User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Feb

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM

Hi, TreasuryTag. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Little Bill (TV series)

Hi TreasuryTag. Can you explain this edit to me, please? I understand that IMDB is not reliable; but, the entire infobox on that article is unreferenced to any kind of source and many of the people listed there are living people. Why were they not removed, too? Is it not acceptable to list this person with a CN tag if IMDB is not meeting with your approval? We have better evidence that this person was involved with the production than we do any of the others listed in the infobox now. Thanks in advance for your consideration. WTucker (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right—I've deleted the rest as well. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 07:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Elonka 22:08, 13 February 2010 (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).

TreasuryTag/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was removing material which I myself posted, because another user (by deleting part of my material) was deliberately misrepresenting my overall position. I will agree to revert no further, as long as the comment in question is either deleted, or the deleted comment restored. I am not prepared to see my stance distorted by part of it being deleted; that is unfair.

Decline reason:

The link you provided doesn't show him changing your comment, just removing it. He's allowed to remove, or keep, your comments. Why in the world would you edit-war over that? You've been around long enough to know where WP:ANI is, and also to know that 3RR will get you blocked. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 13 February 2010 (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.

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).

TreasuryTag/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(just using this template to get an admin's attention) I knew 3RR, and I genuinely thought that deleting one's own material counted as self-reverting. There were two comments, and by his only deleting one, it altered my overall meaning: as I clearly explained to the user, they should both stand or go together, otherwise it misrepresented my position. I undertake not to make further edits to the page, if it can be agreed that either both comments stay or both comments go. I can see no good cause for this reasonable compromise to be denied – what reason is there for the comments to be fragmented?

Decline reason:

I could accept this as a honest mistake in the case of one or two reverts. But you made something like ten or twenty reverts. I mean, hello? Surely at the tenth revert it ought to have been clear that this is not a productive and collaborative approach to conducting a discussion. And the compromise you propose seems to be of the sort of "I agree not to edit-war any more if I get my preferred solution", which is not much of a compromise at all.  Sandstein  00:00, 14 February 2010 (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.

I can't find where you talked about that reasonable compromise to him... but 20RR is a lot, and maybe it's in one of the edits I haven't looked at yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I (admittedly a little brusquely) explained the situation here – and (also rather brusquely) noted that the ball was in his court here
I hold my hands up to the fact that I got a little carried away here, and on reflection, WP:ANI or WP:TEA would probably have been better solutions. However, it was a genuine mistake about self-reverts and my own comments. Also, I hope it can be recognised that either or both of those pages I just linked would also have been better solutions for the other user in question—I still have no idea why he would want to selectively delete my comments!
Nevertheless, I will promise not to edit that page if unblocked, and simply walk away, though would request (no longer making it a condition) that either both of my comments on his talkpage stand, or both are deleted.
How's that sound? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 22:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I was on the periphery of this dispute, and I have no doubt that Treasury Tag legitimately believed he was at liberty to delete the comment, and I think that should play a role deciding whether to lift the block (I would suggest there would likely be no problem if the block were lifted immediately). -Rrius (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I should have noted I was on the other side of the edit war. -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
An uncharacteristic lapse in judgement. I would support this block lift. RashersTierney (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=OK, I've slept on it, I've apologised, I've promised not to do it again, I'm being harassed by sockpuppets. Everything's back to normal!! It was an honest mistake, there are editors looking for me to be unblocked, and I guarantee that this block isn't preventing anything, because it won't be happening once I'm unblocked. Please?}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Yes, I would accept that this is a hiccup, and that we're no longer in need to protecting the project. Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Comment

Sorry for not replying before, I've been out since early this morning. Thanks all, and apologies for the chaos I seem to have caused! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sark

I respect Sark somewhat more than the several "Micronations" which have articles. But I do not see much point in having a large number of encyclopedia articles about a tiny island with fewer than 600 inhabitants, and the "feudal rulers" thereof who are entitled to a chicken per chimney each year. They no more encyclopedic than the Ward and its aldermen of a medium sized city I live in, or the Mayors of some tiny rural town, neither of which gets Wikipedia articles. One article for the island should suffice. More than that seems vanity and only of perhaps genealogical interest to descendants of those "rulers." There are articles about each "ruler," most of which only constitute directory information, contrary to WP:NOT. Thanks for your note. Regards. Edison (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The rulers have only directory listings in Wikipedia, for the most part, and individual articles seem uncalled for. The one during WW2, or any others who are more notable could have their own articles or be mentioned in the main article about Sark. Many Aldermen large cities (if not medium sized) have had considerable coverage in reliable and independent sources than many of these rulers. See for example Aldermen Mathias "Paddy" Bauler, John "Bathhouse Coughlin" and "Hinky Dink Kenna" of Chicago. These men "ruled" with far greater practical power over far more than 600 people and demanded from them far more than one chicken per year. Again, I consider the channel islands as more encyclopedic, because of their historicity, than someone's hobby micronation. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Feb&oldid=1077384720"