User talk:Duggy 1138/Archive 3

November 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Neranei (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Duggy 1138 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting a blatant and ongoing breaking of the rules (the use of the a discussion page as a forum), I tried adding warning that the rules were being broken, but it suddenly became dramatically worse. I felt that the only way to shut it down was to get rid of the discussion. It wasn’t a move I wanted to make, but I did. Yes, I participated in a revert war, but only for the benefit of wikipedia

Decline reason:

An edit war is an edit war. Serve out your block. — Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Decline. Please read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule-An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. This applies to any editor. --Sandahl 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, frankly, I don't understand the point of having rules about discussion pages not being forums, when someone who blatantly and uncivilly ignores them deliberately and repeatedly gets off scott free and someone defending those rules is punished. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is a core behavioral policy, and the text makes it pretty clear that exceptions are few and narrow in scope. Is there some reason you chose to continue edit warring, instead of escalating the issue to somewhere else, perhaps the admin noticeboard? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this was an urgent ongoing thing. I was (and I think did successfully) shut down an out of control non-article-improvement conversation. I started (after about 3 comments) with a note that this was inappropiate, but it was told uncivilly that the main participate didn't care. It very quickly esculated, and so I started reverting to stop it. Now that the heat is off the conversation, I'm happy that it's back, but I felt that it needed to be killed, otherwise it could have kept going up until election day (tomorrow). Why I didn't go to the notice board, I'm happier if these things stay small, I feel like I'm calling on a teacher or something. I know that isn't an excuse for why I didn't put a message on the admin notice board, but it is the reason that up until I read your reply just now, I didn't even know there was one.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not by any stretch of the imagination "urgent" or "ongoing". The conversation was not in breach of any policy, and you didn't just take on one individual but an *entire Wikiproject*. None of the people involved were in dispute with each other and the matter was confined to a single talk page. Looking up the particulars of the respondents might not have hurt - one of the people you accused of "out of control" behaviour was an ArbCom member in very good standing. Disrupting the encyclopaedia to make a point is quite a serious matter and I hope you have learned from this. If you wish to be of greater assistance, perhaps looking for the thousands of pages where bitter disputes rage on and people are calling each other racist names, or where vandalism is taking place at the hands of determined IP editors, would be a better avenue to explore. Orderinchaos 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poloicy still applies to members of ArbCom, you know, they're not somehow holy or sacred. The main error here was in persistently reverting, more than interpretation of a particular circumstance. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down Among the Z Men

Leave it out! This is the Goons being the Goons. That is all it needs to be to be a film based on The Goon Show. Do your research! The early Goon shows were pretty formless affairs. That you've got Eccles and Bloodnok and Bentine's Professor routine, that's it. It might be crap but it is the Goons. Original script editor Jimmy Grafton is one of the writers.

If it has to say "based on the Goon Show" in the credits? Then The REbel doesn't qualify either.

And when are you going to put up or shut up about The Rebel being based on a particular episode. It isn't. It has a passing resemblance to one, but many major difference - not least that that is set in East Cheam and is based on a writing competition! - to assert this is original research.Daisyabigael (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Was it written by Spike Milligan?"

Must a film based on a TV or Radio show be written by the original writer? Does a film based a novel have to be scripted by its author?

Spike isn't credited. But Jimmy Grafton was one of the original co-writers. There are many Goon Shows not written by Spike (although most if not all ARE credited to him). There are lines and routines in the film that are clearly reworked from Goon Shows - but there's no credit for this.

As for it being a Goons film - the guys are credited on-screen as The Goons. The Goons come only from the show called "The Goon Show" - a joint creation of Sellers, Milligan, Secombe, Bentine, Grafton and others from the early days. Yes, Spike was the resident creative genius, but the Goons are the Goon Show and the fact is that this film was (and still is) marketed as a "Goon" or a "Goon Show movie". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisyabigael (talk • contribs) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing incivil about my above reply, Duggy! (except that I forgot to sign it)

If you are referring to my first comment in this section - it was a response to your unwarranted removal of material (again!) without entering into discussion.

You do seem to like getting into scraps.Daisyabigael 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice quote. You presumably mean that the changes made between the radio show and the film are superficial? That's only your opinion. Can we find a single ref from Galton, Simpson, Hancock or anybody saying they based this film on that episode? I've read interviews with G&S about this film but they don't mentiuon it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I'd be happy to note that it contains themes similar to an earlier episode - but the film also contains elements from many of the shows and the radio and TV series in general. What's the beef? "Based on Hancock's Half Hour" seems to say it all anyway.Daisyabigael 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your basic urge to shout me down is getting in your way of being able to read. My request for you to ref your claim about The Rebel being based on an episode was made the day before you put on a ref.

