User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9

Archives

• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive001
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive002
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive003
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive004
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive005
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive006
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive007

Outkast/Pink Floyd

Dude, I'm as big a Pink Floyd fan as the next person, but do we really need the Ummagumma comparison on the Speakerboxxx article? They're nothing alike musically and completely different concepts. I doubt either of them have even heard Ummagumma. M.C. Brown Shoes 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you follow me to every article I create and put notices at the top of the page

Dear Andy,

I realise you are trying to improve wikipedia but please explain why have you done this to so many of my articles, the time it takes you to add the notice you could have cleaned up the article yourself. This is what I refer to when I say that you are the only person following me like this, it is obsessive, and believe me these are just a few examples:

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here
5. here
6. here
7. here
8. here
9. here
10. here
11. here
12. here

Nick Boulevard 12:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't. HTH. Cease making personal atttacks. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I just credited you by assuming that you were editing for the good of wikipedia, however you have interestingly chosen to pick up on the negative aspect of my post, taken from wikipedia itself, (my reason for believing your behaviour obessive with relation to edits pertaining to me)

Obsessions are thoughts and ideas that the sufferer cannot stop thinking about. Common OCD obsessions include fears of acquiring disease, getting hurt or causing harm to someone. Obsessions are typically automatic, frequent, distressing, and difficult to control or put an end to by themselves. A sufferer will almost always obsess over something which he or she is most afraid of. People with OCD who obsess over hurting themselves or others are actually less likely to do so than the average

Of course, I am not suggesting for one minute that you have OCD but surely Andy, if you are to step back for a moment, regardless of your reasons, you must admit that you have followed me around wikipedia ever since I arrived... if you had any honour and integrity about you then you would admit the truth. Thank you Nick Boulevard 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Abuse noted. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett,

please explain why have you deleted/censored this comment from the discussion.

You have accused me of trying to mislead people by claiming my comments towards you to be "fallacious", well I find your accusation of my comments being "fallacious" and your removal of my comment to be fallacious.

By removing my comments here (which anyone can see are not abusive) are you to suggest that my opinion is of no worth in relation to your allegations. Would you prefer it if I were to not exist in Wikipedia? Nick Boulevard 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Andy,

I am interested to learn that you have also been guilty of copyright violation on wikipedia.

Taken from here

07:44, 16 Jul 2004 Guanaco deleted "India pale ale" (content was: '{(copvyio|url=<http://realbeer.com/hops/renegade.html>}}Andy Mabbett 23:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)')

we all make mistakes Andy Nick Boulevard 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If that was my edit, then once is a mistake; your copyright abuse was delibearte and repeated. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

mmm, Andy, my copyright abuse was probably as deliberate as yours I would suspect, how do I know that you haven't made other copyright violations maybe even under different IP address, although I am not accusing you of being another user there are similarities between you and other IP addresses which I am keeping to myself for now. I have never been blocked from wikipedia, infact I have never been discussed on the net in a negative way before, PRIOR to wikipedia have you? I notice that you have been blocked twice for ignoring warnings from responsible wikipedians, once I can understand but to have this happen twice highlights a fault somewhere do you think? Nick Boulevard 23:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

hey bro, what gives?

Why are my edits bein reverted? Half these cats I know personally.

Perhaps a candidate for WP:NOOB is what gives. ;-) hydnjo talk 03:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fragments

I know you like editing my work but by deleting half sentences you create fragments which are not proper sentances of the english language. Please don't make edits like this [1] which add nothing but introduce poor grammar. Also I notice you are working through all the work I did yesterday, please do nothing to inflame an already problematic situation. Thanks. Leonig Mig 08:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please provide more detail about edits than simply "rv". "rv" is an abbreviation for "revert" which in turn is the most aggressive action availible to a non-admin wikipedian. A revert is not simply a trivial thing, but requires explanation, in order to maintain good faith. Please provide such an explantion for [2], there is every chance I will assume good faith and accept, however I require an explantion. Leonig Mig 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think you have improved this article? [3]. You must know that this kind of editing (removing facts and calling them irrelevant, and rewriting stuff) does not sit well with me. It does not seem as if you are acting in good faith. I am going to revert this edit although on balance I agree with your other edits this morning. Leonig Mig 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that your prefered style of writing is a simple list of facts, however that does not mean you can go through the plain English prose I contribute to this project deleting any sentance which does not meet this criteria and then citing the justification "plain english". Also I do not see the necessity to remove the facts which you have removed; the fact that Targebigge was granted to the Abbey by Queen Maud is relevent to the history of Tardebigge. Finally, I requested you to comment here on your views which you have not done and which I will expect you to do before making anymore edits to that page otherwise I must conclude that you have assumed back faith and are being uncivil, and that all you really want is a revert war. Leonig Mig 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you are familiar with the newpages section: [4]. In all seriousness your brand of wiki-use might be useful on that page, where the wheat is completely dominated by chaff. Leonig Mig 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You should revert yourself here: [5]. In fact name is quite correct (domain name system). An address or URL is composed of a protocol (i.e http://) a name (i.e. www.wikipedia.com) and then a resource locator on the server (i.e. /index.html or /wiki/article.php?etc). All that the DNS server resolves is the name, not the whole address. Leonig Mig 10:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I can say nothing more about your argument here [6] apart from that you are wrong. I do not intend arguing about it, however I would request you cease introducing factual inaccuracies into the wikipedia. DNS is protocol agnostic, whereas you cannot specify an address without one. Your arguement is false. Leonig Mig 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please resist removing discussion on my user page again

Stop it please.

I only read the remark from another user by chance, I happened to look at the edit history of my discussion page and you are now trying to control things there, you have no right to do this.

