Jump to content

User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Karmafist (talk | contribs)
13,920 edits
block notice
Line 426: Line 426:
:Why not a spearate, linked article, ''Artworks by Rachel Whiteread'', say? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 15:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:Why not a spearate, linked article, ''Artworks by Rachel Whiteread'', say? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 15:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:*I think that's a definite option. Please see also [[Portal_talk:Art#Formatting_visual_arts_articles_with_details_on_individual_works]]. I'd be grateful for your input. I don;t want to change any other articles into that format unilaterally, I'd like something that solves the problems I'm seeking to addres agreed by the community and then I'd help implement it where I have an interest. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:*I think that's a definite option. Please see also [[Portal_talk:Art#Formatting_visual_arts_articles_with_details_on_individual_works]]. I'd be grateful for your input. I don;t want to change any other articles into that format unilaterally, I'd like something that solves the problems I'm seeking to addres agreed by the community and then I'd help implement it where I have an interest. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

==24 Hour Block Notice==
{{test5}}During your time away from editing, I suggest you read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:WQT]] to avoid future blocks. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 20 October 2005

Archives

Outkast/Pink Floyd

Dude, I'm as big a Pink Floyd fan as the next person, but do we really need the Ummagumma comparison on the Speakerboxxx article? They're nothing alike musically and completely different concepts. I doubt either of them have even heard Ummagumma. M.C. Brown Shoes 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you follow me to every article I create and put notices at the top of the page

Dear Andy,

I realise you are trying to improve wikipedia but please explain why have you done this to so many of my articles, the time it takes you to add the notice you could have cleaned up the article yourself. This is what I refer to when I say that you are the only person following me like this, it is obsessive, and believe me these are just a few examples:

  1. here
  2. here
  3. here
  4. here
  5. here
  6. here
  7. here
  8. here
  9. here
  10. here
  11. here
  12. here

Nick Boulevard 12:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. HTH. Cease making personal atttacks. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just credited you by assuming that you were editing for the good of wikipedia, however you have interestingly chosen to pick up on the negative aspect of my post, taken from wikipedia itself, (my reason for believing your behaviour obessive with relation to edits pertaining to me)
Obsessions are thoughts and ideas that the sufferer cannot stop thinking about. Common OCD obsessions include fears of acquiring disease, getting hurt or causing harm to someone. Obsessions are typically automatic, frequent, distressing, and difficult to control or put an end to by themselves. A sufferer will almost always obsess over something which he or she is most afraid of. People with OCD who obsess over hurting themselves or others are actually less likely to do so than the average
Of course, I am not suggesting for one minute that you have OCD but surely Andy, if you are to step back for a moment, regardless of your reasons, you must admit that you have followed me around wikipedia ever since I arrived... if you had any honour and integrity about you then you would admit the truth. Thank you Nick Boulevard 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse noted. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett,
please explain why have you deleted/censored this comment from the discussion.
You have accused me of trying to mislead people by claiming my comments towards you to be "fallacious", well I find your accusation of my comments being "fallacious" and your removal of my comment to be fallacious.
By removing my comments here (which anyone can see are not abusive) are you to suggest that my opinion is of no worth in relation to your allegations. Would you prefer it if I were to not exist in Wikipedia? Nick Boulevard 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy,

I am interested to learn that you have also been guilty of copyright violation on wikipedia.

Taken from here

07:44, 16 Jul 2004 Guanaco deleted "India pale ale" (content was: '{(copvyio|url=<http://realbeer.com/hops/renegade.html>}}Andy Mabbett 23:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)')

we all make mistakes Andy Nick Boulevard 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that was my edit, then once is a mistake; your copyright abuse was delibearte and repeated. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
mmm, Andy, my copyright abuse was probably as deliberate as yours I would suspect, how do I know that you haven't made other copyright violations maybe even under different IP address, although I am not accusing you of being another user there are similarities between you and other IP addresses which I am keeping to myself for now. I have never been blocked from wikipedia, infact I have never been discussed on the net in a negative way before, PRIOR to wikipedia have you? I notice that you have been blocked twice for ignoring warnings from responsible wikipedians, once I can understand but to have this happen twice highlights a fault somewhere do you think? Nick Boulevard 23:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey bro, what gives?

