Jump to content

User talk:81.111.114.131

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.111.114.131 (talk) at 09:45, 26 May 2010 (rv false warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Script tags

Definitely not intentional, it already happened to me some time ago, and it is apparently a bug with the Google Chrome browser I am using (I am having a lot troubles with Firefox these days). Thanks for letting me know. --Angelo (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:International E-road network#Requested move

Oops! Probably didn't notice it since it was a little higher up. I'll move it now. Thanks for the heads up. Jafeluv (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Jon the Postman

Hello 81.111.114.131, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jon the Postman has been removed. It was removed by Michig with the following edit summary '(deprod - no rationale given. Jon the Postman was avery well-known figure in the MCR punk scene - plenty of books cover him. Needs improvement)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Michig before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced content from Jon the Postman. Doing this while the article is at AFD at your request could easily be seen as disruptive editing.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (81.111.114.131) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! SMP0328. (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jon the Postman, you will be blocked from editing. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing at Jon the Postman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation on Infobox settlement

Your opinions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Standardisation_on_Infobox_settlement would be appreciated. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] (talk · contribs) 05:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Blocking admin appears to have an interest in the matter being debated, and hasn't provided any explaination for their action. Responding to a user who is bullying and misrepresenting other opinions on the page by asking them to justify it is not 'disruption'.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for removing comments by other editors. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. --VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You've twice removed someone else's comment from WP:VPM, so your indignation is out of place here. (Such removal is usually considered vandalism, so any admin may properly respond). If you promise to behave, someone may consider lifting your block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believed the comment was overly disruptive, following that user's disruption to the TFD ongoing debates. I hardly think that merits a week. I shan't be removing that section again (someone has already replied to it). In the alternative, I suggest that with the exception of the edits to VPM, that the admin be made to substantiate the claim of "disrupting debates". I can't honestly believe that any of my contributions to TFD in the past few hours could justifiably be called "disruptive". I would also like to return to the constructive contrubitons I have been making at such debates (as the first page of contribs will show), and won't be performing the sort of edits I made at the pump again. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to address the concerns by simply removing his comments was just as disruptive. Your unwilligness to work with other editors and simply thinking that your view is right and everyone else's is wrong is also telling. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I believe the block is no longer necessary. As I have said, I intend to return to making constructive contributions, such as those I have been making in the debates. A careful reading of my comments will show that I am not "thinking that my view is right and everyone else's is wrong". I am in fact challenging people who are displaying that very behaviour. I have made clear that I will not be repeating the edit at WP:VPM, or making any others like it. I have recanted the only action that anyone has actually suggested was disruptive. Having addressed this, I cannot understand why I am blocked for a week.}}

As the editor whose comments at the pump were (quite rudely) removed I am not opposed to an unblock (although I am mystified as to why he still seems to think that his actions were justified). If the IP editor is willing to concede that I am entitled to raise my point of view in the appropriate forums in a manner of my choosing (provided I am civil), then of course I am willing to concede to him the same courtesy. If my statements at the pump are false, as he claims, then rather than removing them he should respond to them and show how they are false, if he can. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said anywhere that my edits to the Pump were justified. Looking back, I do not believe that they were, since I now suspect that you were unfamiliar with procedures at the Pump. It was, still is, and always has been my belief that you are entitled to present your opinions provided you do so in a manner that is civil and at least somewhat respectful (this isn't really a concession as it's not new ground). I doubt you'd disagree here. However, when bringing contentious issues to wider attention, you are expected to present a brief, neutral summary of the issue at hand, and then put forward your opinion. In this addition, you accuse editors unknown (simply "the people maintaining [the template]") of trying to set a standard by force and by stealth, and are suggesting that if the debates aren't stopped, an administrator is going to step in and hit the "delete" button without thinking, which is a substantial misrepresentation, albeit that I now understand this probably wasn't deliberate. I don't think that tone was civil, though I suspect a major part of our disagreement comes from this: a "delete" at TfD is not "administrator nukes the page". It includes all of the steps preparatory to this. If a template needs to be substituted, it is assumed anyone that said "delete" wants that to happen, unless they said otherwise. If there is migration to be done, a "delete" decision puts that into action (see also {{being deleted}} - there's no time limit on this). Think of a "delete" not-vote as being a not-vote to begin the process that will result in the template going away. I'm heartened by the support from others that have participated, and would very much like to get back to discussing things sensibly. Ideally rather sooner than a week from now. :-) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the pump is NOT an RfC and I am entitled to put my point of view whether you agree with it or not. If you want to create an RfC feel free. None of the proponents for deletion have deemed the pump discussion worthy of their notice. Perhaps they will be more forthcoming at your RfC. Secondly, you keep saying that I seem to misunderstand what is meant by "deleting" a template. Well, the proponents have been given every opportunity to expand on their plans and yet continue to refuse to do so. If we are so ignorant, cure us of our ignorance! Thirdly, that there is such a program to standardise is quite clear at Template talk:Infobox settlement and quite what I should call the organised group of people involved in the program is unclear to me if "people maintaining {{Infobox settlement}}" is unacceptable to you. Fourthly, you seem to be reading "by force and stealth" into my comments at the pump. Certainly I did not use those terms (or anything like them). I can only assume they are a figment of your imagination. Lastly, our "disagreement" is not about the meaning of the term "delete", it is about the supposed benefits of standardisation. Not one of the proponents of standardisation (can I call them this or is this still referring to "editors unknown"?) have bothered to put this case forward. I think the local solution works better than the bloated and barely usable global "solution" and it seems more than a few people agree with this. Your patronising manner about what I supposedly do not "understand" and what our disagreement is actually about hardly helps your case. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not right to simply say "The pump is NOT an RfC". RfC is explicitly not a formal process, and it seems fairly clear there that you were at the pump to request comment. I believe we agree that you are entitled to put your opinion, provided you do so civilly and respectfully. Correct? If you are happy to accept an unblock, would you be willing to do so? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked, per your promise to refrain in the future. Mangojuicetalk 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Werlé