Andy, you are taking up my valuble edit time here, I am now thinking about billing you for this. My tariff is as follows:

• 1 x Andy Mabbett rvt = £5
• 1 x Andy Mabbett removal of notice at top of page = £2.50
• 1 x Andy Mabbett illegal parking fine on my RFC discussion = £0.50

All services are subject to VAT. Nick Boulevard 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop it please.: No. Andy Mabbett 13:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. I will ask you again, please stop reverting my talk page, I am perfectly capable of policing my own discussion page. Andy and if you are going through some difficulties please do not take out your aggression here, you can email me if you would like to talk, please don't write anything nasty though. Thanks Nick Boulevard 22:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. No, it is not. See here; a Wikipedia policy to which I have already referred you. Andy Mabbett 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that a comment towards you is offensive on my talk page then please approach me before attempting to hide it from the discussion, otherwise, by your deleting of other peoples comment/abuse I will not get the full picture of the discussion on my own talk page, should I discover that you continue to remove comments I could assume that you are guiding the conversation for your own means, one more thing Andy, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is actually being disputed, probably because of misuse I wouldn't doubt. Nick Boulevard 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No. See here; a Wikipedia policy to which I have already referred you. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Andy, "you may remove the attacks" is in dispute, also please take a read of this rule "Community spirit - It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behaviour - is contrary to this spirit." - what on earth do you think that you are doing adding so much inane rubbish on my RFC discussion, what if I regarded that as a personal attack, I don't becasue I don't care much. I am not looking for conflict with you Andy, I really would like to get on with Andy Mabbett for the better of Wikipedia, I make a better friend than enemy and I am sure you do too so please let us try this again. Please try and get on with G-man and LeonMig as well, otherwise this place is going to turn sour and is a bad example for other potential wikipedians. Thank you. Nick Boulevard 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is it an unfair comment when Nick claims to be aware of your past and expresses his view that some conflict seems to follow you around the web? There seem to be many hostile comments on internet forums about a birdwatching Andy Mabbett based in the West Midlands. It seems fair to me for Nick to notice a parallel between that and what seems to be happening here. I do wish that you would moderate your behaviour here so that we can focus on amicably improving encyclopedia articles. —Theo (Talk) 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks

Hey there, I noticed you removed a couple of comments of which you believe are personal attacks, one of which had a very uncalm edit summary (in capitals). I really think you should be very careful about wholesale-removing other peoples comments and it's likely to inflame situations rather than calm things down. My suggestion is for you to leave the comments which you believe to be attacks in place, and if they really are personal attacks, someone else will be willing to intervene to sort it out, otherwise it could lead to making things worse. Regards, Joolz 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read this. Andy Mabbett 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Which states "though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial" and also links to a disputed guideline. Nevertheless I really suggest you reconsider. -- Joolz 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The line you cite refers to banning. Though I look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. Andy Mabbett 14:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, that does refer to banning, but it also applies to removing attacks, which is controversial, and as I've just said, a disputed guideline and not a policy. -- Joolz 15:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it refers to banning alone. Count the full stops. Andy Mabbett 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I said it what it said is also true of the removal of personal attacks, not that it refers to both in that instance. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say about removing personal attacks, it is controversial and it will only inflame matters, not calm them down, so I again appeal to you to rethink. Regards, Joolz 15:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I again look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I blocked you earlier, because I believed you had violated the 3RR. I realised I had made a mistake and soon unblocked you again. My apologies. G-Man 21:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked for you and could find only that #31470 was blocked and that due to expire here shortly if not already - Marshman 17:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Still blocked, from this machine. Andy Mabbett 20:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I note there is still no reply to this. I also find the original explanation implausible. Andy Mabbett 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Stalker

This edit may indicate that you have been brooding on this for the last 4-6 weeks. I cannot tell whether Leonig's failure to take your request seriously 42 days ago, or his suggestion (which he subsequently claimed to be in jest) 28 days ago that he was stalking you might have affected your behaviour here but I do feel that you should have mentioned your annoyance/distress/concern/other response earlier. I wish that I understood you better and that I could help you to feel more comfortable here. —Theo (Talk) 22:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Euston station

In response to your request on my page. I would have linked it if I could, but the motco.com maps are only available as pop-ups, which don't have urls. You can find the 1862 map here [7] Click on "Overview maps" and then click over Euston twice to get to the detailed level. Rather confusingly the large scale map then appears in first window. Bhoeble 00:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when people try to break the web like that? Fortunately, Firefox allows one to work round such silyness. Here's the individual map. You can use the "North, South, East, West" links to move around the whole thing. Andy Mabbett 07:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Why remove my trivia item that Black Sabbath is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, stating that Wikipedia archives stuff that happens, not what doesn't happen, but not remove the only other trivia item that says that they have never had a US Top 40 hit. These two pieces of info are in the same vein, and is why I included it. This makes no sense to me at all. It also seems that your "stuff that happens" comment is a personal rule that you made up; or maybe you're just too lazy to remove the whole section rather than revert. Static3d 00:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.. Andy Mabbett 07:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think you are the editor-in-chief of Wikipedia? Stop being so selfish and intolerable of other peoples' contributions. Static3d 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing. HTH. Andy Mabbett 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading some stuff about how other users feel about you frequently and stubbornly removing peoples' additions, I think you should focus some energy on making additions instead of being some kind of pseudo-wikicop. The stuff you are doing doesn't seem to be helping in any significant way. Static3d 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you don't now what you're talking about. Andy Mabbett 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This whole page is filled with disputes with other users. I think you've got some issues that deserve immediate attention. Static3d 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Abuse noted. Andy Mabbett 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

He's got a point, Andy. Proto t c 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sort this out.

The abuse you cite on your user page was wrong on my behalf but was illicited in response to your behaviour towards me. You edited every single article I had written over a period of two months systematically in a period of 24 hours after repeated requests for moderation. That made me so angry you would not beleive. I felt violated, hurt, abused. I was so sad that someone could be so cruel, not disbeliving, but disappointed it could happen to me. All that was needed was a few explanatory and concilartory words (I received these eventually from RayGirvan) but all I got from you was frankly, pith and vitroil and silence.

Since then, every time I make an edit on an article you either revert or alter it within a few hours. You have now been stalking me for three months. Anyone can verify this from the history pages. In an attempt to make you realise the sort of emotional pressure your odd behaviour was putting on me I replicated the same behavoir towards yourself, and you didn't like it either. Immediately you created alerts about me, with your greater knowledge and experience of the wikipedia, and therefore I was soon offered reprimands and moderation from other users.

