User talk:82.11.178.239

Scott McGleish

Before reverting again, please read this. Your changes reflect your own opinion and have many vague words such as 'impressive' or phrases which do not say anything such as 'scored a few'. This is an encyclopedia and such phases need refining. Any doubtful entries need referencing. Its all about verifiability and neutrality especially where living people are concerned - Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is aimed at the additions to the end, covering Scotty's time at LOFC, it's rubbish. Neither "impressive" nor "scored a few" are in the new texts. Lloyd, LOFC firm.

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You've already reverted to your version many times - next time I'll have to report it. People are trying to improve this article, and you keep reverting to a version with no sourcing, no NPOV, typos, grammar errors, you name it. Use the talk page if you want to discuss it further. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Listen Bretonbanquet, my additions are no worse than previous contributions. In fact they are better. There is more to be said about Scott McGleish and trust me, it will be included. Your criticisms don't fly - you must be referring to previous drafting that has been carried forward. ("No NPOV, typos, grammar errors, you name it" - what are you on about?) My latest posting includes all other changes plus my own para or two at the end. It works just fine - I might be a soccer fan from the east end but I too know how to draft for Wikipedia and have a good BSc and a Diploma in Languages to boot. Ring me if you want - 07906 255052. My name is Lloyd - I don't need a soppy one for this nonsense. Be a big man like Scott McGleish himself.

There's nothing wrong with the grammar and wording of your additions, but the fact is that they're not sourced. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia - people can't just add what they think without backing it up using sources found on the net or in papers / magazines etc. You're right, I am referring to past versions which contain mistakes and typos, but you kept reintroducing them when you reverted to your version. I don't disagree with the content of what you're putting in there, Scotty was a huge credit to the club and for what it's worth, I think they treated him badly. But on here, it has to be backed up solidly. Your last version removed all the internal links and all the references, and it just can't be left like that. My criticisms do fly, and that's the reality of it. I haven't reported you because you're an O, and I won't do it, even though I'm supposed to. But the other guy probably will, or the article will get protected so unregistered people can't edit it. There should be some way that Scott's character can be highlighted using decent sources - if there's a way, it'll get done, not tonight though, because I'm knackered. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Breton, your criticisms do not fly at all when my texts are compared with previous ones. What about "a legend at Wycombe" etc. As for his treatment, I don't know if Scotty was treated badly or not - you shouldn't speculate when contributing to Wikipedia. My para is balanced. I think my contribution is fine so don't stay up on my account, wrestling with how to improve it. I have to turn in soon as I am off to Walsall tomorrow for the first game - are you going? You should, to do some research. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with my drafting, even in this context. You are just being stubborn. I've had it before when adding to Wikipedia, but I ain't backing down on this one if it takes forever. Lloyd x (and Debbie, and Martyn, and Louis, and Emma, and Alan, and Teresa - all of Walthamstow E17

OK, well you're entitled to your opinion and I don't want to argue with you. The 'legend at Wycombe' part was referenced, so I left it in. Having just checked the reference, the source doesn't back up the claim, so I'll take it out, just as soon as someone reverts you again. I'm not in any hurry. Speculation and opinion on a talk page (like this one) is of course absolutely fine, we all do it - the thing is not to do it in an article. I don't wrestle with anything on Wikipedia, it's all very straightforward. I'm not being stubborn at all - you'll note I've only reverted you once - all the other reverts are other editors, who also know the rules. You have to provide sources. Enjoy the game - I can't go as it's my Saturday to work. But that's life, and there's always next Saturday. Cheers, and Up the O's. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - I accept that I am new to this, and am struggling a bit - mainly with technical and sequential editing issues involving several contributors, not with the principles, or with the drafting (although even I am not perfect I know...joke). The issue I have with criticism of my small contribution is that the full item on Scotty that I saw at first was inconsistently formatted, full of holes in terms of citations and evidence, and quite badly written to boot. My drafting and (lack of?) referencing was no worse, and maybe better. (And my phrasing contrasted favourably, in my view.) My aims at the outset were simple enough: to add information on his departure, as far as is known; and say a bit more about how well he has performed for the Os this time around. I also wanted to mention his character in addition to being a gentleman on the pitch - e.g. I have seen him stop the game and run over to ask if an old man was OK after being jostled, and ask a section of the crowd if they were OK after heavy-handed policing. And he sat with my daughter and other kinder at Brighton in the freezing fog when we lost 5-0, cheering us all up and telling us about the other players' habits in the dressing room. I DO wrestle with drafting, and if you want to help me achieve these aims then I'll be grateful. Were staying over in Walsall tomorrow - I just hope we win and that there's a decent Indian restaurant or the wife and daughter won't want to come to more away-games, especially as there is no Scott McGleish to cheer them up. Lloyd

