|
User talk:Kitchen Knife/Archive 1
SlangHi, Kitchen Knife. Thanks for your note re: slang terms in the article Refectory. I would remove all of the slang terms from the intro. If the slang terms are that relevent to the article (which I'm not convinced they are), it seems they should be mentioned in the body of the article, rather than the intro. To be honest, I'd never heard the other terms before; so I didn't remove them because I wasn't sure if they were slang or not. MishaPan (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Re editing. I don't understand your problem with the minor alterations I have made to include the affiliation with Liverpool to the suburbs of the city. Please bear in mind that whilst I am new and very much unaware of the rules yet I am a born and bred Liverpudlian and I am not looking rewrite history. I am learning and don't wish to be branded a vandal.Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I am still learning. I do not know how to add maps, photos,contents etc if you are observing you may be able to help with that but I imagine you have your own priorities. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Can you tell me in what way the resignation of an organiser of a festival in Mathew Street aids the reader's understanding of the street itself? Otherwise, it just looks like tabloid journalism. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
MaghullWill you stop undoing my work, if I am not doing something right please come and tell me. I would appreciate any feedback, granted I am a little hasty to put my points across without checking how it will look. However one of the rules as I understand is if you disagree you discuss and i do not appreciate you manner in tackling my editing. Please discuss. Dmcm2008 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Liverpool suburbsHello, I'm working with User:Dmcm2008 towards a consensus on the (claimed) suburbs of Liverpool. Dmcm2008 doesn't seem keen on toning this down, but, as you've been involved with this issue before, I would appreciate your input. I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Suburbs_of_Liverpool. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WarningsMarch 2008
I have propsed a merger of this category into Category:Future stations in the United Kingdom. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22. Simply south (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Falkner SquareAs you among others wish to play silly games every time I edit, no matter what I do, I have opened up a discussion page for Falkner Square. The edit I did that you have un done refers to Canning, there is no such area as Canning. You can see there is a ward but the area for the square is on the edge of town near to Toxteth. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Further to your comments, despite you saying there is a map provided for Canning, (I have seen your references) there is no such district..it is a modern 'phrase' for want of a better word, representing a cluster of streets. Alternatively named the Georgian Quarter. I think the definition for Canning is based on it being a conservation zone, like that around Castle Street at the other end of the city. Also, you can say the same for Granby, in Toxteth. Or Breckfield, (based on Breckfield Road) in the cusp of Anfield and Everton. There are other examples but, Canning is a modern term by whom I dont know but it has found its way in to the Council phrasebook, still does not mean it is an area. It is on the edge of Liverpool city centre near Toxteth (and Edge Hill) a mixture of L1 AND L8 postcodes. I have also found with properties for sale, in magazines and papers, there are a lot of modern/trendy names for clusters of districts...as well as Canning, although I havnt got any to hand at present. What is your conclusion ? Why must you contest my edits? I AM NOT an expert on WP so if you seek to bring in three revert rules and other such rulings I will let you win, if that is your game. All I am doing is pointing out that the article does not appear right to me because it suggests it is in the 'Canning district' but that is not like eg Toxteth, Kensington, etc it is not a district, perhaps it is a local nickname and I am aware Canning is used it is on the WP. Dmcm2008 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Have a look at http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/The_City/City_centre/index.asp--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC) That reference doesnt change anything, it furthers my theory of 'trendy' names. In that reference Marybone is mentioned, this is developed because the area (in Vauxhall) was the 'Holy Cross Parish'. Now the church has gone and the area has high rise student buildings. It is also cut off from the main area by Leeds Street. It's proximatey to Liverpool city centre, well it is on the doorstep. However because of the students it is more prominently known as Marybone. I think it is a local term aswell. Dmcm2008 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Notability of Peter P Burdett The article Peter P Burdett has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Port of Liverpool Docks templateThankyou Kitchen Knife for adding the {{Port of Liverpool docks}} template to the relevant articles. You've beaten me to it! ;-) Best wishes, Snowy 1973 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC) North Corporation Primary SchoolThanks for adding that reference. I've removed the tag. --JulesN Talk 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reversing of editsGet a life, bet you have never read a Liverpool Echo. You clearly are a stuck up so and so.Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Disused Stations & Seacombe Branch on Wirral RailwayHi Kitchen Knife. Have expanded and tidied up Liscard and Poulton railway station and Seacombe railway station, adding Disused Station navigation templates to the bottom of the articles. I noticed you've helpfully expanded the nav templates at Bidston railway station, Birkenhead North railway station and Wallasey Village railway station to include the disused branch. You've added Terminates to the following station. Out of interest, was this the case or were there not through trains to Chester, Wrexham, West Kirby and New Brighton from this branch? I'd also be grateful if you could advise me if I'm correct in how I've used these templates. I've listed the route as LMS "Wirral Railway", where you've put Wirral Railway "Seacombe Branch" - shall I change my edits too? Perhaps I should also change the colours on the disused stations from black to green to match your additions. Any thoughts? Snowy 1973 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