This second episode is conclusive evidence that your emotions did not sit well on the recieving end of the kind of treatment you had given to me. As my next action I chose simply to disist, which I did, and made clear that I did not wish anything further to do with you on the wikipedia. Now a month later I come back and contribute, with the expectation that everything is dead an buried, and immediately (monday morning to sunday night's edit) you have continued the same behavoir towards me which began this whole problem- wholesale rewriting my contributions in a systematic fashion (i.e. without fail and within hours of submitting). All I can say is please consider not stalking me, that would solve the entire problem here. Leonig Mig 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree with what you are writing Leon, I am also with Theo, I wish I could understand Andy Mabbett, I know that conflict has followed him and you are merely another victim, see G-man, me and whoever else? I can vouch for us all trying to get on with Andy Mabbett relentlessly, I have tried so many times even out of a desire for Andy to end his constant stalking of my every move on wikipedia and I am afraid it IS seen as stalking Andy and it is not admirable behaviour (whether you care or not), if you dissagree with articles there is something called civility and you never use it. If you could stop and see that people here are easy to get on with considering the right approach then you could go a lot further than myself on wikipedia, you have a good knowledge of the rules and a good eye for mistakes, it is never too late to make friends, I am sure you will read my post and scowl. You obviously love birds, I have some birds of prey nesting in some tree's outside my bedroon window, I may email you with a picture to see if you can identify them please? Nick Boulevard 18:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

evoArticles

I noticed your added evoArticles to the possible copyright problem page. As the owner of the site, I have no problem with Wikipedia copying our features page. How can I get the page restored?

-Ahmed (ahmed@evo-dev.com)

I suggest you post to that effct, under the article's entry on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and on the article's discussion page. Andy Mabbett 08:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Bill Oddie

You have revetred 4 times on Bill Oddie, and therefore unless you undo your last edit asap I will report you, SqueakBox 17:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Pigsonthewing, and please take care not to break the 3RR rule in the future, SqueakBox 18:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot honestly claim you did not revert 4 times. here is wghere Maymashu put the cat in, and here is where you reverted the cat for the first time. You have reverted 4 times. Why not undo your 4th revert? instead of fallaciously claiming the first revert was not so, SqueakBox 22:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

We have both reverted 3 times today, so please don't again. I strongly disagree with you about needing to have been born in Brum to be a Brummie. Growing up there is sufficient. I think it reveals your prejudice on the subject as you seem to be a proud Brummie yourself but people like me are not happy to be labelled natives of places we do not know and not a native of our home town, SqueakBox 15:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it reveals your prejudice I think you're delusional. Andy Mabbett 15:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling me delusional is a personal attack. Desist now and forever from personal attacks against me merely for haviong a POV disagreeing with yours. An apology is very much in order and I await it, SqueakBox 15:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would also remind you that I never put the cat in. So that is 2 of us delusional and one xxxxxxxxxxxx engaging in vicious and uncalled for personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with him. 15:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well another person supports me Talk:Bill Oddie. So much for your delusional theory, SqueakBox 22:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody erroneously thinking you were right there does not negate my comment here. Andy Mabbett 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please discuss the changes at Talk:Bill Oddie to resolve this issue? I see a rough consensus in favour of retaining the category at the moment. -- Joolz 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're alright, man!

That means Original research and verifiability problems, baby! I've never found cats very forthcoming.

That cracks me up! If you're 21 I'll buy you a beer sometime. veteran dj talk#

RFC in preperation

User:G-Man/POTW RFC Nick Boulevard 00:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vincombe/Tucker

Andy, in answer to your question of 7 Aug on the Talk page, yes - a personal relationship as well as a working one - SP-KP 00:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Chamberlain & Date Standardisation

Hello,

I have noticed that you have altered the format of Chamberlain's date of birth from DD/(Month Written)/YYYY to YYYY/MM/DD. I would prefer to use the original format, as this is is in accordance with the format used for most articles on other political figures of the era that are linked to Chamberlain's page, including Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, Lord Hartington/Duke of Devonshire and Lord Randolph Churchill.

Besides, the YYYY/MM/DD format is somewhat ambiguous due to the differing interpretations that are made on what order the day and month should be written in.

Kind Regards,

InfectedWithRage 09:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The format I've used is a standard (see Wikipedia:Dates); how it appears on-screen wil depend on yoru (or others') user prefernces. Andy Mabbett 09:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The format previously used - 8 July 1836 is also listed as 'standard'. As I have no preference set for how dates are displayed, they appear as they are written.

Kind Regards,

InfectedWithRage 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Helm ID guides

Many thanks for the janitorial stuff. One less chore for me to do! Plenty more where that came from if you're feeling in a clean-up mood... Steve - SP-KP 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Loyalist attacks

I should have been more precise in my edit summary. I meant, how does their view of the attacks differ from yours? It does'nt read like an opinion piece to me. It's a list.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a list compiled by a partisan body; I'd expect a link to a list compiled vice versa to be similalryly quialified. Andy Mabbett 11:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with attributing it. But to call it a "view" is inaccurate. The incidents are easily verifiable.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

John Downer

Hi Andy. I've moved the disambig page to John Downer (disambiguation) and the article back to John Downer, as he is the only one currently with an article. If you write the other articles and feel they are now as notable as the first one and want to move the disambig page back to John Downer, please fix the premiers template and any other articles linking to John Downer to the right other articles. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for noticing and doing this this on Lemmy's article. Alf ^melmac 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Hi, sorry I was going through a lot of VfD tags that hadn't been completed, when I stumbled on yours. I probably should have completed it for you rather than removing it.

You correctly tabbed the article, created the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Punch Records page, but you ommitted the third step, listing it on the VFD page, so that everyone can see it, and not just those who read the article in question. If you check WP:GVFD under 'nomination' you'll find what you've missed. If I can help, let me know. --Doc (?) 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

From Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism

Many of the recent moves from Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism are inapproraite, as the pages moved discuss an aspect of the environment, not political activism. Andy Mabbett 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The entirety of Category:Environment was approved for merger with the latter by WP:CFD, and Pearle was blindly implementing that decision. I have left a note at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#To_be_emptied_or_moved explaining the situation and linking to background information. The participants of that page will need to figure out what to do now; I'm sure your input on that would be helpful. Thanks, Beland 02:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, I protected your page. In the future, please mention the edit war in the request. It's not within policy to protect a page forever, so it will have to be unprotected at some point. Any comments or questions about it should be left on my user talk page. --Phroziac ^(talk) 12:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, are you sure you really need to have that section on your talk page? It's not exactly nice, and it doesn't make you look any better to have it. --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

are you sure you really need to have that section on your talk page?: Yes. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting the page, and asking Leonig Mig not to do that anymore. However, while it is your user page, you should avoid adding content to it which is likely to upset other people, and they might take you to arbitration. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

A page whch will upset no-one cannot exist. Andy Mabbett 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Email message

It would be inappropriate for me to take sides without adequate knowledge of the situation. Theo, however, is an editor I respect a great deal, and his comments due not cast you in a favourable light. In short, do not expect overwhelming support from me. My neutrality at this point in time is due to the fact that I simply don't have time to properly investigate.--Scimitar ^parley 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to take sides; and Threo's false alleagtions about me are about as partisan as one could be. Andy Mabbett 08:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy, stop all this, surely a bunch of carrots is far nicer than a doughnut! Nick Boulevard 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Edit the articles which interest you, steer clear of conflict. Leonig Mig 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Pink Floyd - featured status?

