This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, please note that the addition of the words "this image is the only way to illustrate the fictional...." does not constitute a proper fair use rationale as required by the non-free content policy. You may wish to read WP:FURG. Thanks, -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think something has gone wrong with your re-naming. Your talk page is on my Watchlist and today this edit [1] appeared under user talk: rambutan (user talk:porcupine was also listed). I note the edit didn't make it onto this talk page. Kelpin 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |||||||||||||
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
Since they were already blocked and just vandalizing the talk page, you needed to take it to WP:RFP (I semi-protected the page anyway. Just letting you know what to do in the future). Daniel Case 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to be polite and assume the best, but comments just as this prove why you should not be allowed to use vandalproof. you dont have any rights to use vandalproof, the use of the program is dictated by the author of the program and those that are designated to assist in that process. VandalProof is a very powerful tool, you have a history of dispute issues and a long block history. you will not be approved so please dont re-apply. Give it at least 5 months of good behavior. βcommand 12:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You may have noticed other people dont use the icons for keep and delete at afd. the bold face words are helpful enough in organizing the discussion.DGG (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I won't revert good and proper edits but that wasn't either .Garda40 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
'You are required to explain all reversions
My attention was drawn to your non-admin closure by a post at WP:AN. Have you read WP:DPR#NAC? Specifically the part that says: Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well. In the future, if you start a XfD (or even comment on it) then please do not close it. This rule of thumb also generally applies to admins as well, so don't think we are just picking on the non-admins here.-Andrew c [talk] 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Howdo,
Can you explain the reason for the merging of the main executive agency article and the list of UK government agencies? It's far too big a list to be part of this article, makes it UK government-centric (which the article and the discussion page show not to be the case) and therefore is inappropriate for a general article on this type of entity. What was wrong with the list being in a separate article? - Heavens To Betsy 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI: [2] If this continues, it may lead to a block.--chaser - t 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no process abuse in changing a !vote. If anything, it's encouraged. The idea is that people will discuss the article and the best arguments (or improvements to the article) will convince people and a consensus will emerge. There's nothing wrong with that. The only assumption of bad faith from Sharek that I see is assuming you were invoking SNOW when you weren't. Eh, I might have thought you were invoking SNOW, too. Claiming someone did something because they were ashamed is considerably less polite, as is telling someone to "grow up". That's my non-biased answer.--chaser - t 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
He's been told not to edit my talk page. Any such edits are unwelcome. Will (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I performed a non-admin close on this as per WP:SNOW. My reasoning was: User:Dhartung has more or less rewritten the article and provided a reliable source; your rationale for deletion was that the article was grossly inaccurate, and given that there were no other editors calling for deletion, I've assumed that all involved parties would support the close. I'm more than happy for the discussion to be re-opened if you feel I've been over-presumptious, I just thought it would save time for all concerned, and that you wouldn't be in favour of deleting the article in its current state. Let me know if I made the wrong call. Cheers, Thomjakobsen 02:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't plan on making this official, but in regard to this revert here, please assume good faith (particuarly with those who may not be familiar with some of wiki's guidlines). Words like "sodding" are not really needed. StuartDD contributions 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with 172.209.127.161. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If I go to Special:Userlogin when I'm logged on as an admin, I can create accounts for new users that are similar to other usernames. We do this per requests at WP:ACC from users who want particular usernames, but the software has automatically stopped them from creating it due to it being too similar to another user (the user in question often has no edits). Hope that explains why admins can create accounts. RyanPostlethwaite 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you leave a note on TAPSBUSTER's page. I thought you should know that the text they keep adding to the Ghost Hunters entry is a verbatim cut and paste from a blog rant that a lady recently posted elsewhere. The interesting note is that the lady who wrote the original rant is accused of befriending and visiting the nursing home where the father of one of the show's hosts lives. Allegedly this was done to get inside information about "Ghost Hunters". I don't know if TAPSBUSTER is the lady who is accused of doing this, or is just cutting and pasting what the lady wrote in her blog. I thought you'd want to know, though. You can find more information at Jason Hawes' MySpace page. Clockster 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have brought your dispuptive editing up at WP:ANI. You may bring your arguments there. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Calling Betacommand's absolutely proper actions a "stupid mistake" and haranguing him because you don't understand the fair use rationales isn't acceptable. Knock it off. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but you really should actually discuss that with User talk:86.142.141.176 as well. He may actually a legitimate source for this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The mailing list post is authentic. Though I don't like cn'd clauses myself, there is a consensus for the need for maintainance templates. Will (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at this, and I think you're safe under the exceptions. And someone else would have done the last one anyway. StuartDD contributions 14:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about your blacklist at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk page blacklist. - TexasAndroid 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Heylo. Sorry for the edit to your blacklist, I didn't mean annoy you or anything. :) *Cremepuff222* 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing you seem to be missing is that Wikipedia is by nature a collaborative project. There's really no practical way you can edit here without being able to collaborate reasonably with other editors. If you don't change your approach, you're going to continue having trouble. Specifically, telling another editor to "get bent stuffed" is out of line. Also, don't call edits "vandalism" unless they really are. Doing so is needlessly rude to those whose edits you're mischaracterizing. Friday (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
TreasuryTag/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Firstly, I was not warned that I was to be blocked, and I wasn't given a notice saying that I had been - at least as of saving this page. I personally can count only three reverts, plus this, which is simply undoing out-of-consensus editing by Shokuwarrior, who is a "silly user" who inserts fan-cr*p and doesn't mind about policies such as WP:CON and WP:NOR. On the basis that my fourth "revert" was no more harmful than and totally identical to this and this, I don't feel that I should be blocked for this. Furthermore, the other three reverts were also either dealing with Shokuwarrior - maintaining and improving Wikipedia beyond question - and effecting a change that we'd agreed on the talkpage to do. It could equally have been someone else doing that.