hiSee Peter Perez Burdett Victuallers (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Wondered when you would show up. The Liverpool City region is in existance. Despite you and JZA constant challenging to my edits.The city region compises of 5 Merseyside boroughs and Halton borough. Dmcm2008 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Greater MerseysideHello there Kitchen Knife! I hope all is well. I noticed you removed mentions of "greater Merseyside" from the Liverpool City Region page here. The section was the subject of a breif discussion here. I'm not saying I disagree with the change, but I'd recommend raising your objection on the talk page too, for obvious reasons. --Jza84 | Talk 22:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! 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 (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Our mutual friendHello there Kitchen Knife! I'm sorry that you were accused of acting in bad faith and croneyism by our mutual friend. That's a shame and, of course, totally uncalled for. However, I've come to the conclusion that this gentleman will not be changing his editting style at any point in the future and thus I've given him an ultimatum to change or be managed off Wikipedia outright. His presence has been a net-negative for Wikipedia and I'm only just beginning to scratch the surface of his damage to categories and articles. My point though? Well, I don't have many Hopefully this will put an end to this nonsense that has been damaging the Merseyside corner of Wikipedia for the last 8 or 9 months. Hope you're well, keep in touch, :) --Jza84 | Talk 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Join us?At last, WP:MERSEYSIDE is up and running! It would be great to have you onboard! :) --Jza84 | Talk 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Disused railway stations on the WirralI have nominated Category:Disused railway stations on the Wirral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Disused railway stations in Wirral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Snigbrook 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Chester and Birkenhead Railway (Wirral Way)Hi Kitchen Knife. Have just made a start expanding station articles on the former Hooton-West Kirby (Wirral Way) railway branch. From the edit summaries I've noticed that you added some of the Disused Rail Start/End route templates. Having checked each station article along the route there appears to be some discrepancies with the name of the original company (both in the templates and in the rest of the articles). Some stations attribute initial ownership to the Chester and Birkenhead Railway (see Thurstaston), others to the Birkenhead Railway (see Neston South). It's apparent that the latter name is the result of the former's merger with another company. Since the Chester & Birkenhead Railway had become just the Birkenhead Railway by 1860 and the stations on this branch line didn't exist until after this date, I'm proposing that the latter name be used across all station articles on this branch. I was wondering what you thought of this. Cheers. Snowy 1973 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Mediaeval measureah i see from your talk page there's a stack of people who think your a wanker. I was going to have a word about the relevance of rods. poles and bovates, but i can see from this page it would be a waste of time 82.21.206.85 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Please leave the page involving me alone, I am from Kirkby and was born there when Kirkby was a part of Liverpool and not Knowsley, this is why I have edited to reflect that I am just from Kirkby and not about Knowsley anymore. DrewSchofield (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Could you please stop goading this guy, as I'd like any block I impose (which may well be soon) to be watertight, and I prefer not to give him any leeway whatsoever. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 15:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I just noticed that unfortunately the above article did not pass the GA criteria. The biggest problem was that some section are unreferenced, and per wikipedia's policy on verification "material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". The article is an important one for WP:MERSEY so it's possible that some of its members may be interested in helping out. Recently there was a discussion at WT:MERSEY about working together to get articles to GA. Merseyrail cropped up as one we wanted to get to a good standard, however we thought it was best to let the dust settle after a recent edit war on the article (which I'm sure you're aware of). I'm not sure how much experience project members have in writing railway articles, so I can't guarantee being able to provide sources, but I'm sure the project will help if they can. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Merseyrail article improvementsI noticed you submitted the article for GA without success. Although the review didn't really help, I do agree that references here is a major issue. I am also keen to get it up to GA standard, but I think it first needs someone to go through all the existing references and make them consistant. What I mean by this is changing them to use the cite template (I find myself doing this on other articles I edit that I want to get to GA, it is helps the process greatly - see an example on my edit from yesterday). I'm also very willing to go off and find references for paragraphs that are entirely unsourced (I made a start yesterday). Do you still have any interest in trying to get this article to GA? It might also be worth submitting it for peer review so at least there will (hopefully) be some constructive feedback on the areas which require the most attention. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
WaterspacesHi, please can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waterspaces and add any comments you might have. Thanks :) Raywil (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
