User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2008/Apr
 | This page 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. |
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Result!
I have to say for the first time we managed to hang on to an image without it being ripped away from us! If we can try and find somthing "real world" notable about each episode just like the first use of Massive FX technology of television and then also mention it in the text. Well done to you for getting such a good picture and hopefully this will continue into the future.--Wiggs (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, even the two biggest FU-cops agreed on the merits of this image. — Edokter • Talk • 12:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BLP
Just a note on your use of "BLP"... Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons deals with controversial information on real persons, like actors, but not characters. So removing "Rose Tyler" under BLP doesn't make sense. — Edokter • Talk • 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That heading was named like that for a reason
To make sure it was actually read. A lot of work went into assessing all of those articles by so very few people who deserve to get a great deal of attention for their hard work. They deserve major kudos! - LA @ 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Treasury, I'm reasonably certain the "Committee" is named that way more for the sake of humor than anything else. It's certainly not meant to be taken super seriously or like some sort of elitist club, just a creatively named taskforce for a specific job. If you want more descriptiveness in the header, that's fine, but since that is a projectspace page rather than an article, we're allowed to be funny. Also, changing other people's comments is generally considered a rather aggressive move even when you have a good reason, so it's best avoided. --erachima talk 08:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008
|
The Space-Time Telegraph |
| ||||
| The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter | ||||||
| Issue 1 | March 2008 | |||||
For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||||||
It's in the bin. She'll understand.
What do you reckon to me omitting the "Continuity" section? I think I can integrate it well into the Plot, seeing as Donna's a returning character. Sceptre (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's worth keeping them separate, to be honest... set a model for later on? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Fires of Pompeii
that's why I put that thing on Fires of Pompeii Lugiarules (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wet-Nurse
The Doctor made a mistake, should we repeat it? Jasonfward (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK Jasonfward (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Doctor Who project
Hope you can help me, how do I join the Doctor Who project? Jasonfward (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers Jasonfward (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
I may have come across a bit grumpier here than perhaps I should. I don't think that a block is merited in this instance, though! GBT/C 12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think a report to WP:SSP is the way to go either. They are clearly the same user, but they're not engaging in sock puppetry to avoid a block (neither has contributed whilst the other has been blocked), and there's no good-hand, bad-hand editing (as their edits don't overlap chronologically. I've been working to clear the backlog at WP:SSP for a while, so am going to archive your report without action. GBT/C 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not impressed, at all. Bad show Gb. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately policy is pretty clear on when blocks may or may not be imposed, and this isn't one of those times. Incidentally, another admin (User:Parsecboy) has reached pretty much the same conclusion as me at WP:SSP. GBT/C 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- This other admin was the one who suggested we hear what Josh has to say for himself, right? Plus, see my other post on AN. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately policy is pretty clear on when blocks may or may not be imposed, and this isn't one of those times. Incidentally, another admin (User:Parsecboy) has reached pretty much the same conclusion as me at WP:SSP. GBT/C 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not impressed, at all. Bad show Gb. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Doctor Who citation
Citation was found under the broadcast and reception heading: "The preview version of the episode supplied to the press and aired at the press launch omitted the scene which contained Rose; before broadcast, only the production team, Tate, and Tennant had seen the scene." This is cited to the episode's podcast, reference 3 in the article. U-Mos (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Please watch your civility with your edit summaries. This, this, and this are totally out of line. Metros (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do pardon me; how would you express the sentiments more civilly, then? Those articles are warzones - just take a look at the history. It's frustrating, and no admin's willing to protect them for more than two days... We're not allowed a template warning users, they never get blocked, it's a nightmare. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Saying things like "Please provide a source for this" or leaving the user a note asking whether or not they have a source. Screaming "where is your bleddy source?!?" is not the proper way to go about it. If you're that frustrated by a volunteer project, walk away for a bit to take a breather before responding to others' edits. Metros (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- You side-stepped my main point, which is that admins only step in to rebuke the people on the right side, but never take any action to deal with the wrong. It's utterly pathetic IMO - and I don't mean you personally, I mean them all. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't here for that point. I was here for the point about your civility. You can take up those grievances elsewhere. But whether you're frustrated or not, you still have to contribute and interact with a civil tone. This too is not the best approach. There is no need for the "better luck next time" on there. Metros (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can't face continuing this discussion. A good admin would deal with preventing the things that drive me and several others to become frustrated; no, you decide not to do that. Take it to RfArb if you care that much. