User talk:Lewisskinner

Hello. Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

The current time is 01:10, May 25, 2024 (UTC).

Hi there, you have found my talk page. Please, leave me a message about anything you wish - just click the link above, or click edit, and add your comment at the bottom of the page. Always provide a header, like this:

== Your header here ==

or, even better, link to the page in question, this this:

== [[page in question|Your header here]] ==

(unless you use the above link) and I will reply to it here. If you have visited because I left you a message, I will watch your page, so please, respond there, but feel free to poke me here in case I seem to have forgotten or missed it!

By the way, unlike many users, I never blank any message on my talk page. If you have something to say, then say it - it will not be removed. If you have seen an attack, please do not revert it - I'd rather see it myself. Reversion of good-faith edits and messages can antagonise the user who left it (I know, as a certain user repeatedly reverts my polite comments), and I do not feel it is good Wikiquette. This page is auto-archived anyway, so the offending or otherwise comments will soon be removed!

So, onto the talk page!

L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, you have found my talk page. Please, leave me a message about anything you wish - just click the link above, or click edit, and add your comment at the bottom of the page. Always provide a header, like this:
== Your header here ==, or, even better, link to the page in question, this this:
== [[page in question|Your header here]] == (unless you use the above link) and I will reply to it here. If you have visited because I left you a message, I will watch your page, so please, respond there, but feel free to poke me here in case I seem to have forgotten or missed it!

By the way, unlike many users, I never blank any message on my talk page. If you have something to say, then say it - it will not be removed. If you have seen an attack, please do not revert it - I'd rather see it myself. Reversion of Good-faith edits and messages can antagonise the user who left it (I know, as a certain user repeatedly reverts my polite comments), and I do not feel it is good Wikiquette. This page is auto-archived anyway, so the offending or otherwise comments will soon be removed anyway!

Anyway, onto the talk page!

Hotspot

Hi,

A quotation from you: "There were no socks - only my girlfriend posting from the same IP, with the same opinion (no canvassing). I do not believe that there is a rule that two related wikipedians are not allowed the same interests are there?"

Unless your girlfriend discloses her relationship to you, she is in violation of (at least the spirit of) Wikipedia's conflict of interest and canvassing guidelines. Albeit out of ignorance, she does become a meatpuppet (unfortunately, this word is a bit vulgar-sounding; I assure you, I mean it strictly as a technical term.) The manner of your exchange with David Gerard above suggests, to my reading anyway, that you were "playing coy" a little bit: I think it is fair to say that you were aware of the potential for the appearence of deception in your girlfriend's anonymous comments. Everybody has relatives, friends, and acquaintences: it is not helpful to have their comments solicited for discussions (that's "vote-stacking"); on the off-chance your girlfriend found the discussion out of coincidence (you probably, after all, have similar likes), she should have been thoughtful enough to mention her connection to you. That failure rightly caused her comment to be disqualified. I'm sorry, but the reasons for the disallowance of suck/meatpuppetry are compelling and uncompromising.

By the terms of its former article, "coldspot" is a neologism. Whether the word (as an obvious opposite) deserves discussion in the article "hotspot" is a matter of editorial discretion at that article, subject to talk page discussion at that article. I decline to undelete the history of the article "coldspot" for incorporation therein, because I believe new, sourced, text additions would be a better alternative. If you take the matter to the "hotspot" article talk page, you may find editors willing to help there. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hicks Building

Whilst I'm getting very tired of the whole coordinates issue which seems to be spread across numerous articles, I must comment on your edit summary here, in particular that you say "Please leave editing of building's article o those wjo use the building". Regardless of my opinion on the coordinates issue, and it is turning into annoyance with the whole thing, your suggestion that only people use the building should have a say in how the coordinates are presented seems astonishing. I note that as I write this, Pigsonthewing has highlighted this same issue. I fail to understand in this and the other circumstances, how a knowledge of the subject should impact on how the coordinates are presented.