Why are my edits bein reverted? Half these cats I know personally.

Perhaps a candidate for WP:NOOB is what gives. ;-) hydnjo talk 03:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Andy Mabbett 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Fragments

I know you like editing my work but by deleting half sentences you create fragments which are not proper sentances of the english language. Please don't make edits like this [1] which add nothing but introduce poor grammar. Also I notice you are working through all the work I did yesterday, please do nothing to inflame an already problematic situation. Thanks. Leonig Mig 08:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more detail about edits than simply "rv". "rv" is an abbreviation for "revert" which in turn is the most aggressive action availible to a non-admin wikipedian. A revert is not simply a trivial thing, but requires explanation, in order to maintain good faith. Please provide such an explantion for [2], there is every chance I will assume good faith and accept, however I require an explantion. Leonig Mig 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you have improved this article? [3]. You must know that this kind of editing (removing facts and calling them irrelevant, and rewriting stuff) does not sit well with me. It does not seem as if you are acting in good faith. I am going to revert this edit although on balance I agree with your other edits this morning. Leonig Mig 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that your prefered style of writing is a simple list of facts, however that does not mean you can go through the plain English prose I contribute to this project deleting any sentance which does not meet this criteria and then citing the justification "plain english". Also I do not see the necessity to remove the facts which you have removed; the fact that Targebigge was granted to the Abbey by Queen Maud is relevent to the history of Tardebigge. Finally, I requested you to comment here on your views which you have not done and which I will expect you to do before making anymore edits to that page otherwise I must conclude that you have assumed back faith and are being uncivil, and that all you really want is a revert war. Leonig Mig 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are familiar with the newpages section: [4]. In all seriousness your brand of wiki-use might be useful on that page, where the wheat is completely dominated by chaff. Leonig Mig 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should revert yourself here: [5]. In fact name is quite correct (domain name system). An address or URL is composed of a protocol (i.e http://) a name (i.e. www.wikipedia.com) and then a resource locator on the server (i.e. /index.html or /wiki/article.php?etc). All that the DNS server resolves is the name, not the whole address. Leonig Mig 10:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I can say nothing more about your argument here [6] apart from that you are wrong. I do not intend arguing about it, however I would request you cease introducing factual inaccuracies into the wikipedia. DNS is protocol agnostic, whereas you cannot specify an address without one. Your arguement is false. Leonig Mig 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please resist removing discussion on my user page again

Stop it please.

I only read the remark from another user by chance, I happened to look at the edit history of my discussion page and you are now trying to control things there, you have no right to do this.

Andy, you are taking up my valuble edit time here, I am now thinking about billing you for this. My tariff is as follows:

  • 1 x Andy Mabbett rvt = £5
  • 1 x Andy Mabbett removal of notice at top of page = £2.50
  • 1 x Andy Mabbett illegal parking fine on my RFC discussion = £0.50

