Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 23 October 2007

User talk:Porcupine/Archivebox

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Template:Add

WP:NPA

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)

DWM

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)

You are correct. Just a point in case he comes back and acts nicely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

{{cn}} and Grande

1. Please don't revert additions by Grande - it's okay, I was just annoyed at him due to the frequency of messages.
2. About the citation tag, you may want to see this. Will 13:32, 20 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 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiEN-l is by extension part of Misplaced Pages (it's officially sanctioned and is encouraged for meta-discussions, at least). Tagging a clause with cn is fine, but adding a clause and tagging it with cn isn't. Will 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, neither OG, Shannon Sullivan or the BBC list any S4 titles, so it's most likely fake. Will 13:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, wire crossings. Seems the BBC has apparently confirmed it, but we need to cite DWM, not FA.com or DTF.com. Will 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

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)

"What a cr*p rule" - it's meant for good, but in situations like this it is a bit silly. If it's not covered by the exceptions, it should be. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

There is currently a discussion about your blacklist at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Talk page blacklist. - TexasAndroid

Sorry

*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)

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project

The thing you seem to be missing is that Misplaced Pages 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)

3RR violation

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

U/B request

TreasuryTag (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 Misplaced Pages 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.

With all due respect, I didn't attack anyone. I said that Shokuwarrior doesn't care about NOR, VER and CON. S/he doesn't read the talkpages and is not really in a position to be editing contraversial stuff.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you called her a "'silly user' who inserts fan-cr*p", and at any rate, what another user may or may not have done is one hundred percent irrelevant when considering whether or not your block is in violation of the blocking policy. Sandstein 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't discuss it then.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why are there no section edit links on this page? If you have disabled them, please re-enable them. Sandstein 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Section edit links? Eh? I've got them showing.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. I can't seem them either. I had to add "&section=9" to the URL of this edit to get the right section rather than the whole user talk page. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Side-effect of being blocked and page slightly-pseudo-protected? {{unblock}} mucking it up? I dunno. Wait until I'm unblocked then if they still don't work for you then I'll ask at the Pump.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the "NOEDITSECTION" in a subpage transcluded on this one, and removed it. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I must have put it in in some sort of experiment-edit and forgotten about it, but how come I could still see them? Weird. That said, "Please discuss changes with me".--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, but that was my impression. I was wandering around, clicking on stuff, no pretty orange stripes appearing, then that nasty red blotch appears. I think, "The b*****d hasn't even bothered to message me..." If you're going to block people when it's not warranted, it would be vaguely polite to make sure that you let them know. Not just when it suits you, after the gas board gets off the 'phone, but straight away.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was warranted (you did violate the "electric fence" of 3RR), and I did notify you. Two minutes later. That's not a lot of time, really. I advise you to adjust your attitude. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to adjust yours, mate, if you think that there's anything to be gained from blocking me pointlessly other than a lot of bad feeling from me to you, which there wasn't previously.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The goal of the block, like all blocks for 3RR, was to stop the edit war you were engaged in. That goal was eventually met, and indeed the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials has nearly reached a consensus. As it happens, the consensus which has nearly been reached — in your absence — is one supporting the position you were advocating (that is, leaving "Time Crash" off the table for now). However, your method for advancing that position was preventing editors from reaching that consensus, because they were instead engaging in an edit war. There was no consensus on the article or its talk page at the time you were reverting. There is now. That should show you that edit warring is not a productive method for keeping the version of the article you want. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Care with edit summaries

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 Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages: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)

Quite possibly a mis-click.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, sorry, read the last sentence of the box at the very top of this talkpage - I opt out of image deletion notices. Missed that before.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you review Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Having a statement of the specific way that you want to define the term doesn't override the broadly accepted community understanding of it. You can remove notices from your talk page if you wish, but there's no reason to be rude about it. If you insist on being rude about it, you may be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He saw the notice, and deliberately chose - in bad faith - to continue. There can't be a good faith reason for it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:01, 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)

{{unblock}} is there for a reason, you know... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're hurting your case by continuing to make false accusations of vandalism. You give no indication of being someone who wants to collaborate peacefully with other editors when you act like that. Friday (talk) 18:46, 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)

