User talk:Carson101/Autoarchive 1

TPS
Signing in :) Daicaregos (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeahhh! My first TPS. Thanks Dai. :) Carson101 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah shucks, you're welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When is the independance referendum
Howdy Carson. Now that the SNP have a majority government, when are they gonna have the independance referendum? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello GoodDay. Alex Salmond, quite rightly in my opinion, will have the referendum in the latter half of the governments 5 year term. Carson101 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to observing it on the TV. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of something I didn't do.
I did explain my deletion of this in the 'edit box'. I said "Too much of nothing & talk page stuff - just revert me if there's a problem with this". If there was more room I'd have added that the whole damn page is now really slow on my PC. Neither party did revert me, for obvious reasons. Do you really think you are helping Wikpedia by replacing a conversation like that? Matt Lewis (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First off Matt, I apologise for not noticing your explanation. I was one of those party's in that conversation and I think it was fair to question GoodDay on some of his posts. I don't have a problem if he is making a good argument for his case, though I may not agree with it, but I questioned him on his repetative posts. If he is making these posts all over the article talk page I believe that I have the right to question those same posts on the article talk page and have people who contribute to the talkpage realise the fact that he is doing this on a regular basis, if they do not already know it. Cheers. Carson101 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Answers
I'm not certain as to what it is you're seeking, but the less we dwell on those British political articles, the better off I'll be. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10
Hi Carson, welcome to the party. Daicaregos (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes me doubt my sanity. I know that I live in a country called Scotland and yet some people are unwilling to include my country in a List of Countries. It's a strange old world. Carson101 (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. Still, look on the bright side, at least two Americans (Jeanne is one, of course) are aware that there are some other countries :) Guess that's progress. Seems like no-one wants to learn anything from Wikipedia, just to pass on all the nonsense they think they remember from school, or something 'Brad' told them last month. Where's their 'wow' factor? The "well, well. I never knew that!"? It's as if it's not possible that they don't know everything. I thought that was the point of an encyclopaedia. Oh well. Daicaregos (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Did you see my latest post at the discussion? If I told someone abroad that my country was Scotland and they didn't understand I could explain to them that it is a country and why it is a country. This is called giving information to people that they were previously ignorant of. Some people obviously think that Wikipedia is not the place to impart that knowledge. As you say, oh well. Good though to hear that there are at least two Americans who are aware of the facts. Shame there are not more closer to home. Carson101 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, saw it and I quite agree. At least people seem to have heard of Scotland, even if they're not sure where it is. The same can't be said of my little corner of the world. Did you know it's the size of Wales? :) Daicaregos (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The size of Wales eh! That's a heck of a coincidence! :) Anyway, as I'm sure you would agree, if they had never heard of Wales and was told that it not only existed but was actually a country what a bit of new and amazing information they would be getting! Going off subject here Dai. What the hell is that pink love heart doing at the top of my talk page! If this place is turning into some sort of dating site I'm outta here! :) Carson101 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ???Pink love heart??? (blinks several times and rubs eyes) Sorry mate, can't see anything even remotely like that. Perhaps it's from one of your admirers at the library. Anyone giving you the eye there? Daicaregos (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! Yeah, these librarians have only one thing on their minds! Seriously, it's on the far right hand side on the same line as New section, history etc. Just checked and it appears to be on everyones talk page. On the other hand, I may be a bit loopy. No change there then. Carson101 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a tab on that line. to the right of 'unwatch' (or 'watch') I hadn't noticed before. It's called 'Wikilove'. I clicked on it and followed the 'What is this?' link to here. I suppose it could be a graphic for some users and text for others. I must be the same thing. Looks a load of old bollocks to me. Just had a look at ten or twelve User:Talk pages and it's on all of them. Call me a grumpy old man, but don't it make you want to puke. Strikes me, if you want to show "Wikilove" to people, just be nice to them. I hope it's a virus, that will get better. We'll see. Daicaregos (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my first thought, I wanted to puke. :) Carson101 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WQA notice
