User talk:Pnatt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pnatt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Baseball: Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice: English dialects on Wikipedia: Wikipedia has millions of readers; some use American English, or British English, or International English, or any of numerous other local forms from Australia, Canada, Ireland etc. Because of this, Wikipedia has a policy of respecting articles written in whatever form of English the original author of the article used.

The guidelines are simple. For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Enjoy your time on the internet's fastest growing encyclopædia/encyclopedia . Thank you. --MrFish 14:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WP:AFL

Hi mate, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL if you love your footy, and Category:VFL/AFL players. Also have a go at improving Portal:Australian rules football. Drop us a line with any questions mate. Cheers, Rogerthat Talk 02:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Football League

Please dont change the spelling of words like 'organisation' to 'organization'. Both spellings are correct, and since the article is related to Australia then it is typical to use Australian spelling. Thanks. Remy B 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Hockey League

Please refrain from Non-neutral edits such as this one. Further edits such as this will be regarded as vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- JamesTeterenko 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Don't go ripping out sections until an actual policy is agreed upon, please. -Objectivist-C 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Objectivist-C 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Valermos 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- JamesTeterenko 01:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Objectivist-C 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule, which stipulates that no editor may revert a page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Please do not continue. --Heah? 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I should be unblocked because my edits about my home city Melbourne, Australia should not be hampered by a two 3rd parties from Canada who seem to have little or no interest in Melbourne, Australia. I've felt hard done by [[User:JamesTererenko]] and [[User:Objectivist-C]], both of which happen to be Canadian. Also, Jimbo has shown disapproval of the idea of political userboxes being used so I don't understand why I've been blocked for doing what's in the best interests of Wikipedia. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}}

Your personal status is irrelevant to your ability to write to the required standards for wikipedia (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS) and arguably makes it harder to fulfill some of those requirements. Regardless of that please read WP:3RR, it is about edit warring not being a valid method of resolving a dispute, that is where there are disputes resolving them in a constructive manner. You have violated that and thus are blocked, if you get in similar disputes in the future do not edit war, discuss the issue on the article talk and with the other editors involved. --pgk(talk) 16:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your only warning. Your recent vandalism is sufficiently serious enough to warrant a block. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Benon 10:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, you were warned about 3RR by JamesTeterenko, and the current block is for obvious vandalism. -Objectivist-C 19:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Your honour, please let me out of prison, as I no longer feel like murdering any of those people I killed." -Objectivist-C 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"I believe that I shouldn't be blocked because I don't feel like editing the Japan article anymore. So please unblock me. Pnatt 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)" - unblock denied per your reason -- Tawker 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donations?!

You wrote on your Talk page: "If anyone is happy with my articles, donations would be appreciated but only if you want to."

I would rather donate to Wikipedia! --ozzmosis 12:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

  1. Organization is an americanism
  2. Organisation is the australian spelling
  3. check your Australian dictionary
  4. your complaint is a bit late and unmeritorious

Xtra 10:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Japan

As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. Thank you! - Politepunk 11:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - Politepunk 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. - Politepunk 11:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Japan are disgraceful and have no place on wikipedia. If you want to be considered a good faith wikipedia editor please stop, otherwise you will only get yourself blocked. Xtra 11:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Japan, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. — Apr. 22, '06 [11:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

You are being an idiot. You just had to keep pushing and pushing. You are only asking for a long block from editting. Xtra 11:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. This goes for you and Xtra. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF please. --Pilot|guy 13:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: wikistress meter

I added it to your page, with a VERY detailed explanation of how it works. Enjoy it. --Pilot|guy 13:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 3RR violations and vandalism to Japan. Should you return from the block and vandalize again, you will probably be blocked for quite a while. Thank you. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Please unblock me as I don't want to edit the [[Japan]] article anymore.}}

Sorry you'll have to wait for the block to expire. On your return don't get into any more edit wars but try to resolve dispute constructively and this won't happen again. --pgk(talk) 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: verbal abuse

As I am actually NOT an admin, there is nothing I can do to help you. You will have to contact administrator. --Pilot|guy 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit war over spelling (organising vs. organizing)

Please don't edit war over this sort of thing. A while back, you made a change with the edit summary "revert to proper English", please don't do that sort of thing as it can be inflammatory. Neither British nor American English is considered the standard on Wikipedia, both are used. However, when editing Australian articles for instance it is probably best to use Australian English spelling standards. -- Curps 23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't arbitrarily change "organisation" to "organization". I can see this was mentioned a few times earlier on this talk page, please re-read what various people wrote (above). -- Curps 23:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying that "organization" looks better is merely a matter of personal opinion. Others will have the opposite opinion. Wikipedia's style guide strongly recommends that articles specific to a particular country should conform to the spelling used in that country, see Wikipedia:Style guide#National varieties of English for instance. Changing back and forth from British to American spellings is discouraged. Please avoid this sort of thing. -- Curps 23:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to our article on Australian English:

Both -ise and -ize are accepted, as in British English, but '-ise' is the preferred form in Australian English by a ratio of about 3:1 according to the Macquarie's Australian Corpus of English.

-- Curps 23:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pleaee stop changing "is" to "iz" on Australian articles, it is considered disruptive editting to continue to edit against a standard policy after being warned. Xtra 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see this has been going on since at least April 10 (see above). I suspect Pnatt has no intention of doing the right thing and will continue to vandalise pages and abuse Wikipedia unless stopped. --ozzmosis 12:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well what I mean so don't play stupid games with me Xtra 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please don't do this Pnatt. Other editors will of course revert changes like this on Australian topics so it's just a waste of everyone's time. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt, please stop wasting people's time with your edit wars. --ozzmosis 07:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cranbourne, Victoria

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Xtra 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he is reading this. --ozzmosis 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want people to revert your edits wholesale, pay attention to the advice of others and think about what you put in your edits. --Evan C (Talk) 13:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In response to your comments on User talk:Ozzmosis:
  1. Yes, Cranbourne, IS surrounded by farmland. Ringwood, Victoria is not a city suburb, it's an urban suburb - and it's miles from any farmland. Conversely, Cranbourne is essentially surrounded by farmland. Check your Melways.
  2. Even if he'd left it, "organising" would be the correct spelling, like it or not.
  3. From WP:STYLE#National varieties of English: If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
  4. Terminates is the correct term. Cranbourne is the terminus, but interestingly not the physical end of the line (the track continues to South Gippsland).
Please listen to us. --Evan C (Talk) 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Yes, the area surrounding Cranbourne is being developed (even so a huge amount to everything but the north direction is still "farmland", even if it's not used for farming), but until its populaton and business increases by a factor of about 200, it's far from a city suburb!
  2. The Macquarie Australian Dictionary is considered the generally preferred dictionary for Australian English.
  3. It means that because Cranbourne is in Australia, Australian English should be used.
  4. I'm not sure I understand there.
--Evan C (Talk) 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret Life of The Veronicas

