Jump to content

User talk:Thewinchester/Archives/2007/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


thanks

Thank you for your comments :) I have been meaning to sign up for a while but never got around to it, what finally motivated me was the state of affairs in the Australian culture and arts sections. My first AfD contribution? I have made several, but I assume you mean the "out now" one. I felt that as the responses were so long that they needed a considered rebuttal, otherwise my vote might well be lost in the crowd. i find the efforts of marketing companies to export their own staff's somewhat distorted views of their own notoriety quite amusing (and this would be far from the first, i know of at least 3 in perth alone who do silly things like pay hundreds of dollars to turn up at hyatt functions when the Premier of Western Australia is speaking there, even when it puts them in deficit as they have no clients and silly overheads... anyway, i am thoroughly ranting. Hope to catch you 'round the Wiki ! Zivko85 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant

The railway thingos are nothing short of amazing! SatuSuro 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff can be got from their annotation in the catalogue that would otherwise be a black stump to a blind horse SatuSuro 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Arrgh - such a masterpiece - Midland line! well done! Is there any way I could be walked through the stuff - to do it for some deceased dead defunct lines? SatuSuro 06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hasnt the meetup experience shown that? ....heheh SatuSuro 06:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My changes to Joondalup railway line, Perth

I got my distances from the 2006 Perth and Surrounds Street Directory, 48th Edition published by UBD. I would think that the information in these publications would be rather reliable. However, if there are much more accurate sources, then I would welcome the changes. Meanwhile, the maps made for the several lines have been amazing. I've already completed the one for the Mandurah railway line, Perth seeing that it wasn't completed. 리지강.wa.au 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Foodie stubs

Just saw them and their lack of blue discusssion tags- I simply cannot help myself... those red ones set me off like some get set off by the new message orange banner :) 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Noticed this one

Given your recent cleanup efforts I thought I'd forward this one to you, might be room for an Australian task force within it :) Orderinchaos 02:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Email Orderinchaos 07:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mick Molloy Show

Thanks for adding the Episode 1 details. I planned to add all 8 episode running sheets but I just haven't had the time in the last month or two. I'm curious as to how you have this info. Stevefrommelbourne 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, good to see they still exist out there. (I'm new to Wiki so apologies if this is in the wrong place). Can you email me through my fan page listed at the bottom of this show's entry. I want to ask you another question , cheers.Stevefrommelbourne 22:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wesley College, Perth

Can you help me make those pictures valid for use on the article? The preceeding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.82.192 at 14:74, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • As you're an IP user - i'll leave my response here in the hope you read it. Short answer, no. The images you have loaded in are ones you have saved from the Henrietta catalogue of the State Library of Western Australia. Those images are copyright, and the only way those images can be used in the public domain is if you go through the licensing processes (And it'll cost you at least $33 per image to do that). If you can find a free version of those images, then you would be more than able to include them into the article. Before editing articles on any school particularly in Western Australia, I would make yourself aware of the issues in this recently created Wikipedia Essay titled Aquinascruft, as it will give you a few pointers on mistakes to avoid. Hope this helps. Thewinchester (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WA barnstar

Cheers! I like the way you left room for three more. That's thinkin' positive! At current rates (5 barnstars in 32 months[1]) I should have filled the other slots by early 2009. ;-) Hesperian 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's deep web; I don't link to it from my user page, so no-one knows it's there. No, the user page is fine. The other page is more of a barnstar archive. I'll give it a bit of a run on my user page, then eventually archive it away. Hesperian 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

This comment was completely out of line [1]. We do not run around insulting each other. I have blocked you for 9 hours so that you can cool down a bit. When you return I hope you will contribute with more civility and respect for other editors. You might want to this about apologising to Jeffrey O. Gustafson too. Whatever you think of his decision, your attack on him was unwarranted. WjBscribe 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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).

Thewinchester/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User cannot substantiate by any means demonstrate that the user has committed persistent gross incivility as per Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Civility also specifically prohibits Cool down blocks—brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user—should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. which was cited as the reason by blocking administrator WJBscribe

Decline reason:

You were blocked for gross incivility, as I'm sure you know. I'm disinclined to unblock you at this time, as I have no evidence that you intend to apologise, or try to sort things out in a civil manner in the future. Riana ⁂ 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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. I think you would do better to undertake to apologise and moderate your conduct if you wish to be unblocked, rather than quibbling over the terms of your block. Your comment was unacceptable. Full stop. WjBscribe 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this block is unwarranted, while thewinchesters comment were heat and uncivil the language used is not the most offensive on that talk page "Oh, for fucks sake..." heading at the top of the page is a case in point. Given this, the editor should have been warned and asked to reconsider and withdraw the comment before blocking. WP:BLOCK clearly states that cool down block shouldnot be used, as this was a cool down block it should be removed. Gnangarra 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This block is completely unwarranted under Wikipedia policy. I have raised a case at AN/I. Orderinchaos 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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).