Hello, Carson101. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove? No thanks
Hi Carson. Hope all is well. Re our previous conversation: Go to your "My preferences" tab (top right of this page). Choose "Editing". Uncheck the box near the foot of the page marked "Enable showing appreciation for other users with the WikiLove tab (experimental)". Sorted. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Box unchecked. No more Wikilove tab for me. Thanks, Dai. Carson101 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. We can't be proper 'grumpy old men' with all that nonsense about :) Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I enjoy being a grumpy old man on occasion. Keeps me young. :) Carson101 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of grumpy old men, be careful what you post at one of them's talkpages; you'll likely get your post rudely deleted. Oh well, two can play that game. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason for that post, GoodDay? Or is it just the usual trolling? Accompanied by threats now too, I see. What could you possibly hope to achieve by that? Daicaregos (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the grumpy old man-in-question (nor are you or Carson). Besides, it's none of your beezwax. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean it is none of my business, why would you post it at a thread I began? So, what could you possibly hope to achieve by your post, other than to wind people up? Daicaregos (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject is wiki-love, not wiki-provoke. My 12:17 post was a response to Carson (note the indent). To avoid further provocation from you, I'll merely say bye bye. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Goodday. I'm not one to get involved in any bad feelings between two editors (if that's what it is), unless I believe there is a very good reason to. On this occasion I think if you have a bone to pick with someone you should probably let them know yourself, or ask why your post was deleted. There is likely a good reason for him deleting it, but if you are in the dark as to the reasoning his answer may bring some light to the matter. Cheers! Carson101 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just delete at my talkpage, when the guy posts there. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your choice GoodDay but, if you don't want some silly tit for tat I think you should ask him. I have an idea why he deleted it but I rather think it is for him to tell you. If you ask him that is. Carson101 (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice Try
In otherwords, neither you or any others out there (who are out to get me) are gonna provoke me further. PS: you & the others are free to add anything you (plural) wish to Snowded's Rfc sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one is out to get you. Speaking for myself, I'm trying to stop you spouting rubbish in your quest to erradicate anything from wikipedia articles that you don't believe are nations, countries, national anthems etc, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You throw comments into discussions that fail to bring anything to the debate other than your prejudices. If you did not do that with such frequency and with nothing to back up many of your statements I would not even bother with you. As for you telling me that people are "free to add anything you (plural) wish to Snowded's Rfc sandbox", well, I never thought we were not free to do so. Carson101 (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What's occurring?
Hiya Carson, you're editing late tonight. Do you have a new computer? Daicaregos (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, if only Dai. The library closes at 8pm tonight. I'm actually battering my head on a brick wall to find myself a new job. My previous one lasted for eighteen years but that doesn't seem to cut the mustard with most employers. I have been given to wondering of late if my age is holding me back, something that seems to have sneaked up on me all of a sudden. Still hopeful though and also still hopeful of getting a connection at home. Carson101 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that Carson. Good luck with both of those, mate :) Daicaregos (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though it's a little disheartening I'm still confident of getting back into my former career. I was once a banker you know! Just a small fry one you understand. From the banks to the poorhouse. :) Can I have some more! Carson101 (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your former bosses really screwed things up, big time. How did they manage to get away with it, 'Scot free' as they say? Daicaregos (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They should never have got away with it. Jammy bastards! And they are still paying themselves massive bonuses for doing crap jobs whilst many like myself where kicked out on our arses with severence pay that went to pay mortgages for long periods until you either got a job with a similar salary or had to sell your house. I was the latter. Not making it into a sob story because I am one of thousands of people in the same predicament and there are thousands of others in different industrys with the same problem. Carson101 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of their mates in the government covered their backs for them. I still find it scandalous. Having appeared in the papers and on TV, their identities are known. Should they be found strung up from a lamppost some time soon, I wouldn't shed a tear. Good luck