Your recent edit to The Secret Life Of... (album) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 14:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt, please don't attempt to delete or move articles without a consensus. Doing this is considered vandalism and you will be blocked from Wikipedia. --ozzmosis 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Consensus. --ozzmosis 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning

This is your final warning. Changing "is" to "iz" on Australian related articles is contrary to policy, and your continued doing of this after many warnings is disruptive editting and is grounds to be banned from wikipedia. Please do not let me find you doing it again or I will be forced to take action against you. Xtra 10:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City / Suburb

Elizabeth is a suburb in the former City of Elizabeth which is now the City of Playford. You must realise the proper organisational/naming system for Australian sub-national entities. Federal (national), State, Local Government (can be a city/shire/municipality) and then suburbs. Suburbs are not cities. They can exist within them however. michael talk 15:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take the advice of fellow wikipedians and reconsider your edits; you have already violated the three-revert rule. Unless you change your behaviour it is most likely you will be blocked soon. Feel free to talk to me about any of this so we can find a reasonable solution. michael talk 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Cranbourne, Victoria is a suburb. The former City of Cranbourne was amalgated into the City of Casey and no longer exists. If you wish to write about the history of Cranbourne as a city, create an article at City of Cranbourne and do it there. Cranbourne, Victoria is solely a suburb; you should however reference to it also being the name for the former City of Cranbourne. I hope you understand this. michael talk 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
End of story? Cranbourne is no longer a city; it is solely a suburb. It (the former city [ City of Cranbourne ], not the suburb [ Cranbourne ] within it) was a shire pre 1994 and then a city for less than a year before becoming part of the City of Casey (which is a city according to these [1] [2] links and all relevant wikipedia pages preceding your edits). I hope you understand this and reconsider your actions. Once again, feel free to talk to me about this. michael talk 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fancy name of the local government area (of which a municipality [or a city] can be)? A city, in Australian geographical terms is either:
No other official (and therefore wikipedia-recognised) definition of an Australian city exists. michael talk 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
City: Australia and New Zealand "In Australia and New Zealand, city is used to refer both to units of local government (City of Casey), and as a synonym for urban area (Melbourne)" michael talk 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have given you an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence that proves you incorrect yet you blindly persist. An adminstrator will most likely see this error fixed; it is a pity that you could have not have righted your actions beforehand. If you wish to reconsider, please feel free to talk to me. michael talk 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Articles

Does anyone know how to create new articles? Pnatt 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Starting a new page -Dawson 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created 2 new articles but they are missing. Someone please help and tell me what's going on. Pnatt 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can you tell me the exact titles of these two pages? -- Tangotango 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They were The Secret Life of The Veronicas & AFL Finals Series Pnatt 12:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that both articles have been redirected to more established variants. This happens when an article already exists, but another similar article with a different name is created beside it. The next time you create an article, you might like to use Google to search Wikipedia and see if a similar article already exists. Search for "subject name site:en.wikipedia.org" (without the quotes). Hope this helps. Tangotango 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What if the title of articles should be changed? What should I do about it? NOTE: The reason I created those 2 articles was because the alternative articles had an incorrect title. Should I talk about it on the discussion pages of the orginal articles or should I do something else? Pnatt 12:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, voice your opinion on the talk pages of the articles concerned. (Not the redirect pages). Make sure any article titles follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Tangotango 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits and PoV material

I have removed the PoV material you added to United States and American Football. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. It might be a good idea to re-read WP:NPOV - Politepunk 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another 3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- JamesTeterenko 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cranbourne, Victoria

Do not refer to my edits as vandalism. See wikipedia:Assume good faith. Cranbourn is part of Melbourne. I find it offensive that after I wrote out an edit summary explaining my actions that you just call it vandalism. That is unnacceptable. Yoyu are also reverting pages too often and against consensus. Please reconsider or you will be banned. Xtra 08:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSN Messenger

Your edit to the MSN Messenger article is incorrect. "MSN" is the Microsoft Network, of which Messenger is only a small part. Calling Messenger "MSN" is like calling Windows "Microsoft". Please understand the meaning of "erroneous". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Erroneous --ozzmosis 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling MSN Messenger "MSN" isn't an error. Yes MSN is the company, Microsoft Networks, however, "MSN" when used in common everyday English is universally understood to mean MSN Messenger. Calling Messenger "MSN" is like calling Windows "Microsoft"? You just called it Messenger?! Messenger can also refer to other Instant Messenger services such as AIM or Yahoo! Messenger?! "MSN" is not used erroneously as it's a short way of saying MSN Messenger. Now do you seriously expect everyone to say "MSN Messenger" instead of "MSN" from now on? Pnatt 14:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, please understand the meaning of "erroneous". It is clear you do not. --ozzmosis 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if he has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder rather than OCD as his user page suggests. -Objectivist-C 02:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFL + Cranbourne

Can you please stop adding your unsourced POV and innapropriate reasoning to articles. You just reverted Australian English on the AFL page - this is not acceptable. An editor has already notified you of this at the top of this page. michael talk 09:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Wikipedia is some sort of joke? Stop vandalising pages. --ozzmosis 10:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Remy B 10:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You have blatantly breached the WP:3RR three-revert rule... if you dont stop you will get banned, its that simple. I have already reported it to the administrator's 3RR noticeboard so it is not going unnoticed. Remy B 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Xtra 10:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On further inspection, you have reverted Australian Football League FIVE times in the last 24 hours and should be blocked by now. Xtra 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I get a long block for? I'm no pest. I'm contributing to this encyclopedia. Pnatt 10:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not by reverting everypage 100 times till you get your way and ignoring other's advice. If I ran this project I would permablock you and your IP address from ever editting after your rediculous editting vandalising rampage over the last few days. Xtra 10:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.

--Scott Davis Talk 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I should be unblocked because I realize that I put incorrect information in the Cranbourne article in saying that it's a city (see below). I've learnt about the importance of discussing edits and how imformation provided must be backed up by another source and not merely based on personal understandings. Pnatt 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}}

You should come out the block soon; I hope to see your constructive edits in future. Best of luck, michael talk 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Make this one 31 hours too. Xtra 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt has in the last 24 hours:

michael talk 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've come to my senses and realized that I've made a mistake. Cranbourne isn't a city at all. Far from it! I was just so convinced that Cranbourne is a city. I don't want to edit the Cranbourne article anymore. This is about as tolerant as I get so you should all be pleased! Pnatt 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The future

I have responded to the unblock message by removing it, the block will stand. While well-meaning, your edits have been causing disruption. So what can we do about that? You should restrain yourself when editing. Say you make an edit that is reverted. Don't revert back. Use the talk page to discuss why your edit should be included, and let someone else include it if that's what is agreed from the discussion. Do not constantly revert changes (as you have done in some examples above). Also, you need to use sources when you add information. A quick visit to the Aria chart would have shown that the correct title of The Veronicas album is The Secret Life Of... etc.

