User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Nov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia email

This sort of "well you'd know" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=393999876 is not necessary and not helpful. ——[from Rd232 (talk · contribs), 16:45, 31st October 2010]

I wouldn't have described it as altogether harmful, either, but your point has been noted :) ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange, Unimportant Question

Greetings, TreasuryTag. Could you answer a strange and unimportant question for me? How do you get the random terms to follow your signature? For example, sometimes it says "belonger" and sometimes "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster," sometimes something different. The link is to your contributions page. How'd you do that? Saebvn (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Check out the coding at User:TreasuryTag/sig :) ╟─TreasuryTagWoolsack─╢ 09:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks! Saebvn (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk

Don't intend to be unduly skeptical, but how can you be "extremely familiar with the Old Testament" yet not be aware that the Philistines were the traditional enemies of the Israelites? It doesn't entirely jibe... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that probably is unduly skeptical, but I never claimed not to know that the Philistines were the enemies of the Israelites. What I clearly said was that I didn't know where/what Gath was, which – as I'm sure you either will appreciate or would appreciate if you weren't just trying to score minor points – is a significantly more abstruse piece of information. ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Not really -- the conclusion seemed to be that I think you're intellectually lazy (at least on this particular occasion), while you think I'm vindictively scoring points, so I decided to pretty much leave it there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
If I am to be considered "intellectually lazy" for asking on the RefDesk about abstruse Biblical geography, then one has to wonder exactly what the RefDesk is for... ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 17:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The initial query was not the problem. AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
So what was the problem? ╟─TreasuryTagballotbox─╢ 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
From knowing that the quote ended "lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice", you should have been able to deduce the basic meaning; and if you were curious about the location of Gath, you could have easily looked at the Gath article; and if you wanted to know the exact context of the saying, you could have read II Samuel chapter 1, supplemented if necessary by fairly quick and easy Google and/or Wikipedia searches. In short, if you showed a little individual initiative or "rumgumption" (as they used to call it), the whole semi-incident could have been avoided). AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to WP:Reference desk/Guidelines, the desk "will give assistance in interpreting questions, help with ideas and concepts, and attempt to point them to resources that might help." Whether or not you feel I was being dumb, my question(s) fell within that parameter, and if you are not prepared to go along with it, you really should not be providing responses there at all. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, when you leave blue boxes on my user talk page, could you please group them together with all the other blue boxes which you have previously left there, instead of just indiscriminately slapping them down at the bottom of the page? It's starting to get annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse's userpage

Where would be a better place to discuss the protection/non-protection of that editor's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It was absurd to suggest that the discussion should be moved to AN from ANI given the response it got there. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrospectively, I have to agree. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Welcome to the Giacomo doesn't like you club. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk-back-like messages

Can you please respect my wish not to be bombarded with those for no reason at all. I think I have made it clear by now that I am watching that ANI thread. We don't need two completely unnecessary edits on my talk page for every post of yours. Hans Adler 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I am asking you probing and direct questions, I wish it to be abundantly clear that you are aware of these. While I am sure that you would not deliberately pretend not to have seen one, I am aware of the likelihood that when following a vast and growing thread, it is very easy to miss individual comments. So in response to your initial question, I am afraid I must answer "no." ╟─TreasuryTagstannator─╢ 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I started with a polite request in an edit summary to follow the request on my talk page. On the second occasion I repeated this request, then I simply rolled back and reiterated my wish in detail in the present section. The following time I warned you directly in the ANI thread. [1] [2] This is your second warning. You will not get more than three warnings in any 3-month period starting with the first. After the next talk-back template or similar message following the third warning I will report you for a mild case of harassment. Hans Adler 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: I am referring to any notification that you expect a response from me to a thread in which I have already commented. An exception to this would be an untemplated message in full sentences after you have been waiting for a response some time, including at least two full and consecutive hours in which I have been otherwise editing or two unrelated comments to the same thread. An exception to the exception is when I have made it clear that I am not going to reply. Hans Adler 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you using a different definition of "harassment" along the same lines of the different definition of "tag-teaming" which you invented in the ANI thread? Because WP:HA makes no mention that correct use of the {{talkback}} constitutes harassment.
Furthermore, WP:UP#OWN suggests that editors do not have the authority to ban others from their talkpage, either in general or with specified contractual conditions.
If you would rather I simply copy all my replies to you onto your talkpage, rather than just responding on my own and leaving you a template, so be it, but I can't see any valid reason for you to hold such a preference. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests. If you persist with WP:HA#Harassment and disruption in the form of "unwanted contact" this "may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and cause disruption to the project", so please desist with your disruptive editing. You doubtless think your actions are justifiable or acceptable, please accept that your postings on the talk page of Hans Adler are unnecessary and disruptive, and cease posting on that talk page. . . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be treating "probably sensible" as a synonym for "mandatory" – whereas, as any good dictionary will tell you, it is not. Of course I will not make special effort to post on Hans' page and piss him off, but nor will I hold back from communicating with him where it seems editorially necessary. This is the norm on Wikipedia, and it is not harassment. (I should also point out that repeatedly making false claims of harassment "may be treated as a serious personal attack," according to the page you just linked.) ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 14:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Persistent unwanted contact is included as harrassment and as disruptive, kindly desist. . . dave souza, talk 15:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No. ╟─TreasuryTagballotbox─╢ 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, I don't care what "right" you think you have. If you post on Hans' talk page again without being able to point to an express statement on his part that he is fine with it, you will be blocked indefinitely for repeated annoying and unwanted contact. NW (Talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Really? Which of your manifold userrights will you use to enact this illegitimate block? ╟─TreasuryTagsundries─╢ 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand, TreasuryTag. Repeated unwelcome messages to an editor's talk page are harassment. It is clear you have been attempting to make some sort of statement about your demands that he answers some of your question. It is amply clear that this statement has been undersood by Hans. Attempting to bully someone into cooperating with your demands is unlikely to lead to any end you would find desirable. It is disruptive and, yes, blockable. — Coren (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested above that if, say, in two months' time, I leave a message for Hans on an unrelated issue but without his prior written permission, that will be grounds for me to be "blocked indefinitely for repeated annoying and unwanted contact." That is bollocks, and I expect you know it. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is an overstatement, when interpreted this way, but the sentiment is not so far off the mark I'd call it "bollocks". And besides, I don't see Hans telling you off his talk page completely, simply a repeated request for you to stop posting a specific kind of message he deems unneeded and annoying. (Incidentally, if I comment somewhere I will watch the thread there. While amusing in context, your talkback message on my talk page was also unneeded).

