User talk:Antique cuckhoo clock

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I will let users decide whether user:Collectonion is an idiot or not by his actions.

Blocked

 * Yeah I know. You going to block Committiearian or whatever for being a jobsworth?


 * No. Read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CSD for relevant guidelines in this case. When you're back, if the article is up at AFD, feel free to comment politely on the merits of the article, not the people involved in the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, you gonna delete it then? You haven't because you agree with me that Collection is begin very silly.  How can I not break WP:CIVIL if someone is being very silly, without describing their actions as silly?


 * Well?


 * You were told numerous times how to appeal against a CSD notification, by using a hangon tag. You could have then explained your views on the article's talk page in a civil manner. This would have been quite sufficient. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I removed the speedy deletion tag because I saw what I felt was an indication of notability. The way this works is, someone puts a speedy tag on an article, an administrator reviews teh article and decides to either keep or delete; in this case, I felt it would be better to have a longer discussion. Had you placed a hangon tag as noted, you would have been able to express your concerns on the talk page. Removing the tag repeatedly despite warnings is not the right approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really he was being that stupid.

Now he is edit warring and demonstrating his stupidity to user:Espresso Addict -- who clearly has some common sense.


 * If you refer to another editor disparagingly again here, your block will be extended. Please stop now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, If someone is being stupid how can I say they are being stupid without getting banned?

I said he was being silly and then all he did was edit war and cite policies. He did not explain how someone who is FRS is speedy deletion material.


 * You don't. You discuss rationally without namecalling. That's what WP:CIVIL is about. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. I acted rationally and told him to stop being silly. Then instead of realising his error and apologising, he made it his intention to delete the article, despite what it says.

Vandalism by user:Collectonion
Has been removing links to Tim Clutton-Brock claiming non-notability DESPITE HIS BEING ELECTED A FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

Pls can be banned for vandalism, thx.


 * Ugh. Note that Collectonian's last edit was to replace the link to the article. Stop now. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? No, he has removed links from articles See. I think he is trying to WP:OWN the Kalahari Meerkat articles


 * Look at Special:Contributions/Collectonian. One article was reverted to replace the link. I see no other removals, and you might note that Collectonian has now personally removed the notability tag from the article.


 * Please, at this point, walk away and take a break. Come back when your block has expired, keep cool and civil, and continue to work on these articles. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Wouldn't it have just been easier in the first place if Collectonions had not placed the tag on the article in the first place?


 * No. I properly tagged the article as CSD, feeling Professor Clutton-Brock was not notable. Had you not felt the need to violate policy and continue removing the CSD despite numerous warnings, and be billigerant and insulting, then what would have happened is:


 * I tagged
 * You, had you chosen to follow policy, would use the hangon tag to explain your reason for feeling he is notable on the talk page
 * An administrator would look at the article, check into it, and have removed the tag, probably point to WP:PROF which does indeed give blanket notability to all FRS
 * Decision accepted, and I would realize I was mistaken and have done the cleans up I have since done on the article, put in the biography project, and begin gathering resources to attempt to fill out the article


 * Instead, you decided you could not follow the policy and let the process take its course and an hour that could have been spent in constructive editing had to be wasted in constantly undoing your inappropriate tag removal, warning you, and then an administrator having to block you because you continued ignoring warnings, refused to simply follow the proper procedures, and continue to insult me in your edit summaries and on your talk page. Despite that, and as you have already noted, now that I have learned of WP:PROF and an administrator has evaluated the CSD, I realize that he is more notable than I originally perceived, admitted my mistake, and will now move on to working on the article.


 * Your requests below to ask that I be blocked with vandalism are not appropriate because I vandalized nothing. I properly enforced Wikipedia policy, which very clearly notes that the creator of an article may NOT remove a Speedy Deletion template, whether they agree or not. You were warned more than enough times, but continued to remove it. If you want to be a constructive editor here, I strongly suggest that you become more familiar with WP:CIVILITY and learn not to disparage and insult other editors simply because you don't agree with them and learn to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I hope, once you are unblocked, that you will refrain from continuing to act in such a matter. Collectonian (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly from that statement you are a liar as well as a vandal. I see you've left Wikipedia.  The place will be better off without idiots like you. Antique cuckhoo clock (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reading Wikipedia's article on Royal Society
In case anyone is in doubt as to the nature of that organisation, I will to be sure that its fellows are elected to the fellowship by their peers on the basis of their contributions to science.


 * I have to say, it was very good. Antique cuckhoo clock (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in adoption?
We have a new user adoption program that helps newer editors navigate or system. I would be happy to help in anyway I can. Ursasapien (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
These edits: and  are unacceptable. Wikipedia editors must assume good faith and remain civil in their dealings with other editors. I strongly suggest that you back off of insulting Collectonian in future. If you feel there's a serious problem with Collectonian's editing, please look at the options available under dispute resolution. Do not continue to make remarks as those in the edits noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of those edits were perfectly acceptable. The first merely documents facts and vandal:Collectsonions' vandalism.  The second enquires as to his permission for the article as he's a member of the Wikipedia secret police (WP:POLICE). Antique cuckhoo clock (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)