All services are subject to VAT. Nick Boulevard 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it please.: No. Andy Mabbett 13:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. I will ask you again, please stop reverting my talk page, I am perfectly capable of policing my own discussion page. Andy and if you are going through some difficulties please do not take out your aggression here, you can email me if you would like to talk, please don't write anything nasty though. Thanks Nick Boulevard 22:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. No, it is not. See here; a Wikipedia policy to which I have already referred you. Andy Mabbett 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that a comment towards you is offensive on my talk page then please approach me before attempting to hide it from the discussion, otherwise, by your deleting of other peoples comment/abuse I will not get the full picture of the discussion on my own talk page, should I discover that you continue to remove comments I could assume that you are guiding the conversation for your own means, one more thing Andy, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is actually being disputed, probably because of misuse I wouldn't doubt. Nick Boulevard 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. See here; a Wikipedia policy to which I have already referred you. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, "you may remove the attacks" is in dispute, also please take a read of this rule "Community spirit - It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behaviour - is contrary to this spirit." - what on earth do you think that you are doing adding so much inane rubbish on my RFC discussion, what if I regarded that as a personal attack, I don't becasue I don't care much. I am not looking for conflict with you Andy, I really would like to get on with Andy Mabbett for the better of Wikipedia, I make a better friend than enemy and I am sure you do too so please let us try this again. Please try and get on with G-man and LeonMig as well, otherwise this place is going to turn sour and is a bad example for other potential wikipedians. Thank you. Nick Boulevard 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it an unfair comment when Nick claims to be aware of your past and expresses his view that some conflict seems to follow you around the web? There seem to be many hostile comments on internet forums about a birdwatching Andy Mabbett based in the West Midlands. It seems fair to me for Nick to notice a parallel between that and what seems to be happening here. I do wish that you would moderate your behaviour here so that we can focus on amicably improving encyclopedia articles. —Theo (Talk) 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing personal attacks

Hey there, I noticed you removed a couple of comments of which you believe are personal attacks, one of which had a very uncalm edit summary (in capitals). I really think you should be very careful about wholesale-removing other peoples comments and it's likely to inflame situations rather than calm things down. My suggestion is for you to leave the comments which you believe to be attacks in place, and if they really are personal attacks, someone else will be willing to intervene to sort it out, otherwise it could lead to making things worse. Regards, Joolz 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read this. Andy Mabbett 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which states "though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial" and also links to a disputed guideline. Nevertheless I really suggest you reconsider. -- Joolz 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The line you cite refers to banning. Though I look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. Andy Mabbett 14:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that does refer to banning, but it also applies to removing attacks, which is controversial, and as I've just said, a disputed guideline and not a policy. -- Joolz 15:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it refers to banning alone. Count the full stops. Andy Mabbett 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I said it what it said is also true of the removal of personal attacks, not that it refers to both in that instance. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say about removing personal attacks, it is controversial and it will only inflame matters, not calm them down, so I again appeal to you to rethink. Regards, Joolz 15:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I again look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I blocked you earlier, because I believed you had violated the 3RR. I realised I had made a mistake and soon unblocked you again. My apologies. G-Man 21:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Then why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for you and could find only that #31470 was blocked and that due to expire here shortly if not already - Marshman 17:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still blocked, from this machine. Andy Mabbett 20:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I note there is still no reply to this. I also find the original explanation implausible. Andy Mabbett 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker

This edit may indicate that you have been brooding on this for the last 4-6 weeks. I cannot tell whether Leonig's failure to take your request seriously 42 days ago, or his suggestion (which he subsequently claimed to be in jest) 28 days ago that he was stalking you might have affected your behaviour here but I do feel that you should have mentioned your annoyance/distress/concern/other response earlier. I wish that I understood you better and that I could help you to feel more comfortable here. —Theo (Talk) 22:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Euston station

In response to your request on my page. I would have linked it if I could, but the motco.com maps are only available as pop-ups, which don't have urls. You can find the 1862 map here [7] Click on "Overview maps" and then click over Euston twice to get to the detailed level. Rather confusingly the large scale map then appears in first window. Bhoeble 00:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you just hate it when people try to break the web like that? Fortunately, Firefox allows one to work round such silyness. Here's the individual map. You can use the "North, South, East, West" links to move around the whole thing. Andy Mabbett 07:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath

Why remove my trivia item that Black Sabbath is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, stating that Wikipedia archives stuff that happens, not what doesn't happen, but not remove the only other trivia item that says that they have never had a US Top 40 hit. These two pieces of info are in the same vein, and is why I included it. This makes no sense to me at all. It also seems that your "stuff that happens" comment is a personal rule that you made up; or maybe you're just too lazy to remove the whole section rather than revert. Static3d 00:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.. Andy Mabbett 07:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think you are the editor-in-chief of Wikipedia? Stop being so selfish and intolerable of other peoples' contributions. Static3d 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. HTH. Andy Mabbett 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some stuff about how other users feel about you frequently and stubbornly removing peoples' additions, I think you should focus some energy on making additions instead of being some kind of pseudo-wikicop. The stuff you are doing doesn't seem to be helping in any significant way. Static3d 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't now what you're talking about. Andy Mabbett 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This whole page is filled with disputes with other users. I think you've got some issues that deserve immediate attention. Static3d 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse noted. Andy Mabbett 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a point, Andy. Proto t c 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sort this out.