No worries. Yes, originally the article was pretty poor. You adding your bits and pieces to that was what made me (and no doubt Egghead as well) notice that. Your additions were quite a bit more subjective than the original stuff though, which was basically just Scott's transfers and a few stats. I've found an interview with Scott online, which will cover his departure from Orient - I'll put in a quote as well and reference it. I should be able to make it clear what a decent season he had, while still keeping it referenced. I'm not surprised at what you say - he always seemed like a really decent bloke. His goal for Rovers today was about the only good thing that happened. Hope you found a decent restaurant to take the 0-1 taste away, mate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One other thing, when was Paul Buckle assistant manager at Orient? That must have passed me by. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Breton: Thanks - looks good. I will try to dig up evidence of character to add a bit more. Wikipedia entries are so diverse- some are full of holes and read like a fanzine - e.g. some of those on bands and band members - whereas others are of a higher standard in terms of citations, referencing, and objectivity. Someone like Egghead will swoop on some but not others. I think myself that a balance is needed. Talking of need, we needed SM on Saturday; LeTouhe came on and did nothing apart from run around out of position. I read about Rovers' game and Scotty scored and made chances, tearing around fit-as-a-fiddle - why did we let him go fro goodness sake? We made their rather large keeper pull-off a couple of good saves later on, but then the whistle went. Re Buckle, my wife told me: I'll check. Final point: Walsall is not picturesque, BUT the fans, stewards, and hotel staff (Park Inn next door) are really nice and helpful. I'll go again. Good walks around post-industrial canals as well. Southend tomorrow night - they won't be so welcoming. Thanks again. Sorry if I seemed bolshy - Lloyd

Glad you like the work done on the article - you're right, the quality of articles, especially footballers, is really varied. Some of them are just hopeless. Eventually most of them get noticed, but there are thousands, and so few of us! Yeah, I thought the same thing about Saturday - swap JT for Scotty and it might have been different. My guess is also that Scotty wouldn't have been sent off for headbutting on Tuesday night... I really hope Russ knows what he's doing, but sometimes I wonder. At least we finally won a shoot-out. Any news on Buckle? I keep thinking of Paul Brush... then I get panic attacks... I've also heard from others that Walsall is a bit grim, but the people are nice - I must get up there one year. No worries, mate - we all have to be a bit bolshy sometimes! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Scott McGleish with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 4twenty42o (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scott McGleish with this edit, 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. 4twenty42o (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Scott McGleish with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. 4twenty42o (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Scott McGleish. 4twenty42o (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your message

I am not entirely sure which article you were referring to. It seems to me the only article I have personally conflicted with you over is Scott McGleish. As far as the language on my talk page goes, I can only suggest that my Wikipedia talk page may not be the proper place to introduce your youngin' to the internet. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't you and apologies for that. But re language, you shouldn't use swearwords. It demeans Wikipedia and its contributors - there is plenty of scope for swearing on-line elsewhere. Lloyd

Hi Lloyd, me again. Look I am trying to be reasonable with you. You seem reasonable enough so either take my suggestion or don't. But do not presume to be in any position to make whatever changes you like to my user page or talk page. We may discuss whatever you care to there but understand that ultimately it is my user space and my talk space within this little project. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No - you shouldn't use swearwords anywhere on Wikipedia. It is more akin to vandalism than many of the accusations you have levelled at folk - I am not the only one who thinks this. You don't want to end up excluded for something childish. Lloyd, east London

Wikipedia is not censored. You should not intentionally engage in any behavior that's only purpose is to offend or annoy other editors, but if such offense is incidental, it's not strictly against the rules. Wikipedia has a prohibition on attacking other editors as well as a civility requirement, but that does not inherently include inappropriate language. i kan reed (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that removing offensive language is inconsistent with any Wikipedia principles. The reverse is the case. Removal isn't an attack on anyone - it's an improvement to the site. Swearing adds nothing. We have enough swearing around here lately. Lloyd, east London

By the way old chap (Mr 4twenty42), how are you qualified to make changes to an article on a soccer player from London? I note that you reside in our former colonies. That said, I know a great deal about baseball, and Boston Red Sox in particular. So maybe you know your stuff. L