So, from now on you are not going to revert articles, you are going to use talk pages instead and use sources when adding facts. If you don't, because your behaviour is highly disruptive, you will be banned - indefinitely. I tell you this as your last warning and as an administrator. If you want to discuss this you can, I'll be watching this page. --Commander Keane 12:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If my edits have been well-meaning why are you threatening me with blocks? Pnatt 13:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is disruption from the reverts. You make a change, which is reverted, and then continue putting the change back in. It is exhausting for other editors to deal with that, if you stop reverting and use talk pages instead everyone will be happy. The warning about the block was to let you know that the reverting could not continue. About the things below:
  • Toyota AFL Finals Series - great to see some talk page discussion about it, changing the name is a good idea
  • The Secret Life Of... - I trust Aria as a better source, but perhaps we could investigate further
  • -ize or -ise: -ise is the Australian way. That's just the way it is, in the media, books etc. You could have asked on the talk page if you were not sure rather than reverting.--Commander Keane 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I really care at the moment about the title of Toyota AFL Finals Series but it will still be on the back of my mind. My only real concern at the moment is the title of The Veronicas album The Secret Life Of.... On TV commercials about their album they have referred to it as "The Secret Life of The Veronicas" Pnatt 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota AFL Finals Series

This article's title should be changed to "AFL Finals Series" Pnatt 13:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I raised this issue on the article's talk page for you. I can't find a definitive naming convention either way, and found other articles both with an without sponsors names (with redirects from the other form). --Scott Davis Talk 14:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the reason of wanting to change it to "AFL Finals Series" is because Toyota is simply the company that sponsors the AFL. What do you think? Pnatt 14:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be to name the article without the sponsor (examples Adelaide 500, Tour Down Under) with redirects from the sponsored names over history. I note that Telstra Dome and AAMI Stadium for example both have the sponsor name in the article titles, with the generic name as a redirect, so there does not appear to be a convention at the moment. --Scott Davis Talk 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret Life Of...

This article's title should be changed to "The Secret Life Of The Veronicas". Here's the stupid source> http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/veronicas/secretlife Pnatt 13:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't trust stupid sources at Wikipedia. -- JamesTeterenko 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Reply back. Pnatt 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit, I was just being snarky in my reply. However, there are also sites that use the title "The Secret Life Of..." As an example, this one, which uses information from Warner Music Australia. It would seem that this is the official title of the album, but both titles are used by the media. -- JamesTeterenko 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah both titles are used. I guess I'd have to do a little more research on it to find out which title would be suitable for Wikipedia. Pnatt 16:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is proof that the title of the album is in fact "The Secret Life Of The Veronicas"!

"That determination has resulted in The Secret Life Of The Veronicas, one of the most dazzling debut albums in recent musical memory, highlighting twelve tracks written and produced by, with and for The Veronicas. The Secret Life Of The Veronicas spotlights such standout cuts as "Revolution," "Mouth Shut," "When It All Falls Apart" and "Everything I'm Not" along with their scorching new single "4ever."

I got this from their Official Website and the source can be found here http://www.theveronicas.com/indexhtml.html#homeanchor Pnatt 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a reasonable argument. What I recommend you do is:
  1. State your argument on the album talk page
  2. Wait for any discussion to occur (I'd wait a week or so)
  3. If after a week you have consensus, then move the page to the new name. Please review Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this. Do not just copy & paste the article.
-- JamesTeterenko 19:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -ize or -ise

Please do not spell verbs that end with -ize or -ise as -ise on my talk page. I prefer such words to be spelt with an -ize ending. Pnatt 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Xtra

User: Xtra is extremely conservative and biased in his editing. I looked at his editing history and noticed that he's been extremely biased towards certain articles (especially articles of a conservative point of view).

He's biased in that he's keen to revert and defend references of critisism towards articles of a conservative nature yet he openly attacks articles of a liberal nature.

He shows little or no respect towards users who oppose his conservative views. He attacks gay-rights movements by claiming that gays have too many rights. He has made many irrational and unjustified attacks against many people over the most minor of reasons. He even told me that if Wikipedia were run by him that he'd block me permanently from editing. It's clear that this user is conservative in his thinking and shows little or no respect to those who oppose his views. I feel that such conservatism and favourtism is not in the best interests of this encyclopedia. Pnatt 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? Show me some evidence showing that I am more POV in my editting than anyone else. Otherwise - drop the false concern. Xtra 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Beazley&diff=prev&oldid=48670530 Pnatt Pnatt 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_United_Jets&diff=prev&oldid=50355178 Pnatt 02:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=49578472 Pnatt 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=49570529 Pnatt 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governor-General_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=49538847 Pnatt 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide_United_FC&diff=prev&oldid=49219321 Pnatt 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melbourne&diff=prev&oldid=48960339 Pnatt 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=prev&oldid=48936844 Pnatt 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_Melburnians&diff=prev&oldid=48695002 Pnatt 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_rights_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=47523748 Pnatt 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually check those diffs before you just cut and pasted them? I am sure it is very conservative and highly POV to remove "Kim Beazley wins pie eating competitions" from that page. Xtra 02:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you a primary school student? Because your editting pattern points strongly towards that. If so, come back when you can make more intellegent contributions. Xtra 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well seeing as you can't even spell "editing" correctly I'd take that back! And no. Pnatt 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed all those edits by Xtra, and have no problem with any. Only two are not reflected in the current versions of the articles: One of those I still agree with Xtra, the other reverted a number of edits, one part of which was later returned to the article. I have more trouble finding good edits from you that would not be reverted by most rational wikipedians. --Scott Davis Talk 03:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I also checked all those links and saw nothing regarding gay rights or attacks on other users. --Fang Aili ??? 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Xtra please do not make anymore biased edits such as this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stolen_Generation&diff=prev&oldid=53476108. Thank you. Pnatt 11:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please get over yourself. Xtra 11:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to take a hint. You are just ignoring all the advice you receive. I can guarantee you that at this rate you will be permanently blocked within 10 seconds of this block finishing. Xtra 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Xtra please do not make anymore biased edits such as this these http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=52596654 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=52598228 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=52605270 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=52607540 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=52607664 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centauri&diff=prev&oldid=52607922 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xtra&diff=prev&oldid=52608408 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=53255996. Thank you. Pnatt 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your beef is with those edits, the few I checked seem fine. He even noted in his edit summaries to refer to the talk page about why the edits was made. -- JamesTeterenko 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Can someone please help me with the userboxes. The userboxes on my page look all messed up. Can someone please provide on help how to align userboxes and formatting and that. Thank you. Pnatt 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really good at organizing userpages, so I found you a page to look at and try to model it from, if you so choose. You could also just steal some of the syntax and arrange it how you like. Try this link: [8]. Let me know if you still have more questions, or better yet, put the {{helpme}} tag back on your page. Pepsidrinka 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Userboxes --NigelJ talk 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 28 April 2006

