User talk:Buttonbanger

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Buttonbanger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing trawler[edit]

Okay, I have changed the caption to reflect that. I didn't pay much attention to your initial claim, because you didn't back it with anything. More seriously, you deleted the lead image, twice, which is bordering on vandalism. If you have an argument with the caption of an image, then change the caption, don't delete the image unless it is clear that it doesn't belong in the article. But why do you say she is not a freezing trawler? Most modern trawlers of that size are. And how do you know she is Irish? That's a long way north for an Irish boat. It would be good if you know her name, and that could go in the caption. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know she is Irish? because I know the vessel, No this vessel is not a freezing vessel, and no its not much further north than her homeport in Ireland

So what is her name? (Please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~) --Epipelagic (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is in the caption

Excellent :). See here Would you like to write a short article with me about her? (Please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~) --Epipelagic (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would the article be for? she is pretty much a generic tankboat found in the Irish and Scottish pelagic fleets Buttonbanger (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia looks at specific classes of modern fishing boats, so it might be useful to have an article on those tankboats. How much do you know about them? Like how many have been built, their building and fishing histories, their specifications and the electronics they use, their design successes and faults. There doesn't seem to be a lot about them on the web. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on them for many years, eventually as skipper. yeah i can help out if you need . Buttonbanger (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great. I'm tied up with other stuff for a few days. But after that, if it's okay with you, I will collect together what I can find on the web and put something together in a sandbox for you to look at. Then we can take it from there. Is that a deal? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no problem Buttonbanger (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disappointing edit[edit]

This is a disappointing edit, and suggests you have little idea of where it's at. Consequently, I've withdrawn my offer to collaborate with you. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Factory ship, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Epipelagic (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fishing trawler, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Epipelagic (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Grimsby. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr Greg talk 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grimsby. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Keith D (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Grimsby[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Keith D (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

What a load of shite! Buttonbanger (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The block is OTT, as my edits were done in good faith

Decline reason:

Good faith has nothing to do with it. The block was not made over your faith, it was made over your actions. You were warned at 01:15 to stop repeatedly edit warring at the article Grimsby, you returned to edit war again at 01:45. If telling you to stop was not enough, then a block appears necessary. Since you have made no statement that you intend to stop edit warring if you were unblocked, I see no reason to unblock you at this point. If you wish to be unblocked before the block expires at the end of the 24 hour period, you need to convince us that you intend to change your actions. Even if you are not unblocked, I advise you to change your behavior, and instead of edit warring, use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes with others in a calm, rationale manner and arrive at a way to do it without doing battle. --Jayron32 05:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Okay thats fair enough, but why has no action been taken about Keith D for edit waring and his continued use of sockpuppets?

Decline reason:

You have made no steps to address the issues raised by User:Jayron32. An unblock template is not something you can use to get into a debate with the blocking admin or launch your own critique of other users. SGGH ^ping! 09:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vibroplex[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Vibroplex. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abena[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abena, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/abena.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abena[edit]

A tag has been placed on Abena requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bots template is not there for you to attempt to avoid article deletion, not that it will prevent a human user from actually reviewing the article and deleting it themselves. If you continue to attempt to avoid article deletion by "hiding" your article, you may be blocked once more from editing Wikipedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Killiondude (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]