User talk:Pdfpdf

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pdfpdf (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 6 July 2011 (→‎Just checking first ...: Thank you gentlemen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article mentions elephants but doesn't specify African or Indian.
You can help by specifying which. Please don't be overly precise.
SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.



Most recent archive
Stuff that used to be on this page
Tools: Commons Upload; Commons talk page; {{db-g7}}; More tools; sub-pages: User User talk
Sandboxes: Adelaide Educational Institution; AEI Reunions; Old Adelaide Families; John Acraman; George Debney; W Everard; W. B. Carr; George Morphett; Stow Smith; William Charles Douglas Veale 

The current time where I live is {{time}} – unknown timezone ntt (help)

I haven't worked out how to get the template to do Daylight saving yet, so for the moment, I'll use Darwin time. I also need to work out how to make it display dates in Australian format ...

Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations

You may find Talk:List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Australian Defence Force Rank abbreviations of interest. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending that to my Talk page. I was watching that article Talk and I've just made a suggestion. Let's all try to get the matter resolved on the article Talk page alone. Cheers, --Wikiain (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was (is?) my plan. Pdfpdf (talk)
I have responded with a reference to the Defence Standard. Personally I don't think they should be abbreviated but it seems to work better in this table. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded with a reference to the Defence Standard. - Ta.
The fact that you can't find ADFP 103 on the web probably explains why I can't, either. ;-)
Personally I don't think they should be abbreviated but it seems to work better in this table. - OK. Useful comment. I think you should state that on the talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer watching this. Cheers, --Wikiain (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Please explain how my edits are made in bad faith, because I cannot see my edits appearing in that manor. ΔT The only constant 01:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sub-mariner, I'm sure you are quite aware what "over and out" means.
However, your request is very polite, and entirely reasonable, so it would seem both very impolite and very unreasonable not to reply, and hence I had intended to respond usefully.
But Mr Beetstra has taken on the role of divine retribution and dramatically interferred.
I hope you won't be offended if I don't reply right now.
In very brief summary, I had intended to say something to the effect that your knowledge in the area is thorough and reliable. However, your manner is somewhat abbrasive - in my personally admitted completely biassed opinion: "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it."
Any further response would almost certainly lead to me making comments about Mr Beetstra's objectivity, so I won't continue.
My closing comment would be: Please keep up the good work, but take off your hobnail boots and replace them with soft slippers.
Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

OK, I have now reviewed your edits:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

I do note, that you did undo the insertion of the image again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice:

I have gone through the history of File:Nathanael-2011.jpg:

  • Page history
    • (del/undel) (diff) 14:03, 19 June 2011 . . Pdfpdf (talk | contribs | block) (85 bytes) ({{db-g7}} - non-free images can only be used in the articlespace, not the user space)
    • (del/undel) (diff) 13:17, 19 June 2011 . . Pdfpdf (talk | contribs | block) (556 bytes) (+ license)
    • (del/undel) (diff) 15:18, 17 June 2011 . . Pdfpdf (talk | contribs | block) (542 bytes) (Groan - You will NEVER convince me that mindless process for the sake of mindless process is a useful or productive, or even necessary, exercise)
    • (del/undel) (diff) 15:10, 17 June 2011 . . Pdfpdf (talk | contribs | block) (600 bytes) ({{Non-free use rationale}}
  • File history
    • (del/undel) 15:10, 17 June 2011 . . Pdfpdf (talk | contribs | block) 53×167 (3,869 bytes) ({{Non-free use rationale}}

I have been reading the non-free use rationale of that image:

  • "|Replaceability = Possibly, but I don't have access to it. Further, it is a photo of a unique event - that is not replacable"

It is not only that this image can NOT be used in userspace, when you state "possibly, but I don't have access to it" you clearly show that you completely disregard "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" - you say that it 'possibly' could be replaced. This is a total disregard of WP:NFCC, ánd when pointed that way, you continue to attack the editor who removes this plain copyright violation from display. I am asking you to really reconsider your actions on Wikipedia and to avoid any further disruption. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the above:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of indef as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

(another example) --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

{{help me}}

What does "indefinite block" mean? Please point me to the relevant pages. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocks

Shortcuts

An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. Like all remedies, this is not a punishment. It is designed as a "time out" to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future.

Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block, which would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community.

(edit conflict)An indefinite block is an open ended one, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Indefinite blocks. They are generally handed out when something specific has to change before unblocking or for severe disruption. Not sure what's gone on here, will have to have a read through Dirk Beetstra's comments to understand fully. WormTT · (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
I'm looking forward to reading your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pdfpdf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WormTT · (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear Mr Beetstra.

Thank you for blocking me. I need to get a life. As you can see, my steps toward semi-retirement have been spectacularly unsuccessful. You have provided me with a scenario where I am no longer encumbered by my addiction to wikipedia.

I am in your debt. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) "I am sorry that their career ends this way (and the dry humor in that post is well taken) but I refuse to accept that I am the straw that breaks thát camels back."
Yeah Beestra, I understand. "You were only following orders". Right? Be a man and take resposonsibility for your own actions! No-one else is ending my career on WP. If you are NOT prepared to take responsibility, then don't take the actions.
2) "repair my name ... " - What delicious irony!
3) Don't get me wrong - you've really done me a big favour. (But I doubt that was your intention.)
Now, as the man at the South Pole said: "I'm just going outside and may be some time."
Over and out. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Following orders', Pdfpdf? No, no orders followed, Pdfpdf. I do take full responsibility for first blocking you for 2 weeks, and I take full responsibility for blocking you indef after that. But I am sorry, I am not responsible for the edits that you make, and the comments that you make about other editors, upon which I made this call, thát responsibility lays completely with you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Pdfpdf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Pdfpdf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LordVetinari 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive25
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your username or IP address has been blocked.

Please unblock my ability to edit my archives. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC) {{help me}}[reply]

You can contact Beetstra or another administrator to discuss the block.
How? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i.e. How can I contact Beetstra or another administrator to discuss the block?)
I presume that you mean, how can I be unblocked?
You can enter your request in an {{unblock}}, information can be found Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close.
Once again, to use your offensive and supercilious style: How clear do I have to be?
Do me a favour please. Read what I wrote. Think. THEN answer. Please do not presume anything. If there is something that is not clear to you, ask. Please do not presume anything.
My posting was NOT a question, it was a request.
The request is: Please unblock my ability to edit my archives.
What about that is not clear? Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is technically impossible. You are blocked, and the only page you can edit is this talkpage. The only thing you can do is ask to have your account unblocked, which enables you to edit your archive and the rest of Wikipedia. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. I did not read in any detail, (nor digest), the section above titled "Blocked". I started to, but found your point of view so negatively-biassed towards me, and so completely lacking in good faith, that I decided not to raise my blood pressure.

Examples:
  • "first removal, pretty clear" - Excuse me, but there is nothing "clear" about that. I expect Delta knows what it means. I gather you know what it means. But I don't. Hence I responded: "If you disagree, please explain." By-the-way, no explanation was ever forthcoming.
  • "how clear must it be" - As clear as is necessary for the target audience to understand. Surely it's blatentently obvious that the target audience did not understand? Does not the fact that you then go on to explain clearly demonstrate that there was no explanation, and hence that an explanation was needed?
  • You then repeat yourself. Please explain how, if I didn't understand something the first time, then I will magically understand if you just repeat yourself?

2. Regarding my actions, I did a number of things.

You chose to selectively cherry pick the things you don't like, and attack them.
You chose to selectively ignore the actions of mine that are reasonable, rational, polite and reasoned.
There was, however one, (and only one), tiny exception to you ignoring the good stuff. Waaaaay down the bottom, you mention-in-passing, and as an aside: "I do note, that you did undo the insertion of the image again"
I did a WHOLE lot more than that, AND I explained a whole lot more than that, AND I organised to have the images deleted.
You do not even make a passing mention of ANY of that.