The abuse you cite on your user page was wrong on my behalf but was illicited in response to your behaviour towards me. You edited every single article I had written over a period of two months systematically in a period of 24 hours after repeated requests for moderation. That made me so angry you would not beleive. I felt violated, hurt, abused. I was so sad that someone could be so cruel, not disbeliving, but disappointed it could happen to me. All that was needed was a few explanatory and concilartory words (I received these eventually from RayGirvan) but all I got from you was frankly, pith and vitroil and silence.

Since then, every time I make an edit on an article you either revert or alter it within a few hours. You have now been stalking me for three months. Anyone can verify this from the history pages. In an attempt to make you realise the sort of emotional pressure your odd behaviour was putting on me I replicated the same behavoir towards yourself, and you didn't like it either. Immediately you created alerts about me, with your greater knowledge and experience of the wikipedia, and therefore I was soon offered reprimands and moderation from other users.

This second episode is conclusive evidence that your emotions did not sit well on the recieving end of the kind of treatment you had given to me. As my next action I chose simply to disist, which I did, and made clear that I did not wish anything further to do with you on the wikipedia. Now a month later I come back and contribute, with the expectation that everything is dead an buried, and immediately (monday morning to sunday night's edit) you have continued the same behavoir towards me which began this whole problem- wholesale rewriting my contributions in a systematic fashion (i.e. without fail and within hours of submitting). All I can say is please consider not stalking me, that would solve the entire problem here. Leonig Mig 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I agree with what you are writing Leon, I am also with Theo, I wish I could understand Andy Mabbett, I know that conflict has followed him and you are merely another victim, see G-man, me and whoever else? I can vouch for us all trying to get on with Andy Mabbett relentlessly, I have tried so many times even out of a desire for Andy to end his constant stalking of my every move on wikipedia and I am afraid it IS seen as stalking Andy and it is not admirable behaviour (whether you care or not), if you dissagree with articles there is something called civility and you never use it. If you could stop and see that people here are easy to get on with considering the right approach then you could go a lot further than myself on wikipedia, you have a good knowledge of the rules and a good eye for mistakes, it is never too late to make friends, I am sure you will read my post and scowl. You obviously love birds, I have some birds of prey nesting in some tree's outside my bedroon window, I may email you with a picture to see if you can identify them please? Nick Boulevard 18:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

evoArticles

I noticed your added evoArticles to the possible copyright problem page. As the owner of the site, I have no problem with Wikipedia copying our features page. How can I get the page restored?

-Ahmed (ahmed@evo-dev.com)

I suggest you post to that effct, under the article's entry on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and on the article's discussion page. Andy Mabbett 08:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Bill Oddie

You have revetred 4 times on Bill Oddie, and therefore unless you undo your last edit asap I will report you, SqueakBox 17:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Pigsonthewing, and please take care not to break the 3RR rule in the future, SqueakBox 18:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot honestly claim you did not revert 4 times. here is wghere Maymashu put the cat in, and here is where you reverted the cat for the first time. You have reverted 4 times. Why not undo your 4th revert? instead of fallaciously claiming the first revert was not so, SqueakBox 22:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

