User talk:Trio The Punch

“

WEEBLES FALL DOWN!

”

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)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hahahaha. Trio The Punch (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution to the 3RR case

Regarding 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, EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 hide the evidence, but this is not a protect-the-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, Trio The Punch (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I decline an offer? I never claimed Marauder40 is not free to remove posts from Marauder40's talkpage (but 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, Trio The Punch (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have now blocked you for 31 hours since you kept 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. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you read the diff I asked EdJohnston to read? Please read it so you can unblock me. Trio The Punch (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.[reply]

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 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. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Trio The Punch (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the diff but apparently you did not read my previous answers. So to repeat it: Blogs are not a 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. 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? Trio The Punch (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.[reply]

{{helpme}}Please tell De728631 he has a new message here, and ask a more experienced admin to take a look

(edit conflict) 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. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Trio The Punch (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

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 reason:

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

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 reason:

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, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2012 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

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

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{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 |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse.
Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Wikipedia's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Wikipedia-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

need an experienced admin who is willing to do some investigating.