Revision as of 13:33, 24 November 2007 view sourceMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 1d) to User talk:Porcupine/Archives/2007/Nov.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:59, 25 November 2007 view source TreasuryTag (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 edits Right, I'm off. I've had enough, and I want this talkpage *cleared*.Next edit → | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(6h) | ||
|archive = User talk:Porcupine/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | |archive = User talk:Porcupine/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 09:59, 25 November 2007
Template:Personalissuesunspecified
User talk:Porcupine/Talkheader
User talk:Porcupine/Archivebox
Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.
Just to fix the formatting...
The second User:Rambutan
I've received your email in which you state that a different person created the "second" User:Rambutan on Oct 13, 2007. Note this user only made one edit, on that same day and there was a whole month prior to the indef block. I contacted a checkuser, User:Deskana, who confirmed this second Rambutan is indeed not you. However, he also stated that a separate reason prevents this second Rambutan from being unblocked, that it will likely never be unblocked, and that he can not reveal the reason. The second Rambutan is still under investigation. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, fine, as long as I'm not under blame for anything! Please reply so I can be sure that I'm not!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've confirmed the second Rambutan isn't you. The investigation is something else related to that account, but not to you. This does not affect your chances of an unblock, however. --Deskana (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not. But this investigation is - effectively - irrelevant, is it?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The investigation has absolutely nothing to do with you, as stated above. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to snap; I just wanted to check. I thought it odd that you'd mention a confidential investigation to me when it has nothing to do with me, that's all.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not snapping at you, Porcupine. You've misinterpreted what I've said as hostility. You could do with relaxing a notch or two. --Deskana (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise - your use of the phrase, "...as stated above" suggested impatience: I mean, it was certainly un-necessary, you could just as well have not said it. You sounded irritated at me for asking an obvious question to which you'd already supplied the answer. But my social antennae are a little run down this decade :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to snap; I just wanted to check. I thought it odd that you'd mention a confidential investigation to me when it has nothing to do with me, that's all.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The investigation has absolutely nothing to do with you, as stated above. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Block review
Hello.
After your request by email, I have reviewed the situation leading to your block. I am sorry, but I will not overturn it, nor suggest to the blocking admin that it be overturned. — Coren 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jolly good of you - thanks for your illuminating explanation of how I can do better in future :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that sarcasm right there is part of the problem. You have been warned, repeatedly, about your general tone and incivility; and it's not the first time you have been blocked for that reason. I could have gone on with diffs, and added further admonitions about how disruptive you are being. I saw no reason to pile on what others have already told you and add insult to injury.
It should be clear to you by now that aggressive and incivil behavior is not tolerated; and unless you mend your ways we will have no choice but to protect the encyclopedia. Had you come to me with an admission that you have messed up and a promise to try to not repeat your previous behavior, I probably would have considered offering to negotiate a reduction of your block length. As things are, you are unable or refuse to see how your behavior is inappropriate, and do not appear to be willing to change it. — Coren 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that sarcasm right there is part of the problem. You have been warned, repeatedly, about your general tone and incivility; and it's not the first time you have been blocked for that reason. I could have gone on with diffs, and added further admonitions about how disruptive you are being. I saw no reason to pile on what others have already told you and add insult to injury.
- I don't see what's wrong with that bit of harmless sarcasm. It would have been civil of you to give a proper explanation of where the logic in my unblock request went wrong - and how the project is served by banning me - rather than just saying "no".--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Coren's message was plenty civil. I also don't see the point in explaining to you that which you have already been told, and that is not uncivil either. 1 != 2 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A little primer
Here's a protip: Stop being sarcastic and condescending to newbies and don't AfD articles that were created only a couple of minutes ago. That's about as rude as it gets. Most especially, do not falsely mark your reverts of other people's edits as vandalism.
If you cannot follow WP:CIVIL, please stop posting things. I took a look at that AfD and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Jtrainor (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... do you think that Sambure/Boney-sockpuppet ought to be ashamed of him/herself?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)