User talk:NotThatAnonymous

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So, do you know why you are blocked? Because you didn't tolerate a / in your <br>. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn’t tolerate that someone violated WP:TPO and edited my talk page comments.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO explicitly mentions several instances when editing another's comment is allowed. For instance, fixing format errors, fixing layout errors, that kind of stuff. You're throwing a WP:TANTRUM over a minor disagreement. Look, PapiDimmi, you do seem to care about Wikipedia, but you'll have to understand this is a collaborative effort. You don't have to be pals with everybody, but to be a contributing Wikipedian, you have to be at least a civil one. I hope you'll turn around. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know what WP:TPO says. WP:TPO says that one is allowed to correct format errors that make a page unreadable, and <br> does not contain any format errors whatsoever.

Additionally, WP:TPO does not state that one is allowed to change the phrasing of a title if it is already descriptive, add unnecessary headings (especially headings with insults), and change the spacing of a comment which makes no visible difference when reading the page, yet Codename Lisa and FleetCommand where doing all of these things. FleetCommand and Codename Lisa were also edit warring by continuously reverting revisions.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked you again for continuing this ridiculous disruption over HTML tags in signatures. The final straw was you attempting to close a subthread about your signature which was absolutely relevant to the discussion. It is not for you, the instigator of a thread, to tell people what is or is not relevant. Before you start editing again I would like you to remove that <br> from your signature to make it comply with the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline. And please take note that there will be one more chance before I make the block indefinite as patience is swiftly running out, and I am starting to doubt that you are here in good faith to contribute to an encyclopedia — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to note that if you had left the AN/I discussion closed when I closed it, you would probably not be blocked now. I hope that's a lesson learned for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: No, I have not learned any lesson, dad.

Please explain to me how a comment about me removing some spaces from somebody else’s comment is relevant to the topic. I still haven’t gotten an answer for that.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppositional-Defiant Disorder, much? EEng 02:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than simply answering my question, you unnecessarily insult me by telling me that I have a disorder. Very mature of you, my friend. Maybe you should read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You still has not complied with the administrator's order of removing <br> from your signature. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, administrators don't "order" editors to do things, but if PapiDimmi continues to thumb his nose at the community he'll end with an indefinite block. EEng 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That's something FleetCommand would say. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously an editor of wisdom and discretion. EEng 12:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You took an editor to ANI because they were refactoring your talk page comments on the basis of formatting. During that ANI thread, YOU yourself refactored another editor's comments on the basis of formatting. If you can't understand why its relevant that you did the very thing you were complaining about, I'm not sure what to tell you. Also, despite it being made clear in that same ANI thread, it appears that you are still violating the signature policy. Could you explain why you're persisting in this behavior? I can understand your basic argument regarding HTML5 and the BR tag, but I cannot understand why it remains in your signature after it was pointed out as against policy. If you have since removed it, thank you. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between mistakenly slightly changing somebody’s talk page comment and not continuing that behaviour; and continuing to change somebody’s talk page comments over and over again, after many times being told not to do it by several editors. Even if it is so ironic, it’s not related to the discussion.

I changed someone’s comment. Fine. So what? How is that related to anything? How is that connected to the incident report of Codename Lisa?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You knew what you were doing, and by the very basis on your ANI complaint, you knew it was wrong. The fact you only did it once is immaterial. It's not wrong on the basis of "doing it repeatedly", it's wrong on the basis of doing it at all. That's why it's relevant. You wasted people's time with disruptive complaining about another editor's behavior while committing that same behavior, when the entire time the issue was being essentially caused by you being in violation of a policy yourself and making declarations that you don't care if things you do effect or bother other editors. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you begging to get blocked again?

How about indefinitely this time? Because now you're tampering with archived discussions. [1]. EEng 07:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I collapsed the discussion because it is completely unrelated to the topic of the incident. Collapsing it makes the section easier to read. Someone reverted it without discussing this.

Per WP:TPO, off-topic discussions should either be removed or collapsed.

By the way, is your profile page supposed to be a big mess?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 07:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. I'm going to sleep now but I look forward to others' thoughts about your inability to WP:DROPIT and its implications for your continued participation in the project. EEng 08:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally giving you a final warning to leave these archived discussion alone. I'll block you if you touch that ANI discussion again, PapiDimmi. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cake day redirects

From my quick research it doesn't seem that cake day is unique to reddit (instead a few refer to a person's birthday as cake day). Also it seems unlikely that the casual browser would not likely use it. I wanted to ask here before putting this on RfD because there might be something that I missed. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 00:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The term “cake day” or “cakeday” doesn’t seem to exist outside Reddit.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It does on Imgur, not sure I can provide a reference for that easily however — IVORK _Discuss 00:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That article doesn’t mention “cake day” whatsoever.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it did, just that the term is not exclusive to Reddit and thus shouldn't really be a redirect for it.

Now that I have more time, reference is here. Not too sure that's worthy enough for inclusion in Imgurs article however. I have proposed RfD for each here, here and here. — IVORK _Discuss 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continuing to ignore WP:SIGLEN and WP:SIGAPP, which led to your previous blocks. Following your last block, you have already made edits where you deliberately signed posts with the signature multiple administrators have told you to cease using, and reverted where Iridescent had stopped you from using transclusion to circumvent WP:SIGLEN. I'm doing two weeks as one last chance, but if another admin feels you've already had too many, they are free to increase without consulting me.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: What did I do now? I didn’t continue to revert on my signature page.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even going to play this game. You signed a talk page with a signature of 368 characters in length and with a BR tag. You just did it again, in this reply. Irisdecent warned you not to do it. You also attempted to revert your signature transclusion, even though you clearly understood why it was done. It doesn't matter that you didn't continually revert it. You have two weeks. When you get back, you should seriously consider following the policies and stop being disruptive for the sake of it. -- ferret (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Firstly, my signature is still the default signature. I’m just copying and pasting the long signature into talk pages, so it’s technically not my signature, and therefore, I am not violating Wikipedia:Signatures.

Secondly, can you explain why I’ve been blocked several times for using this signature when Anarchyte, the guy I stole the signature from, isn’t? He’s been an editor much longer than I have, too.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 12:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)