All of the relevant information is now in Walter Sedlmayr.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not edit war on this. Please request a WP:RFC if you are unhappy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Walter Sedlmayr, 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. I see you've already had some good advice. Please stop removing content without consensus. Rodhullandemu 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Rodhullandemu 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for You have been warned to stop, and take this to the discussion page, but you haven't. You've now reverted a fourth time, not just in 24 hours, but in less than two hours. This is unacceptable.. Please stop. You are 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. Rodhullandemu 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
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).

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

Request reason:

Discussion points have been repeatedly raised by myself on talk page with no response, but I am now unable to respond to them. I have been blocked after taking the advice of the admin and starting a discussion on the talk page.

Decline reason:

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'm going to undod the decline, because User:Rodhullandemu is either lying or trying to pretend these diffs don't exist: [1] [2] [3] [4] 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet between this edit and this one, you removed sourced content five times, without allowing consensus to develop on the Talk page. That's edit-warring however you look at it and that is why I blocked you. Rodhullandemu 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK election page move

As you have previously participated in discussions to move "Next United Kingdom general election" to "United Kingdom general election, 2009", I am writing to inform you that the discussion is once again taking place at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#Page move, revisited. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brown move request

You have recently participated in a discussion about moving Sarah Brown (spouse). The request has been modified so please revisit it here for further discussion if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template {{r}}

I'm not sure if it is what you intended, but when you added an inline tag to {{r}}, you made an absolute mess of every page using it. For an example, see Malvern Water. The page is unreadable. GyroMagician (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same with several Hong Kong transport pages, eg Tung Chung Line, presumably following this? N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll get in all kinds of trouble again, but for what it's worth, the 'short' version is much better - good find! GyroMagician (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to The Wave 96.4 FM, you will be blocked from editing. If you've got a problem, take it to the Talk page, but don't WP:EDITWAR, because that's a sure shortcut to a blocking. Rodhullandemu 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Rodhullandemu 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

You are not in a position to hand out unwarranted vandalism warnings to users such as User:Jonny7003 as an anonymous editor who has been blocked several times for disruptive editing. You may wish to get an account to be taken more seriously. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porn industry output

Thanks for the output. However, I still see something wrong of comparing normal TV with print media. There is non-porn print, Hentai anime, respectively manga, is the porn equivalent of manga, respectively anime, hentai games are equivalent of anime games and so on. My point is comparing them in their equivalent environment would lead to a tie or the "underappreciation" of porn, especially with the conservative motion of banning it and what-not, so this is going nowhere. But thanks for the bother. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HK-MTR lines

See here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK 2010 election page is now unprotected

You should now be able to make changes to it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.111.114.131&oldid=364271095"