User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Sep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Both of you (TreasuryTag, KnowIG) stop leaving messages on each other's talk pages. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall regard the above as an instruction not to notify KnowIG (talk · contribs) of the RfC against him when I file it tomorrow. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 23:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone else can inform him. I will do it if necessary. You know that it's a bad idea that you do it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As you wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

KnowIG

Look. You have also been harassing him as well. That is not to deny. I can find many cases. You were also banned for being in an edit war and you have been harassing him. I ask you to stop communication between the two of you and calm down. I am not blaming it all on him. I am looking at the reasoning given to me and analyzing it from there. It seems that many edits were provoked and he has not violated stalking at all. Please stop and do not talk to him on this matter. Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll take the above drivel piece by piece.
  1. You have also been harassing him as well. That is not to deny. I can find many cases. – I suggest that you provide evidence of this, since you claim that you can, and since unfouned accusations of harassment are considered serious personal attacks.
  2. You were also banned for being in an edit war... – I was not, and have never been, banned for anything. I shall expect you to retract this comment.
  3. ...and you have been harassing him. – See point (1).
  4. ...he has not violated stalking at all. – I never suggested that he was engaged in stalking. I said that when he accused me of stalking, that was untrue and thus a serious personal attack.
  5. Please stop and do not talk to him on this matter. – I am sorry, but if you are not going to rebuke him for his personal attack in accusing me of stalking, and I guess that you will not as you made a similar attack just above, then I do not consider myself bound by your 'instructions'. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 07:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, please could you explain how your proposal to ban me from interacting with KnowIG (thanks for notifying me of that, by the way) would in any way prevent edits such as these, in which I was not remotely involved: [1] [2] [3] [4] – I look forward to reading your explanation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am only going to react the the last one, if a user feels that they are uncomfortable or threatened by a user when talking to them, they can request at ANI to have no contact with that user. Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Or, they can just do what I'm about to do in relation to your badgering me. Which is to say, piss off and do not edit my talkpage again. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeatedly adding image to infobox against developing consensus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|1=OK, have it your own way. Put the image in whatever position you want it. I won't move it. And I will file RfC on the talkpage per the below. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)}}

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

unblocked per agreement to cease edit warring and take it to RFC

Request handled by: SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

This is the text of the RfC which I will post on the talkpage when I am unblocked, rather than reverting further.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

==RfC: non-screenshot images in infobox== {{rfctag|media|soc|policy|proj}} Is it appropriate for articles about television episodes to contain, in their infobox, relevant images which are not actually screenshots from the work in question? *'''Note''' – please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection ''Further discussion''. ===Comments from involved editors=== ====Comments from involved [[User:TreasuryTag]]==== It seems to be the position of Edokter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who&diff=386742774&oldid=386742558] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who&diff=386755476&oldid=386742774] that the inclusion of an image in the infobox of a TV-episode-article, where the image is not [[WP:NFCC|actually a screenshot from that actual episode]], is "misleading," even where there is clear relevance (as in this case, where it is a convenient [[WP:NFCC|free image]] of the episode's primary antagonists, whereas a screenshot of them would clearly fail [[WP:NFCC#1|NFCC 1]] since there is a free image available).<br>Interestingly, Edokter appears to have no problem with the image being included within the body of the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who&diff=386741359&oldid=386740366] – though I fail to see how their presence is any less "misleading" there. This seems like pretty much a [[WP:IAR|no-brainer]] to me, and I would welcome outside views. Preferably outside views which rely on reasoning a little more concrete than, [[WP:CCC|"That's what the consensus has been for a long time so get stuffed,"]] which seemed to be a significant part of Edokter's arguments over at [[WT:WHO]]. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">without portfolio</span>]]─╢</font> 14:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) ===Comments from uninvolved editors=== ===Further discussion===

