User talk:TreasuryTag

User talk:Rambutan/Archivebox

All unsigned messages will be deleted. Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ (this is also official policy).

---

Thanks

For the revert to my talk page! delldot talk 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, glad to help.--Rambutan (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Teen

I wasn't deleting information... I was merely replacing all of that lengthy code with {{Imperial Teen}}. It's much neater, and now the Imperial Teen namespace won't be listed as a band template under the list of band templates. Please do not revert these edits, as I'm merely trying to clean up Wikipedia.

Xnux the Echidna 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

I'm afraid you've violated the 3RR again on Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who): [1], [2], [3], [4].

Because this is your third 3RR violation on Doctor Who articles within a month, I have blocked for 72 hours. Please be aware that, should you violate the 3RR again on Doctor Who articles, I am going to have to block for a prolonged period of time, as repeat 3RR violations are a major problem. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 13 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

This edit scarcely counts as a revert: it was replacing blue links mistakenly removed by AlanD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see the article talkpage for further details.--Rambutan (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It might be gaming the 3RR nonetheless, and given your history, I'm not inclined to unblock. I've asked Phil to take a look at your explanation, though. — Ral315 » 07:13, 13 July 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.

I wouldn't call it gaming - it's just that the "revert" sending me over the limit wasn't a revert.--Rambutan (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a very small revert, but it was a revert. Given your history with 3RR violations and Doctor Who articles, you should be being careful enough that you don't hit that line on any revert, large or small. Note that the 3RR states "This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. " Although, as always, I feel your edits were made in exceelent faith and were generally correct, you have many more edits withint he 24 hour period that, while not technically reverts, serve to remove, reword, and police the article. And you have, in that period, few attempts to discuss the changes you're making on talk - in fact, your only real talk page edit consists of trying to get someone else to make a revert for you because you've hit the 3RR. In other words, you're still trying to maintain your preferred version of the article through sheer mass of editing instead of through discussion and consensus-gathering.

The only mitigating factor here - and it's a very large mitigating factor - is that your preferred version of the article is unquestionably more in line with our content policies than any other offered version. But your methods are those of an edit warrior, and this can only mitigate so far. Phil Sandifer 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times, the term "edit war" implies - never mind the dictionary definition - me removing something, an IP replacing it, me removing it, the IP replacing it: a real battle. All I did was remove OR. I don't think that undoing another editor's mistake could count as a real, genuine revert, especially when ANI agreed.

It is sad that I am blocked for making good edits (not just good faith edits, but good ones), not least since I am very good at dealing with them - most of my reverts are made very quickly. They weren't controversial (sp?) and edit-warring in nature, and the spirit of the 3RR wasn't violated. I honestly cannot understand what I should have done when it was added. Should I have just left a talkpage note and left it? You say that I should be aware of the 3RR; I agree I should, but you don't have to block me, let me take my chances with other admins if I've been acting in "excellent faith". At least, reduce the block timer. --Rambutan (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NB: see Kelpin, Ral315.--Rambutan (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanatory note re: unblock

I was unblocked noon on Saturday by an admin I spoke to on IRC. This is where I indicated an intention to let articles remain a pile of rubbish in the hope that IPs will gradually stop adding drivel to them.--Rambutan (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, not quite. More like one small addition that may or may not be an improvement does not make an article a "pile of rubbish", and it's better to leave it for a few days rather than upset your fellow Wikipedians with aggressive editing. Tsk, Rambutan. Tsk. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was only being ironic! :-) Rambutan (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Bruno Langley Stephen Gallagher Amazing Quest of Doctor Syn Camille Coduri Idukki district Nazim Patrick Vieira Adrienne Hill Cool (aesthetic) Ian Stuart Black Euros Lyn Rumtek Monastery Philip Martin (screenwriter) Ian Briggs Tom Finney City of Death Great white shark Doctor Dolittle's Return Rob Shearman

Cleanup Pick and roll Malappuram district Malachi Merge Window Essenes Labor force Add Sources Daleks (video game) John Crockett (director) Father Wikify Pankaj Kapur The Brain of Morbius No Slacking Expand List of Doctor Who robots Betty Box Yasmin Bannerman