Andy, I've dropped a note on Talk: Pink Floyd about whether the article is good enough for Peer Review yet - I haven't been around long so I thought I'd ask an experienced Wikipedian (and, by the looks of things, PF fan) for their views. I'd hugely appreciate your feedback. Cheers, --High^(Hopes)(+) 17:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for your reply. I suspect that a point may be raised about the lack of citation - I'll see what is said and then have a look at how to reference it more fully. As for the sig - I pretty much copied this from someone else - what is an 'HTML "font" tag'? Is that just using colours, superscript etc? I just wanted a sig that links to my userpage, talkpage and add comment (not that they'll be used much, but nice to have them!). I see plenty of sigs like this - am I to presume these are generally considered passe? Let me know what's wrong and I'll change it - my judgement and knowledge with all things WP isn't great so I appreciate 'constructive criticism'. Cheers, --High^(Hopes)(+) 22:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You should take out <font color="magenta">, </font> and ditto for other colours. It's not (just) that they're passe, but they're "bad" HTML and can cause problems for people with visual or cognitive disabilities (and others). Andy Mabbett 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - looking back, it was rather garish (at the time it seemed a nice idea to have the colours from the Division Bell disc, what with HighHopes being my username and all... anyway Pink Floyd is now undergoing peer review, and the first reply was positive, so thanks for your encouragement! --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 11:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Phil Bredesen photo

Thanks for removing that picture of Phil Bredesen. It was quite possibly one of the worst photographs I have even seen, but I didn't have the heart to remove it myself. Cheers. Kaldari 15:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Sadly, it's back. :-( Andy Mabbett 20:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be putting a better one up.Scott 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher

You guys have some serious agro going on. I am not going to get involved! I don't even pretend to understand the issues. I suggest you agree to mediation or one or other of you files an RfC to get it sorted out, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Doc (?) 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

RFC

You may want to see the RFC that has been filed against you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pigsonthewing --Phroziac^(talk) 04:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You have been blocked for a 3RR violation on Hazel R. O'Leary. Sasquatcht|c 00:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did not violate 3RR. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And blocked again, at Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg this time. Keep in mind that if you keep removing adding that tag you'll be blocked not just for 3RR violations but also for disruption. If you feel the image is a copyright violation, bring the matter up at WP:CV or something. --fvw* 14:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How is reverting the removal of a tag which says "Please do not edit this image for the moment" (such removal being tantamount to vandalism) a breach of policy? And which tag do you think I have removed? Andy Mabbett 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops, I mean adding of course. And it should have been pretty clear to you that this was not vandalism but an editing dispute. --fvw* 14:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I note that you have ignored How is reverting the removal of a tag which says "Please do not edit this image for the moment" ... a breach of policy?. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If you feel the image is a copyright violation, bring the matter up at WP:CV: I did. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 14:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 15:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 15:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why am I still blocked from this machine? Andy Mabbett 09:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Why am I still blocked from this machine? Andy Mabbett 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Why am I still blocked from this machine? Andy Mabbett 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To do

(Unless someone else would like to attend to these before I do)

Sir Barry Jackson

add link Oxford DNB

Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg

I propose you just let it drop—you seem to have become too involved in that image's fate. Frankly said, you both seem to be decent contributors (yes, Scott too; many of his image uploads for instance are great), and I don't quite understand why you two got into such a fight over this image. Calling out for help (e.g. by placing the image on WP:CV or just asking some third, uninvolved party to take a look at it) might have avoided this whole mess. Anyway, I have left Scott a message and have proposed to him to get rid of this low quality image through WP:IFD. It may seem a bit drastic, but at that point I think it's the right approach to cut through this Gordian knot. Lupo 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, Andy has been (again) blocked for a WP:3RR violation and his disruptive behaviour (see above) associated with this image. The image is indeed not particularly great (however, this was not the issue). Proto t c 14:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I already told Proto not to add fuel to the fire. I'm quite able to form my own opinion, thank you. Baiting others is just poor style. Lupo 15:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, what you post is a lie. There has been no such "disruptive behavour". Andy Mabbett 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd withdraw my comment and delete it, as it was misguided (although not a lie), but last time I tried to do that, you went mad on Theo's talk page and claimed there was a conspiracy to cover up personal attacks against you. So I'll just apologise. It's all turned out right, anyway. I'm going to try harder to steer clear of things that irritate me. Proto t c 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment was a lie, and I note your further, dishonest personal attack. I have niether "gone mad" nor alleged a "conspiriacy". Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, the object of this dispute is gone, as Scott agreed to have it deleted. Now let's get back to building an encyclopedia! Lupo 15:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad he saw sense, and look forward to an end to Scott's ad hominem conmments and personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 15:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I note that Scott has now, finally, admitted that he did not take the picture, and so my tagging it as {{copyvio}} was correct. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

*POKE*

Are you going to respond to your rfc? --Phroziac^(talk) 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Has he answered yet? Scott 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)r

Ornithological years

Thanks for the appreciation. Somehow though I think that filling this category (and making the pages reasonably comprehensive) might take an awful long time.... SP-KP 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dipole magnet

Hi Andy, I know you have quite a history with Scott. (Which I apoligze, incidentally, for earlier taking a one-sided and coarsly-worded view on.) However, don't you think it's a bit inflammatory to take personal responsibility for correcting all of his grammar? It isn't that you are forbidden to do it, by any means, but it is unkind. And, I might add, unnecessary--I can assure you I'm keep track of and editing the article as needed. -- SCZenz 16:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

correcting all of his grammar: Since I'm not doing so, your question is redundant. Thank you, though, for your appology. Andy Mabbett 16:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