We beg you to stop ruining the hard work of others, like you did in Monarchy in Australia. Wikipedia is used as a reference by many people, and your vandalism can greatly inconvenience other people. We really hate to do this, but if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, we will have no choice but to block you from editing. If you would like to contribute in a positive fasion, you are welcome to do so. You may find the tutorial to be a useful resource for this. Xtra 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Governor-General of Australia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Xtra 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- JamesTeterenko 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This is regarding Governor-General of Australia. -- JamesTeterenko 22:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 1 week in view of your persistent history of vandalism, your refusal to stop despite numerous final warnings and past blocks, and your continuation of vandalism despite Xtra's explicit final warning to stop this evening. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

{{unblock| Administrator: I believe that a 1 week block is excessive. I don't think it would be very helpful. Please unblock me because I have made several worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia and wasn't fully aware about the Wikipedia Manual of Style. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)}}

You managed to get blocked for 3RR and vandalism barely 12 hours after the last block expired. You obviously need to think for longer about how to contribute without being disruptive. Yes you have made several worthwhile edits, but they are very hard to find amongst the against-concensus multiple reverts, biased or inaccurate editing and name-calling. --Scott Davis Talk 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the helpme tag. Please refrain from re-inserting it. There is nothing we can do to assist you at this point. Just wait the block out or contact and admin directly. --Pilot|guy 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock reviewed, you've been blocked multiple times and those shorter blocks have apparently had no impact on the disruption you cause, so sorry the block stands, continue with disruptive editting when it expires and the blocks are likely to get longer. --pgk(talk) 09:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock| I believe that I should be unblocked because the one who blocked me called me a numbskull and also a one week block is excessive. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 05:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}}

Why don't you cop the block, take the week off, calm down, and see if you can edit productively when you come back. If you can't, the blocks will only get longer and we can see that you don't want that. Xtra 06:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is considered vandalism to remove other people's comments from your Talk page. --ozzmosis 08:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Same response as last time, you've been blocked multiple times and have had plenty of chances, yet continue the disruptive behaviour. --pgk(talk) 08:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting Abuse

Does anyone know how to report abuse? Thanks. Pnatt 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend reading the page about Administrators, their privledges, and their rights in blocking people, but after checking the Vandalism page which describes the issue. (Re-add the 'helpme' template if needed) -NigelJ talk 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your User Page

I haved edited your user page to bring it up to guidelines set by Wikipedia:User page which states in section "Ownership and editing of pages in the user space" that:

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

  • Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
  • Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
  • Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
  • In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.
In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

It is of my opinion that asking for donations does not "further the goals of the project". My edit also sorted out your Userbox problem. --NigelJ talk 06:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK can someone please revert my user page to User: Pnatt's last edit. Thanks Pnatt 06:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As you wish, but I also removed your request for donations, as per Nigel's reasoning. If you wish to revert your page, simply view the version you wish to revert to, click edit, then click save. --Evan C (Talk) 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Monarchy in Australia

Please do not vandalise this article, it would be useful if you read WP:POINT. Edit summaries of "fuck england" (or any profanity) are innappropriate and should not be used. michael talk 05:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Monarchy in Australia has you on thin ice, especially considering your numerous blocks for disruptive behaviour. Please dessist. Xtra 05:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mince around the issue when it's obvious he's given up on contributing legitimately? -Objectivist-C 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to appear impolite - I'm well aware of what he's doing. michael talk 06:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again

Seeing as you have come right back and starting vandalising again ([9] [10]), I have reinstated your block. The block time has increased to one month. -- JamesTeterenko 06:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the links I provided. I didn't block you for the revert war on your user page. I blocked you for your vandalism of an article, your use of profanity and for your incivility. -- JamesTeterenko 06:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Which articles? Pnatt 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy in Australia. -- JamesTeterenko 06:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think a 1 month block is far too excessive especially for vandalism of just 1 article. I should have been warned first. Pnatt 06:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned many times that this is unacceptable. You have even deleted a number of warnings from your talk page. This is already your sixth block by six different administrators. I will not remove your unblock request at this time and let another admin make the judgement call if they think I have been unfair. But I will not personally remove the block, as I believe it is justified. -- JamesTeterenko 06:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remove my block. It's not my fault that I have certain problems with Monarchism. Pnatt 06:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are responsible for your own attitudes and your own actions. If you succeed in getting someone to unblock you, or at the end of this block, you will be watched. I count three valuable edits out of 19 while you were not blocked. I chose not to block you for the profane edit summary or the vandalism, purely because you reverted your own vandalism a minute later. When I came back to check again, I found someone else had not been so generous. Whenever you are able to edit again, do not, under any circumstance, make a profane or vandalistic edit or summary. This is your warning. And as for "... vandalism of just 1 article. I should have been warned first." What do you think the previous blocks were if not a warning? --Scott Davis Talk 07:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC) (one of the previous admins who had blocked you)
Per User:ScottDavis, you've had more than ample warning, you are fully aware of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. The edit summary in the edit of the userpage is completely unacceptable, and to clarify it is not your userpage which you are free to do with as you like, it is a wikipedia page associated with your user id and is subject to wikipedia's rules. --pgk(talk) 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock| Administrator please unblock me as I think it's harsh and unjust to block a user without warning. Users say I was warned but that was before my previous block of 1 week. I need time to adjust to editing again and a block is absolutely harsh for MINOR vandalism that can be easily reverted. I should have been warned. The fact that I was blocked without warning is very unfair. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)}}