We have both reverted 3 times today, so please don't again. I strongly disagree with you about needing to have been born in Brum to be a Brummie. Growing up there is sufficient. I think it reveals your prejudice on the subject as you seem to be a proud Brummie yourself but people like me are not happy to be labelled natives of places we do not know and not a native of our home town, SqueakBox 15:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it reveals your prejudice I think you're delusional. Andy Mabbett 15:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me delusional is a personal attack. Desist now and forever from personal attacks against me merely for haviong a POV disagreeing with yours. An apology is very much in order and I await it, SqueakBox 15:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would also remind you that I never put the cat in. So that is 2 of us delusional and one xxxxxxxxxxxx engaging in vicious and uncalled for personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with him. 15:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well another person supports me Talk:Bill Oddie. So much for your delusional theory, SqueakBox 22:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody erroneously thinking you were right there does not negate my comment here. Andy Mabbett 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please discuss the changes at Talk:Bill Oddie to resolve this issue? I see a rough consensus in favour of retaining the category at the moment. -- Joolz 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're alright, man!

That means Original research and verifiability problems, baby! I've never found cats very forthcoming.

That cracks me up! If you're 21 I'll buy you a beer sometime. veteran dj talk#

RFC in preperation

User:G-Man/POTW RFC Nick Boulevard 00:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincombe/Tucker

Andy, in answer to your question of 7 Aug on the Talk page, yes - a personal relationship as well as a working one - SP-KP 00:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Chamberlain & Date Standardisation

Hello,

I have noticed that you have altered the format of Chamberlain's date of birth from DD/(Month Written)/YYYY to YYYY/MM/DD. I would prefer to use the original format, as this is is in accordance with the format used for most articles on other political figures of the era that are linked to Chamberlain's page, including Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, Lord Hartington/Duke of Devonshire and Lord Randolph Churchill.

Besides, the YYYY/MM/DD format is somewhat ambiguous due to the differing interpretations that are made on what order the day and month should be written in.

Kind Regards,

InfectedWithRage 09:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The format I've used is a standard (see Wikipedia:Dates); how it appears on-screen wil depend on yoru (or others') user prefernces. Andy Mabbett 09:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The format previously used - 8 July 1836 is also listed as 'standard'. As I have no preference set for how dates are displayed, they appear as they are written.

Kind Regards,

InfectedWithRage 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helm ID guides

Many thanks for the janitorial stuff. One less chore for me to do! Plenty more where that came from if you're feeling in a clean-up mood... Steve - SP-KP 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalist attacks

I should have been more precise in my edit summary. I meant, how does their view of the attacks differ from yours? It does'nt read like an opinion piece to me. It's a list.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list compiled by a partisan body; I'd expect a link to a list compiled vice versa to be similalryly quialified. Andy Mabbett 11:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have no problem with attributing it. But to call it a "view" is inaccurate. The incidents are easily verifiable.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Downer

Hi Andy. I've moved the disambig page to John Downer (disambiguation) and the article back to John Downer, as he is the only one currently with an article. If you write the other articles and feel they are now as notable as the first one and want to move the disambig page back to John Downer, please fix the premiers template and any other articles linking to John Downer to the right other articles. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 04:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for noticing and doing this this on Lemmy's article. Alf melmac 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD

Hi, sorry I was going through a lot of VfD tags that hadn't been completed, when I stumbled on yours. I probably should have completed it for you rather than removing it.

You correctly tabbed the article, created the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Punch Records page, but you ommitted the third step, listing it on the VFD page, so that everyone can see it, and not just those who read the article in question. If you check WP:GVFD under 'nomination' you'll find what you've missed. If I can help, let me know. --Doc (?) 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism

Many of the recent moves from Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism are inapproraite, as the pages moved discuss an aspect of the environment, not political activism. Andy Mabbett 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The entirety of Category:Environment was approved for merger with the latter by WP:CFD, and Pearle was blindly implementing that decision. I have left a note at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#To_be_emptied_or_moved explaining the situation and linking to background information. The participants of that page will need to figure out what to do now; I'm sure your input on that would be helpful. Thanks, Beland 02:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hi, I protected your page. In the future, please mention the edit war in the request. It's not within policy to protect a page forever, so it will have to be unprotected at some point. Any comments or questions about it should be left on my user talk page. --Phroziac (talk) 12:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, are you sure you really need to have that section on your talk page? It's not exactly nice, and it doesn't make you look any better to have it. --Phroziac (talk) 19:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

are you sure you really need to have that section on your talk page?: Yes. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unprotecting the page, and asking Leonig Mig not to do that anymore. However, while it is your user page, you should avoid adding content to it which is likely to upset other people, and they might take you to arbitration. --Phroziac (talk) 22:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
A page whch will upset no-one cannot exist. Andy Mabbett 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email message

