User talk:Porchcorpter

Main

Talk

Sandbox

Awards

Guestbook

Contributions

Email

Edit count

NOTICE: Please sign my guestbook.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Porchcorpter.

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar Barnstar Barnstar
		Awarded for the creation of the Recent Changes Barnstar Achowat (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Dear Porchcorpter. Thanks for the good works you've done for us, and best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Feyd. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 03:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Restore it again and you'll be blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not G4 -- 1) That content was NOT a G4 violation, 2) The MFD got closed as "delete per user request", and 3) It is now linked to the archive, exactly what has been said in the MFD. Open up an RFC here please. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not further waste the community's time with your nonsense by opening up an RfC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you prefer to be considered mature yet fallible, or correct but childish? It's your call, but this behaviour makes you look a fool. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images

Hello Porchcorpter. Quite the tempest for you on the back pages. Maybe you need a bit of a break from that area. Might I suggest the peaceful and rewarding world of encyclopedia building? I hear the mainspace is lovely this time of year. Hope to see you over there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

About the userpage

Regarding the contents of the deleted page, it might not be the best idea to post it onwiki. I know you felt you were dealt with harshly by others, but I think it might be best to just let it go and move on... It's just making it tougher on yourself and stirring up controversy by posting a DRV about it. I know there's been some complaints about CSD tagging and stuff, but take it slowly and always remember to ask for advice or to reread policy if you misunderstand. —Dark 11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems excellent advice Porchcorpter. I hope you'll be act on it as otherwise there will be much wasted time, and probably an RfC or worse. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasted time? Did you see the DRV he started? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice and information here, DarkFalls. I can go now and withdraw my DRV nomination. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 18:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Guestbook

For Zeus's sake, delete the "Would you mind signing my guestbook?" plea from your signature. It positively screams the message "I'm only here for the social networking aspects of the site." Do it now, for your own good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you want me to make the link smaller? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've still removed it, as you asked. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a very wise move, and I congratulate you on your flexibility. Please also reflect on the larger issue that the link exemplified. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING?

HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. The greatest joke ever. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Beeblebrox wasn't a great idea, Porch. Quite honestly, you really should just disengage from anything involving Beeble. —Dark 01:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or talking about the ban proposal and such matters entirely. It is long gone. HurricaneFan25 — 01:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. But I was only asking for third-party views about Beeblebrox's civility. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You should at least understand the definition of "civility". HurricaneFan25 — 01:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just drop this whole thing, and work in the mainspace. Then, this whole problem will just melt away. What do you think Prochcorpter? Do you intend on working in the mainspace? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I do believe the best option for you right now is to just simply drop it. Walk away from the controversy, and do some content work/reverting vandalism etc. Just take the ANI stuff off your watchlist, and focus on ways to improve the encyclopedia. If you're uncomfortable with article building right now, just work on finding sources to replace the annoying "citation needed" tags. I know you probably feel angry over the way that certain people treated you in the past, but simply just start with a clean slate and forgive/forget. It's not the easiest thing to do, but it's probably the most effective. If you don't like talking to someone, then don't. Pissing them off is just making it harder on yourself. —Dark 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Anti-Vandalism is something I do on WP, I've been doing anti-vandalism many times in the past, but there appears to be the usual same story in appreciating the anti-vandalism. And for content creation, I am looking for different topics, or more information about a particular topic, and I create an article or add content to an article. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

STOP

You have been asked several time to stop posting on Beeblebrox's Talk page, and continuing to do so is just being disruptive - you are very likely to be blocked if you do it again. I strongly recommend you listen to what I suggested at AN/I, and switch off your computer and walk away for the night - and I suggest that purely to help stop you digging yourself in even deeper -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, Wikipedia talk pages are an essential way of communicating with another editor. He DOES NOT own his talk page. He may only remove it per WP:BLANKING. You may not remove it per WP:TPO. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Porchcorpter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

How have I been disruptive? Misuse of blocks per WP:BLOCK, and no notification has been sent to me.