  • Regarding your (twice) reverting of modifying the section header change: it was not a six-minute block. It was a 24-hour block that was commuted within six minutes. So the section header is misleading. Would it be a good time to point out the irony of initiating a thread disputing a block for edit-warring and then edit-warring with an uninvolved admin enforcing talk page guidelines on the same section? –xenotalk 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    I did not revert the header twice. I reverted it once and produced an entirely original header the second time, using more elements from your preferred version than from mine. Irony noted and I am giggling away like a jackal, though :) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    Ok, so amended. Nevertheless, it was still not a "six minute" block. –xenotalk 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    I should probably let you know in advance that I am massively disinterested in a long semantic quibble about the terminology of blocks, but it is my position that since I was blocked for a period of six minutes, it was a six-minute block. You are, of course, welcome to place any alternative interpretation on the situation that you wish, but attempting to impose it on everyone via editing someone else's section-header seems somewhat inappropriate to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    We'll agree to disagree on the semantics. But as far as ownership of section headers, see WP:TPG#Section headings. –xenotalk 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    I know what that says. I linked to that page just a couple of minutes ago, in fact! However, my point was not that you had no right to be modifying the section-heading at all; it was that you had no business to be modifying it to satisfy your semantic interpretation of things above mine: who's to say that yours is any better? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    The heading I chose was the least ambiguous and most neutral. And as a neutral party, of course I had the right to change it... When I modified the section heading, I used the {{formerly}} template to ensure that no meaning was lost (as your section header formed part of your message). Anyhow, I've left your compromise version and registered my (admittedly pedantic) objection to the current title. –xenotalk 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    And as a neutral party, of course I had the right to change it... – er, no, but I can't really be bothered to argue about it any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    Unfortunate, because I'd be interested to to hear why you feel that an involved party (who was probably somewhat heated coming off a block they felt was 'taking the piss') is better suited to prepare a neutral section heading as opposed to a neutral party with no dog in the hunt. –xenotalk 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeatedly restoring comment that another editor was capable of imitating a rational human being. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock mark II

{{unblock|1=If anybody (even Edokter!) had politely asked me to remove the offending passage, I would most likely have done so. However, the repeated attempts by numerous editors to do this as a matter of course, without discussing it with me at all – and especially given that "merely incivil" material such as that is not subject to deletion by other editors – unsurprisingly did not dispose me will towards the idea. If I, now, receive a polite request to redact that sentence, I will do so, and having done so, the block will no longer be serving any preventative purpose. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Well I redacted it with a polite request in edit summaries that we leave it off (it remains redacted) but unfortunately this was coincident with the block being placed... So are you ok with it staying redacted?
From a more general standpoint, I know how frustrating it can be when you know (balls to bone) that your position is the most sensible, but no one else seems to agree. You even seem to be getting irritated with me... Am I not being "pacific, level-headed and sensible" today? ...or is it perhaps that you would benefit from a break? –xenotalk 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you have politely asked that it stays redacted, I now confirm that I am fine with that. The block therefore has no preventative basis any longer, and WP:BLOCK would appear to mandate its being lifted. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 15:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
TT, I think you seem to be getting the idea that you can do what you like, get blocked, promise not to do it again, and then get unblocked. Comments such as the one above, as well as your comment in the RfC (calling another editor pigheaded) are clearly unacceptable. Your response seems to essentially be "well until someone tells me to be civil I can be uncivil". Which is not the case. Besides which, Sarek did tell you not to make those comments, and you simply removed his warning and restored the remark which you had just been warned to not make - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Sarek did tell you not to make those comments, and you simply removed his warning and restored the remark – I'm afraid that is simply not true, check the page history again. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There is you, replacing the comment Sarek warned you about, and removing Sarek's warning... - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, shit! I genuinely did not mean to do that. I just saw Sarek's message and clicked 'undo' intending to delete it. Didn't notice that they also removed the passage at the same time! ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess that was caused by an edit conflict with Sarek (he removed the comment in a separate edit from the warning). Well... I've gotta go now, but I guess I'd be slightly more open to an unblock considering that. However, I do think you need to take a break from this whole Flesh and Stone debate, as your comments are getting to be uncivil. Maybe you would be willing to also strike your "pigheaded" comment as a personal attack/uncivil? And then wait until you've "calmed down a bit", before moving back into this debate, and of course make sure you cease your personal remarks, and focus instead on the arguments presented, rather than the users presenting them? I still do not think your attitude of "nobody told me it's wrong, so I can carry on doing it" is unacceptable and think you need to be more willing to accept that what you did was wrong, regardless of if you were warned or not. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment from earlier [side-discussion]