I have removed the {{helpme}}. It is not appropriate to use it during a block. If you use {{helpme}} again your talk page will be protected from you editing it.--Commander Keane 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe if I wasn't so victimized by other users I wouldn't need any help. Pnatt 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you feel victimised. You're the one who seems to refuse to get along and abide by our policies. --Evan C (Talk) 10:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What policies? I'm sure that there's also a policy that users should be warned before being blocked. Don't you think that a 1 month block is excessive, ESPECIALLY after not being warned? Put yourself in my shoes. Pnatt 10:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How many times must I say it (and I'm not the only one)? You were warned. You were warned by multiple earlier blocks. Honestly - how can you forget the warning of a block less than 24 hours after it expires!? --Evan C (Talk) 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't warned after being unblocked this morning. I should have been warned again. Pnatt 10:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be warned after being unblocked. The block is warning enough! --Evan C (Talk) 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you seriously expect newcomers to feel welcome and edit on wikipedia when new users can get blocked unjustly for lengthy periods? Pnatt 10:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Having been blocked multiple times already, you're hardly a new user. --Evan C (Talk) 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to be unblocked. I'll go psychotic if I'm not unblocked. Being blocked makes me severely depressed. I was alright before but after I was blocked my mood lowered dramatically. If any administrator has a heart they would unblock me and give me a warning instead. Pnatt 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says that you have to edit Wikipedia in the first place, I'm not normally this ummm... arrogant, but your talkpage shows quite a few reflections on your edits, mostly negative. All I'm saying is noone is forcing you to edit, if really want to edit on Wikipedia once unblocked (and not risk getting blocked again) then over the next month, maybe you should reflect what you've done wrong, and how to solve it, obviously, from the last block, 1 week was not enough. Also, do NOT ask for re-addition of your Paypal link, read my rationale about 3 sections above, I'm sure the majority of editors agree with me on that one... --NigelJ talk 11:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How can you say you weren't warned? You've been blocked multiple times now, did it now sink in that breaking the rules, vandalising etc. leads to being blocked? You aren't that new any more but regarding newcomers feeling welcome, new users who come here and add to the encyclopaedia constructively get along fine. --pgk(talk) 16:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
In all honesty I would like to see a permanent and user/talk page block. This user has consistently done nothing but waste our time and vandalise articles. Enough is enough. michael talk 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is MY talk page. Pnatt 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made NUMEROUS worthwhile edits on Wikipedia. Stop focusing on the negative stuff and start focusing on the positive stuff to form a neutral point of view. For this reason I SHOULD be unblocked. Hey Pnatt has made SOME sloppy edits so we'll block him even though MOST of his edits were decent. Pnatt 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I would like to be unblocked from editing wikipedia. Please unblock me. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 08:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)}}

As noted several times above, you have been more than adequately warned but continued to engage in disruptive behaviour. Making a few good edits doesn't excuse your behaviour, no more than being a good citizen in the real world enables you to go out and vandalise other people property and expect to not be dealt with for it. Grow up, and accept responsibility for your own actions. If you want to edit constructively when the block ends, don't continue with the disruption and there will be no need for any further blocks. --pgk(talk) 10:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've deprotected this page again, do not remove reviews of your unblock request, do not repeatedly readd the teamplte if the request gets turned down. I would suggest you email the blocking admin as the block template suggests and see if they are willing to remove/reduce the block now. --pgk(talk) 14:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme|Can someone please remove the spelling and grammar related userboxes on my user page? Thanks [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)}}

May I ask that you not remove people's replies to your {{helpme}}s, especially when you simply ask the same question again? Please, wait for your block to expire - consider doing something productive in life during this period, so that we can welcome you again as an important contributor again. Thank you. -- Tangotango 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed those user boxes. Pnatt, please STOP abusing the {{helpme}} and {{unblock}} tags and also STOP editing people's comments. I have been watching this page thinking that I might reduce the block. At this point, given your behaviour, I sincerly doubt that I will reduce the duration of your block. -- JamesTeterenko 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider reducing the length of my block as I wasn't aware that blocked users weren't allowed to use the {{helpme}} and {{unblock}} tags. Thank you. Pnatt 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users are allowed to use those tags. The issue is that you are abusing the tags. If someone answers you request for help, you shouldn't just delete the response and ask the question again. By doing so, you are just wasting the time of people that are truly trying to help new users. You have done this a number of times with both of those tags.
As for reducing the length for you block, I will not accept ignorance as justification. You have many warnings on this page. If you do not understand what is acceptable behaviour, you should spend some of your time away from editing to re-read these warnings. -- JamesTeterenko 05:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Okay, I'll go remove your userboxes. Sasquatch t|c 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

or someone already did, nevermind. Sasquatch t|c 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not edit the content of my comments on your talk page

Hello Pnatt. I was planning on staying out of the revert war on your talk page. However, you have modified my comment to you that explained my block. This is significantly worse than just deleting it, as it is intentionally misleading. I very intentionally included both of those links. They were both instances of unacceptable behaviour. -- JamesTeterenko 15:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How is the content in the removed link unacceptable? It's on my user page now?! I don't get it. Pnatt 20:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored my original comment again. Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Specifically, it states, "Please note that the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia... Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning." I meant to put both of those links in my comment, because it was those two specific edits that I used to make the decision to block you for a month. If you are wondering what specifically about this edit that I feel is unacceptable, it is the edit summary. -- JamesTeterenko 20:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock me now. Thank you. Pnatt 09:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Unprotection of a Page

{{helpme|Can someone please tell me how to request unprotection to a page. Thank you. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 16:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)}}

Hello, please use the {{unblock}} template. The {{helpme}} template is for newcomers to get general help. Thanks, Tangotango 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Pnatt, I misread your query. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request page unprotection. Cheers, Tangotango 17:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP ME

{{helpme|Can someone please help edit my user page? Thank you. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 09:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)}}

Considering that it is protected (aka Admin edit only), it's very doubtful an edit will be allowed, but feel free to list it *without* readding the helpme template, and depending on the request it may be possible. --NigelJ talk 09:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what steps to take to request unprotection of my user page? Thanks. Pnatt 09:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You have already been told, and you have already been told that if you use the helpme, and unblock templates for attention seeking, your talk page will also be blocked. --NigelJ talk 10:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I said I need help in editing my user page. No need for abuse. Pnatt 10:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked from editting. When blocked the only page you can edit is your user talk page, removing page protection from your user page would not enabled you to edit it, so this is a pointless discussion --pgk(talk) 10:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reduce Block

Please consider reducing the duration of my block. I'm not asking to be blocked right away I'm just asking for my block to expire sooner. Thank you. Pnatt 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reasons:

You have been persistently vandalising articles for a long time. You have received repeated warnings and final warnings. You have repeatedly been blocked. Even after a 1 week block you returned and began vandalising again. Given the number of warnings and number of blocks, escalating the block length to one month seems perfectly proportional. The scale of your vandalism is such that unless you change your ways you are likely in the future to face an indefinite block. The month block will give you a chance to think through your behaviour and realise that constant vandalism is not acceptable and not tolerated.

Do not remove this template from your page.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not spell verbs that end with -ize or -ise as -ise on my talk page. I prefer such words to be spelt with an -ize ending. Thank you. Pnatt 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikepedia accepts the use of both. Whether you do or not is immaterial. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Unblock|Please unblock me or at least consider reducing the length of my block. Thank you. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)}}

Please stop using this template. Your request has been denied many times. -- JamesTeterenko 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is now protected

10 hours after the last edit, despite numerous promises to stop posting abuse and posting {{help me}} and {{unblock}} templates despite appeals from everyone to stop, you started up again!!! It was that sort of contempt for everyone and WP rules that got you mutiple blocks and finally the month-long blocks. This page is now protected and will remain so until your month-long block expires. If when you come back you start vandalising articles or posting abuse a new month long ban will be imposed immediately. You can have your page back to play with when your block expires. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Number of blocks - information for Admins

Since they joined Wikipedia in April 2006 this user has received at least 5 final warnings and has been blocked at least 5 times (once for 1 week), on one occasion getting reblocked almost as soon as the last block expired. Their most recent block was for 1 month.

