to ask the exact same question does not accomplish anything. GB fan 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry to see that a good guy like HTML2011, who has been helpful in the past, has been blocked for edit warring. It does look a little suspicious though, as I have never known HTML2011, use capitalised words before, as if he's shouting.  HTML has been a reasonable and polite person in my previous dealings with him; and I've never known him to "shout" on here before.  One other think that I find a little disturbing is GB fan telling the user off for deleting answers from his own talk page; yet another user tells HTML off for reinserting comments from a users page, that had been previously removed per WP:BLANKING.  One would assume that HTML is within his rights to remove any content from his talk page without providing a reason.  As I was once told, if a user removes content from their talk page, when we are to assume good faith that the removal is a sign of acknowledgement.  Anyhow, like I said before, pity to see someone blocked for what appears to be a silly error.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he just got overly frustrated, and I'm hoping after the block he comes back and begins contributing once again in a productive manner. The sad thing is, I felt there was merit to his claims and we are still actively investigating the other editor he reported.  But once you report potential abuse by another editor, you need to back off a little and let the process work instead of continuing to edit war.  I've said it 100 times, but it isn't enough to be right, you also have to work with others, including those that are trying to help you.   Dennis Brown   &reg; &copy; 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Wesley Mouse, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I did not tell HTML off for removing the answer.  I was just trying to provide some advice on how to get the answer they are looking for.  If you ask a question, someone answers it, removing the answer and then asking the exact same question probably won't get a better answer.  It is completely within HTML's rights to remove things from their talk page and if I gave the impression that I didn't think so above I apologize.  As I said I was just trying to offer a different course on how they can get a clarification of the answer.  GB fan 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope that a peaceful resolution can be found in all of this. And yes, I agree, it is wise for the reporter to be seen as cooperative as possible by backing off, while an investigation into the reported claims take place.  I have come across a few other users who behave in similar ways as this, and have often wondered if we should look into ways to "teach" users who received short-term blocks, the correct procedures on the issues for which they were blocked in the first place.  Whether it be via adoption process, or even a Wikipedia Kindergarten (or Nursery School for the British speaking Wikipedians).   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just realised that I'm getting HTML2011 confused with a different user, who has a similar name. HTML2011 has been known to have a disruptive manner in the past.  And even resorted to incivility by posting personalised insults, despite warnings about WP:NPA and refactoring users comments on article talk pages, as well as one users talk pages that don't belong to him - even as far as refactoring warning templates that have been issued to him, which I'm sure is against several policies.  Also he tends to remove any references to "meridian" on various articles, and replacing them with exact coordinates, and creating articles for the respective coordinates.  Perhaps a 48-hour block is a little too generous, and an extension would be feasible?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I "refactor user comments on article talk pages"? You seem to invent stories to support the case of Kwamikagami, who is the reason for all the recent mess in the last 48 hours or so. HTML2011 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wesley, me neither, I cannot remember to have used CAPITALIZED words like shouting before. But I am super frustrated by Kwamikagami's behavior. That's all. HTML2011 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jpgordon - Thanks for providing at least a hint for what I may have been blocked for. My last edit there was 13:28, 22 April 2012 - you don't refer to that, I assume? Please correct me if I am wrong. The edit before was 12:59 where I reverted the deletion of a dispute tag and asked the remover to use the talk page before deleting this tag. So the edit at 13:28 on the article, and all my edits on the talk after 12:59 show, that there was no ongoing "edit war" or so. I was discussing disputed content with Taivo. I stayed away from reverting, was calmly discussing and in the middle of the discussion I get blocked. HTML2011 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The chart has no phrase like the disputed one. But what the chart proves and not belongs to the article talk page. What I request here is a valid reason for blocking or in absence a lift of the block. The fact is that I did not put the "dispute"-tag again. So what am I blocked for? I was taking part in a discussion, there was no ongoing edit warring. HTML2011 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Meridians
H, the work I did to adjust capitalization and such in the meridians articles was persuant to discussions at a bunch of WP:RMs and on the MOS:CAPS talk page. There was pretty much uniform support for my edits. When you came in and started undoing and pushing in the opposite direction, you found no support for that in the discussions that ensued. Today I have been trying to clean up the mess that you left. When you get off your block, I hope you'll engage in discussion and seek consensus before trying that again. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There were specific move requests. And e.g. Greenwich Meridian was moved with the supporting comment "Five separate Greenwich meridians are recognized". That does not apply to your mass moves. Also some of your RMs used n-grams, but the same n-gram logic did not apply to the other moves made by you. 95% or more was uppercase before your mass moves. HTML2011 (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A message to Taivo
I strongly regret that I am currently not being able to talk with you about the IPA content in WP. There is some inconsistency that I would like to solve. Because if the disputed statement is correct, then I think there are others that are not. HTML2011 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "disputed statement" is unequivocally correct. The IPA chart is the official chart of the IPA, there isn't any further discussion to be had about it.  If there are other pages where the text does not match the official IPA chart, then they should be fixed.  Tell me where they are and I will fix them.  --Taivo (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. When you recently edited Telephone numbers in the Americas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page +1 (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) 10:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)