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week for Disruptive Editing. 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. FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:41, 12 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I asked someone to remove swear words from Wikipedia. They refused so I did so. My daughter had found them so I removed them myself. I called him childish which may have been wrong of me. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

You trolled an editor with whom you had a disagreement, making changes to his talk page in spite of being told not to, and now you have avoided your block using the account Herbolzheim (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't avoided anything - you are mistaken. An exaplanation of what constitutes "irrelevent obscenity" would be appreciated. Then I will appeal again. 82.11.178.239 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason for unblock given. Irrelevant obscenities and vandalism would be adding "fuck", "shit", or "asshole" to an article. You were repeatedly vandalizing another user's page. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

OK. This is unfair for the following reasons and I appeal. (Sorry if the following is a bit long.) 1. I took issue with swearing anywhere on Wikipedia because my daughter has started to use it for school-work. We don't casually use fxxx in the UK, apart from less intelligent people, posh people trying to get an effect, or comedians who are not very good. I thought that it was just plain wrong and then I saw that "irrelevent obscenities" was vandalism in the rules, and thought that it applied anywhere (I use Amazon's review feature and one can't swear on that). So I changed ONE, just one, swear word on a page to "damn". Then I changed it again after explaining why to someone called 42forty. Then I got some garbled combatative message using slang words, wounded-ego talk, and bravado, that I would be barred. 2. I noticed that the person didn't explain fully his or her reasons for requesting a bar and seemed exercised that anyone would have the temerity to change their "drafting", but he/she was granted one without anybody clearly explaining to me why. (I also note that the person has had LOTS of disputes previously; and while he/she claims not to care about things, using swear words to make this point, he/she obviously cares very much - I think he/she is involved in a gun group which is worrying and I'm pleased that we don't have them here.) 3. I still think swearing is wrong and infantile, and am not happy with it being used above by "Reaper", but if it makes some contributors to Wikipedia entries feel good, and the rules allow it, so be it. We can only work from within to get this reviewed and won't change personal pages again I promise (although they are not really personal - unlike a personal website). 4. I say "we" because there are three of us at this address (me, my husband, and my eleven year-old daughter). My husband has now started a Wikipedia account under the name Herbolzheim (which is a place in southern Germany where we holiday, where the only swear words used are "Donner Wetter nochmal" which is pretty mild). You have barred him as well, yet he has contributed productively and collaboratively with me and others to plenty of entries over the years without an account, on and off. His sin was to change the word Fxxx a third time to "care" and you accused him of persistent "vandalism" and trying to get around being barred. This is heavy-handed and he deserves to be "restored", as do I, if that is the right word. 5. The decisions seem to have been taken by friends of the aggrieved swearer - I'd be grateful if this time an older person with young children, ideally from the UK, New Zealand, Canada or New England, could have a look at our "crimes". So, please reconsider. I would also like to know what "trolled" means, please. My daughter thinks that it's something to do with Billy Goats Gruff and bridges. Thanks - I appeal in good faith. Debbie (and Lloyd), Walthamstow, east London 82.11.178.239 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I do sympathise with you, and I myself would never consider using such expressions in Wikipedia talk pages. However, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not censored, and neither you nor I have the right to impose our own standards on other editors. However, you were not blocked simply because you or your husband changed wording on another user's talk page: you or he or both changed it again and again, and became belligerent when you found you were not getting your way. You have explained your feelings on this very clearly, and I do understand them, but in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia you have to fit in with the accepted ways of doing things, and trying to impose your own views by force is not acceptable, no matter how strongly you feel that you are right. You are perfectly free to raise the possibility of a change in policy if you want to (though my guess is that you would have no chance of success) but as long as the policy is as it is now, you have to accept it. I would be willing to consider unblocking if I got any sense that you understood what was unacceptable about what you have done, but I see only persistent explanations of why you think you were right. (I don't think it is relevant, but since you evidently do I will mention that I live in the UK and have children, and I would not have been happy for them to have seen such language in Wikipedia when they were young. However, this is completely irrelevant, as when I am acting as a Wikipedia administrator I attempt to put my own views aside and act on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whatever my personal opinions about those polices and guidelines.) One final point: getting another person to come along and make the edits you would have liked to have made had you not been blocked, known as "meatpuppetry", is regarded as essentially no different from evading the block by editing yourself from another account or IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (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.