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy

In light of your recent edit to my talk page, please reference to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:FAIRUSE, following this review, leave me a messege, after which we can have an informed dicussion. The Fashion Icon 10:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so damned stupid. The message I left you was a template message used by hundreds of Wikipedians every day. It's fine with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:FAIRUSE. You must not persist in removing images without discussion. That's all there is to it. It so happens that the image's presence is supported by policy, but if it was debatable, we must then debate, not delete. Quite simple really.--Rambutan (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate, the guy is a newbie, so please don't bite him too much. --Dark Falls ^talk 10:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If they're quoting WP:AGF at me, then they're obviously not a newbie. In general, if they're asserting greater knowledge of policy than me, then they've either got it or know their way round WP quite well.--Rambutan (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair point there... though he might got it from looking at a welcome message... --Dark Falls ^talk 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned "Don't be so damned stupid" falls under WP:NPA, In view of your tone and language I now consider this transaction over. The Fashion Icon 13:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me!--Rambutan (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

G'day Rambutan,

I have unblocked you — the idea is to reduce your block to "time served", as it were. I accept that you were acting in good faith and did not appreciate the harm caused by such aggressive editing. As discussed, I don't think the block was inappropriate; I'm just happy that you've come back as a kindler, gentler chap. Peace and WikiLove and all that ... happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

If you want to make that degree of change to an official policy, you ought to address it on the talk page first. The guideline on WP:TALK doesn't say that "Any irrelevant material on talkpages should be deleted, with an appropriate edit summary." It says that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." These are not equivalent statements — the former is an instruction, the latter is an option. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Even if WP:TALK did say what you say it says, it is a guideline and guidelines are not policy and cannot be cited to justify a unilateral amendment to a policy. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Salaskin

Yeah I realised that but I doubt if Phil Sandifer goes to my talk page much if ever so he's not likely to see it there. As for the unblock you're welcome, just sorry it didn't do any good. Kelpin 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Doctor Who tie-in websites. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Just for the record, mate!! Rambutan (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gematria for fun and profit

Hello Rambutan. Irrelevant is a considered opinion, inherently POV. If 23/6/81 isn't relevant to the article, remove it. If it is, then so is the ice-cream joke. Do you really believe a website designed to mimic that of a UK ice-cream company would draw attention to this particular date for no reason at all? If so, go back to school and try to pass that GCSE, whether it's maths or literature you failed to understand. Otherwise, that's two three comment blankings today. Try number three and you'll be discussing the matter with an admin - whether someone else's comments are relevant being POV, I doubt you'll make a very good case for yourself with this attitude. Incidentally, most of the web monkeys I know are buggers for this sort of joke. It's gematria to you, it's social bonding to them. 23/6/81 being, of course, and entirely arbitrary date, the possibility of it actually being "true" rather than forced gematria is lessened considerably. If it is forced, it's been forced for a reason. It's clear there are some coincidences in an ongoing serial and associated media, but Who is known for it's humour and, particularly in the present form, the threading of apparently meaningless data which, if looked at in more detail, provides a... you know what? It's easier to just say nothing is in fiction without a reason. It may not be a good reason, or one you understand immediately (or ever, if you've had to sit through The Matrix trilogy or Pulp Fiction), but it's there because someone thought enough about it to put it there. So you don't like ice-cream... does that mean ice-cream isn't relevant? Does that mean a 99 joke isn't there, just because you don't get it? No. And if it's not relevant... who made you sole custodian of this page? The whole purpose of talking to other people in this fashion is to garner opinion and discuss any given matter. How dare you silence someone simply because you personally disagree with what they're saying? Can you cite me even one person who, after reading my comment, has said "you know, that's not relevant" ? No. Not even yourself, because you haven't the good graces to say so, join in the discussion, and end it in the normal way, as you had the previous comment, which was, I think, irrelevant. Yes, this particular talk page is cluttered and overlong and there is a lot of less-than-important commentary on it, but the acceptable answer to that is and has been for a very long time to archive the page, not to blank the most recent comments. In my opinion, your frankly rude behaviour aside, this whole problem stems from your initial failure to assume good faith. If I had produced a 200-line mathematical proof of 23/6/81 being the date on which the Antichrist was born, sure, gematria, whatever. But I didn't, and you don't seem to know the difference between fiction - where everything is made up for a reason, prima facie to entertain (which a joke does) - and interpretation - where the indisputably real yet wholly coincidental is forced into "proofs" of anything the interpreter happens to wish to prove.

I'm copying this to your talk page in case you've not watchlisted the message. Remember, you may remove any discussion from your own domain without comment, but elsewhere, well, I'd advise you to take more care in future. You're being very selective about applying those talk page rules. 172.143.209.80 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems your over-zealous and imbecilic attitude has reverted the page whilst I've been writing to you. That's three. It's going back, and for the record, I cannot be blocked since a new IP is 30 seconds away at any given point in time. Nor can my ISP be contacted about "abusive behaviour", before you start with that old chestnut - discussion isn't considered abuse. Kindly read the above and take heed, I'm off to find an admin to discuss the matter with, and for the record, you can also be blocked.