Sorry to say, unblock is there for a reason but is often not successful. The problem is that there are no archives. Possibly as a result, some admin (not all) are very quick to deny and not explain. Sometimes, the blocking admin will deny the request, a clear conflict of interest. Uetz 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No archives of what?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Removed as vandalism"

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)

The thing you don't seem to be understanding is that you don't get to personally redefine what other editors are or aren't allowed to do at Misplaced Pages. We already have some standard expectations of civilized behavior here; your own idiosyncratic wishes aren't going to magically change that. Friday (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)See WP:USER. I may remove image warnings if I desire. See WP:DRC - I quote, "respect their wishes".--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my edit. Saying the you'll remove unwanted edits "as vandalism" probably isn't sensible, and I think two others have already remarked on the inappropriateness of the wording . . --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone chooses to make an edit that they've reasonably been asked not to make, and sees that if they do so it will be considered vandalism, then they're consenting to have that material removed as vandalism. Simple.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and avoid relying on your own definitions of commonly understood terms. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Please understand that if someone posts something against my wishes, thus in bad faith ..., then it's vandalism.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody needs your permission to edit Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that they did.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You really should try to be more wary of calling things you don't agree with "vandalism", even more when they are part of Misplaced Pages processes... Biting editors is not going to help you in your interactions with everyone. I thought you knew it by now. -- lucasbfr 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If somebody chooses to give me material I've specifically and reasonably asked not to, then that's bad-faith.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:49, 23 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)

Sorry I can't really replace the NOEDITSECTION directive because that would have an impact on the usability of this page by other editors. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Snowolf. On that basis, they're going straight back in at 18:27:03 tonight.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because another user uses NOEDITSECTION on his or her user talk page doesn't mean it's a good idea. In fact, it's a bad idea, because it forces other editors who wish to make a comment to either type out the cumbersome "&section=n" or edit your entire talk page.

You may also wish to re-read Misplaced Pages:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, which says "pages in user space still do belong to the community". The purpose of user talk pages is to foster communication between Wikipedians. Use of NOEDITSECTION hampers that purpose. I hope you see that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless you also remove Snowolf's, then I'll consider it a vendetta against me. The same applies to her, I assume?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked Snowolf to remove the NOEDITSECTION from User:Snowolf/Bar a few hours ago. Her user page says that she's currently sleeping, so I'll give her some time. If I had noticed the issue here before seeing the discussion, I'd have done the same; but since someone else has already removed the NOEDITSECTION from this page, I don't see the point in restoring it. Since you had suggested that you were planning to restore it, I was pointing out why it was a bad idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Pocrupine, re "Please consult me before making any major-ish changes to this page. Do not leave me image-related deletion/copyright status notices. Any such notices will be removed as vandalism." how are people supposed to discuss changes if they can't use the talk page. That's what talk pages are all about. Notices of image problems are not vandalism. You obviously have no idea what talk pages are for or what wikipedia is all about. Sumoeagle179 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I obviously do, and you obviously don't have any idea of what I obviously know, actually. I don't want that pathetic drivel patronising me about image deletion, because I don't give even one-eighth of a shit if they're deleted.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then why upload them? --Domestic Correction 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had the goal of enhancing the project in mind, but if the project is too crap to keep them properly then why would I waste my energy fighting it? Anyway, if by that comment you're trying to prove that I do care about something I've made it clear by my actions and words that I don't care about, then you're completely loopy. What was the purpose of your comment? Baiting a banned user? Disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity. Your actions regarding one image suggested that you were concerned about its not being deleted. --Domestic Correction 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

They suggested that I thought - and still think - that you're a self-important, lazy, rude, bureaucratic prat, for not simply {{sofixit}} yourself but tagging about four times for deletion. I will delete any further comments you make here as WP:POINT and/or WP:STALK violations.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Remarks like that could easily get your block extended. --Mark (Mschel) 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Looking over this page and your recent contribs, I see a pattern of hostility and belligerence. I strongly advise you to review Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot before you resume editing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Extension

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 Misplaced Pages. I have reset your block and extended it to one week. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 ], 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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 ], 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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 ], 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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock