User talk:Ogranut

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is my talk page. But nobody wants to talk about me.

Generation Z rfd

You need to go to WP:RFD and follow the instructions there. There's no entry on the May 15 section on the RfD page for this RfD, and no rationale as to why it should be deleted, which means absolutely nothing is going to happen. Furthermore, I can't finish it for you because I don't know why you want it deleted. MSJapan (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiasco

What vandalism? --Julian (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an entry, and broke the list in an unintuitive way. See WP:MOSDAB if you're unsure how to format disambiguation pages. Ogranut (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it might make more sense to break it into two sections: things called Fiasco, and things with the word Fiasco in it. --Julian (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I35W Bridge

The NTSB has determined that the two fatal factors in the bridge collapse were 1) Undersized gusset plates and 2) extraordinary load caused by construction material and equipment sitting on the bridge that evening. MNDOT maintenance was unrelated.--Appraiser (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you engaged in an edit war with Appraiser? Your edits are not in good faith let alone justified. .:DavuMaya:. 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "edit war" is extremely judgemental. Please desist from such comments. One definition of the word "maintenance" is to preserve in an existing state. The bridge was not preserved in the existing state. Ipso facto it was not maintained. I hope this finally puts this issue to rest. Ogranut (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you have now violated WP:3RR yourself on the I-35 bridge article, correct? —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. I no case have I reverted any editor's comments more than twice, and in those since the original editor's intention was purely to antagonize, they were simple vandalism which does not count towards 3RR Ogranut (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. " [1] [2] [3]. Some of the other edits are debatable enough that I'll only count three, so you're on but not over three.

Additionally, in one edit summary, you say "But please don't dogmaticly undo other editors' work." How is your undoing of other editors' work without discussion any better than what you're accusing others of? —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Other editors", if in fact it is more than one, are simply undoing anything I do. Whereas I, when somebody seems to object to my wording, am trying to find alternatives with which everyone will be happy. Ogranut (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four separate editors, counting myself. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit here, adding "not" to "maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation", looks like plain old vandalism to me. Given the edit summary, "Obviously they didn't", it looks like you're trying to prove some kind of point. ("Ha ha! They didn't maintain the bridge! It fell right into the water!") Then you reverted the article twice, and when you ran out of reverts under 3RR, you made other edits basically implying the same thing: that MNDOT was responsible for maintaining the bridge but they weren't doing so.

Why are you trying to pretend that your editing isn't disruptive and isn't going against consensus? I'm blocking you for 24 hours for disruptive editing, including gaming the system on WP:3RR. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:52, 27 June 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).

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

Request reason:

Contrary to Elkman's assertions, none of my edits have been disruptive. I added a simple one word edit to the I35W Bridge page, including an edit summary of why I was adding it. This was reverted by another, without explanation. Rather than engaging in an argument with that editor, on the first occasion I simply re-added it. Subsequently it was reverted again, so I chose a different set of words, which I hoped would be more agreeable to others. This was reverted on the grounds that it was cumbersome (which arguably was true). I then tried to find a concencus which would satisfy all concerned. Elkman has says I was "trying to prove a point". By which I presume he means I was trying to correct the article's implication that the maintenance was accurate. This is entirely in accordance with WP:POV. I refute any allegation that I have been "disruptive". A number of editors on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge article have engaged in a campaign of undoing anything I do. A review of that page's history shows that these are old time editors of the article. As such, I suggest that they collectively (perhaps "they" are one operating under seperate accounts) have been acting in a disruptive manner and most certainly have been violating WP:OWN. In summary, this block was inappropriate because:

My edits were an improvement to the article.
When users explained their objections to my edits I made a good faith attempt to find an alternative to them.
Correcting an article's bias is not the same as "trying to prove some kind of point".

Decline reason:

Your stated intention here to use your edit summaries to carry on debates is directly in contravention of policy as stated here. Until you agree to use talk pages like everyone else is supposed to, you will stay blocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:53, 27 June 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.

Ogranut (talk)

Hey Orgranut Ive been following that article and I want to say that I think youve been treted unfairly but it might not hav been a good idea to do that fist not edit To the admins - i agreen that he should be unblocked the other users were ganging upon him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quokly (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this is a 24 hour block is to cool off. You are not being barred from WP and I welcome you to continue to grow and learn and participate. But to address the claims. First of all, the suggestion that "we the gang of old timers" are sockpuppets of one person is untrue. You can come to our Minneapolis meetup and have a drink with each of us. That being said, I am not an "old timer" of this particular article, I have made factual corrections and added a recording but have not been involved in any significant editing of the content. In my perspective: 1) Just admit the little pun of "not maintained" I had a little laugh too, 2) Relax, after a few reverts by two people, thats a signal that editors are not in Consensus, its time to engage in discussion, 3) You did not once attempt to explain your action in the Talk page further giving warning signs, and 4) Relax, you got a little hot-headed thats fine, a time out is all this issue needs. Also the assertion that WP:OWN has been violated is interesting. Consider that the lead heading has been edited by perhaps a hundred editors since the bridge collapse and what you see now is a product of a long history of edits meticulously crafting. To assert suddenly that we will be damning MNDoT for the bridge's failure in the lead introduction has been thoroughly discussed and not a thing to lightly push onto this article nonetheless. Thus what was really a little bit of editing has blown into this and we really ought to be focusing on making the content good not just the lead. To quote many penalty rules of WP is simply "gaming the system" when you should be focused on what makes a quality WP article and how to improve articles that effect. That is the wisdom of WP in the end. I encourage you to study and become a great participant! .:DavuMaya:. 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copula

I've moved the dab page to Copula, while leaving the (dab) page as a redirect. - jc37 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]