WP:CIVILCan you explain this edit and more specifically your edit summary [1] Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Perhaps a disambiguation page would be better? Until you can respond politely to another good faith editor I will be reverting your change. Please note that I created a hat note at Leeds Marsh Lane railway station for those looking for the other article. Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC) ANIHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)  The article Kirkby Branch Line has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing The Skylon article could use your checkover for British grammar. I am an American English speaker, so I might have missed some spellings. Your contributions to this article would be greatly appreciated.-- Novus Orator 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Infobox UK disused station - lineHi, re this change - did you consider the huge impact this has had on how the station history is displayed? Several editors have used
when it used to show
--Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've found a case where
Liverpool, Southport and Preston Junction RlyOn a related, yet separate note, I think that the infobox of Barton railway station and some of the others on this line look rather cumbersome. There are five railway companies mentioned, with four headings (one, Post-grouping, being duplicated). First, is it necessary to mention both the WLR and the LSPJ? The line was built, and originally owned by, the LSPJ; it was operated, but never owned, by the WLR (although they had many shareholders, directors and officers in common, they were legally separate entities). Both these railways were absorbed by the LYR on 1 Jul 1897 (confirmed by LYR Act of 15 Jul 1897). So, we have
but is that too much information? Can one pre-1897 company be eliminated - perhaps the WLR as non-owning. After that I have a bigger difficulty. You've put
The LNWR was never a post-grouping company - it lost its identity on 1 January 1923 when the LMS was formed. Whilst it's true that the LYR amalgamated with the LNWR, the combined organisation taking the name of the latter (and larger) company, this greater LNWR was formed prior to grouping, on 1 Jan 1922 - so it lasted as such for only a year. Few LYR stations elsewhere mention the LNWR in the infobox, and I also don't think the LNWR needs a mention there (as far as the LYR was concerned, little changed during 1922 except for a few high-ranking officers being shuffled about), so really we should have
I also think that the mention of British Railways is superfluous, and it certainly looks odd if the way that the infobox template is written means that it gets placed above a company which predated it. However, in some areas they put that info in with the post-grouping company to give
which I can accept, although I don't do it myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
SockpuppetI don't know the term sockpuppet but i understand it's a negative term. I understand you refer to edits i have done. What problem do you have? With Merseyrail i noticed that City Line did not have a template and went about doing what i could. I got in to difficulties and someone has offered help. You seem to be frowning on this. Regarding other edits, i noticed you reversed an edit i made. I may have not given a reason and i apologise. I merely refer to a number of phrases used that are what i would describe as business terminology. You may well wish to oppose my edits such is your nature but i am just making these pages less "business orientated" and more relative to the average person. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I have had a look at your actions since this "sockpuppet" subject came to my notice i am disappointed with your aggression to have my edits investigated. It is a shame you take such a hard lined stance and did not even consider to discuss anything with me Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Again if i knew what edit(s) made you take such a hard stance then i would discuss. Incidentally i have discussed edits i made on Merseyrail with another user because i knew i had made mistakes. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
We still have a problem with the St Helens line here. Further study of this junction in Jowett, on the RCH diagrams provided and on Sub Brit as a result of a look at the St Helens line diagram show it to be more like the third suggestion I have put on the talk page. What do you think? Britmax (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Widnes Dock JunctionYou're right. Thanks for that. Britmax (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Hunts Cross and WooltonHi there - there's a user repeatedly adding a particular link as a ref to Hunts Cross, Hunts Cross railway station and Woolton. This link doesn't work for me, so I've removed it - I've also tidied up only to be fully reverted. This has happened several times, and I've posted to his talk page with no response. What's your opinion? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Page userfiedI moved Talk:Listed buildings in Liverpool/Format 1 to User:Kitchen Knife/Listed buildings in Liverpool/Format 1. In my opinion it was obvious that said talkpage was actually a userdraft. If you disagree with me, please write me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Hello, yes i work for the council, im going by my peers who say that legislative boundaries matter, i understand the whole suburb debate but face facts litherland is not Liverpool in any way shape or form no matter how many times you try to deface a wiki page, Liverpool has to end somewhere and sefton has to start somewhere. i know your probably going to retort with the yawnsome debate that councils dont matter but they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Once again your wrong, your thinking of a dormitory suburb, oh and hide your ip adress next time :) and your editing is a disgrace 'Litherland is a suburb of Liverpool in the Sefton, Merseyside, England' and i actually work for the council so stop thinking your a keyboard warrior, i will come on this page and change it every time you do :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Liverpool Urban Area:Please check your actual references: 1 - The Liverpool Urban Area is not a legislative area (or otherwise). 2 - is not a recognised boundary (legislative or otherwise) 3 - provides no political office, nor representative. 