A ref that doesn't seem to work by the way.

Calm down eh? I do think we're getting somewhere on this one.

BTW if you'd like to read my objections to your ref on the talk page - you could maybe find another ref before I delete the assertion again.Daisyabigael 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. No offence.

Would you like to fix the ref links on that page - I tried to but got into a muddle.

I'm prepared to leave the "based on episode" assertion to see if anybody else cares. I don't think your ref nails it but let's see what others think. It isn't the end of the world.Daisyabigael 14:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you're pleased. I still hvaen't seen your point over the "based on an episode" bit. If you dispassionately read even the link you provide you can't really say it proves the point, can you?

And the link doesn't actually work.Daisyabigael 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes?

Thanks for adding notes on the List of films based on radio series but I don't seem to be able to follow them anywhere. Are they not working or is it just me?Daisyabigael 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Division of Herbert. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alexfusco5 02:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy reply. On this subject on your talk page.

Duggy 1138 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What storm

What storm? The article is already semi-protected, and the hidden comment seemed to declare you couldn't edit the section, which isn't in keeping with policy or guidance. Add it back if you want, I personally don't like hidden comments, but I'm not going to revert war over it. I just hadn't realised it was there. Hiding T 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that goes against WP:BOLD, but it's not something I'm going to get hung up on. If you want to add it back, please do so, I'm not looking for a fight or anything. I just saw it and thought I'd remove it. How about instead: NOTE: Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Also ensure you supply full citations when adding information. Hiding T 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Watch

Hi - I don't understand your last edit removing info about former hosts. Can you please use edit summaries in future. Can you please explain that edit? Thanks--Matilda ^talk 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest stopping it

Please stop editing on Timeshift's page. He has indicated that he isn't interested, your ongoing behaviour could be seen as inappropriate harrassment. Thanks Shot info (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) I can delete what I want from my talk page, I can even blank the entire page, it's entirely my choosing. b) I'm only removing your comments. Kthx. Timeshift (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only stuff by me, huh?

Here I count messages from 3 different people (4 including yourself) [1]

That you deleted [2]

So, please... no lying.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your point, Duggy. Please respect Timeshift's desire not to have you comments on his talk page at this time. Rockpocket 06:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER clearly provides for users to manage the content of their own talk pages. I would also seriously consider refactoring the section below this as it risks being a WP:POINT violation and could be seen as harassment. Orderinchaos 07:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STUFF DELETED FROM TIMESHIFT'S TALK PAGE

Talk Page Policy.

Discussion pages are not forums. Them's the rules.

Your uncivil comments on my talk page aren't appreciated, either.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"See me care" is you justification for breaking the rules and uncivil comments?

Please read WP:3RR, it's per editor, not in toto.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR (after undertaking the same removal/replacement on four occasions). Orderinchaos 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'm a bit dismayed by your conduct during this affair. The "nyah, you're not an admin so stfu" argument isn't exactly compelling. It takes two to edit war; if a user is persistently a problem, usually better to move to dispute resolution (or escalate to the admin noticeboards, if all else fails). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two for a revert war, but only one to begin a revert war (in the process removing various users' comments) and one to break WP:3RR. But this issue is over, i'm not really up for petty pointless debates, especially in the last few hours of Howard's prime ministership. Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you still can't see what you did wrong.

But I must say, I found the link very helpful.

I do wish you could learn to be civil, follow the rules, and have added the link to the page somehow.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you could learn to cease communicating with me. Timeshift (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only takes one to begin a revert war? Only one to break 3RR? That's patently absurd. It's impossible to revert, unless there's somebody else to revert. You seem to be suffering from the misimpression that your behavior in this incident was squeaky clean, I'm far from convinced that was the case. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you don't care that you contributed to a bad situation and made it worse, needlessly escalating to the point someone was blocked, instead of seeking mediation? Wouldn't want peaceful resolution to get in the way of anybody's ego, after all. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC Multiverse worlds

I've protected List of DC Multiverse worlds for one week. I've based this on the edit history over the last couple of days, it seems to me an edit war is brewing. There's been some discussion on the talk page, it might be better to continue there rather than hammer out at the talk page. I don't want to see the article become a battleground. Let me know if the page can be unprotected before the week is up. Hiding T 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]