3. So, after having asked Delta to explain himself, he simply reverted again. And again, he did it without providing any explanation beyond a cryptic code reference. That seemed to me to be very bad faith. It also seemed to me to be unnecessarily pugnacious.

I replied "Revert bad faith edit. You have been asked, politely, to explain yourself. Stop trying to start an edit."
You have categorised that interchange as: "Delta clearly stated that the image is non-free and is NOT to be used outside of mainspace".
Errr. Sorry. No, Delta did no such thing. What is your evidence that he did say that? I can't find any.
Yes, he did mention a cryptic code reference to an obscurely worded piece of pseudo-legalise that I found incomprehensible. I'm afriad I don't class that as an explanation. I certainly don't class it as a "clear statement" - of anything.
how clear does it have to be. - Well obviously, I needed it to be considerably clearer!
There is no bad faith there, - From my viewpoint of politely asking for explanation and not getting it, there appeared to be nothing BUT bad faith.
"that is a plain personal attack." - I beg your pardon? In what way is a polite question a "plain personal attack"? That completely confuses me. Please explain.
"Delta explained himself" - Errr. No. He didn't.
"trying to start an edit war' is a plain assumption of bad faith from you" - That's nonsense. I'm just going to ignore that.

4. You continued to make a number of other non-seqitur statements in between personal attacks upon me, and also in between bad faith assumptions about me, my motives and my motivation.

You made no attempt to try to interpret what my point of view might be. You made no attempt to ask me what my point of view is. You have just assumed that you know what my pov is, what my motives are, and what my motivations are.

5. So, without any warning, or any attempt to check your facts, you decided to block me for two weeks.

  • Question: Is it not customary to warn somebody before you block them?

6. But, apparently, such dramatic action was not sufficient for you. Is appears to me that you then felt it necessary to persecute me.

For your convenience, you then chose to quote me out of context, and then use that mis-quote to build yourself a justification for your otherwise unjustifiable behaviour.
(To use your manner of speech:) I clearly state: "Further, it is a photo of a unique event - that is not replacable". Just how clear do I have to be?
you clearly show that you completely disregard ... - Please explain how this statement of your opinion of my motivation was NOT made by you in in bad faith.

7. I am asking you to really reconsider your actions on Wikipedia and to avoid any further disruption - What disruption? Which actions? The fact is that I asked Delta to explain himself, (which he didn't), and then when I understood what he was on about, I had the pictures deleted.

  • How is that worthy of even a 48 hour block, much less a two week block? Please explain.

8. So, not having warned me or solicited a response from me before blocking me for 2 weeks, you then, (16 minutes later), implemented an "indefinite block".

But you didn't bother to explain what an indefinite block is, or what it means.
I have subsequently discovered (not from you I might emphasise) that as a result of an indefinite block, I am meant to do something.
Is that correct?
If so, what is it that am I supposed to do?

9. I would also note that what I have read suggests that an admin doing what you have done is not supposed to have a conflict of interest. My investigations suggest to me that you do have a conflict of interest. Please explain why you feel that you do not have a conflict of interest.

10. I normally end my communications with "Cheers". However, I do not feel particularly cheeful. Goodnight. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pdfpdf, Beetra should have used the standard block notification template that informs you what to do. This is the standard template:

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

So you could appeal the block to get an independent review. To succeed in being unblocked I suppose you can show that the problem that caused the block will not happen again. This may happen by demonstrating that you know the non free use rules and will agree to abide by them. And the other aspect is personal attacks. I can see you have made quite a case on that topic. A COI by the blocking administrator should mean they should not have been involved in a block, and instead should have asked someone else to do it.

I have had my own disagreements with delta, but so far nothing turned into an edit war. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply here. First, Graeme Bartlett, I did use a standard block-template, twice even.