It would be inappropriate for me to take sides without adequate knowledge of the situation. Theo, however, is an editor I respect a great deal, and his comments due not cast you in a favourable light. In short, do not expect overwhelming support from me. My neutrality at this point in time is due to the fact that I simply don't have time to properly investigate.--Scimitar parley 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked you to take sides; and Threo's false alleagtions about me are about as partisan as one could be. Andy Mabbett 08:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, stop all this, surely a bunch of carrots is far nicer than a doughnut! Nick Boulevard 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Edit the articles which interest you, steer clear of conflict. Leonig Mig 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd - featured status?

Andy, I've dropped a note on Talk: Pink Floyd about whether the article is good enough for Peer Review yet - I haven't been around long so I thought I'd ask an experienced Wikipedian (and, by the looks of things, PF fan) for their views. I'd hugely appreciate your feedback. Cheers, --High(Hopes)(+) 17:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Andy, thanks for your reply. I suspect that a point may be raised about the lack of citation - I'll see what is said and then have a look at how to reference it more fully. As for the sig - I pretty much copied this from someone else - what is an 'HTML "font" tag'? Is that just using colours, superscript etc? I just wanted a sig that links to my userpage, talkpage and add comment (not that they'll be used much, but nice to have them!). I see plenty of sigs like this - am I to presume these are generally considered passe? Let me know what's wrong and I'll change it - my judgement and knowledge with all things WP isn't great so I appreciate 'constructive criticism'. Cheers, --High(Hopes)(+) 22:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should take out <font color="magenta">, </font> and ditto for other colours. It's not (just) that they're passe, but they're "bad" HTML and can cause problems for people with visual or cognitive disabilities (and others). Andy Mabbett 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice - looking back, it was rather garish (at the time it seemed a nice idea to have the colours from the Division Bell disc, what with HighHopes being my username and all... anyway Pink Floyd is now undergoing peer review, and the first reply was positive, so thanks for your encouragement! --HighHopes (T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E) 11:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bredesen photo

Thanks for removing that picture of Phil Bredesen. It was quite possibly one of the worst photographs I have even seen, but I didn't have the heart to remove it myself. Cheers. Kaldari 15:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sadly, it's back. :-( Andy Mabbett 20:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll be putting a better one up.Scott 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottfisher

You guys have some serious agro going on. I am not going to get involved! I don't even pretend to understand the issues. I suggest you agree to mediation or one or other of you files an RfC to get it sorted out, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Doc (?) 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


RFC

You may want to see the RFC that has been filed against you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pigsonthewing --Phroziac(talk) 04:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been blocked for a 3RR violation on Hazel R. O'Leary. Sasquatcht|c 00:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 14:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To do

(Unless someone else would like to attend to these before I do)



