User talk:TreasuryTag/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

France a

Majorly said the block on France was fair, and suggested that I protect his talk page. You can remove his page from your watchlist now if you'd prefer. :) Thanks for helping. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I protected his sock/brother's talk page already. Next time though, try not to feed the trolls. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll be home then, so if you have a problem leave me a message and I'll probably see it quickly. · AndonicO ^Talk 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

now my brother and i have set up a joint account to use our joint knowledge to improve wikipedia! --Secfrance 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you (Secfrance) for sockpuppetry. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You too. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 08:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected his talk page. · AndonicO ^Talk 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Fixed. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's a sock, but maybe not. Some of his contributions seem strange though, such as the note on my talk page. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaving in Judaism

I couldn't help myself. :) --DLand^TALK 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits that don't have a proper summary

Hi, I noticed that you reverted an edit to The Family of Blood using popups, and this didn't leave an informative comment [1]. Could you please avoid doing this except in cases of vandalism? Please see Help:Reverting#Explain_reverts for a rationale for avoiding unexplained reverts. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

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 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

delighted and honored (respectively)

"Pointless word"... LOL! Look at the history, Mavarin made me do it. AvatarMN 07:36, 20 May 2007

holiday

lucky you!!!!--Dwrules 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

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 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alter Ego" video podcast

Actually, this is true. The BBC did accidentally have the short online version of the Confidential segment "Alter Ego" online, briefly. I have a copy at home, and whoever added that unsourced info about it is correct about the Family of Blood. However, I have yet to see an online source about the mistake. Basically the clip says that the Doctor hides from the Family of Blood (who want to take his longevity) by using the something-or-other Arch (that thing on his head in the previews) to become fully human, losing his real memories in the process. The new person, John Smith, is said to be "a creation of the TARDIS". Then the clip veers into stuff about learning to waltz, and talks about the scarecrows (no use of the term Jack Straws). There's certainly lots of material to work with for the article, but no source to show that the clip exists. And I suppose it doesn't matter much whether we glean info that will be out in the open on Saturday anyway. Regards.... -- Karen | Talk | contribs 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I didn't add it myself!-- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I,Dwrules award you this random acts of kindness barnstar for .... well.... random acts of kindness! Dwrules 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much... though I hardly did anything!--Rambutan (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

just one thing in return at the bottom of my userpage! --click here 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who captions

You say to stop changing the captions to quotes because 'It was decided they should be informative'. By who? You? If so, that's a little harsh. I thought people were allowed to edit this site as they wish, as long as its not rude or offensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shokuwarrior (talk • contribs)

Anyone can edit, yes. But that anyone needs to be able to back up that edit should someone else contest it. And if we're going for a consensus, then I'm backing 'informative'. Mark H Wilkinson 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes vs italics

These guys. I don't know what I think of it either.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gallifrey, Ireland

The edit summary was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I removed it because I tend to remove than rewrite poorly written trivia, not because it's irrelevant. Have a nice day! Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I do wish WP:TRIVIA was policy, you know. I'm getting close to 3RR for removing OR on Through the Looking Glass Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

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 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

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 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Two year rule

I think the "two-year" thing was something I applied to my own edits, and it shouldn't be taken as gospel. Please don't edit war over this as you have done over 42, but instead discuss it politely on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oh God, no!"

I just want to say that this edit summary made me laugh - especially since the theory being reverted was wildly unlikely, and misplaced as well. --Karen | Talk | contribs 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

At least you can source a synopsis. Will ^(talk) 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Looks brilliant - although I changed a few words in it myself. How does my caption on "Blink (Doctor Who)" look? (and btw, on the subject of captions, the picture content on Utopia (Doctor Who) makes a quote caption exactly as informative as a non-quote caption, assuming that the user knows of (and probably will) toasting to something.) Will ^(talk) 13:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary is a load of bollocks - logic overrides NOR. It's also weird that he should link to a policy that forbids his actions on LOEs, but... IMO, the image passes all ten, especially the significance one - putting in the toast in the plot is against WP:WAF Will ^(talk) 13:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

LOE = list of episodes. Will ^(talk) 13:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested full protection on the Utopia article, btw. Will ^(talk) 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only active WPDW sysops I've seen around are UtherSRG and Khaosworks. Matthew isn't, and unfortunately, neither am I. Will ^(talk) 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I've edit conflicted as much today as I have done in a few months. Damn NFCC, damn it to hell! :P Will ^(talk) 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

Please keep your edit summaries civil. This kind of summary is inappropriate. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Face of Boe/Cybermen

I've reinserted the three "seemingly random episodes", as I'm sure that it's in those respective episodes - I can spot the Face of Boe's theme at thirty paces. I also reinserted Human Nature under "The Cybermen" as the note is used, and I'm sure at least once (like "Daleks in Manhattan" had that same note from "The Daleks"). Thanks, Will ^(talk) 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

False warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 81.104.175.145 11:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. 81.104.175.145 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NB: the drivel here is because I replaced a warning on this user's talkpage, which they removed for an invalid reason.