4 - is solely used for the purpose of the ONS. In contrast: 1 - Merseyside is a legally recognised metropolitan area. 2 - Knowsley / Liverpool / St Helens are recognised unitary authorities within Merseyside. Use of the "Liverpool Urban Area" in the lede is intentionally misleading as it conflates legal boundaries with "terms of reference". It should be included within any discussion on economy, population, and not to define what a town is or its location (if the assertion was even accurate). As per the notes on your last revert: To locate Whiston in the ONS one needs to only type in "Whiston" in the search box to have St Helens South & Whiston statistics brought up (for 2010) or Whiston North / South wards (for 2001)[2]. If one should type in "Liverpool Urban Area" in comparison, you will find no statistics specifically referring to Whiston. Your argument is a red herring. The actual Liverpool Urban Area article does not list "Whiston", nor is it mentioned in the data source from which it is derived: D84100 Liverpool Urban Area 816,216 D84103 Bootle 59,123 D84101 Crosby 51,789 D84107 Haydock 16,955 D84105 Huyton-with-Roby 54,766 D84102 Litherland 22,242 D84104 Liverpool 469,017 D84108 Prescot 39,695 D84106 St. Helens 102,629 Any attempt to assert Whiston is part of this "urban Area" must then fall down on explaining where within these sub-divisions it is meant to fall. Koncorde (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
ResponseWhen taking that action, I consulted a number of folks who are long time admins here to determine the correct course of action. In the end, our feeling (which was vetted through the WMF's legal team) was that the image does not comply with our current policy, which requires that:
In this case, because it was a high-resolution scalable graphic, we believe that a low-resolution graphic complies with both the letter and the spirit of the policy. Should a suitable low resolution graphic be substituted, neither I nor the police have any issue with it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Chelcee Grimes for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chelcee Grimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelcee Grimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. the wub "?!" 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Phil Redmond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knowsley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Merseyside Your recent editing history at Merseyside shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Historic counties of EnglandYour recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringPlease see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kitchen Knife reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: ) .. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)  {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 Kitchen Knife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have attempt to discuss this in several area, so much so that I have been accused of arena shopping GHMytrle and the several other editors have refused to join those forums, simply because they will loose as they did with the previous pro ABC campaigns. but have kept on editing. regardless. As the blocker acknowledged other have been involved it is therefore wrong to block just me. Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: See WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. --Chris (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2012 (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.
Kitchen Knife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The blocker now claims I broke 3RR I did not, not all edits are reverts Decline reason: I see reverts at 21:30, 19:59, 19:41, 19:35, 19:01, 14:48, 14:28, 13:55, and 00:10. Your assertion seems to be clearly incorrect; please do not post any further unblock requests until you have had a chance to read through WP:3RR. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2012 (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 received your e-mail, and I'll reply here. 3RR is a section of edit warring, and they're frequently used interchangeably. I couldn't possibly care less about the article's content, my article interests are very much removed from the Flag Institute. I also want you to know I was forwarded a copy of the e-mail you sent to Ghmyrtle. If you do that again, I'll extend your block and disable your e-mail access; you cannot use e-mail to continue attacking editors. Don't do it again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by repeating the same behaviours as your last block. Although you did not break WP:3RR, you went directly in and edit warred on the same article. I recommend you hold yourself to WP:1RR in future. Remember, there is no deadline, you can be patient, discuss matters at the talk page and wait for consensus to develop. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l Kitchen Knife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have not broken the rules as the admin admits therefore I should not be blocked. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 14:46, 24 February 2012 (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. Kitchen Knife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have not caused damage or destruction, I am trying to stop myrtle from damaging Wikipedia and using it as a platform for his POV. I have been making a useful contribution. The block was not necessary in the first place as I had not damaged Wikipedia. Decline reason: Please review WP:NOTTHEM before posting any more such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (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. Kitchen Knife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Because Beeblebrox is mad. I have said what I'm tying to do. I didn't blame anyone else. Is there some kind of requirement to have a subnormal IQ to be an Admin Decline reason: Friendly advice: don't insult the people who will review your unblock requests. That notwithstanding, this is still a WP:NOTTHEM argument, and you still aren't willing to accept the obvious fact that you've edit warred, etc. Kinu t/c 20:12, 24 February 2012 (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. Kitchen Knife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Actually to quote the person who impoosed the blockk "Although you did not break WP:3RR" Decline reason: The three-revert rule is not an entitlement. You can be edit warring even if you don't break it. And, in this case, you were. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:24, 24 February 2012 (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 have not broken the rules as the admin admits therefore I should not be blocked" confuses the heck out of me. You've been blocked for repeating the same behavior that got you blocked last time. --Bmusician 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
|
