User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Oct

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TreasuryTag. 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)

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. β^_command 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)

I notice you are very free with your use of the term vandalism but I will let that go this time.Garda40 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'You are required to explain all reversions

Actually you aren't .Read that again and you will notice that it says it is good practice .Garda40 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You can examine every single one of my edits if you want to try to find a WP:POINT edit.

I have found that using AGF it is sometimes better to left the edit summary blank.Garda40 14:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't consider invoking WP:SNOW an bad-faith action: if there's a snowball's chance in hell that an AfD will come to a keep consensus, or a delete one, an early close is warranted. I just don't see enough of a consensus on that AfD for SNOW.--SarekOfVulcan 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that there was. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:05, 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)

Maybe, but you should still assume good faith. And thanks for the note about my talk page link. StuartDD _{contributions} 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was that words like "sodding" are not really needed. I am not intending to make this an official warning. StuartDD _{contributions} 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about my signature. I have redirected the talk page to mine, as I don't have time to fix all the bad links, but the one I have now works alright. StuartDD _{contributions} 18:41, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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

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)

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

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiEN-l is by extension part of Wikipedia (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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 13:44, 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)

"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)

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)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at List of Doctor Who serials. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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

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).

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.

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)

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)

Yeah, but maybe my blacklist had been deleted by then, and they weren't on my blacklist, and AN/3RR wasn't involved. Actually.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:10, 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 [3]. [4]. --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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia processes... Biting editors is not going to help you in your interactions with everyone. I thought you knew it by now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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).

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.

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).

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.

Hi, I think you made a syntax error in filling out the template. The section that you wrote is entitled "decline reason", but you appear not to have actually listed it?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is implied- I am declining the unblock because the block is a fair and reasonable one, and I am stating that, while you are right to plan to edit more appropriately, you will have to wait until your block expires to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite, well, I don't quite follow the logic of that - particularly in respect of how the Project is harmed by a potential unblock - but don't let it worry you.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

		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

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)

Glad to see you'll still be doing some editing - I was afraid you were gone for good for a while. Kelpin 15:54, 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)