How about, correcting any of his gramar? Or, if you prefer, deleting his incorrect grammar? Would one of those rewordings make my question/comment relevant and worthy of a reply? -- SCZenz 16:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think correcting any of his grammar, or deleting his incorect grammar, is "a bit inflamatory". Nor is it "unkind". HTH Andy Mabbett 17:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to phrase this is clearly as possible. Your edits at beamline or dipole magnet are exclusively corrections of Scott's edits. This bothers him, and accomplishes little else because there are other people keeping track of the pages. It makes it more difficult for people who are interested in editing the content of the articles to go about their work. Your interest in the articles appears to be an interest in correcting Scott in particular--is this correct? -- SCZenz 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you, perhaps, understand why it might seem that way? -- SCZenz 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I can understand why some people would lack the ability to grasp the true situation, certainly. Andy Mabbett 19:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And how would you describe the true situation? -- SCZenz 21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Two can quote rules. From WP:Civility: "Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Whereas incivility is defined here as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another." Although it is difficult to quantify, it's still a policy; and note that you don't have to be doing anything "wrong" by any other measure to be uncivil. If you're causing someone (e.g. Scott) stress, and the job can be done by someone else, it would appear to be civil to let it happen that way instead. -- SCZenz 22:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not causing him stress; nor am I being "incivil". Andy Mabbett 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You've had a history of difficulties with a particular user, relating to his perception that you have singled out his contributions for continuous editing. It seems to me that continuing to edit his contributions, on pages to which you otherwise make no contributions, could reasonably be expected to cause him stress. -- SCZenz 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

his perception: Quite. Andy Mabbett 22:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Apology

Apology for blanking talk pages of users. Will not happen again, Andy. --82.42.151.164 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

British nature writers

Good idea. Go for it. Who do you have in mind? SP-KP 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch this space ;-) Andy Mabbett 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Started: British nature writers. Andy Mabbett 11:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Doerflingers pic

This picture sure looks to me like it's before 1923, making it public domain. Do you have a reason to feel it's newer then that? And yes, I saw that Scott had it tagged wrong. Not a big deal though, his picture makes it pretty obvious he didn't take the picture. :) --Phroziac^(talk) 00:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reason to feel it's newer then that? Did I claim that it was? Andy Mabbett 07:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Other's talk pages

Hi there. I was left a message from Scottfisher, with whom I know you have something of a mutual history. I'm not especially interested in the more specific issues, but he really is entitled to simply remove what he likes from his talk page. It isn't really a great idea to remove sections, particularly those containing questions, from your own page but he certainly can do so if he wishes. He should probably also answer your questions, but he need not do so. It doesn't look like he is going to answer them, for whatever reason, so there is probably little to be gained from reinstating them any more. If you should ever need to point to either your messages or to his removals in evidence of any kind, it'll always be in the history. -Splash^talk 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. (from Wikipedia:Talk_page#User_talk_pages). Note also the auseive terms used by 'Scottfisher'. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where you'd prefer me to reply, but I'll stick to here since I started here. Yes, I did notice the language Scottfisher used, and it isn't really necessary. But people tend to repond somewhat irrationally when they're feeling angry. And yes, as you quote, erasing messages isn't the usual thing to do — but it is still a thing that it is ok to do, much as it's 'ok' to turn your back on someone in a conversation despite the way such an action is likely to be interpreted. Since there's evidently unlikely to be answers forthcoming, I suppose you should use the appropriate image deletion process to dispute the copyright on that image (I think you already removed the external link). -Splash^talk 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Scottfisher

Since he insists on deleting questions put to him on his talk page, material addressed to User:scottfisher may be found on this special page. Andy Mabbett 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Coleshill, Warwickshire

How can this be solved by "meeting halfway"? Do you suggest that "Coleshill is half in the WM conurbation"? Or perhaps "Coleshill is in the WM conurbation on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?" Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow official Wikipedia Policy, and I quote, directly from WP:RULES.

Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.
I'll be back to check on your progress meeting this goal. You might get some ideas on how to accomodate both sides from looking at articles on WP:FA.Karmafist 15:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Response On Your 3RR Query

Here you go on the evidence...

1. Like you said, nothing has happened there yet, and there appears to be no rush by anyone to do anything there yet. You can think what you like on why that's happening, but the most likely reason why is what I said on the Coleshill talk page, the apparent tit for tat timing of it. You can see for yourself when both the RfC and the 3RR notice were posted.
2. If you took the high road in the first place, you would have had a better shot. I quote this directly from WP:AN/3RR.
   We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing.
   And when they talk about POV pushing, they're talking about the person who puts the notice up there, not the person being reported on.
3. From the History Page, I count 3 reverts by you on October 13, and 2 by G-Man. Then on October 17 there were another 3 reverts by you and 3 by G-Man, 4 depending on technicalities(he had the first edit of that day, so it's unlikely covered under 3RR policy.) You're just as guilty as 3RR as he is, so people are less likely to take your claim seriously.

I'm reverting your edit now since apparently you decided to ignore verification before changing most of the edit we reached by consensus on the Coleshill talk page. I should block you for this, but i'll be nice and let you revert again without punishment if you can define "narrow" and show proof(a link, a newspaper article, a government report, etc.) and you can do the same with the 1970s takeover, which wasn't part of the discussion above, but I'm going you that homework assignment to give you some practice with adding verification to diffuse tense situations. If you revert that without adding proof, you'll be blocked. Karmafist 16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't respond to threats; and I have already provided the proof in previous comemnts on the talk page. Andy Mabbett 08:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

New articles

Thanks for letting me now about your new articles, Andy. Steve SP-KP 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Whiteread

Would you say that if the info on lesser known works were tidied up / formatted in a regular way, it should go in the article? On the one hand it would be irregular. On the other I think that anyone working their way down the list and peering at the external images would have a thoroughly good idea of what it is that Whiteread does by the time they got through it all, which is one of the major things I would like to feel I'd gained after going through an article about an artist. I was going for a compromise position by linking to it. --bodnotbod 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not a spearate, linked article, Artworks by Rachel Whiteread, say? Andy Mabbett 15:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that's a definite option. Please see also Portal_talk:Art#Formatting_visual_arts_articles_with_details_on_individual_works. I'd be grateful for your input. I don;t want to change any other articles into that format unilaterally, I'd like something that solves the problems I'm seeking to addres agreed by the community and then I'd help implement it where I have an interest. --bodnotbod 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

24 Hour Block Notice

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During your time away from editing, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT to avoid future blocks. Karmafist 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you unblock me ASAP; apologise for your unwarranted action and your false accsuation. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat Andy Mabbett 22:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no reason to apologize. You violated WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT, and Key Policy #4 of WP:RULES. I responded accordingly when any policy is violated. I have responded to your comments at the link above, and will continue to try and reform your behavior up to community standards. The only reason your block was removed early was due to this post, where I asked other admins for advice since it seemed that your behavior would further deteriorate rather than improve due to the block. Please keep in mind that I have no qualms with blocking any user that I feel has violated policy, you are not special.Karmafist 15:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

you are not special: And neither are you. Your block of me was in contravention of the blocking policy; your accusation of vandalism baseless and your refusal to apologise and your partisan behaviour is a disgrace. Andy Mabbett 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I'm still blocked.