Sir Barry Jackson

add link Oxford DNB


Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg

I propose you just let it drop—you seem to have become too involved in that image's fate. Frankly said, you both seem to be decent contributors (yes, Scott too; many of his image uploads for instance are great), and I don't quite understand why you two got into such a fight over this image. Calling out for help (e.g. by placing the image on WP:CV or just asking some third, uninvolved party to take a look at it) might have avoided this whole mess. Anyway, I have left Scott a message and have proposed to him to get rid of this low quality image through WP:IFD. It may seem a bit drastic, but at that point I think it's the right approach to cut through this Gordian knot. Lupo 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Andy has been (again) blocked for a WP:3RR violation and his disruptive behaviour (see above) associated with this image. The image is indeed not particularly great (however, this was not the issue). Proto t c 14:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already told Proto not to add fuel to the fire. I'm quite able to form my own opinion, thank you. Baiting others is just poor style. Lupo 15:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, what you post is a lie. There has been no such "disruptive behavour". Andy Mabbett 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd withdraw my comment and delete it, as it was misguided (although not a lie), but last time I tried to do that, you went mad on Theo's talk page and claimed there was a conspiracy to cover up personal attacks against you. So I'll just apologise. It's all turned out right, anyway. I'm going to try harder to steer clear of things that irritate me. Proto t c 15:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was a lie, and I note your further, dishonest personal attack. I have niether "gone mad" nor alleged a "conspiriacy". Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the object of this dispute is gone, as Scott agreed to have it deleted. Now let's get back to building an encyclopedia! Lupo 15:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm glad he saw sense, and look forward to an end to Scott's ad hominem conmments and personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 15:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Scott has now, finally, admitted that he did not take the picture, and so my tagging it as {{copyvio}} was correct. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*POKE*

Are you going to respond to your rfc? --Phroziac(talk) 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has he answered yet? Scott 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)r[reply]

Ornithological years

Thanks for the appreciation. Somehow though I think that filling this category (and making the pages reasonably comprehensive) might take an awful long time.... SP-KP 22:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dipole magnet

Hi Andy, I know you have quite a history with Scott. (Which I apoligze, incidentally, for earlier taking a one-sided and coarsly-worded view on.) However, don't you think it's a bit inflammatory to take personal responsibility for correcting all of his grammar? It isn't that you are forbidden to do it, by any means, but it is unkind. And, I might add, unnecessary--I can assure you I'm keep track of and editing the article as needed. -- SCZenz 16:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

correcting all of his grammar: Since I'm not doing so, your question is redundant. Thank you, though, for your appology. Andy Mabbett 16:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about, correcting any of his gramar? Or, if you prefer, deleting his incorrect grammar? Would one of those rewordings make my question/comment relevant and worthy of a reply? -- SCZenz 16:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think correcting any of his grammar, or deleting his incorect grammar, is "a bit inflamatory". Nor is it "unkind". HTH Andy Mabbett 17:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to phrase this is clearly as possible. Your edits at beamline or dipole magnet are exclusively corrections of Scott's edits. This bothers him, and accomplishes little else because there are other people keeping track of the pages. It makes it more difficult for people who are interested in editing the content of the articles to go about their work. Your interest in the articles appears to be an interest in correcting Scott in particular--is this correct? -- SCZenz 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Andy Mabbett 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you, perhaps, understand why it might seem that way? -- SCZenz 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why some people would lack the ability to grasp the true situation, certainly. Andy Mabbett 19:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And how would you describe the true situation? -- SCZenz 21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two can quote rules. From WP:Civility: "Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Whereas incivility is defined here as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another." Although it is difficult to quantify, it's still a policy; and note that you don't have to be doing anything "wrong" by any other measure to be uncivil. If you're causing someone (e.g. Scott) stress, and the job can be done by someone else, it would appear to be civil to let it happen that way instead. -- SCZenz 22:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not causing him stress; nor am I being "incivil". Andy Mabbett 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've had a history of difficulties with a particular user, relating to his perception that you have singled out his contributions for continuous editing. It seems to me that continuing to edit his contributions, on pages to which you otherwise make no contributions, could reasonably be expected to cause him stress. -- SCZenz 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
his perception: Quite. Andy Mabbett 22:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Apology for blanking talk pages of users. Will not happen again, Andy. --82.42.151.164 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British nature writers

Good idea. Go for it. Who do you have in mind? SP-KP 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this space ;-) Andy Mabbett 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Started: British nature writers. Andy Mabbett 11:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doerflingers pic

This picture sure looks to me like it's before 1923, making it public domain. Do you have a reason to feel it's newer then that? And yes, I saw that Scott had it tagged wrong. Not a big deal though, his picture makes it pretty obvious he didn't take the picture. :) --Phroziac(talk) 00:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason to feel it's newer then that? Did I claim that it was? Andy Mabbett 07:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other's talk pages