Thewinchester/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As noted, the decision to block was clearly inconsistent and in direct breach of both the permitted and prohibited uses of blocking as defined within WP:BLOCK, nor did the action accused by WjBscribe meet the defined standards to permit blocking per the above policy. Additionally Riana's decision to decline the unblock is faulty and also inconsistent with WP:BLOCK.

Decline reason:

Don't be a dick. And if you are a dick, and you get trout-slapped for it, don't be a dick about that either. Hint: apologising works better than bitching, in this context.

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.

Thewinchester (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Note: above review was from JzG.) I also think you shouldn't be unblocked. While technically "cool down" blocks are disallowed, blocks for violating behavior policy like Wikipedia:No personal attacks are not prohibited just because they can also be given for the cool-down purpose. In other words, not only cool down, but when you return, be WP:CIVIL and don't attack other users even when you're annoyed with them. Mangojuicetalk

  • Comment I'm sorry, but can anyone not see the irony of this. Admins are charged with dealing with policy, yet they've got no problems trampling right on over it. Additionally to this, the unsigned decline notice posted by JzG breaches WP:CIVILITY (diff) by calling the affected a user a "Dick", and doing so three times. Seriously, what's good for the goose is good for the gander here - so if you're going to block me then you better block him too because his actions are just as bad as my attributed comments. Thewinchester (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, ok, that response may have not been the most helpful in calming the situation. But it also wasn't a vicious attack on a personal level, like your comment was. The point stands: your comment was over the line, and the block is justified on that basis. And as both JzG and Riana said, an apology might show some contrition, but instead you've chosen to attack those who've blocked you and looked into your request for unblocking. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Listen, those admins can sidestep around the core issue of the matter as much as they like. They've clearly breached policy, trampled over it en masse, and they have demonstrated their inability to consistently apply policy, let alone follow it themselves. As said in WP:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks, brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user—should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. A simple uw-agf2 would have clearly sufficed here, but instead the blocking admin failed to assume good faith and rode roughshot over policy and procedure, thereby creating a mountain out of a molehill. I'm not going to suggest the actions necessary to bring this issue to a fair and reasonable conclusion, as this should be obvious. Thewinchester (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how one can assume good faith about the comment you made. It was an insult, far over the line. And as has been explained to you twice now, you were not blocked solely to calm down an angry user, you were blocked for violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. This block is being discussed at WP:ANI, and it looks like it's not going anywhere. The fact that you refuse to apologize for your personal attack here is not weighing in your favor. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Listen. You were very, very rude. That was dickish. Read the essay: don't be a dick is the first rule of any functional social space. I also made it clear that if you want to be unblocked, apologising would be a good start. Or you can carry on with the macho posturing and see if that works, but it's not been tremendously effective thus far, has it? Guy (Help!) 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I read this as a block for being abusive and uncivil, with an added comment to cool-down. That is not against blocking rules, as I understand them. The only question I see, is whether or not the blocking admin was involved in the situation. If so, in my opinion s/he should ask another admin to look into it and let them make the call. That removes any question of COI or use of admin tools for personal reasons. In this case, I don't know whether or not the admin was personally involved in the discussions and from the sound of things it wouldn't have mattered. Uncivil is uncivil and it doesn't belong on talk pages. "For fucks sake" isn't uncivil, its impolite. "Fuck YOU", is uncivil. (referring to comments above, not to the language/reasons for the block) Lsi john 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You do realise you guys have all just set yourselves up for the mother of all precedents that I am going to be totally unafraid to use if I'm being pursued by someone again (read AN/I reply for the full story). Next time though I at least know which admins to contact as I know I can trust them to deliver, unlike the one who told me to assume good faith while I was being attacked left, right and centre and had all the evidence - and it wasn't a week old then, it was 17 minutes old. Gnangarra is the only admin in all of this who can come out with any sense of dignity, this pile-on is no worse a case of bullying than what was done to me a month ago and what you guys refused to prevent or do anything about then. Shame! DanielT5 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

On the user Guycalledryan, I assume good faith with the fact that the user would not open conversation with me. Through the last week, the user keep posting unwanted messages upon my talk page, which I ignored. The user had done this for a week and after that, I sought to stop this user from annoying me. If the user stops annoying and posting unwanted and pointless messages, then it would be all ok. -- Warfreak 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewinchester/Archives/2007/May&oldid=1139344912"