No need to apologize, you violated several policies, and if you violate policy again, no doubt you'll probably be blocked again, either by me or by another administrator. Karmafist 16:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC) P.S- It's "Appropriate" and "Apologize".

I suggest apologise for your unwarranted action and your false accusation. As to pointing out other people's typos... Andy Mabbett 08:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pigs, for one you're not blocked, or you wouldn't be able to make edits. Two, there's nothing to apologize about for the millionth time, and hopefully you'll eventually realize this since everyone has agreed on that point. Three, you reverted back to your original edit after the amalgamation of the two edits on the talk page was put into place on the article. Four, instead of wasting your time complaining to everyone, why don't you just get define "narrow" and show some evidence, that'll almost instantly end the need for protection there. It's in your hands, buddy. Karmafist 21:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My name is not "Pigs". I was blocked, and well you know it: you blocked me, against policy, and under a false accusation of vandalism. Everyone has not agreed with your claim. I suggest you apologise for your unwarranted action and your false accusation. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you Pigs? I want to help you. You don't seem to understand that without someone like me intervening and trying to straighten out your anger issues, you'd eventually go to The Arbcom for one reason or another, eventually being being banned for much longer periods of time, which would be a shame because for every one edit war you get into, you make 10-20 good edits. If that number was 0 instead of 10-20, I would have just kept on blocking you for disruption under WP:BLOCK. That's not the case here. All of those edits you showed me were just sighs of frustration on my part in not being able to help mentor you towards avoiding these issues in the future. Hopefully, Tony and Linuxbeak will be able to assist me in achieving this goal. Karmafist 15:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My name is still not "Pigs". I neither need nor want your so-called "help". You have been breaking policies, abusing your admin powers; and posting personal attacks, threats, and lies. I suggest you apologise for your unwarranted action and your false accusation. Andy Mabbett 15:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Your user name is Pigsonthewing, thus the nickname Pigs. Whether you want it or not, you do need help in avoid future problems with the Arbcom due to your incessant arguing and revert wars with others. Tony Sidaway has far more experience in this sort of thing than me, he'll be taking point from here on in on my attempts to try and help you avoid that future fate. Like i've said before, there's still no need to apologize, but if that would make you behave better in the future, i'd do it. Karmafist 17:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked for an appology in the hope that it would make you "behave better" in the future. I suggest you apologise for your unwarranted action and your false accusation. Andy Mabbett 17:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I couldn't find the image in question on the list of disputed images on PUI, so I couldnt verify that Scottfisher had or had not provided any information about the image on that location. The image file in question is still disputed however, so I left him a warning and warned him not to put the image back in the article, and to immediately address the issues with that image. I debated whether or not to re-block him, but it seems he is making a slight effort to comply, so I am going to let it go for now, but I will still be watching closely. Thanks for keeping an eye on this, and feel free to keep letting me know if you find something problematic. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Anything I can do for you

Hi there Andy. I have noticed that you and Karmafist are in a rather unfortunate dispute. Now, what exactly is the cause of this ill-will between the two of you? I am saying this not because I want to discredit you in any way, nor because I am taking sides in this matter. It is very unfortunate when two decent editors get mad at one another, in fact, its stressful, counterproductive, and all round depressing. Now, what I'm getting at, is there any way I can help to reslove this for you? I am prepared to help you out here.

Take a moment and enlarge the pretty picture below. (I'm serious, it relaxes me when my stress gets too high!) Anyway, thats all, thanks for hearing me out. All the best Banes 17:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. For the cause, you could see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing, [[8]] and related edits. As to resolution, you could try to get Karmafist to desist from making further personal attacks, threats or false allegations; and to remove the same from all the pages on which he has posted them. You could also try to get him to acknowledge that his blocking me was inappropriate, and to apologise for that and for falsely accusing me of vandalism. Good luck!Andy Mabbett 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But I must say that a part of me thinks that this whole mess is just a misunderstanding. One person says this, another says that, person one thinks he meant something else, and before you know it, you have a mess on your hands. I suggest that you and Karmafist both take a few days off wikipedia, thats always the best medicine. Cheers Banes 17:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Which part of "you've been blcoked for vandalism" do you think I misunderstood? Andy Mabbett 17:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The block came as a result of previous misunderstandings, IMO. I'm quite certain that you wouldnt have misunderstood a block. A block is a pretty blunt thing, now, I'm not trying to decide whose in the right here, but to come to some sort of cease-fire. Anyway, as said before, I believe that a short break (not a block imposed one, that would just piss you off, understandably) from wikipedia would be a good idea, I plan to give Karmafist the same advice. I think this whole mess started with a bad faith assuption somewhere along the line. Banes 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to decide whose in the right here: Please do. Andy Mabbett 21:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

(Images now removed). Having had no response for over a week, I take it that your offer "is there any way I can help to reslove this for you?" is withdrawn? Andy Mabbett 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, not withdrawn. How can I help you to just relax, and get on and answer your RFAr before you get yourself indefinitely blocked, which would be a pity. How can this whole issue be put in the past? Banes 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've already said, and you appear to have ignored: As to resolution, you could try to get Karmafist to desist from making further personal attacks, threats or false allegations; and to remove the same from all the pages on which he has posted them. You could also try to get him to acknowledge that his blocking me was inappropriate, and to apologise for that and for falsely accusing me of vandalism. Good luck!. Also, please do not use deprecated HTML. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Having again had no response for over a week, I take it that your offer "is there any way I can help to reslove this for you?" is withdrawn. Andy Mabbett 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: User Talk:82.17.179.224

Hey Pigs, just for clarification, it was 3 reverts before, it takes 4 to break 3RR, as stated below at WP:3RR

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

However, the rules are fairly malleable, just as in WP:AUTO since most people would not have a problem with WP:AUTO being broken as long as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are being followed and it's a WP:IAR situation. If the anon wishes to edit the article and he does so follow WP:AGF, I don't have a problem if he is or isn't the guitarist in the band. However, I also have no problems in blocking him if he gets disruptive there. These revert wars seem to follow you everywhere, why can't you just talk to people and work things out with them? Karmafist 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My name is still not Pigs. What on Earth are you on about? Is this an admission that your claim that I had breached 3RR on the Coleshill article was a lie? Andy Mabbett 08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC

What part of my edit summary was unclear? Try reading again, slowly this time and minus your sense of entitlement. --Calton | Talk 10:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It was entirley clear. It was also wrong. Try visiting the URL I cited, at whatever speed suits your needs, minus your apparent but unwarranted sense of superiority. Andy Mabbett 10:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:RFPP

Pigsonthewing, I'm not going to get involved in this dispute, but I'm just going share my opinion with both you and Karmafist: other people's comments shouldn't be removed or replaced just because they carry a negative gist; unless it is a clear-cut personal attack (i.e. You are an idiot! or something like that), "censoring" other people's comments probably won't do you any good except to aggravate a situation. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Remedies. Andy Mabbett 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RPA. In particular:

This quideline is disputed... This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page. "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI PurplePlatypus 09:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Remedies. In particular:

This page is an official policy on Wikipedia..