1) So, you did not understand, that is fine. You were however pointed earlier (months ago) to NFCC, and you are a regular uploader. If you do not understand why something is removed, then you do not revert that back in, you first try to find out, you ask the editor who removes it, you ask on the talkpage of the policy or guideline you were pointed there. Calling that removal 'bad faith' is about the last you do, that is a personal attack, you say there, that ∆ is removing that image out of bad faith, while he had the policy behind him, a policy he understands, and edit which is in line with that policy, while you did not understand it. So that is the first insult, you should have refrained from that.

2) Yes, I mentioned all the edits with insults and negative remarks from you - that was asked to you not to do in several edits on several places. I did notice that you do good work as well, but I am sorry, that only shows that you know your way around Wikipedia (will get back to this below), and still I can find 7 cases where you feel you need to throw insults at ∆. You should know that insults do not help the situation, you should know the existence of WP:NPA/WP:AGF and so forth.

3) As I said, Delta was right, you say you did not understand - it is fine that you don't understand that someone else is right - you should have assumed the other editor was right, and not revert with a remark that the other editor is editing in bad faith.

4) No, I do not know. But you were told that you should stop throwing insults on ∆ - I give the last example: here you were warned not to personally attack editors - specifically, it mentioned an edit where you put a personal attack on ∆ (This edit summary) - which you revert with 'Delta's ongoing and continuing bad faith behaviour' - so you reply to a warning not to insult an editor with an insult. You could have worded that differently - well, you should even have made sure that that warning was not necessary.

5) Without any warning, Pdfpdf. I have shown a handful of edits above where you were remarked that you should assume good faith and not personally attack people. 4 editors, ∆ and 3 others, remark on your and ∆'s talkpage (remarks you have responded to, there are even 2 more of two other editors), explain, tell you to stop personally attacking the editor. You are an experienced editor, you should know your way around, you should know that persistent patterns of disruptive edits can get you blocked. What, you even have had a block for WP:NPA - so you know that a) you should not make personal attacks, and b) you know that you can be blocked for it. So don't come to me with 'I was not warned' - moreover, here you say "And if you continue to be rude, arrogant and act in bad faith, so will you." - so you know that if editors are continuously rude, arrogant, and act in bad faith, that they will be blocked. And note in that remark that Delta actually explained you why the image can not be used, still you call that rude, and your next edit is this - where you continue to be rude to Delta, while acknowledging that he explained to you what was actually wrong.

So yes, a block of minimally a week for persistent, continued personal attacks is warranted, you knew about personal attacks, you knew that Delta was right, Delta explained, and still.

6) Yes .. Have you read the whole set of edit regarding that image? You first upload it with a 'Replaceable - probably' - then you indeed change it to 'not replaceable' - it is a picture of a living person ("Nathanael Ford (born 9 September 1991, Nambour, Queensland) is a member of the Queensland community and is dedicated to helping others trough community service.") - images of living people are always replaceable by a free picture - we do not use non-free images of living people. What, you even say "... Oh well. Nathanael: You'll have to upload your own photos that you own the copyright for." - and still you persist in saying it is not replaceable? That is the very proof it is.

7) You ask 'what disruption' - well, as you say above in #1, and what is clear from your reverts - you do clearly not understand the WP:NFCC - you upload images which are replaceable, a clear failure of WP:NFCC (and even first saying that it is probably replaceable, later changing it to not replaceable, and then upon removal from display saying it should be replaced with something else), and you use images there where they are not allowed to be used (another failure of WP:NFCC) - So in point, you do not understand WP:NFCC. Yet you upload a lot of images, you use them, and when you are pointed towards that things may be wrong, you choose to insult and revert the editor removing them in stead of maybe understanding that you should try and understand the policy. I think that it is necessary for the protection of this project that you first learn to understand WP:NFCC and its implications before you are allowed to edit further. That is not accomplished by a definite block (a block with a defined ending time), those are situations we have indefinite blocks for. I am sorry, I think you will have to convince editors that you have read and have understood (because you repeatedly have shown, and now also say, that you did not understand why Delta removed the image!) the spirit of WP:NFCC before we should allow you to proceed uploading images and/or using non-free material. Allowing you to proceed without you understanding the issues could be damaging to the project. Regarding this, if you have an edit window, you have, right below it, in the very first line "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." That means that this is a serious thing, non-free material is material that violates copyrights, but some of it can be used under a strict set of restrictions, which need to be followed.