If setting a new block, when deciding on length please take into account the above statistics.

To the user: This template is for management of blocks. Do not remove it. Its removal may be seen as vandalism and lead to the imposition of a block.

[edit] Seven Network and Nine Network

Please stop changing spelling from an accepted form. You have been warned many times about this. Also stop calling my edits "vandalism" - it is disingenuous and creates a false edit summary. If you continue I will request that another long block be placed against you. Xtra 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Either spelling can be used (programme being more accurate and program becoming more common thanks to American influence). However, the original author's wording was programme and therefore it should remain so in line with wikipedia policy. michael talk 12:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Does not matter. Whatever spelling was used by the original author should continue to be used - this is policy (as well as common sense). michael talk 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"the original author's wording was programme and therefore it should remain so in line with wikipedia policy" michael talk 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made it consistent. michael talk 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, like the Cranbourne dispute, you are ignoring policy and editing as such. If you continue editing in this manner you'll simply get banned again. michael talk 13:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not your (relatively few comparatively) genuine edits to articles that concern me as much as your repetetive and aggressive conduct and you absurd edit summaries. Xtra 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, in case you have not noticed it, but "British English" as you put it is closer to Australian English than that bastardisation of English more commonly known as American English. Xtra 13:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtra, you must understand that Australian English isn't IDENTICAL to British English. Just because words are spelt in a certain way in British English doesn't mean that Australian English has to follow that trend, same can be said for American English. Pnatt 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 5 weeks for resuming edit warring the moment a one month block ends, after a history of blocks and warnings in the past. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. On your second edit after the expiry of a one month block, you start the exact same antics that has got you repeatedly blocked since you joined here. If when the 5 week block ends you start the same farce again you'll get a 6 month block, and then a year one, until you come to your senses. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Number of blocks - information for Admins

This user has received at least 5 final warnings and has been blocked at least 6 times (once for 1 month) since they joined Wikipedia in April 2006. Their most recent block is for 5 weeks, they having restarted edit warring on their second edit after the last block expired. Other information: This user in the past used their talk page while blocked to engage in distruptive antics (such as continuous posting of help me templates and attacks. For their last block it became necessary to lock the page to stop the disruption.

If setting a new block, when deciding on length please take into account the above statistics.

To the user: This template is for management of blocks. Do not remove it. Its removal may be seen as vandalism and lead to the imposition of a block.

{{unblock|I was unfairly blocked by [[User:Jtdirl|Jtdirl]] for changing the spelling of "programme" to "program" in Australian articles. "Program" is the preferable spelling of the word in Australian English and for Jtdirl to block me for this is clearly unfair, especially for edits that are factually accurate. He claimed that I was edit warring. However, it wasn't my intent to start any editing wars, I was merely fixing the spelling of the articles. To receive a 5-week block for this especially after I just came back from my 4-week block, is abosolutely unjust. I'd like a 3rd opinion and an administrator other than Jtdirl to unblock me. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)}}

I have removed the {{helpme}}. You know it's not for blocks. Your best chance is a friendly email to the blocking admin. Don't use {{helpme}} again (ever) - or I'll have to protect your talk page. Thanks --Commander Keane 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you agree that I was unfairly blocked? Pnatt 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

There's no excuse for this continuous edit warring and incivility.

Do not remove this template from your page.

--Sam Blanning(talk) 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I was unfairly blocked by [[User:Jtdirl|Jtdirl]] for changing the spelling of "programme" to "program" in Australian articles. "Program" is the preferable spelling of the word in Australian English and for Jtdirl to block me for this is clearly unfair, especially for edits that are factually accurate. He claimed that I was edit warring. However, it wasn't my intent to start any editing wars, I was merely fixing the spelling of the articles. To receive a 5-week block for this especially after I just came back from my 4-week block, is abosolutely unjust. I'd like a 3rd opinion and for an Australian administrator to unblock me as the spelling edits were to Australian articles. [[User:Pnatt|Pnatt]] 17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)}}

[edit] Jtdirl

Please unblock me. I have sufficient evidence to warrant an unblock... http://www2b.abc.net.au/mediawatch/forum/newposts/1/topic1349.shtm Pnatt 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The issue is that yet again you began edit warring over articles on spellings as soon as your last block expired, coupled with abusive of others and misleading edit summaries. Programme/Program is just the latest example. BTW both are used in Australian English and an article on Australian topics can use either, once there is consistency in the article. The block is not being lifted. You have been given ample warning from numerous Wikipedians that your conduct is unacceptable. Every time a block expires you come back and begin the exact same behaviour you were blocked the previous times for. You were warned in the past that if you started your old antics the previous block would be upped. It was, from three days, to a week, then to a month, now to five weeks. If you start any more clowning around here with {{help me}} templates this page will be locked and the block upped to two months. It will be upped as often as necessary until you finally get the message: stop the endless edit warring, dodgy edit summaries and abuse. You now have 5 weeks off Wikipedia to decide whether you want to continue your behaviour and get blocked again (and potentially blocked permanently) or stop the antics and work constructively here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a legitimate reason to block me at all. It is clear that you're doing what you can to get be banned! To accuse me of edit warring is extremely hypocritical seeing as you did the same to the Pro Choice article. I'm going to appeal against your decision to block me. There's no way that I'm going to accept your decision to block me, especially after I made factually correct spelling corrections. Pnatt 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. I understand why you are upset, but you will not help your case by calling admins names. Please remain civil, even if others aren't. I've asked for more eyes on this at WP:ANI. Program is the correct spelling in modern Australian English, and I will support you in this, but not on incivility and impoliteness. --22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to thank you very much SuperJumbo! Thank's for standing by me in this spelling issue. I'm well aware of what can warrant being blocked. After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Wikipedia, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits. And I did in this case. It may seem that I'm being abusive to your eyes, however this is bound to happen when other users, such as Xtra have been scrutinizing me during my time on Wikipedia. I did not intend for any editting wars on my return from my block. Again, thank you very much! Pnatt 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That attitude should get you a long way. On looking at your recent edits, I can't see anything abusive. It may have been unwise to refer to Xtra's edits as vandalism, but after looking at the word usage in Australia I am inclined to agree with you. Television networks and media outlets typically use "program" as their preferred spelling, and whether they are setting or following general usage is immaterial; that's the way it is in today's Australia. Program is in and programme is out. More here.
I think I've gone as far as I can reasonably go in defending you as regards unblocking. I'm not an admin. I've raised the issue on WP:ANI where those few who have expressed interest support the block. I think the blocking admin is setting a very poor example as regards incivility and edit-warring over things most people would regard as trivia.
You can wait out your five weeks or appeal to the WikiEN-l mailing list. There seems to be an ongoing discussion there about admin-editor relationships, going by the archives for the current month. Either way, I suggest that you have your ducks in a row, be aware of current policies, and respectful to those already on the list, which includes Jimmy Wales and several ArbCom members. Most long-time editors are supportive of new editors, but you seem to have already used up a lot of goodwill, and I advise you to be properly and honestly desirous of being a well-behaved and productive Wikipedian if you want to remain an editor. --Jumbo 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your e-mail requests