I will unblock you myself, if you agree to restore my other comment as well, and let any comments by other editors stand. Remember that this is not "your" talkpage; it is subject to the same rules as all other talkpages (see WP:TALK). Any discussion must remain integral for other people to understand the discussion. Removing other comments is equally 'bad' as editing other people's comment (for which I admit I was too quick on my part). — Edokter • Talk • 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would be opposed to an unblock under those conditions. The block wasn't about TT removing others' comments, it's about his incivility. Besides, while it may not be "his talkpage", in that he doesn't own it, and can't do whatever he wants to. He is permitted to remove other user's comments in general. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm afraid I will not be restoring your other comment. I am familiar with WP:TALK of course – as I'm sure you are familiar with WP:BLANKING. Before you made that comment, I specifically asked you not to leave further messages on my talkpage unless you were willing to adopt a more collegiate attitude. Your subsequent comment betrayed no change in stance. So I removed it, and I stand by that removal, per policy and per my own sense of right and wrong.
I appreciate your offer to unblock me, and hope that you will consider doing so in recognition of the fact that the offending passage is now removed and that I would have done so on request at any time. However, I am resolute that the deleted comment is going to remain deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
In that case, I will not be unblocking you. While blanking is, strictly speaking, allowed, doing so in order to shield other readers from the complete discussion is, in my opinion, a bad way of communicating, and against the spirit of collaboration. Another admin will review you request. — Edokter • Talk • 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK. Then don't :)
Although I resent your suggestion that I removed your comment to "shield [...] the complete discussion," especially since I just explained why I deleted it and the reason was completely different. I also agree with Kingpin, and think it somewhat inappropriate that you would be prepared to unblock an editor in exchange for concessions over a completely different issue to the one for which they were blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(←) My comment was in direct response to the insult you posted, so it bore relevance to the discussion as a whole. You remove comments you don't agree with, which is not in the spirit of either WP:TALK or WP:BLANKING (perhaps I will address that there). Since you already agreed to leave the insult out, I was willing to concede so that we can continue discussion. But your unwillingness to concede in a similair manner only shows your difficulty to compromise. This has landed you into trouble in the past, and unfortunately, it does not indicate an improvement on your part. The major problem remains that you demand we play by your rules, ask you everything 'nicely', otherwise ignoring editors who don't and use that as an excuse not to play by the rules. So while I may not be as 'colligial' as you would like me to be, at least I do not revert to incivility. — Edokter • Talk • 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your interpretation of events, but you are entitled to your views, just as I am sure you will recognise that I am entitled to mine. Also, I agree with Kingpin, and think it somewhat inappropriate that you would be prepared to unblock an editor in exchange for concessions over a completely different issue to the one for which they were blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

After discussion with the blocking admin, I've reduced the block to "time served". You should really consider taking a bit of a break, and definitely be more circumspect in your talk page comments. As always, comment on content, not contributors. –xenotalk 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 18:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Going against consensus

Apparently, you still have a hard time abiding by consensus. Please do not try to force the issue in this way. I suggest you revert yourself before anyone else does. Keeping up this edit war will end up in a 3RR report. — Edokter • Talk • 13:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because one revert [of one of the dumbest edits I have ever seen in my life, and I've seen this for instance] is really a violation of the 3RR. [redacted] please do not edit my talkpage again. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Sep&oldid=1147950707"