User talk:Trio The Punch: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Move the recently-restored comments into chronological order |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
A few days ago you a couple of other editors helped me on this question [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_November_21#Converting_a_CTRL_key_into_a_FN_key]] I took my laptop to my friend and said to him, right how shall we go about doing this? He looked the keyboard and said: can't you just use the [Fn Lock] key that's also on the right hand side? Ah. *embarrassed face* [[User:Almost-instinct|''<font color="#FF2400">almost</font>'']]-[[User talk:Almost-instinct|<font color="#007FFF">instinct</font>]] 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
A few days ago you a couple of other editors helped me on this question [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_November_21#Converting_a_CTRL_key_into_a_FN_key]] I took my laptop to my friend and said to him, right how shall we go about doing this? He looked the keyboard and said: can't you just use the [Fn Lock] key that's also on the right hand side? Ah. *embarrassed face* [[User:Almost-instinct|''<font color="#FF2400">almost</font>'']]-[[User talk:Almost-instinct|<font color="#007FFF">instinct</font>]] 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Hahahaha. [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
:Hahahaha. [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Possible solution to the 3RR case == |
|||
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Trio_The_Punch_reported_by_User:Jeannedeba_.28Result:_.29 this 3RR complaint]. I imagine this might be closed with no block if you will agree to refrain from now on from restoring any posts at [[Talk:Pope Benedict XVI]] that have been removed by others. If you agree to this, please comment at WP:AN3. What I see is that one IP has been adding posts to Talk which seem to violate [[WP:BLP]]. By restoring these IP posts, it seems to me that you also are violating [[WP:BLP]]. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Finally, an admin! You already know it won't be closed with a block, because Jeannedeba has stopped vandalising and we only block people to protect the wiki, not to punish them. I understand it may ''seem'' that way to you, but it is a bit more complicated. Marauder40 has tried to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarauder40&diff=525552462&oldid=525550086 hide the evidence], but this is not a protect-the-[[WP:BLP|BLP]]-case, this is a case of people violating [[WP:TPO]] because of their religion (not to mention the tagteaming and editwarring). Please read that diff carefully, they misinterpret a comment and assume bad faith. Thanks in advance, [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::You are declining my offer. I'm afraid you're the one who needs to be blocked. Marauder40 is free to remove posts from their own Talk. You, on the other hand, are not free to create BLP problems on highly visible article talk pages. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Did I decline an offer? I never claimed Marauder40 is not free to remove posts from Marauder40's talkpage (but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarauder40&diff=525548490&oldid=525547952 History2007] is not). If you read the actual diff you'll discover that there is no BLP violation. Please read that diff before responding. Thanks in advance, [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ec}} I have now '''blocked you for 31 hours''' since you kept [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=525549204&oldid=525541217 adding] a clear BLP violation to the article talk page. You should use this time-out to read up on our policies about biographies of living persons and you could perhaps try to find a reliable source for the otherwise uncited claim you keep adding. That would make it possible to at least discuss the topic on the article talk page. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 16:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Why didn't you read the diff I asked EdJohnston to read? Please read it so you can unblock me. [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. And why 31 hours? You must be aware that that is far too long in this case. I am obviously goodfaithed, and even for bad faith vandalism you get a couple of hours at most initially. |
|||
:::::::The standard block for edit warring is 24 hours and your persistent re-adding of the talk page thread makes me actually fail to see that you are willing to let this rest until you can present something reliable. And I cannot find any "evidence" in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarauder40&diff=525552462&oldid=525550086 this thread] either. Blogs and portals issuing speculations are not reliable sources. I will leave it to another admin to unblock you or not, but still think 31 hours are justified to protect the integrity of the talk page in terms of the BLP and edit warring policies. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So you admit you added 7 hours to the standard block. How do you justify that? Did you read that diff? I think you still haven't read it. The person is not speculating about Ratzingers sexuality, xe just stated the fact that some people on Germans blogs write that he is gay. No speculating whatsoever. Then that person asked us to include info about his sexuality (to dispel the myth). They repeatedly claimed that the part of the talkpage that was removed contains a BLP violation, but if you read it carefully there is no BLP violation. Please read [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marauder40&diff=prev&oldid=525550086#BLP this], slowly and carefully. The reason they don't answer my request (Please quote the sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality.) because there is no sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality. [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 17:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, I have read the diff but apparently you did not read my previous answers. So to repeat it: Blogs are not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] and therefore we cannot rely on what has been reported from blogs. The IP or anyone else should have brought a reliable source with a clear statement. Talk pages of articles about living persons are not for posting speculation about their private life or sexual preferences. And as to my blocking you, I have explained that above. Apart from that you have clearly been edit warring. Even if there had been proper sources in this discussion, you should not have restored it while several editors keep deleting it. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) |
|||