sorry, pnatt, but given the number of times you've been blocked, the discussion here in which the (general) concensus is that you should remain blocked, and etc, i can't unblock you. Due to the number of times you have spuriously put up the {{helpme}} template and disregarded admin's decisions on {{unblock}} requests, as well as your editing of other people's comments here and the removal of warnings, i can't unprotect this page either. Perhaps people are somewhat biased against you and jumped on something that normally wouldn't get someone blocked, but that's what happens when you are incivil, repeatedly engage in edit wars, and manage to get yourself blocked 5 times in a mere two months. Sorry. --heah 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected this page. Please use it carefully - this is a chance to prove that you will not return to your old ways. Specifically, do not use {{helpme}} or {{unblock}} as you have already been asked not to several times, and doing so again is likely to be taken to show you have not changed. --Scott Davis Talk 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't abuse this page

You were blocked in accordance with WP rules. Other admins have upheld that decision. Despite your past behaviour on this page when blocked, which required that it be locked, you were given the chance to contribute here once it was not abused. Posting claims about how you were unjustly blocked, when a succession of users have ruled that you weren't, and your request for an unblock was turned down, is abusing your position here. If you abuse your position here again the page will simply be locked again and left locked until your block expires. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Heavy. Pnatt 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll pretend I didn't see that abusive comment you added and removed. Now quit adding in dodgy headlines and show some evidence that some users' belief in you isn't misplaced. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that you two deserve each other. Pnatt, stop playing games. Go read up on Wikipedia policies until either your block expires or some brave admin sticks his head up and unblocks you. I understand how you feel, but you aren't going to win a pissing contest, even on your own talk page. Jtdirl, why the hell do you take everything so personal? This is so bloody lame. Don't either of you have anything better to do? --Jumbo 02:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of all this arguing, squabbling and time wasting. I mean come on, it's a freakin encyclopedia, not the UN! Pnatt 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stress Meters

Can someone please change my Real-life stress meter to 3 "Pretty stressed" and my Wikipedia stress meter to 4 "I quit/I need a vacation"? Thank you. Pnatt 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. CameoAppearance 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I see you're from Vancouver. We'll I thought I'd tell you that I'm a Vancouver Canucks fan! I see that you like astronomy, same here! Pnatt 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles

Can someone please remove the entire list of articles on my user page? Thank you. Pnatt 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please don't ask for them to be put back. --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JamesTeterenko

James, thank you for contributing to the discussion.

I agree to a certain extent with everyone. Yes, I do see improving behaviour. However, I believe that it is only marginal. It is the difference between a blatant vandal that is blocked on sight to a person that would end up being blocked through a WP:RFAr. Look at the examples of his very recent behaviour such as this personal attack on Jtdirl and this vulgar response to one of his only advocates. Please keep in mind that his most worthwhile edits are changing of spelling. I hope that his behaviour will continue to improve. But at this point, I am not counting on it. -- JamesTeterenko 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my response to Jtdirl was a personal attack. However, I was provoked by Jtdirl numerous times and showed immense restraint not to respond to him any earlier. However, the message of I'm sick of all this arguing, squabbling and time wasting. I mean come on, it's a freakin encyclopedia, not the UN! Pnatt 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) was not a direct response to SuperJumbo. I appreciate how SuperJumbo is helping me out and I thank him for it! I was merely stating how I feel about the discussion in general and how it's not getting us anywhere as to my block for making spelling corrections. Pnatt 04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken! This whole episode is something that should never have happened, and I can understand with and sympathise with your frustration. --Jumbo 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jumbo, appreciated. Pnatt 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. My issue with your response to SuperJumbo is your use of profanity, which you have excluded from your quote. It is good that you acknowledge that your response to Jtdirl is a personal attack. But I see that this has not prevented you from continuing to make personal attacks. If you do continue this behaviour once your block expires, you are likely to experience more long blocks. -- JamesTeterenko 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go Socceroos!

Go Socceroos!

[edit] User:Xtra

I can't understand why such a user that continues with his constant POV pushing, poor spelling and grammar and abuse towards fellow wikipedians is allowed to continue editing wikipedia without even being blocked for 1 second!?? Here's evidence for his most recent attacks towards other users...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingjeff&diff=prev&oldid=59109651 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingjeff&diff=prev&oldid=59194324
Pnatt 08:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And you wonder why you are continually blocked. If you want to contribute, wait till your block is over and contribute properly. Your continual attempts to sully my name are not going to help you at all. Xtra 08:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of other users who don't agree with your constant POV pushing and abusing people in a very sneaky way so that no administrator has the balls to block you even for 1 second! Pnatt 08:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtra, it would help if you didn't go around calling other editors names. And Pnatt, I've asked you once to stop playing games. Could you just put a sock in it, please? Bite your tongue and bide your time. It makes it difficult for me to say that you are being provoked if you turn around and do the same back. --Jumbo 08:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt, this is getting ridiculous. You have been allowed to edit this page, even though you have a history of abusing that right in the past, once you don't abuse it now. And here you are using it to attack another user. If you launch any more attacks on any users on this page it will be locked again and not unlocked until your block expires. It is hard for the likes of Jumbo to insist that you are a potentially credible contributor when every chance you get you try to pick a fight. You only have access to one of WP's one million pages (this one) and even with only one page to edit you still try to start slanging matches. Stop it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How bout blocking Xtra for calling people morons? Why should I get blocked for 5 weeks for making spelling corrections while Xtra doesn't even get blocked for 1 second for calling people morons? And what's worse is that you're threatening me with blocking my talk page! Pnatt 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt. I don't know the point of adding and removing things from your article lists all the time, but they're becoming tiresome to look at. Also, before you save anything about another user or their edits (including in an edit summary), press "Show preview" (alt-p) and take a walk round the block. Come back and read again what you typed, and if it's still something you're prepared to be judged on, only then click "save page". The same goes for all other edits once your block expires. Remember that due to history, a number of people are watching every edit closely, and they won't need much reason to block you again or to reprotect this page. Most users (including me!) find Xtra's edits to be at least as reasonable as yours, so stop picking on him. --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Scott's advice is good. If you have (as you suggest) OCD, then perhaps WP is not the place for you. I had a mate like this, a lovely person, but it got him in trouble time and time again, with people who either didn't understand, or worse, understood very well and teased him. I've got your talk page on my watchlist and it's getting very tiresome to be flicking back here every few minutes to see the latest development in a saga that is increasingly depressing in its triviosity. --Jumbo 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo, I'm starting to doubt that you really are an advocate. To say that Wikipedia is perhaps not the place for me is pretty harsh and upsetting. I thought you said that newcomers should feel welcome?! I feel sorry for your OCD friend. The fact that you judged him and stayed away from him because of his debilitating illness (which he can't help) is absolutely cruel. Pnatt 09:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't stay away from him. I enjoyed his company immensely. As I say he was (and presumably still is) a lovely man. Last I heard he was living in a monastery in Victoria, where I imagine that the regimen of prayer and contemplation in a structured environment would suit him very well. I can't follow him there, but I trust that he is happy. I mention him because I could understand and sympathise with his attitude.
If you cannot get on with your fellow Wikipedians, then you are going to have a brief and unhappy time here. But I hope and pray that you will be able to become a valuable contributor to the project. If there is any way that I can help you achieve this, I will do so. But rest assured that I am not going to stand up and defend you if you go around provoking other editors. There is only so far I can go and if you will not listen to good advice, of which you have had a great deal from more experienced editors, then I cannot do much.
The way I see it, no admin is likely to unblock you, and you will have to ride out your block. You should really sit back, keep your fingers off the edit link, study up on wikipolicy, and think very carefully about how you intend to proceed. I can see that you have a lot of energy and enthusiasm. We can definitely use this, and I look forward to seeing you overcome a rocky start. --Jumbo 10:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt, please stop going on and on over Xtra. If there are issues with Xtra's behaviour, that will be dealt with elsewhere. The only issue here on this page is you. Forget Xtra and concentrate on your own behaviour. If that is changed then you may be able to become an effective member of the WP community. But if it doesn't change you are just going to get yourself blocked over and over again by admins. And take Scott's advice about delaying posting things. I've already decided to look the other way about one attack you launched which if seen by other admins would have had this page locked instantly. Just calm down and relax, learn what you have been doing wrong up to now and you can avoid further blocks by admins. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My misery