Decline reason:

I am declining this for two reasons. The first is outlined in the discussion below; while I'm not sure I would have blocked you myself, I certainly see why Boing! said Zebedee did, and his rationale stands up under scrutiny. Secondly, this is as much to prevent disruption as it is to help you; had you continued on the path you were going down, you would likely have ended up with a far longer block. As hard as it may seem, try to see the situation as yet another last chance for you to get the message. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

• I have temporarily blocked you for doing it again. You have a short while now to reflect on your behavior and decide how to adjust it before your block ends up being lengthened - and yes, I can revert deliberate disruption wherever I see it (And I've been trying to notify you, but I keep getting edit conflicts) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, you did not warn me properly first, you straight went off and blocked me. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Beeble had said that he did not want to talk to you. Repeatedly edit warring over that didn't help your case and resulted in your block. I do urge you to read my post above (and on ANI) carefully, and heed the advice once the block expires. —Dark 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well thanks for the information DarkFalls. But I was only telling Beeblebrox that he won't get anymore notifications from me whenever I post about him on any noticeboard. And for 1 revert (which I did not violate WP:3RR), I get blocked. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  There is no entitlement to 3RR - and I *did* warn you first, it's right at the top of this very section -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is not what you were doing...it's very clear to anybody who's been paying attention what you've been doing. The point here is that you were told to STOP doing it, and you didn't. The title of this section is, indeed, STOP and you didn't do so. The words "you are very likely to be blocked if you do it again" were a very clear notification that you ignored. I'll leave it to another admin to adjudicate your unblock request, since I'm clearly involved, but...if I were a passing admin reviewing, I'd likely leave this in place.  Frank  |  talk  02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I most certainly did not ignore it. I got the "STOP" message after my revert. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, to be clear: you were being WP:DISRUPTIVE, period. I admit I wouldn't have blocked you at that moment for it (obviously, I didn't), but, nevertheless, there shouldn't be any doubt that you are being overtly disruptive.  Frank  |  talk  02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I can see that while I was warning you, you were reverting my removal of your unwanted comment from Beeblebrox's Talk page - but the speed you were going pretty much gave me no chance to get my warning in here first. Anyway, this block is preventative, as your commenting there after being clearly asked not to and then edit-warring over it was *not* in your interest, and I hope that this short block will help prevent you doing further damage to yourself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thats not why you got blocked. There are only WP:FIVE things that are essential to getting Wikipedia, and two of them are WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. Quoting the "letter" of policies while not getting these two is what's called WP:WIKILAWYERING. You opened a report at ANI, many editors volunteered their time to contribute, and the only thing they were disagreeing about is whether you should be blocked or topic banned or what. Wikipedia is very open to people who want to contribute but continuing to ignore the advice of many other editors is going to use up everyone's patience. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to give some context, the edit warring was a clear retaliation to [1][2]. —Dark 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just a final note for now. I really do think that stopping Porch's disruption for a short while is in his own best interest, but if any other admin disagrees or thinks I'm too involved, and thinks an unblock would be a good idea, please feel free to act without needing to consult me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to say that I would like to get in a voluntary interaction ban with Beeblebrox. Which even means that he does comment further in these AN/I discussions. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 04:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't work like that. In real life when people take an injunction out it stops them interacting anywhere, except in court, where both parties clearly have a right to speak. An interaction ban cannot be used to stop Beeblebrox being given the right to respond on AN/I, which is an appropriate place, whilst you remain obstinate. Interaction bans generally stop interaction anywhere but sanctioned dispute resolution pages, but as an admin he would also have the right to respond on any page as long as it does not create direct conflict with you. So you're really asking for the wrong thing here to circumvent the issue. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 11:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A tip

Once you've read something on your talk page, you are free to delete it. So, unless you want something archived, you could delete it with an edit summary that reads something like "Deleted after reading." The only thing you're not allowed to delete while blocked is unblock requests. Everything else is fair game. And since the block has expired, that unblock request is also fair game. In short, you could clear your entire talk page if you felt like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

not a good idea

If you continue this pattern of contributions [3] -- reiterating a contention which you have already suggested to, and been rejected by, the community, the most likely outcome is a ban and/or longer block. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months for a number of issues, as raised by the community at ANI. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You are also advised that since this is a community-issued block, the normal unblock request will be ineffective. If you believe that the community is in error with their decision, then you may e-mail WP:ARBCOM (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Should you do this, the best way to contact ArbCom would be through e-mailing BASC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to say that Worm has made a good proposal, would anyone care to copy this over:

Support - good proposal Worm. I am happy to follow it. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And btw, I've already appealed to BASC, I wonder if they'll accept this suggestion. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Striking out due to the opposers. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll copy it over now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please copy over to ANI Different proposal

Please copy this over to ANI ban proposal - "Comment - I think that Worm's proposal are good, and I am willing to follow his advice and restrictions. In what way does this make me a disruptive editor, he has put restrictions in every way I have been disruptive. And as to the many points the users made, they're not serious violations of policies, and as to Frank's points, I've removed the "Would you mind signing my guestbook?" signature. The userbox of my topic ban is to explain that I was topic banned. And yes, I am willing to do article work. I've hardly been disruptive recently. So I am willing to do what Worm has to say. And this block is 3/4 punitive. Thanks -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)"