::::::::::Maybe you've read it, but you haven't understood it. Try again. We need sources to say "x is gay". We don't need sources to say: "certain blogs say that x is gay, he never said he is, please include info about his sexuality in the article". Don't you understand the difference between those two? How is me being blocked protecting Wikipedia? Are you going to apologize for wasting my time after you've finally understood the text in that difflink? [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. Please reread both [[WP:TPO]] and [[WP:BLP]], it worries me that an admin understands so little about that kinda stuff. |
|||
{{tl|helpme}}Please tell De728631 he has a new message here, and ask a more experienced admin to take a look |
|||
:::::::::::{{ec}} Yes, we need sources but per BLP we cannot talk about requesting sources for "x being gay" without presenting at least one reliable source that does already backs up this claim. This has also been explained to you in the article talk discussion by Marauder40 and History2007. There are in fact several hints in [[WP:BLP]] that cover this very case. Please see the section ''Avoid gossip and feedback loops'' and consider the note in ''Public figures'': "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." This applies also to talk pages. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::You still don't understand. Read it again. Can you quote the sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality? I don't think you can. [[User:Trio The Punch|Trio The Punch]] ([[User talk:Trio The Punch#top|talk]]) 22:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. Now you claim someone asked about sources about Ratzinger being gay. You must've made that up, because no one has asked for that. Is English your native language??? Can you quote the sentence(s) in WP:BLP that apply here? |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=31 hours is unreasonable, block is just a way to avoid answering the question I asked in that diff. Unfortunately EdJohnston has not responded because De728631 disrupted our conversation but De728631 seems to be unable to understand the situation | decline=Edit warring is not allowed, even if you are sure you are right and everyone else is wrong, because it leaves things in the state preferred by the most obstinate edit-warrior, and drives away from the project contributors who do not like a hostile and combative environment. A usual block for edit-warring is 3 days, 31 hours is lenient. During your block, read [[WP:EW]] and [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Can you quote the sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality? And please explain why this block protects the encyclopedia. | decline=I don't see an explanation in this request of either why you were not edit warring or what you would do instead in the future. Actually don't even see a request to be unblocked in it. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that |
|||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
*#understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
*#will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
:Here is a third admin to tell you the same thing. |
|||
:You are quibbling and wikilawyering and displaying a severe case of [[WP:IDHT]]. It is time for you to accept what multiple people are telling you: if it is unacceptable to say "X is gay" it is no more acceptable to say "Some people say X is gay" or even "some unreliable blogs say X is gay". That is just floating the same accusation into the air by innuendo. Read [[WP:BLPGOSSIP]]: |
|||
<blockquote>Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.</blockquote> |
|||
:Unless you accept what everyone is telling you and drop this, you are likely to be blocked for much longer. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Here's a fourth, edit-conflicted. Unsourced gossip isn't ever going to be part of the encyclopedia, so it's pointless to edit-war to put it on a talk page, too. If a time comes when there's a legitimate source confirming that the gossip is accurate, it will definitely be added. Until then, focus your attention at Wikipedia on reliably sourced information, and never ever edit-war no matter what, and you'll be fine. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
In fact, 31 hours is very lenient, considering all the disruption you have caused by starting an edit war on a high profile article, disruptive NPOV tagging to make a point, and edit warring against multiple editors to insert gross and unacceptable BLP violations on its talk page. Please make yourself familiar with the fundamentals of editing and policies of our encyclopedia before returning to editing, or you will find yourself blocked for a much longer time. Thank you. [[User:Jeannedeba|Jeannedeba]] ([[User talk:Jeannedeba|talk]]) 02:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Comment: [[User:Trio The Punch]] is displaying all the characteristics of many users who have ended up being permanently blocked for the overall good of the project. The sooner this takes place the better. . . [[User:Mean as custard|Mean as custard]] ([[User talk:Mean as custard|talk]]) 07:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Can you quote the sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality? And please explain why this block protects the encyclopedia. I am also kind of curious why people volunteer to be an admin if they don't have the time or brainpower to read and understand the situations they have to deal with | decline=You are simply not listening to anything anyone is saying, and are instead just insulting people, so I have removed your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. Re-read all of the messages above, and if you carry on violating BLP policy once the block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer, possibly indefinitely. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{helpme-helped|need an experienced admin who is willing to do some investigating.}} |
|||
*And I've just put back the admin comments that you removed - you should not remove admin discussion pertaining to your unblock requests while you are still blocked. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:45, 1 December 2012
| “ | WEEBLES FALL DOWN! | ” |
| — Trio The Punch – Never Forget Me... | ||
Trio The Punch, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Trio The Punch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you
|
I, Acceptable, hereby award you this original barnstar for helping me with my macro clicking question. |
Simpler solutions
A few days ago you a couple of other editors helped me on this question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2012_November_21#Converting_a_CTRL_key_into_a_FN_key I took my laptop to my friend and said to him, right how shall we go about doing this? He looked the keyboard and said: can't you just use the [Fn Lock] key that's also on the right hand side? Ah. *embarrassed face* almost-instinct 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hahahaha. Trio The Punch (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)