8) You were warned during this string of personal attacks and incivility (the string of diffs that I gave you when I mentioned that you were blocked), you even were blocked before for NPA (last year), and you are an experienced editor, you should know that that can result in blocks. For the indefinite, the warnings link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy (link under the fourth word of the warning) - that is where you could have read it. However, it is maybe not directly in the warning, indefinite is a good English word, and I answered promptly when you asked. So please don't get there.

9) Conflict of interest, Pdfpdf? Did we meet before? We may have had earlier interactions, but I have not sanctioned you before or whatever for as far as I can see. So what did I block you for - I blocked you first for personal attacks, mainly addressed at Delta (although I think that your remark to 2over0 about whining was also not nice - it even suggests that you were out to get Delta sanctioned). You were not attacking me, I was not involved in this whole interaction between you and Delta. Yes, I defend Delta as I would defend any other editor against continued strings of personal attacks, incivility, lack of good faith assumptions, etc. etc. For the copyright-block - I have explained above why I think that that indefinite block is to protect the project, keep you from editing until we can be sure that your use of non-free material is not going to damage the project.

10) I can understand that you do not feel particularly cheerful, Pdfpdf. But I do hope, that when you are throwing personal attacks and other negative remarks at Delta that Delta does not feel 'particularly cheerful' either. And for your information, when editors call me a vandal I don't feel particularly cheerful either. Still, I do get those remarks, and Delta got those remarks as well. I am sorry, there was no need to yell at Delta, especially not if you do not understand what Delta is doing.

So, I hope you understand my reasoning, and I think you can understand as well what conditions will be for the lift of both blocks (i.e., an understanding of the reasons of the blocks, and a reassurance that you will do your best to avoid such situations in the future at the very least). I hope you had a good night, and I am awaiting your reply. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move on please

Although I've edited with Pdfpdf in the past, I'm not here to take sides and to criticise who said what and why. I'm not interested in why this user was blocked because it is now in the past. Issues arose, words were said and consequences happened. It's over. May I suggest then, before this discussion goes further, that said discussion be ended. Now. The user is gone and apparently has no immediate wish to return. Further discussion is unnecessary and only serves to clog a talk page. It's best, therefore, if all those involved move on to more important things, such as building this encyclopedia. LordVetinari 10:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if we feel that a fellow editor has been not well-treated, we should just ignore it? Why did Pdfpdf not have a RFC/User Conduct process that the community could discuss his failings and give him guidance? jmcw (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned that there was no WP:ANI discussion started by the blocking Admin (since they're involved and have a COI with another editor [not Pdfpdf]). Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LordVetinari, yes, please, lets move on. I have above said what unblocking conditions there are, and I will grant those immediately, and I am sure that other admins will also do that as well.

Jmcw37, we do not need RfCs on users when they persist after warning, or there is continued risk of damage to Wikipedia. Users get indeffed after continued damage on a regular basis without RfCs.

Bidgee, I do not have to start an ANI thread for blocking an editor who has shown, and admitted, not to understand WP:NFCC and who is, by that, damaging Wikipedia. Editors that damage Wikipedia get blocked on a continuous basis (for short and longer times) without ANI being involved. Where am I involved in the removal of the images or the re-insertion, did I have interaction with Pdfpdf (did I block him before? Did I have a content war with Pdfpdf?). And where do I have a COI with another editor, and how is that of relevance to me blocking Pdfpdf? Further explanations are above in my lengthy reply to Pdfpdf. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI, I have decided to take a wiki-free day today, and have taken great pleasure in not reading a single word that anyone has written anywhere on wikipedia about anything. (Oops, I tell a lie. I have looked at Lily Rose Beatrice Allen and Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta.)