Besides, since I'm not a malefactor, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett 09:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing this tells me about my point is that you've missed it. (Also, given some of your edit summaries and recent behaviour, your claim here is questionable.) PurplePlatypus 09:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Moreover - on the very same page you pointed to, under the heading Consequences: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse" (emphasis mine). This both clearly states that it's not policy, and confines it to extreme personal abuse, which a lot of the stuff you remove isn't by any stretch of the imagination (even if it were unprovoked, which isn't always the case). PurplePlatypus 10:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Hello, a Request for Arbitration has been opened against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Karmafist 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, you need to answer the RFAr that has been opened up against you. Don't ignore it like you ignored your RFC (side note: part of the reason why an RFAr was opened up against you was because you ignored the RFC). If you don't already realize this, a possible outcome of an RFAr case is you being banned from Wikipedia for a set amount of time. If you have something to say in your defense, you need to say it, and you need to say it now. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing.. I can not stress enough how important it is to your cause that you answer your case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. It is not just going to go away if you ignore it and pretend as if it doesn't exist. If you don't answer it, the chances of you getting a fair chance at a defense are effectively nullified. You can make your case at WP:RFAr and attempt to convince the arbitrators to hear your case. This is the time to talk; if you do not, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, if you do not submit any evidence to the request for arbitration against you then the arbitrators will not get a chance to hear your side of the story. If you continue to do nothing about it, you are very likely to be banned from Wikipedia for up to a year. If you continue to ignore the process it will make your punishment worse than it otherwise would be. Thryduulf 13:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Scottfisher

Please use my Talk page, and not my user page, if you wish to post comments. I've deleted your comments from my user page, you're welcome to re-add them to the Talk page. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick Boulevard

Andy, I am sorry for being pig headed in the first instance, you did rub me up the wrong way and we are both quite stubborn which doesn't help, I know that you put in a lot of hard work here and your work is never quite as it seems. (as in there is usually a reason for your editing that is not at first apparent). I think that your contributions to Wikipedia are invaluble and I would ask that you make comment on your RFC etc, I think that we are all answerable to someone in the end no matter how right we think we are. G-man said a while ago that you do not often show yourself in the correct light and I agree, please would you consider removing your effort about Leon Mig on your user page, to be honest it's not nice and detracts from the good work that you do. That's all really. Thankyou Nick Boulevard 14:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry for being pig headed: If you're serious, remove all the false and abusive comments you've made about, me, from all the pages on which you have made them. Andy Mabbett 10:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I am serious, I will remove or re-word anything that you may consider abusive, I will have a look at the wording that I have used that you provided on my own RFC a while ago, with regards to your own RFC, which point/s do you strongly dissagree with that I have added? If you can honestly assure me that you are not Brumburger or the person that emailed V-Brum then I will retract those parts of my statement but I really hope you are honest Andy, I don't know you and so I cannot tell so don't blame me for asking the question. Thanks Nick Boulevard 19:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy? Nick Boulevard 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that no such removal has taken place; and that your abuse continues. Andy Mabbett 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Point them out and I will do so, were you mentioned on BBC Radio 6 today? we heard an Andy Mabbett form Brum mentioned. Nick Boulevard 17:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Point them out and I will do so: No. You made them, you find and remove them - your edit history is available to you. Then again, since you continue to be abusive, I have no reason to suppose that you will do so. Andy Mabbett 10:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was angry with you but now I'm not. I think you mistake my behaviour as abusive, I'm really not that spiteful. It was a good set yesterday morning I thought Nick Boulevard 18:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you mistake my behaviour as abusive: No; you have been abusive, on multiple occasions. Your continued denial of this makes your supposed apologies ring hollow. Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sywell

I have now started this article off as it clearly needed it! Brookie: A collector of little round things 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers! Andy Mabbett 16:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy

As you contributed a fair few times to the shoe polish article, I thought you may be interested to know that I nominated it for featured article status. Please feel free to comment as you see fit - although we don't always see eye to eye, you are really good when it comes to the manual of style and suchlike. Proto t c 16:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sywell

Hi Andy - I note that you have removed the entire section on the aerodrome to its own article. As the airfield is actually part of the village (I know - I grew up there) not having the 3 lines (or whatever it was) in the article leaves a big hole in the article - and although it may duplicate, I would like to see it remain there. Brookie: A collector of little round things 08:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat a whole section from a more specific article (in this case the aerodrome's) on a more general page (i.e. the village's). I'll add a reference to the latter, though. Andy Mabbett 10:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Andy - I think we're just about there now - thanks for the work! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 12:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tagging

On 1 November and 9 November, you tagged Die Lustige Witwe as a candidate for "cleanup", but left no indication on the talk page as to what improvements you thought were needed, either time. Could you please do so? Our powers of intuition have failed us; direct discourse would be the best way to convey your message. - Nunh-huh 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think this article needs to be cleaned up? You have given no reason why you feel that this is necessary. Unless you state, categorically, on the Talk page for the article, what you feel the problem is, then it is going to appear as though you are acting out of malice. Figaro 10:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

it is going to appear as though you are acting out of malice: That is utterly ridiculous. Andy Mabbett 10:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Thanks for the offer. I don't want to get into a war with anybody, so I'll be content to let my questions stand and wait for a decent response, then take it from there. BTW I've had some words to say to Figaro. Cheers JackofOz 13:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence. You may advance suggestions and make comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop Fred Bauder 15:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Coleshill, Warwickshire