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well what you're asking for (indefinite protection on these pages, blocking anyone and everyone, etc.) go contrary to our policies in a lot of instances. We don't indefinitely protect pages except in extreme cases (George W. Bush and Lindsey Lohan being the two that come to mind). I protected Turn Left for a week though, but not the requested indefinite protection. Metros (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- So I saw, but in a week's time, it'll start again, it'll have to be protected again, probably for another week. So, if it's going to be protected in week-long periods, with short 12-hour gaps in between in which IPs massacre it, can I just inquire... what's the point? Why not simply eliminate the 12-hour gaps? I don't see how it's that much different to the Bush article. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can't face continuing this discussion. A good admin would deal with preventing the things that drive me and several others to become frustrated; no, you decide not to do that. Take it to RfArb if you care that much. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't here for that point. I was here for the point about your civility. You can take up those grievances elsewhere. But whether you're frustrated or not, you still have to contribute and interact with a civil tone. This too is not the best approach. There is no need for the "better luck next time" on there. Metros (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Infinite Quest
I wanted to ask something about the animated episode 'Infinite Quest'. Ive never understood why its has been listed as part of the main series as it has never seemed to contain any canon in it; it even says something like this in the episode's page
The canonicity of The Infinite Quest is not clear, even though it was commissioned and televised by the BBC
I'll admit I never watched the episode so could you explain to me some reasons as to why it has been included in the list of main episodes. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Journey's End (Doctor Who). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi; if you look closely at my reverts, you'll see that they were removing BLP violations, which as I'm sure you're aware, is an exception to the 3RR. For example... this claims an actress is appearing, without a source. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- What? Saything that someone appeared or will appear in a television program is not a WP:BLP violation; we're talking about TV, not the Nuremberg Trials here. You will surely find yourself blocked with a quickness if you continue to edit war in this particlar content dispute. ➪HiDrNick! 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- HiDrNick is correct. Those edits were not BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Just popping by to say hello. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
You seem to be involved in some form of dispute with User:Bringbackthetylers as far as I can see it stems around this edit. Looking though your edit history I cannot see that you have tried to engage is discussion with this editor to find out the reasoning behind it. Please assume good faith before throwing warnings and threats around. If you have any issues or wish to discuss how to carry this on please don';t hesitate to get in touch. Khukri 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm about twenty hours late with my writeup, but I've had a go trimming the crap from the article. I just need to get behind the red button on Friday (as the commentary is lacking) and add some reviews, and I'll put it up for GAC. Sceptre (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I did quite a bit of work on the other sections, last night. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I hadn't realized the image needed to be registered beyond what was already done. Someone beat me to removing it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. At leat where copyright release is concerned as that is. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- We don't drink shots every time "Gallifrey" is mentioned, and the phrase "Lord of Time" is used in an entirely different context here. The only relevant thing in the article is the "something on your back" thing, and com on, the Daily Star? Seriously? Sceptre (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Shadow Proclamation is in the paragraphed version of the article, actually (because that is relevant - we're getting that recurring theme, and I might deign to have the planets lost theme in. Besides, the outside and historical references are in the wrong place; they belong in writing. Though the Spartacus note is just allowable, by virtue of the Fact File making the direct link... the City of Death note too. Anything else is crap, though. Especially citing the Star - at least the Sun get it right 80% of the time. Sceptre (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- We don't drink shots every time "Gallifrey" is mentioned, and the phrase "Lord of Time" is used in an entirely different context here. The only relevant thing in the article is the "something on your back" thing, and com on, the Daily Star? Seriously? Sceptre (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know it's worth noting, the difficulty is incorporating it: as a comparison, about 40% of the notes I take for episodes from watching making-ofs and listening to commentaries (this has happened with Voyage, Partners, and Pompeii) makes it into the article - the rest I can't really fit in. The Barcelona gag doesn't really fit into the Latin jokes/references paragraph or the moral dillemma paragraph, and I'm loath to open the floodgates and give this its own paragraph. Sceptre (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning me
I'm well aware of WP:3RR thank you. Also, you might be interested in reading the Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars essay if you haven't done so already. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Basil or Sybil
Hello :) With regards to The Fires of Pompeii ...
So what do we do when the referenced source is obviously wrong? Sadly the BBC falls short in this department. When they often can't get continuity wrong within their own productions it's probably unsurprising that they misattribute quotes across different shows. The apologetic line "He's from Barcelona" is uttered by Basil, Sybil and Polly at various times but is most readily associated with Basil Fawlty, regardless of what a page on the Beeb's Doctor Who site says.
