User talk:Edito*Magica

Edito*Magica

Adding a touch of magic to Wikipedia!

Links

The Brittas Empire, Keeping Up Appearances.

Goodnight Sweetheart, 2point4 children, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave.

Feel free to leave a comment below...

Out of interest....

What was your previous username? Why did you change it? And why don't you archive your talk pages properly to make it easier to see your history? The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very wise not to use your real name. I hope you are not planning on reinserting elements against consensus. Those tags have been removed by a neutral editor. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please keep discussion about the One Foot page to the One Foot talk page, not mine. Thanks. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an article about a television programme, preferably a British sitcom, listed at WP:FA that uses such a list. I've already shown you several that doesn't. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still searching? The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:FAC. As you quote, 'too long' can be defined as in excess of 50KB. None of the articles which you are concerned about are anywhere near that. The software automatically gives editors a message when that is the case. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still waiting for your examples of WP:FAs that conform with your style. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a featured article that isn't over a page long. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. The section should not be a list. It should written in prose, containing encyclopedic information. As per Blackadder, Only Fools and Horses, etc. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is hilarious. Articles are scrutinised at WP:FAC for the most minor breach of WP:MOS. I find it difficult to discuss this with someone inexperienced in the process. I observed your similar rhetoric with User:UpDown over similar issues. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the lists on those pages? The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a substitute for the 'Characters and casting' section (LotSW). The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overtagging

Please stop adding these tags. Three editors so far think these tags are a bad idea. Just re adding really is not going to accomplish anything. Also, you reverted the removal of these tags already 4 times. This could get you blocked, see WP:3RR. Garion96 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is still your opinion. Three editors disagree with you. Since I removed these templates I am involved, otherwise I would have blocked you myself for blatant violation of 3RR. Garion96 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. How about work together and remove the templates since you see that you are the only one for them. Garion96 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

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 at One Foot in the Grave. 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. B (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have unfairly been blocked from Wikipedia. I have been reverting edits on the "One Foot in the Grave" page which have been persistantly removing justified tags that I placed there. It is a Wikipedia policy that tags should not be removed until the issues they've highlighted have been resolved, and it is the editors who have been removing my taggings that should in fact be blocked, and who have violated the "three-revert rule". They should not have removed the tags I placed there. It is they who have violated the "three-revert rule" and thus it is they who should be blocked. I have been treated most unfairly.

Decline reason:

No fewer than three other editors tried to explain to you that the tags were against consensus and should not be re-added without discussion. Whether the tags should have been removed or not is beside the point which is that you were consistently reverting several other editors, i.e. edit warring. —Travis ^talk 19:30, 8 January 2009 (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.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Brittascustomer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Brittascustomer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FINALLY!!

At last the wikki world has spoken and this terrible user has been rightly blocked. Gone are the days of reverting his pointless edits, im sorry if i sound rude but it is certainly about time he was sorted out. His careless actions have gone on for far too long, finally we have a wikipedia site where everyone can enjoy editing responsibly and accurately. Say no to magica not no to magico!!!!!!!! Edito*magico (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairly been blocked for doing nothing wrong

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Edito*Magica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

195.195.128.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Spidermancnichols". The reason given for Spidermancnichols's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Blocking administrator: Thingg (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Except that he and you edited exactly the same articles. I find it hard to believe that two people who don't know each other, and only share a dynamic IP address, could SOMEHOW edit the exact same 4 articles. See [1] and [2] — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairly been blocked due to another user's vandalising

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).

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

Request reason:

I am on a shared internet service. Someone else has been vandalising Wikipedia and i have been blocked for it.

Decline reason:

See above... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 20 January 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Look, whether I know the person who has vandalised or not, their actions have absolutely nothing to do with mine. They deliberately choose pages that I edited to gauge a reaction from me. Why should I be blocked when i have done nothing wrong? My contributions will show that i have never once resorted to malicious vandalism, and it is highly unfair to be blocked just because of another user’s antics. You're hardly been fair are you? Now i was in the middle of adding to the Sooty and Co article, which I have expanded from a stub. I suggest you unblock me and let me continue with my work.

Decline reason:

Firstly, it is rather naughty to remove the previous unblock requests. It looks as if you have something to hide. It seems a coincidence that a completely different user would edit an identical corpus of articles to yourself. As this is (at least) your third unblock request, I'm also protecting this talk page as a result of unblock abuse. — The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:03, 20 January 2009 (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.

Regarding comments left in an email you sent me: Please do not claim that JPS has abused his admin powers as you did in the email sent to me. He has responded fairly to the evidence presented here. If you have reason to believe that you should be unblocked, and have concrete evidence that you are the victim of mistaken identity, please contact a member of the Arbitration Committee via email as described at WP:ARBCOM. They will make a further review of your block and make a final decision on how to handle this. Also, you may want to find a way to explain this : [3]. Cheers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:50, 20 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I still am being unfairly treated. I have not vandalised anything; in the past people I know have been targeting pages I edit and disrupting them. If anything I am the victim of vandalism. I have had my user page content replaced with 'shut your hairy mouth you Jew gay', pages I have edited such as 'Sooty & Co' have been blanked and replaced with 'edito*Magica is a cock', and curiously half of these editors responsible, as in those replicating my name 'Edtiorofmagic' and 'Edito*Magico', haven't been banned at all, and are free to repeat their acts of vandalism. However me, who is innocent in all fo it, has been blocked. You'll find ALL my contributions constructive, but look at ‘Edito*Magico’ or ‘Editorofmagic's’ contributions and you'll find nothing but vandalism. I have no interest in vandalising the very pages i have been improving, and I, 'Edito*Magica', hope the block is lifted very soon so I can continue my work. Thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, that doesn't fly. If you don't care to acknowledge that you were editing outside of consensus, and ignore said consensus repeatedly, and then place the blame on others, sorry, I don't know what I can do. You've also been abusing multiple accounts, and for that, I cannot do anything else but decline this unblock. I'm protecting this talk page. — seicer | talk | contribs 12:26, 21 January 2009 (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.

Comment: Due to abuses in the unblocking process, with this block and the prior block, I am protecting this page from further abuse. If you have legitimate unblock requests, see BLOCK for further information. seicer | talk | contribs 12:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New account

Note that this editor is now editing as User:Whirl*editing. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HyacinthBucket.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HyacinthBucket.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]