I can sympathise with your approach, but unfortunately it does not coincide exactly with wikipedia policy. Let me say, before continuing, that I am an older person with children and, indeed, grandchildren. I in no way condone obscenity or profanity within the encyclopedia, and will be among the first to erase it and sanction the guilty editors where appropriate. But, and it is a big but, we do allow editors a significant amount of leeway on their talk-pages. You are correct in your statement that all pages are public; nevertheless, wikipedia is not censored and editor's talk pages, which it is reasonably assumed are not sought for by editors seeking information on specified topics, are treated in a slightly relaxed fashion as compared to other pages.

It is unfortunate that your husband, under his own account name, has decided to make similar edits or amendments as yours. This looks like sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, both of which are seriously disapproved of here. I will contact the blocking admin on your behalf; I do ask that you and your husband avoid editing within the same articles in future.

I am sorry to be so verbose, but I realise that you are editing in good faith and I would hate an unfortunate incident to discourage you from doing so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the unblock request to Anthony and Fastily to sort out, but I certainly hope you understand at this point that you should never change someone else's remarks on their talk page because you find them offensive, and of course you certainly shouldn't edit war over anything. Your personal morals do not override our site policies. Many, many users have objected over the years to the fact that we have images of Muhammad which are prohibited in some Muslim sects, and we have articles on various types of deviant sexual behavior which offend many people, and of course we have a rather good article on the very word that so offended you. Some of the content here is not in fact appropriate for an eight year old, but Wikipedia is not written for children, it is written for a general audience and it is not censored. It's important that you understand that or you are going to have a hard time editing here. The Wikipedia CD Selection is a filtered version of Wikipedia's best educational articles and does not contain material that should not be viewed by children. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And of course this edit [1] is rather ironic in that it is a perfect of example of someone being extremely rude without swearing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE - IF YOU MEAN "LISTEN MATE, I AM FED UP WITH THE HYPOCRITICAL PEDANTRY OF SOME OF YOU" I STAND BY IT. SOME OF YOU EXPLAIN PATIENTLY WITHOUT SLANG OR "IN HOUSE" TERMS; BUT AT OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY ENJOY THREATENING AND SWIFTLY BLOCKING, WITH DUBIOUS SAGACITY AND INFLATED EGOS. YOU SEEM TO TEND TOWARDS THE FORMER. I'M GRATEFUL FOR ALL PRACTICAL TIPS. WIKIPEDIA IS GREAT BUT INCONSISTENT - SOME PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH SLOPPY DRAFTING, OPINIONATED PHRASING, AND NO CITATIONS OR EVIDENCE, WHILE OTHERS GET THEIR STUFF GLEEFULLY HACKED TO PIECES IF THERE IS A WHIFF OF PASSION FOR A SUBJECT. THAT'S ENOUGH - GOOD NIGHT 42FORTY, BEEBLEBROX, REAPER, JAMES, BLACK WIDOW, HORATIO, FRED, EGGHEAD, POV PETE, SANDBOX BILLY, JUDGE 100 YEARS, SOLOMAN, HANGMAN, AND GOOD WIKIFOLK EVERYWHERE (APART FROM THE TROLLS). MY WIFE MAKES A FEW GOOD SUGGESTIONS BELOW - SEE B AND C. PS. 42FORTY HAS SENT MORE PEOPLE TO THE BLOCK THAN HENRY VIII. LLOYD