I'm assuming the solution is to produce alternative references but I'm puzzled as to why IMDB wouldn't qualify... Kind regards, Chris, the current user of 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fascinating ... I assume you're using a Wikipedia definition of 'reality' then, seeing as 'appeal to authority' (i.e, Person A asserts that statement X is true, and Person A holds a respectable position, therefore X is true) is a logical fallacy. A factoid on the BBC's Doctor Who website is not, after all, a primary source. The primary sources in this case would be a set of tapes of the complete series, or perhaps published scripts. I might even try to count the occurrences of the Barcelona line and how many times it's attributed to each character in the show ... if I wasn't trying to finish decorating our lounge before baby's born!
- There's obviously more to this Wiki lark than I thought. Or possibly a little less. :-s
- Kind regards, Chris, currently using 62.25.109.195 (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC) . Must set up my own login ...
Snippy? Please don't misunderstand me, I am genuinely trying to get a sense of the rules here. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Request to move article List of Doctor Who serials incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page List of Doctor Who serials to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
- Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
- Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
- Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey
I'm about to go back on Wikibreak, but wanted to check you're OK. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Poison Sky
Sorry - I thought I had sufficiently changed the text to pass :( And yes, it is Canterbury from OG. Canterbury359 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Old Sock Case
Hey Treasury Tag, any chance you could remove the discredited sockpuppet case against me from your watchlist? I feel as though it implies some kind of guilt on my part. It;s been 3 months.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather not, if it's all the same to you - I'd like to keep an eye on it in case anything happens in relation to it... it really doesn't imply guilt on your part, it closed in your favour!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I really wish you trusted me. It seems like we've been through enough together at this point. Anyway... fine leave the thing up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Bringbackthetylers
Yeah, on afterthought he deserves to be blocked. I think he's deleted some of his warnings, that's what confused me. ...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can't, you'll have to find an admin. I'm helping out around UAA and AIV ready for my next RfA, but I'm not an admin yet. ...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 14:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
While it wasn't vandalism per se, he does have a history of adding unsourced content—and a prior block on 1 April. Based on the warning on 17 April and the addition this morning, I blocked him for 5 days. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly! Bad faith, WP:BLP violation, etc. If you should see that user come back, give another reminder warning and let me know on my talk page. If I'm not around, or if you see similar patterns with other editors, I'd suggest reporting it at the administrator's incident noticeboard or the biographies of living persons noticeboard: noticeboards devoted to general incidents and issues involving biographies, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Your warning re:Donna Noble
Just for the record, that was my edit. For some reason the cookie didn't hold and I was logged off at the time. I feel your warning was a bit out of line. Please WP:Assume good faith before making such warnings. Thanks. Administrator 23skidoo (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- My point was not regarding content, but regarding the fact the warning was unwarranted. I spend a lot of time crucifying vandals and there are a lot more serious reasons to warn somebody than placing a warning on their talk page which threatens blocking, especially an anonymous IP. The fact I was the editor is irrelevant; the fact a warning was place was, in my opinion, a case of WP:BITE, especialy since IPs are used by a large number of users. The question I ask you is this: had I been logged in, would you have left a similar warning on my talk page, or would you have simply left me a note saying "I feel your edit was OR and removed it". As for the apparent issues between you and the DW1975 user I'm staying clear of that. 23skidoo (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the link. I couldn't find an admin, so I sent it to any random user. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The Tylers
On the one hand, I'm hoping he'll honor the warning and, if not turn around and be a good contributor, at least stop contributing junk. If he keeps going - well, now he can't say he wasn't warned when a block follow again. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Last of the Time Lords
If you check, it is actually standard to say "open to interpretation" - that's the text on the boiler plate, as I said in my edit summary. Thanks. 92.13.108.88 (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A friendly tip
This is not a warning :) If you think someone else has been rude to you it's no reason to be rude back. In truth, it'll only make things worse and could, in the end, get you blocked. Please try to stay cool, ok? By the way, I like the Horehound bug in the picture of the day above. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Incivility
I just glanced at the dispute with AuburnPilot after it was brought to my attention.
I know that you are not particularly fond of me. All the same, I hope you'll at least do the courtesy of listening here.
I do not disagree that AuburnPilot was a bit curt with you. However, I think your reaction to him was unhelpful and did not do anything to improve the situation. As I see it, there were two major problems.
- AuburnPilot had a valid point. He expressed it with some frustration, but sometimes people get frustrated. That they do so does not mean that their points should be discounted. In your rush to cry foul over incivility, I fear that you sidestepped the important issue, which is the encyclopedic content under discussion. On the one hand, a communal editing environment means that people need to be civil. But it's everybody's responsibility to try to overlook moments of incivility and frustration and to focus on the articles. That means, at times, ignoring what you view as incivil comments and focusing on the content.