It looks like CBDunkerson solved the problem on that article here. Why couldn't you have done that? You're an expert on that area if only from living near there in any case. Also, i'd suggest that you testify on your rfar. You can't stick your head in the sand when it comes to the arbcom, they'll be more than glad to send you back to your Usenet flame wars if these edit wars and nastyness don't stop. Karmafist 00:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you ready to apologise for your abuse of admin powers, unwarranted actions and false accusations, yet? Andy Mabbett 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to Pigs, you're still the only one who thinks that. Oh well, nobody can say I didn't try to help out. At this rate, the arbcom seems likely to indefinately ban you. Karmafist 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, my name is not Pigs; nor am I the only one who thinks you abused your powers, as you well know. Why do you keep repeating that lie? Andy Mabbett 09:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hate page"

Thanks for pointing that out. Ral315 (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

scottfisher

In the future, you can bring up potential Scottfisher socks to The Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. I agree that the first IP is most likely Scottfisher, but I'm not as convinced on the second one. I blocked the first one and noted it on AN/I. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see how the second one does not convince you - same IP block, registered to the same organisation, used sequentially, and within minutes of the first, for those speciifc edits... Andy Mabbett 09:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist

Thanks for letting me know that I have a "hate page". It is very strange that Jesus is all about love but I keep hearing all about hate because I stand up for Him. Thanks again for letting me know! phatcat68 12:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your arbitration case

As a semi-uninterested party, and one who isn't interested in banning you, I highly suggest you respond to your arbitration case. I understand why you wouldn't want to answer it, but you're probably not going to get any leniency if you don't give some sort of a response to it. Best wishes. Ral315 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. You really should respond, you are just making things a lot worse for yourself this way. the wub "?!" 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

You're welcome. Apologies for being a bit of a noodge. :]

Let me know if I can give you a hand with any of this stuff. --CBDunkerson 17:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

No problem. -- Francs2000 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop making snide personal remarks

Stop making snide personal remarks about myself and my mother. Your behaviour throughout the dispute has been coniderably less than perfect, including the fact that you initiated the dispute in the first place, and have continued to cause problems. Figaro 17:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop making snide personal remarks about myself and my mother. I have made none. Provide evidence for that vile slur, or retract it and apologise. Nor have I initiated any dispute. Any problems are of your own making, or your own imagination. Andy Mabbett 17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he (Figaro) is talking about this edit, with your edit summary being "rv. Figaro (or his mother) seem to simpliy wish to prohibit nme from editing this". While I think that Figaro is overreacting, I think you're not making things better by being snide. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he was. What was snide about it? Andy Mabbett 18:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"What was snide about it?" Come on. What other explanation do you have for the "mother" thing other than it being an insult? If you want others to cease and desist with attacks, you'd do well to put your own house in order. android79 17:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What other explanation do you have for the "mother" thing other than it being an insult? The fact that Figaro recently revelaed that his (sic) account is used by both him and his mother, yet, unless he refers to her in the third person, we have no way of knowing which one of them is making any given edit. If you want others to cease and desist with attacks, you'd do well to put your own house in order. Thank you; it already is. Please do not use deprecated HTML on WP.Andy Mabbett 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay then, my apologies. I'm looking into the HTML issue, though if there's no proper usable replacement for <font> tags, I don't think I'll be changing anything. Are they actively causing a problem in your browser? android79 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. See your talk page for HTML advice. Andy Mabbett 19:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

lmao, and you want me to stop making "personal attacks", Andy? :-)Karmafist

yes; and to apologise for your unwarranted actions against me, false accusations, and abuse of admin powers. Did you have a point? Andy Mabbett 19:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm, children, back in the pram. Good boys. -Veratien 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, now see... THAT'S a "snide personal remark". :] --CBDunkerson 19:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that, though Figaro (or his mother) has been active, there has been no such evidence, and no retraction or apology. Andy Mabbett 16:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rollback Button

lol, now CBD can appreciate sarcasm :-).

Anyhow, it's assumed with the rollback button, which is what I used there, is that the edit summary of whatever the page is rolled back to is the edit summary applied to the rollback. Thanks for letting me know, i'll roll it back again now. Karmafist 15:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. Figaro 01:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#The "Next Day" Loophole

Hey Andy, just wanted to let you know that my "twisting of the truth" has been verified by two other users, and potentially will lead to a new policy. The thread itself along with your technique has been filed at your rfar, the evidence is really starting to pile up. Karmafist 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, your claim is a bare-faced lie. Andy Mabbett 10:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself! The Ostrich Method (sticking your head in the sand and believing something isn't there so you can say so), isn't working even though you think it is. Karmafist 14:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I did, your claim is a bare-faced lie.. Andy Mabbett 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Honey/Vinegar and POTW Archive

POTW, I thought you'd understand by now that you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar! If you promise to put all your future talk page entries into User talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive, i'll make this my last revert of your interview cruft. I'm also going to check with Locke Cole on what he's talking about. Since you're not going to testify at your rfar, and most rfars with defendents who don't testify end in long blocks from what i've heard, I suggest that you ask for mentorship from CBDunkerson. Karmafist 14:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've told you before, I don't give in to threats. Andy Mabbett 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mail

Andy, please check your email. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am done.

First,

It's my understanding that, per policy, edits by sockpuppets of blocked users are to be reverted, on sight. So why did you revert my reversion of Scottfisher's last edit? Andy Mabbett 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it's on his own user page, not to an article. And it was just correcting a typo, but it was a bad choice on his part, as that IP is now blocked because of it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was willing to try and help you, but now I myself have found myself in an edit dispute with you. Yes, it's unofficial policy that edits by banned users are to be reverted on sight. However, that generally applies more for users officially banned by the Arbitration Commitee than for users that are community banned, as Scottfisher is. Either way, the intent of the policy is to prevent banned users from POV pushing on articles, not about correcting typos on their own user page. If an Arbcom banned user made a good spelling correction to a controversial article that they were supposed to be banned from, I would in fact keep it. A good edit is a good edit. However, had he for example added another unsourced photo to an article, which is what he was banned for, that would of course have been revertable. But being stubborn about a one letter typo correction is just a bit much. For someone who's paying enough attention to policy to be aware of that, you do not seem to be paying much attention to such policies as WP:CIVIL, nor do you seem to have any heed for the conventions and politics of operating on this wiki. You are up before the ArbCom, and that is a serious, serious problem for you, and refusing to participate there is not helping you whatsoever. I was willing to try and help you out, but your continued stubbornness over picayune details and refusal to hear others opinions whatsoever is pushing me over the edge. I leave you to the mercy of the Arbitration Committee then, and your case does not look promising. You are going to have to change your behavior, or you will be banned. That's not intended as a threat, it's simply the reality that you are up against. The wiki in general is very tolerant of uncivil behavior, more so than it needs to be, but there is a limit, and you are speedily approaching that limit. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)