I have been spending my time enjoying listening to Lily Allen's "It's not me, it's you", and Lady GaGa's "The Fame Monster". Both of these ladies are infinitely more intelligent than any of the mere males (myself included) who have "contributed" anything to this page. Unlike some of the people who self-riteously continue to avoid the uncomfortable realities of life, THEY can spot bullshit at well over 100m, and don't give a damn who decides to get upset when they point it out. In fact, to quote Ms Allen, they both make "fuckloads" of money doing this. Given that they are both almost infinitely more wealthy (and more attractive) than any of the contributors to this page, I think I have my priorities right. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Jeez Dirk, I really owe you big time, don't I? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Block

8. So, not having warned me or solicited a response from me before blocking me for 2 weeks, you then, (16 minutes later), implemented an "indefinite block".

But you didn't bother to explain what an indefinite block is, or what it means.
I have subsequently discovered (not from you I might emphasise) that as a result of an indefinite block, I am meant to do something.
Is that correct?
If so, what is it that am I supposed to do?

8) You were warned during this string of personal attacks and incivility (the string of diffs that I gave you when I mentioned that you were blocked), you even were blocked before for NPA (last year), and you are an experienced editor, you should know that that can result in blocks. For the indefinite, the warnings link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy (link under the fourth word of the warning) - that is where you could have read it. However, it is maybe not directly in the warning, indefinite is a good English word, and I answered promptly when you asked. So please don't get there.

You were warned during this string of personal attacks and incivility - Oh well done! You continue to perpetuate your unjustified assumptions of bad faith and bias. I'm truly impressed!! Tell me please: Why should I have ANY respect for your role as an administrator when you so blatently abuse it? By-the-way, that is NOT a rhetorical comment, and I am expecting you to attempt to provide a relevant answer. You will note that I have given up any hope that you can or will actually provide a relevant answer. But at least you can make an attempt.
(the string of diffs that I gave you when I mentioned that you were blocked) - Hello? Is anyone home? You warn AND block in the same sentence! Re-read the question, please, and answer the question, please. Again, how can you expect me to have ANY respect for your role as an administrator when you so blatently ignore such simple questions and give such irrelevant and biassed responses?
you even were blocked before for NPA (last year) - Yeah. And there was famine in Africa, too. So what? i.e. In what way is this relevant, and what is it relevant to? (Answer: It's not.) Again, how can you expect me to have ANY respect for your role as an administrator when you so blatently ignore such simple questions and give such irrelevant responses?
and you are an experienced editor - ditto (i.e. So what? In what way is this relevant, and what is it relevant to? Answer: It's not. Again, how can you expect me to have ANY respect for your role as an administrator when you so blatently ignore such simple questions and give such irrelevant responses?)
you should know that that can result in blocks. - ditto (i.e. So what? In what way is this relevant, and what is it relevant to? Answer: It's not. Again, how can you expect me to have ANY respect for your role as an administrator when you so blatently ignore such simple questions and give such irrelevant responses?)
How would you like to make even a half-heartedly relevant response?
Just to remind you, the question is:
<bold>I have subsequently discovered (not from you I might emphasise) that as a result of an indefinite block, I am meant to do something. Is that correct? If so, what is it that am I supposed to do?</bold>
Pdfpdf (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the question, no, you are not 'meant to do something'. There are no requirements from you. There are however things that you can do, but that is not what you ask, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::I am meant to do something. Is that correct? - Yes. That is/was a question.