Normally I try not to feed the trolls but your unblock request caught my eye. I do not believe you were blocked for removal of "the word" which is so offensive to you. After several attempts at reason I reported the user name and IP to an AN noticeboard for vandalizing my talk page after talking about it didn't work and for block evasion. Regardless of where we are physically from, this all started because of a message from this IP to my talk page telling me to stop making changes. Regardless of whether I belong to a "gun group" (and I am an NRA member for life) someone at this IP obviously changed my user page multiple times after being requested not to. Regardless of what you personally believe I do not have friends on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project that has guidelines and policies in place to help prevent people from doing as they please. I like everyone else rely on other editors and admins when I do not know what to do. I will not apologize for my language because frankly I do not feel I have either rude nor condescending to you. If I had directed personal attacks your way or were irreverently placing curse words in article space or even cursing directed at another editor I would be blocked too. I will however extent my apologies that my user page offends you. That is not my intention at all. One last point I care to make is this. I am not much of an active content contributor here. I mainly fight vandals and research topics. Part of the reason I have "LOTS of disputes" is probably because I make no secret of my feelings on a topic (or lack there of) and I do not coddle anyone.. Oh and if you really want to be unblocked sooner tell the admins you know what you did was wrong and it will not happen again. The point of this particular block is not to punish you but to give you time to calm down and think through these points everyone has been trying to make. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments above. We understand the position. User pages (UPs) are not censored, can be individualised as the user sees fit (although I hope some things are disallowed such as child porn or racism), and swear words are not disallowed as they don't mean as much to some people as others. I have already said that we will not change them again. I have already used the word "promise" (look above). We'll "park" our own views. So will one of you nice fellas please "unblock" us so that we can make a needed change to the Scott McGleish page and add some data? (He's an English soccer player who very rarely swears unless it's something to swear about. That is to say selective and occasional use of swear words, to gain more impact. An example is "I wish the Fxxx Scott McGleish still played for Leyton Orient" which was heard earlier today at Brisbane Road as Orient went down 1-0 to Tranmere Rovers, possibly from my husband's direction.) I think one of you said above that you will speak to the Blocking Administrator.[User:Anthony Bradbury|Anthony Bradbury] I'd be grateful if you would do so, sir. I am clear that the person who took issue originally jumped quickly and asked for a block without explaining the circumstances to somebody who he/she certainly seemed to know would block on his/her say so. He/she seems to be the one who needs to calm down and accept that some people will find casual written use of some words a shock to see in the context of Wikipedia's website (although we should have discussed it with him/her before taking action). A few other points. A. Objecting to swear words doesn't seem as controversial as criticising a religion or defending that criticism - there is no religion that says you have to say Fxxx. But personal feelings and attitudes do vary and there is plenty of contested ground, so tolerance is important, I agree. B. There should be a clear box in red if one clicks on "edit" in a UP saying that one should not under any circumstances change that page and that rules such as "no irrelevent obscenities" do not apply as there is no censorship of UPs; or, better still, editing personal pages other than one's own should not be possible other than by someone high-up the Wiki-ladder in the case of porn or something like that. C. To view UPs one should need to log-in so that parents can stop their kids delving behind the encyclopaedia entries. That's it. Again, in good faith... Debbie, east London. (PS What does "trolling" mean?)

I don't necessarily agree with the characterization of what you were doing as trolling, but here is what it is all about. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - I have looked it up. It is something about setting out to upset: taking out a swear word isn't setting out to upset, is it? "Vandalism" or encroaching may apply (the latter certainly - sorry), but not "trolling". Using swear words to shock could upset people, it seems to me. Debbie

UPDATE UPDATE - the intro to Beeblebrox's page is spot on.

I have read the comment above asking for an unblock, and was considering unblocking, as it seems perfectly reasonable. However, I then read the post all in capitals a little further up. I am not entirely happy about unblocking an IP address which is used by an editor who is likely to make such intemperate rants and attack other editors in that way. It is certainly true that there is considerable variation among different Wikipedia editors as to how much effort they make to be helpful, as there is bound to be, since anyone can edit here. However, the fact that some editors have been less helpful to you than you would have liked does not justify being rude and belligerent. I therefore have doubts about unblocking. Despite those doubts I am still willing to consider unblocking this IP address to give you another chance, but please be aware that, if it is unblocked, any repetition of incivility, personal attacks, or any other unacceptable editing is likely to lead to an immediate reblock. The blocking administrator has been consulted over the possibility of unblocking, and has said "The husband creates a terrible racket leaving his wife to sort things out. While I'm sure she is acting in the best of faith, before I even consider an unblock, I would like to see the husband, the individual at fault, to acknowledge his own error and personally assure us he will refrain from repeating the same actions in the future. Does that seem reasonable?" In my opinion it seems perfectly reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

HUSBAND: We act and speak as one. It was injudicious to mess around with somebody's personal page without looking into the rules in more depth or discussing it with the person a little more, and I was wrong to repeat it when I created an account. We have said this and given an assurance that we will not do so again. That said, my missus has made some good suggestions that Wikipedia would do well to consider. We will be taking them up. My late night addition above is pretty harmless and I have seen contentious exchanges that are far more bitter and personal with no attempt at humour - some people seem to enjoy them. I hope you will unblock - a bloke called Anthony and one or two others seem sympathetic as well. I would not like my own page altered but I don't think that I would make this much fuss over one altered word by a couple who haven't engaged in editing in much depth previously (apart from Amazon reviews) and were just concerned about bad language. I think that I will leave out my transgression when I next go and see Father Maurice, our Parish Priest, but neither I nor Debbie will alter personal pages in the future. I think my block runs out in a few days anyway but it would be nice to be unblocked sooner. I will study the Wikipedia rules in more depth; but I think that I will be slow to block myself if I am in a position so to do unless someone is seriously "trolling". Hope this helps. Lloyd