The guy has a point. Both of you need to calm down with the boilerplate warnings and get back to article editing. It's my opinion that your ANI report just now was unwarranted. You both obviously have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart so try to assume some good faith on each other's behalf here - Alison ☺ 11:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - leave this section and move on. I've done exactly the same on the other guy's page. If you both keep up with this, you'll both end up blocked, ok? - Alison ☺ 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm sorry it's come to this. You have been blocked for a number of reasons, primarily to allow you to cool down and reflect on what you're doing and where you're going with this. Per the discussion on ANI and on Talk:Utopia (Doctor Who), you have been disrupting WP to make a point, been assuming bad faith on the part of a number of editors, been revert-warring over a non-fair-use image and been reporting editors to AIV in bad faith. You do have a right to review of this block and possibly be unblocked. Instructions are below - Alison ☺ 13:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 13:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

NB: email also sent to Alison, saying "Alison, I'm not going "on and on" about it. Others keep commenting, and I keep responding. Are you now saying that everyone's got an open forum to criticise me, and I'm not allowed to have a say?"--Rambutan (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Public forum only, please. I'm not responding to my email when just here will do fine. Another admin will review your block and decide accordingly. Note you were blocked for disruption amongst other things and has nothing to do with your right of reply - Alison ☺ 13:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my block-page said that I could email you, so I assumed that meant that I could email you. Silly of me!--Rambutan (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec)You also said on the ANI that you'd received "emails" from me: I emailed you once, that's all, because I read the block page. And I've apologised for following official instructions, too.--Rambutan (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I said I've started to receive emails. As I have. Done yet? - Alison ☺ 13:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That implies that they're gradually pouring in. Anyway, when did cool-off blocks become allowed?--Rambutan (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Try emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? - Alison ☺ 13:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what was wrong with the AIV request - he was adding loads of boilerplate messages to my talkpage, because I warned him for vandalism. Plus, cool-off blocks are not allowed - so why've I been given one?--Rambutan (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks only for cool-down are not allowed. You, however, have been blocked for a number of reasons, stated above.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked for being disruptive. The fact that you also need to chill out is incidental. -- Merope 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what was wrong with the AIV request - he was adding loads of boilerplate messages to my talkpage, because I warned him for vandalism.--Rambutan (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that it wasn't simple vandalism - it was two WP:MASTODONS fighting. While I wouldn't have blocked you, I would remind you that no good faith edit is vandalism - his removal of non free content with the summary "remove invalid fair-use image" was certainly in good faith. While edit waring (all three of you) over it was stupid, it's still not vandalism. I suspect if you write that you've cooled down and are prepared to discuss without reverting or warning good faith contributors for vandalism, you will be swiftly unblocked. PouponOnToast 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'm perfectly cool and have been from the start. I have no desire ever to enter dialogue with another anon again, and the image in question got mysteriously deleted for "being non-free". I await a call from above.--Rambutan (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can probably guess, I got here from recent changes. My impression is that you were fleeing from angry mastadons, and I suspect everyone else involved was doing the same. Why not take a 1 hr break, grab a bite to eat, come back and file a new unblock request with whatever your thoughts are on the matter in an hour? PouponOnToast 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What do I do about the {{unblock}}, which says not to file another request?--Rambutan (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have the next twelve hours to figure it out. The ANI report has been marked as closed, so no one is criticizing you without your being able to defend yourself. Let's move on to more constructive things, shall we? -- Merope 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, I've been asked to take a look at this and I've had a quick browse of the various discussions. It looks like there was a bit of heat which went away once the image was deleted, but it seems that you kept the discussion going. Even if you didn't necessarily intend your prolonging of the dispute to be disruptive, it seems that it came across that way to the other users involved, and we all need to be sensitive to the consequences of our actions. I discussed this with Alison and I'm prepared to unblock you if you'll agree to move on; I'll even archive the ANI discussion if that's what's causing the bother. --bainer (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to move on. Thanks, sorry for not replying sooner.--Rambutan (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you then, given that you've agreed to move on. --bainer (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm still autoblocked, though! Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just lifted your autoblock. Give it a minute or two and it should clear - Alison ☺ 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, everyone!--Rambutan (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole episode was refreshingly free of lameness. Compliments to all (especially the Rambutan) for not flying off the handle in the midst of stress. PouponOnToast 15:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Blink (Doctor Who)

Hey there... just FYI, this was simply a mistaken good faith edit... it was sourced as well as anything else in the article and the scene in question was described accuratly. Clearly the events of the scene are subject to interpretation. The article seems fine the way it is now.--67.62.103.180 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to clear up these Doctor Who pages that seem to be cluttered with irrelevant points made by fans of the series. Do not threaten me, I am not a vandal.--MrClaxson 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving

Oh, I'm not going to unless this gets dragged on above and past the episode time wise and space wise. Which in one respect, it already has done - do you think the Professor image is valid on Derek Jacobi? It's a last resort, though: I'm just a little bit stressed. Will ^(talk) 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Do you agree he was at least a little bit rude by not informing me? I do have exams, you know. Will ^(talk) 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. Only a few to go - I really should be revising. Will ^(talk) 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)