On a slightly different note, I'm slightly sceptical about whether the building is notable enough to warrant an article when looking at the Notability criteria. Adambro 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing is known for moving into areas where he has no expertise, and adding multiple instances of information/suggesting merges etc which make no sense. It is an agenda on his part, and I for one am absolutely sick of it. Off the top of my head, I can think of his suggestion to merge two opera articles (Comic opera and Opéra comique), without reading them first, and then being very hostile to the editors who disagreed, indeed, he seems to have long-standing distain towards members of wikiprojects opera and composers, seemingly believing that his membership of WP:Bio trumps all else. On these issues specifically, a consensus was formed on Tinsley Viaduct not to have 6 coordinates, so he then added him in the title bar and the infobox. These were removed, and a new consensus formed, so he went and added this to Sheffield Town Hall, and others. If you need more examples, please look at items such as this, and the frequent incidents of Pigsonthewing throwing his toys out of the Pram on AN/I. Most recently here, where he was told that:

"Step one in dispute resolution is to talk to the other parties involved. I couldn't find where you've done that yet, so I'd suggest you start there.".

There was also this comment:

"there seems to be some difficulty between you and this user, or at least there was a month ago. However, this is--as the header explains--not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. If you are actually offended by this user's page (rather than sustaining or inflaming some running foofaraw) then please proceed through the steps of dispute resolution"

It seems clear to me from this that he is a repeat offender of wasting admins time on AN/I (indeed, he has previously reported me for my /Archive of disputes, a page which I suggest you look at to see just how incivil he has been to me).

Also, may I ask how do comments such as this from him can help anyone? I am trying to get both sides to engage in a discussion, (and I gave a little concession), and he is assuming I'm already "against" him and calling me a child (and in a very condescending manner) and failing to admit any fault on his part. This is the behaviour of a coward and a bully. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(also, he would appear to be a stalker. The Hicks article stood as it was, untouched, for 11 weeks. As soon as I edit it, he crops up to plaster his little mark over it. Likewise Coldspot (Wi-Fi) which I created and he AfD'd, Tinsley Viaduct and many others, and only because I had the cheek to try to delete some West Midlands tram stop articles! If he were doing to me in real life what he is on wiki, he'd be in a police cell by now. He has already murdered another wikiuser - he should be removed from wiki for life. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hrs for incivility for the above. Please see: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, given the Sockpuppet activity you're doing, WP:SOCK. Continuation of this behavior is unacceptable. Please calm down and edit in a constructive manner.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Georgewilliamherbert 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I assume you are talking about the latter of the two comments. Well, stalking true - he never appeared on Sheffield-related articles until after the Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (3rd nomination). This is a fact. I was falsely accused by Pigsonthewing of vote tampering here (see also [2]. Again, Hicks Building was only edited by Pigsonthewing when he noticed it (maybe watching my contribs?). Ditto Coldspot (Wi-Fi), where he engaged in incivility on the discussion, and also the talk:Tinsley Viaduct is full of uncivil edits from Pigsonthewing. When these occur, I usually bring them up on his talk page (as article talk space is not the correct place for this) and he almost invariably deletes my comment. If indeed, it IS stalking, then it follows, does it not, that he'd be in custody now? And the wiki murder was a quote, from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#My Worst Fear, Realized - "...bringing me to believe that Andy's actions regarding Leonig are very similiar to the Wikipedia version of Murder". As for sockpuppetry, a) it was meatpuppetry (VERY different, as I'm sure you are aware) and b) I have explained and taken steps to prevent the like from happening again. As far as I am aware, it has not, so it is false to block me ten days later, when no action was taken at the time. Also, why 48 hours for a first block? I hope you will see fit to unblock me

Decline reason:

I have no looked into the other reasons why you are blocked, but the sockppuppetry alone is well worth 48 hrs. In future I hope you will play it straight or you might find yourself block again. — Viridae^Talk 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Also, [1] - another example of Pigsonthewing wasting admins time at AN/I, as I have suggested. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And can I also ask why the reason given for blocking is "Attempting to harass other users"? The comments were made on my own talkpage. How is that harassment?! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The murder comment was inappropriate, uncivil, and doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. I am not going to stop another admin from unblocking if they feel like it, but you need to not do that again. Georgewilliamherbert 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)