I admit that I've had shakey time on Wikipedia. From now on I don't want people to be breathing down my throat in everything I do and being constantly pushed to the wall. I deserve some respect. Please don't bother me like this. I will avoid naming editors in future. Please follow by example. And please show sympathy with my Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Please encourage me to make good contributions to Wikipedia rather than blocking me for making spelling corrections. Under Jtdirl's logic any edit made that not everyone agrees with, is edit warring, regardless of accuracy. The fact that my block stands to this day, is absurd. Pnatt 12:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your email

No Pnatt, I will not unprotect your talk page. I think you will have to ride out the rest of your block without having access to your talk page. I know that you didn't use the templates this time, but you proceeded to attack a group of people and wiped out the comments that asked you to stop. If this is what you feel like acting, maybe Wikipedia is not for you. -- JamesTeterenko 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop emailing me, I will not respond to any more of them. I will not unprotect your talk page before your block expires, nor will I copy and paste your edits for you. -- JamesTeterenko 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your edits to Australia national football (soccer) team and 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies and Homework

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ytny 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Australia national football (soccer) team, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. Ytny 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.Ytny 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your edit to Australian Football League

Advice: English dialects on Wikipedia: Wikipedia has millions of readers; some use American English, or British English, or International English, or any of numerous other local forms from Australia, Canada, Ireland etc. Because of this, Wikipedia has a policy of respecting articles written in whatever form of English the original author of the article used.

The guidelines are simple. For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Enjoy your time on the internet's fastest growing encyclopædia/encyclopedia . Thank you. Ytny 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block expiry

Hi, Peter! Glad that you are able to edit again. I've promised to help you out here, but I'm going to need a bit of restraint from you. Otherwise you will get people upset over trivia and that's no good for you, them or the project.

Changing words like "organisation" to "organization" and then getting involved in edit wars over it is a waste of your talents. I haven't done any real research on this, but my feeling is that "organisation" is the preferred spelling in Australia. If you were talking baseball, then maybe you could get away with the "z".

May I ask that instead of making the edit to the article, you instead raise the point on the article's talk page in order to test the consensus. Dig up sources for your proposed changes, if you can. Likewise for any other change that might arouse controversy.

If you make a small change and find it reverted, then please don't indulge in an edit war. Raise the point on the article's talk page.

If I'm to help you survive in Wikipedia, then I need to see what you are doing. I'm not here 24/7 and slowing things down to give me the chance to intervene in disputes will work out the best for all. --Jumbo 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SuperJumbo for your support in this. I have not regretted any of the edits I made since my recent block expired with the exception of "organisation". I'm not really sure if I want to edit on Wikipedia, yet alone use it as a reference for much longer. I think it's becoming time consuming and miserable on my behalf. I've decided that I gradually want to reduce the time I spend on Wikipedia until I'm ready to leave Wikipedia. I probably would have decided to stay longer if I wasn't so arbitrarily pushed to the wall by other Wikipedians. Pnatt 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm disgusted with what I see as hasty and thoughtless action in blocking you indefinitely, but I'm also extremely disappointed in you for giving them the excuse. You've had several weeks to work out the system, any number of warnings, and yet as soon as your block expires, you go straight back into riling up other editors. You're not stupid or malicious or ill-informed, like the typical vandal or POV-pusher we see here. I had really hoped that you'd be able to see how the system works and be able to find your own way within it to the mutual advantage of us all. --Jumbo 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't try to blame anyone else, Pnatt, for your blocking. Yet again you are the author of it yourself. Jumbo has gone out on a limb to try to help you. In edit warring as soon as you came back you betrayed all his trust. I warned you before that you were heading for a permanent block if you didn't stop your behaviour. You have brought that about and have nobody else but yourself to blame for it. All that remains is to put the closing template on the page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Peter - I'm stunned that you came back and got blocked again so quickly! Unfortunately, you didn't take the advice you had been given. The speed of your edits show you were acting in haste, not considering that if someone reverted you, you MUST withdraw to the talk page, not carry on an argument in edit summaries. I really believed that you would have learned during your five week block, and demonstrated that you could contribute the knowledge you have. Unfortunately, this seems not to have been the case. Thankyou for the good edits you have given, but unfortunately we will not see you here any more due to the difficulty you have with self-control. Best wishes with whatever you choose to do in life. --Scott Davis Talk 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log.


This user is community banned, per discussion on WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm surprised. I did you warn you many times, but you didn't listen. This is not the place for you. Find another hoby. Xtra 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete my account

As I've been indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia AND do not wish to edit anymore, can an administrator please just delete my account. Thank you. Pnatt 03:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(response to helpme tag) Sorry, deletion of accounts is not currently feasible technically. No level of user, admin or otherwise, can perform this for you. Thank you for understanding and not requesting this again in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/n/a/User_talk%7EPnatt_2961.html"