User talk:Dr Horncastle

Dr Horncastle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dr Horncastle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Politician

Many thanks for your edits on the SS Politician. All were excellent and much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I've done nothing wrong, so why am I not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia?

Accept reason:

I've granted you IP Block Exemption {IPBE), so that you can continue to edit unaffected by the range block on your underlying IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again!

Thank you again for your tinkering under the bonnet of the Baker Street robbery‎. All your efforts are much appreciated. Should you have time and inclination, I have recently written a new article which could do with some further examination: James Humphreys (pornographer). No problem if time or disinclination get in the way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If James is an English pornographer, I'll have a go. Dr Horncastle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: That's a nicely written article. I doubt you'll have much trouble at GAN with that. Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to help improve Tower Bridge (which really should be a good article by now), dive in and let's do it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That really needs a lot of work, some of which will inevitably be resisted, but I guess you know that. Dr Horncastle (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The annoying thing is that The London Encyclopedia, my go-to source for all things London related, barely devotes two paragraphs to Tower Bridge, while London Bridge gets several pages. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi. Thank you for your interest in how we elect our administrators. Other Wikipedias require solid experience before users are permitted to vote on important issues, but here at the English Wikipedia, the flagship WMF project, we make the exception and allow anyone to participate. You may like to continue to support the RfA process with your votes in the future, so you will find WP:RFAV and WP:AAAD interesting and useful read. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not really interested in essays. Do you have a policy that you think I should read that contradicts my rationale for voting the way that I did? Which, to remind you, is quite simply that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dr Horncastle (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' relates here, but for want of a better namespace, many of our 'essays' have become to be regarded as almost required reading. To shrug them off actually reinforces my concern that some people might not be aware of the importance of RfA and how over the years - before your time and still today - it has been allowed to become the one venue where users can create as much drama as they like with total impunity. FWIW, if I had not been the nominator on the Gruban RfA , I would probably be opposing it myself after all that has come to light, but I consider myself an experienced RfA voter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It relates in that block logs, for instance, are maintained for ever so far as I can tell, there's no forgiveness there. So I see no reason why the transgressions of RfA candidates should be treated any differently. And as far as these essays are concerned, I don't need to read anything to know what's right. If you had the courage of your convictions you would also do the right thing, withdraw your nomination and oppose. Isn't there an essay you could read about nominating RfA candidates? Dr Horncastle (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which past RfA are you referencing when you say 'What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' and 'not just popular candidates' and 'statutes of limitation' and such? You've voted against two candidates for having made mistakes long ago, and for both of them you're saying some version of this. --valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to GRuban's current RfA. If past crimes are to be forgiven, then that policy should apply to every editor, not just to RfA candidates. Dr Horncastle (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you're opposing GR because you opposed EF, and you're opposing EF because you opposed GR. That's a nice neat circle. :) --valereee (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to Eric Corbett.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]