Hi there. I was left a message from Scottfisher, with whom I know you have something of a mutual history. I'm not especially interested in the more specific issues, but he really is entitled to simply remove what he likes from his talk page. It isn't really a great idea to remove sections, particularly those containing questions, from your own page but he certainly can do so if he wishes. He should probably also answer your questions, but he need not do so. It doesn't look like he is going to answer them, for whatever reason, so there is probably little to be gained from reinstating them any more. If you should ever need to point to either your messages or to his removals in evidence of any kind, it'll always be in the history. -Splashtalk 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. (from Wikipedia:Talk_page#User_talk_pages). Note also the auseive terms used by 'Scottfisher'. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you'd prefer me to reply, but I'll stick to here since I started here. Yes, I did notice the language Scottfisher used, and it isn't really necessary. But people tend to repond somewhat irrationally when they're feeling angry. And yes, as you quote, erasing messages isn't the usual thing to do — but it is still a thing that it is ok to do, much as it's 'ok' to turn your back on someone in a conversation despite the way such an action is likely to be interpreted. Since there's evidently unlikely to be answers forthcoming, I suppose you should use the appropriate image deletion process to dispute the copyright on that image (I think you already removed the external link). -Splashtalk 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scottfisher

Since he insists on deleting questions put to him on his talk page, material addressed to User:scottfisher may be found on this special page. Andy Mabbett 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coleshill, Warwickshire

How can this be solved by "meeting halfway"? Do you suggest that "Coleshill is half in the WM conurbation"? Or perhaps "Coleshill is in the WM conurbation on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?" Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you follow official Wikipedia Policy, and I quote, directly from WP:RULES.

Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.
I'll be back to check on your progress meeting this goal. You might get some ideas on how to accomodate both sides from looking at articles on WP:FA.Karmafist 15:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response On Your 3RR Query

Here you go on the evidence...

  1. Like you said, nothing has happened there yet, and there appears to be no rush by anyone to do anything there yet. You can think what you like on why that's happening, but the most likely reason why is what I said on the Coleshill talk page, the apparent tit for tat timing of it. You can see for yourself when both the RfC and the 3RR notice were posted.
  2. If you took the high road in the first place, you would have had a better shot. I quote this directly from WP:AN/3RR.
    We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing.
    And when they talk about POV pushing, they're talking about the person who puts the notice up there, not the person being reported on.
  3. From the History Page, I count 3 reverts by you on October 13, and 2 by G-Man. Then on October 17 there were another 3 reverts by you and 3 by G-Man, 4 depending on technicalities(he had the first edit of that day, so it's unlikely covered under 3RR policy.) You're just as guilty as 3RR as he is, so people are less likely to take your claim seriously.

I'm reverting your edit now since apparently you decided to ignore verification before changing most of the edit we reached by consensus on the Coleshill talk page. I should block you for this, but i'll be nice and let you revert again without punishment if you can define "narrow" and show proof(a link, a newspaper article, a government report, etc.) and you can do the same with the 1970s takeover, which wasn't part of the discussion above, but I'm going you that homework assignment to give you some practice with adding verification to diffuse tense situations. If you revert that without adding proof, you'll be blocked. Karmafist 16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to threats; and I have already provided the proof in previous comemnts on the talk page. Andy Mabbett 08:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Thanks for letting me now about your new articles, Andy. Steve SP-KP 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rachel Whiteread

Would you say that if the info on lesser known works were tidied up / formatted in a regular way, it should go in the article? On the one hand it would be irregular. On the other I think that anyone working their way down the list and peering at the external images would have a thoroughly good idea of what it is that Whiteread does by the time they got through it all, which is one of the major things I would like to feel I'd gained after going through an article about an artist. I was going for a compromise position by linking to it. --bodnotbod 14:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a spearate, linked article, Artworks by Rachel Whiteread, say? Andy Mabbett 15:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Block Notice

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During your time away from editing, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT to avoid future blocks. Karmafist 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_9&oldid=26041144"