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My advice to you is to stop fighting the community on this, accept the block, and use the time to do something productive, elsewhere. Before you can return to editing here, you need to be able to answer the question "In what way does this make me a disruptive editor" yourself and make it clear that you understand why your edits are viewed as disruptive. Until you are able to do that, the community is unlikely to believe that future edits from you will be any better than the previous ones. 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like WormTT's proposal is not going to succeed and you'll just have to go with the block - he says he'll be contacting you by email, so hopefully you can get off on a better footing when you're back. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just sent you an email on this subject, but I'm afraid my proposal has headed southwards very quickly. Sometimes, you just have accept that you can't win. I think you have made excellent progress since the beginning of the year, but unfortunately, it's not quite enough. I've offered you some suggestions for the future in the email I sent, but for now, and indeed for the next 6 months, I'm afraid you'll just have to let Wikipedia go. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Many people go over to Simple English Wikipedia to work on their skills while blocked here; I'd ask your mentor if he thinks that's a good idea, but I'll warn you now that you must read simple:WP:ONE if you decide to do that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Simple English Wikipedia is a very worthwhile project. A standard Wikipedia article with scholarly writing style can be very off-putting to a lot of people, and Simple English can serve them much better. It's also a terrific resource for people learning English as a second language. I spend a lot of my time in Thailand, where educational standards are high and many people learn English, but where most English speakers find the full-on en.Wikipedia too difficult - the Simple English version is great for them. You could do some good work there, providing you stick to only doing article work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... I can move to the simple english Wikipedia at any point of time. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just remember that if any of you find me on another Wikipedia doing content creation, do not even be surprised, because I don't care about whatever anything you've got to say. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Per 28bytes's suggestion, the only reason why I got blocked is because of one and only disruption, that I need to listen more to what others are saying. So this is the reason why 3/4 of this block is punitive. Any other ways I am being disruptive, feel free to mention to me. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 21:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No dude, it really isn't only one disruption, and you really need to stop arguing about it now. I'm not going to try to explain further, because there's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by lots of others already - the community has made its decision now, and that's the end of it. I really suggest you just shut off from here now (it's summer where you are, so go and enjoy it), and when you're back just try to put this behind you and make a fresh start - whatever you do, don't come back and carry on the old arguments, just let them go. And if, in future, you find yourself in any potential arguments or other troubling situations, ask WormTT for advice before you do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeez. All this drama and punitive block kept on making me forget about the updates on my computer, and I often kept getting alerts about these updates. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Frank

I would like to reply to Frank's oppose !vote and explain about his points, and it may be copied over - "Frank, many of your points are not true. First of all, I am not here for social networking, or any other sorts like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a social networking site. It's not that bad having lots of userboxes (many users have lots of userboxes). And that you said while my editor review is where I started my fifth RFA, after working with Worm, and many other stuff, I am no longer convinced for adminship. The reason why I mentioned I was topic banned is so that others know I am topic banned in case they aren't aware. And that you pointed Worm's post right after my topic bans expired, you may want to see this as well. I am here to build an encyclopedia, and that is why I am adding content to articles, and I've even created a few articles, and not for social networking. And all these points are not serious disruption. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 20:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)"

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Show me one edit in the last month that backs up your assertion that you are "here to build an encyclopedia." Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Check here. Plus I've created four articles. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So... nothing from the past month? I see. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Porch, I can only echo Worm, there seems no way to turn the situation around at this stage, even if you come up with perfect responses to all the opposers. Might be best just to turn your attention elsewhere. Anyone who takes the trouble to look back at your contribs can see you have done a lot of valueable work, helping to build the encyclopedia. You dont have to counter all the false arguments made against you. In 6 months time several will welcome you back. Please think carefully before you risk making things worse by trying to argue a lost cause. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"False arguments"? Which discussion are you looking at? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey folks, the AN/I section will be closed soon, and then it'll all be over for six months - is there really any point carrying on the argument here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

If you are not using this talk page to make an appeal, you will lose access to it again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am drafting my appeal, and it will be ready by then. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 21:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

IRC Contact

Hi, you seem to have made attempt to contact me by IRC (I'm Crazytails there) but I hadn't logged into my screen session until now. What's up? ~Crazytales (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, going to reply back to you on IRC. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	That dog with the coat. Amazing. I laughed far too much at that picture. You deserve a barnstar. :D Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 06:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)