- Your response was, frankly, disproportionate. AuburnPilot's comment that you cite in this edit: [1] is curt, and his edit summary is even rude. But you responded by swearing at him and accusing him of being of no value to the project. That's a bit disproportionate, and helped make it impossible for a useful discussion to take place. That's harmful.
I hope you'll think about this in your future interactions. I know you often feel frustrated by how you're treated by other editors, and I'll agree that they are often curt or even rude. On the other hand, I've edited here quite a while without running into rudeness with the frequency you seem to - it may be worth considering whether there are things you can do that would help defuse situations as well. Not overreacting would be a big step in this direction. There are probably others as well, which I'm happy to try to discuss with you. But this is a very important one, since in overreacting to minor incivility you're at times straying into severe incivility and personal attacks that are larger problems than the initial incidents you're responding to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Box
I'm keeping it mysterious, but watch my edits and it should become apparent. Sceptre (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Tylers revisited
Frankly, the diff you gave was a reasonable and almost good-faith edit: removing commentary from a list article. I agree that some of the edits are borderline; however, before I block the user indefinitely, I'd like to have a smoking gun, this-is-the-kind-of-edit-we-don't-want-repeats-of edit to point to in justification of the block. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Picking your battles
(I'm leaving the same comment on Matthew's talk page)
Look, I've encountered both of you before. And, despite the fact that you've both driven me up a wall on several occasions, I respect you both and I respect your contributions. I think you're good editors, and I'm glad we have you.
However, as you have no doubt noticed, you both... annoy people. Including each other. And there are some concrete reasons for that - you both tend to dogmatically hold to your positions, even when those positions are a bit outside of mainstream consensus. And you both tend to, if you will, edit to win. That is, you tend to behave in disputes with the goal of getting your way instead of getting the dispute resolved well.
This is understandable - we all do it, and I'm plenty guilty of it in the past. But it's not helpful to the project, because it leads to hurt feelings and edit wars. And it's important to have a good sense of when to pick your battles.
In your edit war over the next Doctor Who episode, the failure on both of your parts to wisely pick your battles and have a sense of when to walk away was the single biggest problem with the dispute. Both of you had defensible positions, and while I am inclined to agree with one over the other (I won't say who) I can see both of your points. But, simply put, there was no reason for you to revert war. The damage done by having the article have an undesirable image or no image for a few hours or a few days is trivial, in the grand scheme of things - far less damage than a temper-flaring dispute over the image.
Both of you should have had the good sense to walk away from the dispute, state your case on the talk page, and let other people look at it and make the decision. And neither of you should have gotten so emotionally invested in it. It was childish, and it did harm to the project.
Both of you need to learn when not to fight. There are cases where aggressively and angrily holding the line on an edit is valuable and necessary - biographies of living people are the best example. But an image on an episode of a television series is not one of those cases. It is better to go slowly and harmoniously on such articles than to go quickly and angrily.
Please. Both of you. In the future, when your tempers are flaring, whether at each other or at somebody else, ask yourself - is this worth it? Is the benefit to the project of getting this point right in the article immediately as opposed to waiting and letting other people weigh in really worth the drama and anger that an edit or flame war will cause? Is reverting now or replying now to the comment that's aggravating you going to make the situation better?
And if it's not worth it... learn to walk away. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Busy; can't really face reading it; sure it's not going to be life-changing. Feel free to summarise in up to four sentences for me to run my eye over. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- You get into fights a lot. Often these fights make people mad. The harm done by the flared tempers is worse than whatever problem you're trying to fix. Learn when to walk away and be the better man. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would also say, if you find yourself revert warring for whatever reason, please stop, there is always a more helpful way. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Terribly sorry!
I mistakenly blocked you for about 3 seconds this morning. I have immediately reversed this error. I was sorting through a reverted talk page of a vandal and you had issued the final. I blocked the wrong user! Please keep up the good work and I will a) be more careful b) go get another cup of coffee! Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, forgiven :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock-ip|1=x.x.x.x|2=[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblocked]] because your IP address was recently used by "[[User:TreasuryTag|TreasuryTag]]". The reason given for TreasuryTag's block is: "[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]".|3=Toddst1}}
- When I try to unblock your IP, it says that it is not blocked. I searched the block list and didn't find anything, so it may have already been cleared by someone else. Please clear your cache and try to edit again. If you still cannot, make sure that you give the autoblock ID # (it should be something like #87654). If you give us the autoblock ID, we can definitely clear it. --B (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - I can now edit, it looks like I was unblocked but the template not then updated. Thanks anyway! —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)