User talk:TreasuryTag

My pontificality of prelates

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Per my previous unblock request – all of which still stands, of course – and WP:OFFER. I would also like to point out that I've not socked, not nagged, not abused this talkpage etc. I'm contrite, I've taken my break and I feel ready to give it another shot at changing my ways. Please consider this request charitabily. TT.

Notes:

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

Administrator use only:

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

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&diff=465326144&oldid=463612917 previous unblock request] – all of which still stands, of course – and [[WP:OFFER]]. I would also like to point out that I've not socked, not nagged, not abused this talkpage etc. I'm contrite, I've taken my break and I feel ready to give it another shot at changing my ways. Please consider this request charitabily. TT. |3 = ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&diff=465326144&oldid=463612917 previous unblock request] – all of which still stands, of course – and [[WP:OFFER]]. I would also like to point out that I've not socked, not nagged, not abused this talkpage etc. I'm contrite, I've taken my break and I feel ready to give it another shot at changing my ways. Please consider this request charitabily. TT. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&diff=465326144&oldid=463612917 previous unblock request] – all of which still stands, of course – and [[WP:OFFER]]. I would also like to point out that I've not socked, not nagged, not abused this talkpage etc. I'm contrite, I've taken my break and I feel ready to give it another shot at changing my ways. Please consider this request charitabily. TT. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hey TT. As you have been community banned, it will require a community unban. I'll copy this across to WP:AN for you. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've temporarily disabled ClueBot III archiving while this unblock request is open, as it archived it - hope that's ok -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed for time but here's a brief comment: Dweller has proposed four conditions. No Doctor Who editing – I'll accept this condition if we can agree on a time-limit. No deletion nominations – I'm 'currently' topic-banned from deletion nominations for six months after being unblocked, so I trust Dweller will find this satisfactory. No editing of Wikipedia: space – sorry, no, I think it's important for me to be able to interact, comment on XfDs, enter discussions on noticeboards and at the Village Pump, !vote in RfAs and so on. No whole words in edit-summaries – no because it would disrupt Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Further remark: just think about how these restrictions would work. I'd remove some content from an article, say because it was original research, and be banned from leaving an edit-summary. Another editor wonders why I did it. They look at my contributions and see that I've done the same thing on other pages. They report me to WP:ANI. But I can't respond there.
How is this helpful to anybody? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've copied those comments to the ANI thread -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My point about no-full-words-in-edit-summaries is this: I'm not aware that anybody has ever complained about my edit-summaries on the grounds that they're written in proper English (though I stand to be corrected on this front). The complaints have usually been about abrasive languages, sarcasm, insinuations etc. Therefore, a sensible restriction would focus on those issues rather than on something completely irrelevant, namely the length of words being used. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• [1] TT forced my hand by declining mentoring without knowing what the restrictions would be. I'm sorry, but that is not at all what happened. As is clear from the diff Dweller provided, I said, "If you can propose some specific restrictions then I'd be able to comment." Then Dweller proposed his specific restrictions, which I then declined. Dweller's statement just now is simply untrue.
  Meanwhile, as I've said, I am now willing/required to accept the first two propsals. The fourth proposal seems not to be impressing the community anyway. And I'm happy to negotiate on the third one. How does that sound as a starting-point? ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)