The short of it: if you were to continue posting talkback-like notices on Hans's talk page, an admin would be well justified in blocking you until you agreed to stop. That point is valid and best heeded. — Coren (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And besides, I don't see Hans telling you off his talk page completely – then I can only assume that you missed this ultra vires instruction. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I had. 'bit drastic, but understandable in context. I suppose it just illustrates that annoying someone into cooperating tends to be unproductive. Just stay off his talk page unless you have to, okay? — Coren (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
...so now you've had time to prepare an answer to the obvious question I'm about to ask:
Why did you say, "I don't see Hans telling you off his talk page completely," if you had, in fact, had sight of the diff in which he did so? ╟─TreasuryTagsecretariat─╢ 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
erm ... that very diff contains the phrase "I explicitly declare all required notifications to be exceptions to the ban."  pablo 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Your point being? ╟─TreasuryTagsheriff─╢ 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Err, referent fail. Yes, I had [missed this ultra vires instruction]. Sorry if I wasn't clear. — Coren (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
My point being that therefore he was not "telling you off his talk page completely" pablo 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
But (as Coren has just pointed out) he meant "telling [me] off his talkpage completely" as opposed to asking for no talkback templates. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict blanked another editor's contribution

Hi, could you fix this? You appear to have accidentally blanked another editor's contribution. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Actually I just self-reverted my offending edit because I judged it to have been unwise, so the other one is back anyway! ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, cool. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback [RevDel issue]

I was wrong SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your acknowledgement of this, and thank you also for confirming that you have "crossed the INVOLVED line" in relation to my good self. This has been a bit of a learning experience for me, and by the look of things for you as well: on which note, I think that you may find it beneficial to look over our entire history together; each warning, each disagreement, each block, each overturn. It's a distressingly large amount of material, but I think that there are mistakes on both sides which offer lessons for the future. ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said in my RFA, "There are always lessons to be learned." Let's see how well we can learn them. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
PS - the Talkback notice was there because I meant to point it to the AN/I discussion, instead of leaving it pointing at my talkpage. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

The one of this revert made my day. Thank you :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Harassment

(responding here to this because I don't have time for the drama right now, I'm busy this afternoon)

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no intention whatsoever of abiding by Hrafn's request (and it is just a request, as I have explained to him) that I do not post on his talkpage. He is not entitled to regulate who posts on his talkpage, though he may delete anything he wishes once it has been posted. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 14:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for poking bears. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TreasuryTag/Archives/2010 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

OK, fair point. But I clearly stopped poking the bear quite some time ago and started two parallel modes of resolving the dispute. Taking this into account, I don't quite see what this block is preventing, other than my participation in informal dispute resolution?

Decline reason:

You both editwarred, and you both got blocked for this. Bad show all around. Courcelles 20:42, 23 November 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.


{{unblock|I am fully aware that we both edit-warred, and I am more than aware that we both got blocked. However, I am also aware that the edit-war stopped over twenty minutes ago, and that since then, we have been pursuing two forms of informal dispute resolution. I tend to agree with the "bad show" analysis of events, but I can only repeat my question: what is this block preventing at the moment?}}

If you agree to avoid causing further disruption around the ArbCom election, especially where Off2riorob is concerned, I'll gladly unblock you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Done :) ╟─TreasuryTagYou may go away now.─╢ 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to question whether posting to the edit warring noticeboard can properly be called "pursuing dispute resolution". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you'd be along! ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked. As long as he avoids Rob and stops disrupting the ACE, there's nothing to be prevented. A word to the wise, TT, it's generally better to try to engage in DR before you get to the point of blockable disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't engage further with O2R during the election campaign. ╟─TreasuryTagCaptain-Regent─╢ 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An award

Peace Barnstar.png The Peace Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to TreasuryTag for helping to save important articles on international relations from destruction at AfD. All who care about world peace and international collaboration are in your debt! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated :) ╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 18:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Time of Angels

So... it doesn't need to be in the article twice, it's only one of several locations in the episode (from memory, only a few minutes are spent on the beach from the two episodes combined), and it's not that important a fact so it doesn't have to be in the intro. Cheers, 81.142.107.230 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)