Decline reason:
Yes, but it was not someone else, it was you. The justifications you provide for your fourth revert are not part of the narrow range of reverts that are listed as not being subject to WP:3RR. Attacking other users in the course of an unblock request is, of course, also a guaranteed way not to be unblocked. — Sandstein 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
Just saw this unblock request. As the blocking admin, I still feel that the block was warranted — and I would also block any user on the "other" side of that edit war who violated 3RR. There is no requirement that violators of 3RR be warned beforehand. I blocked Porcupine at 17:27 UTC, and notified him of the block at 17:29. (The phone rang right after I blocked him.) Actually, I'd appreciate it if Porcupine would remove the claim that he wasn't notified of the block. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Porcupine, above you said "I was not warned that I was to be blocked." Perhaps the editor who reported you to WP:AN/3RR is someone on your blacklist, so per your instructions they never bothered to leave you a "careful, you are about to break the 3RR" message. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you revert a good-faith edit by another user, please take care in the future not to call their edits 'vandalism' (as you did here). The term has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Vandalism); misusing it is a breach of civility and fails to assume good faith.
Your understanding in this matter is appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine that being blocked is not fun. However, it's only 24 hours. Come back tomorrow and think positive and about the future. Even if you were right and the blocking administrator wrong, 24 hours is short. In fact, you can think of some constructive articles in the meantime and...bang....edit them in 24 hours. Uetz 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see a false accusation of vandalism. Where is it? If it's the one linked to above, it's not false; my talkpage clearly says that if you post copyright stuff, you do it on the understanding that it will be reverted as vandalism.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to say that this edit is against the template it was made to, which suggests that changes to my talkpage be discussed with me first. I'll undo it as soon as I'm unblocked.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks for this, Tony. I'd also appreciate if you'd replace the __NOEDITSECTION__ thingy so that I can remove it myself once I'm editing again - I did request that you discuss changes, even accidental mistakes that I'd made in the past.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking over this page and your recent contribs, I see a pattern of hostility and belligerence. I strongly advise you to review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot before you resume editing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing incivility – including calling another editor "a self-important, lazy, rude, bureaucratic prat" – and misusing Twinkle to falsely accuse other editors of "vandalism" – just isn't acceptable here. Your insistence on having NOEDITSECTION on your talk page is also WP:POINTy at best.
You've been blocked for this type of conduct (personal attacks, incivility, misusing Twinkle) before. Based on your previous depth of experience, I see no reason to continue to offer you warnings ("Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!") for behaviour that you should already well know is not suitable for Wikipedia. I have reset your block and extended it to one week. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
TreasuryTag/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I find the extension unreasonable, not that the original block was any good. I have not made a personal attack - the phrase "self-important, lazy, rude, bureaucratic prat" referred to an editor who nominated an image for deletion 3+ times, due to a slight syntax error in the template which caused it not to show up; he refused to fix it himself. I haven't abused Twinkle, always givng an edit summary, in the same manner that would have occurred if I'd used the undo button, and saying that I have misused it is absurd. Where I've used the phrase "vandalism" it is due to users being POINTy, such as giving me image deletion warnings when I've clearly requested not to have them; there is no good-faith reason for that. Finally, the block was extended to a week, not having a week added to it; the block started at 18:27 last night, so should finish 18:27 on the 29th October, not 14:32 30th October.
Decline reason:
I see no good reason to unblock you. You have had extensive chances to improve your behaviour and consistentlu refuse to do so. I also see no benefit to the project in shortening your block duration. Please come back in a week with a more positive and friendly attitude and we'll take it from there. Nick 13:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
TreasuryTag/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
NB - this is different to the one above. OK, I give in. I shouldn't edit-war, and I may have been brusque with newbies who behave childishly but haven't yet learnt to do better, and maybe I behave a little childishly myself. TWINKLE is good for reverting clear vandalism, but if it's generally policy (though an unwritten one) that it should only be used for vandalism - even the "good faith" option :-) - then I concede to that. Policy depends on the community following and moulding it, after all. My nitpicking in relation to the block length was a naive ploy to be unbanned on a technicality, and I admit that it was Wikilawyering. Based on this clause you're about to read, *I explicitly intend not to edit-war, revert more than three times per day or be exceptionally unpleasant*, could the denial(s) above be reconsidered, maybe down to my original, 24hr block ending 18:27 tonight? Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm glad that you've committed not to edit war, and I hope, once your block expires, that you have a useful and successful WikiCareer. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
The Original Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to Porcupine - a user who although he is difficult to get on with at times (and I'm sure I know this better than most) does contribute A LOT to the Wiki project - particularly in keeping vandalism and unsourced comments at bay. Kelpin 10:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) |
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I hereby confirm that Circuit Judge is a sock of mine; see his [my!] userpage for details on how this is allowable.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I won't really be editing; it's literally just for reversions of vandalism that I come across while checking my watchlist for my talkpage. I've got a busy couple of months; don't expect to see me too much - or very much at all! I do feel very liberated now, but also rather restricted - hence the Circuit Judge account! Thanks for your compliments + barnstar!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)