no, you are not 'meant to do something - Thank you for the answer.
OK. So quite clearly, despite having read the releant bits of policy, and reproduced them above, either I don't understand what an indefinite block is, or I don't understand what you think an indefinite block is. Or both.
So, please explain what an indefinite block is, what I can do, why I would do it, and what doing it would achieve.
It now being 2am here, I will not respond again for at least 18 hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block is a block which does not have a defined end point. If an administrator does not unblock your account, you will never again be able to edit anything else than this talk page. What you can do, is consider to ask to be unblocked. Then you can edit again, help with solving the problems with the images, and continue with all the good work that you were doing here on Wikipedia. The process for unblocking is described here: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.
I hope this explains. I will also be off for some time, but if you have questions, do post them, and either I, or another editor will come by and help you with that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

something else added subsequently by someone else

Regarding "Why should I have ANY respect for your role as an administrator when you so blatently (sic) abuse it?" .. you don't have to have any respect for that role, Pdfpdf. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? And what leads you to make that blatently sweeping statement? And what what is your evidence for making that blatently sweeping statement? How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?
Just because I have NO respect for the way YOU abuse your role as an administrator, that does NOT mean I "don't have to have any respect for that role".
And just to humour me: To what does the "(sic)" refer please?
It is now 02:25. Good morning. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I did not mean it to be sweeping - I should have said 'you don't have to have any respect for my role as an administrator'. I don't ask for that. Regarding the sic, see: sic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

Hi Pdfpdf. I've seen what I assume were your edits here previously, and while I agree that their removal was inappropriate, you are evading your block by doing so. If you would like to appeal your block to an uninvolved administrator using the {{unblock}} template, I would consider removing the restriction on your talkpage access on the condition that you avoid the kinds of unhelpfully blunt language you have previously used in relation to this current situation. If this is acceptable to you, please e-mail me here or at LearsFool42@gmail.com.  -- Lear's Fool 14:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking first ...

A1) I am NOT an expert in everything (and don't want to be).
A2) I am aware that if I do anything that even a passing stranger takes exception to, then it will cause me problems.
A3) I wish to advise and request that if ANYONE takes exception to ANYTHING, could they please WP:AGF and please explain what it is they are taking exception to?
A4) Please assume that I am acting in good faith, and that if something I do upsets you, then I have no idea what it is that has upset you, or why you are upset. Therefore, please explain yourself. Please do NOT assume I know everything that you know. Please do not assume that I know what you are referring to.
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B1) Will someone please explain what I am, and am not, currently allowed to do. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B1a) (For example, it appears that I am prohibited from editing User:Pdfpdf. Is that correct?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pdfpdf, answering your questions, you are currently blocked from editing. (See WP:BLOCK for more information). This is a technical measure that has been imposed for an indefinite period of time, which disallows your editing of any page except this user talk page.
The reason behind this indefinite block is that you have demonstrated an inability to follow Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. If you can confirm that the encyclopedia does not need on going protection from you due to one of the following, I am certain one of the administrators around might be able to help.
  1. You will not work with images any further
  2. You acknowledge that your work with images is not in line with Wikipedia's policy and you will show much more care in the future
  3. You acknowledge that your work with images is not in line with Wikipedia's policy and you will undertake mentorship to help improve your understanding of Wikipedia's image policy.
As far as I'm aware, the issue at hand is that you need to acknowledge that you were editing against policy, and confirm that it will not happen again.
If you would prefer to request an independent review of your block, you can request unblocking using the {{unblock}} template. If you click on the link there, it explains how to use the template. Any questions, just ask, I'm watching. WormTT · (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) You are currently indefinitely blocked from editing, as such you cannot edit Wikipedia. Note that "indefinite" does not necessarily mean "long" or "infinite". It means "however long is needed for the user to address the issue."
You are allowed to edit your talk page for the sole reason of requesting an unblock. You need to add the {{unblock}} template on your talk page eg. {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}} I would suggest that you read this page for composing the reasoning for your unblock request. Woody (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C1) Thank you gentlemen.
C2) Thank you gentlemen for such prompt, useful and informative replies.
C3) I shall consider the implications of the information you have so helpfully supplied.
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&oldid=438044052"