with your search. It only takes one astute HR person to say yes. Daicaregos (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Carson, I'm sorry to hear of your predicament. Honestly, it's situations like yours that makes me long for a revolution. Start everything over from scratch. I'm not a communist, but I beleieve we need a new political system, with more altruism and less avarice. I myself am getting fed up with all sorts of institutions. Political, social, matrimonial, you name it. When we live in a world in which a nurse cleans the backsides of our loved ones for a pittance, firemen risk their lives for every single one of us, and earns a small wage teachers spend hours for little recompense trying to educate the hopelessly thick, yet we have footballers, TV and film "stars", and anorexic "models" who make more in a day than they do in a year...pathetic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the way of the world I'm afraid Jeanne. Human nature will always produce greedy buggers who have less altruism than a tapeworm. We could have a revolution next week and there will be other greedy buggers who somehow find themselves at the top of the pecking order within a fortnight. Carson101 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hello, Carson. It's nice to see you back here with us!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Real life crap made me feel like staying away for a long long time but it's amazing how you can cheer up a little within a week. It's nice to get a welcome back, cheers me up a little more. :) Thanks Jeanne. Carson101 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're back too ... and that you are a little more cheerful :) Daicaregos (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dai. I was once known for my cheeriness you know. My present girlfriend (an Italian from Rome) thinks I'm the most cheerful person she's ever known! Wait until she get's to know me better. Lol. Carson101 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Trouble maker?
Howdy Carson. You might wanna check in at C.S. Lewis for possible block evading by Sheodred. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell he's been blocked for edit warring. If he's block evading I can't see it anywhere but if that's the case I'm sure he will get dealt with. But really, that's not the point. You know that if you are going to make comments with the express purpose of winding someone up then you will get some caustic responses. Carson101 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheodred showed up at my talkpage, out of practically nowhere. He should've left me alone, as I hadn't been around the articles he was complaining about for quite some time. Anyways, the editor-in-question, who started a vendetta against me, had his block extended for the aforementioned block-evasion. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

CS Lewis
I just wanted to bring to your attention and other editors that Mabuska, Jon and Goodday (and the usual suspects) are refusing to change this author's nationality from British even though he was born in Ireland and claims that was Irish, they refuse to engage in consensus, even for not even mentioning nationality, could you and the others help intervene. Sheodred tried to help but he was harrassed and accused of being a socket as a diversion to the POV pushing of other editors.93.107.209.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Snowy's sandbox
Howdy Carson. Just curious, would you fix the #9 charge aswell? GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea what the #9 charge is about. You appear to know what it's about so perhaps you could fix it yourself or ask the user who put it there in the first place. I can almost hear your hands clapping together in delight at all the attention your getting. Carson101 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that sandbox can be annoying, though I haven't considered bringing it up at ANI per harrassement. Mostly though, it's laughable, per the obvious political Pov editors who run to it. The community at large, know it's mostly an attempt by Welsh & Scottish devolutionist leaning editors & Irish nationalist leaning editors, to get me topic banned from their favorite articles. That's why, I'm not intimidated. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Carson, Carson, Carson. You sound as if you assume he knows how to do all that pesky technical stuff. You expect too much. After all he's only been here for six years, during which he's made over 76,000 edits. Makes you wonder what those edits were and how they improved the pedia. So ... he sets you up. You respond (disinterestedly) and he trolls you. Classic GoodDay. What a waste of six years. Pretty sad really. Daicaregos (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's great to read a post again, from my biggest fan. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Dai. I had actually decided to ignore his provocative edits on article talk pages as he's only in it for the attention. I do wonder why admins don't hammer him for this. I hope it's not because some of them agree with him, even though they know that he's repeatedly bringing up the same things over and over again and on multiple articles when more than one consensus on them has been reached. I believe he took part in the discussions when consensus was reached. But, as we've already witnessed, he get's pretty angry when consensus goes against him and has already picked a fight with you over one of them. Of course, when he belatedly confessed to it after denying it for so long he did not even get a slap on the wrist. Don't forget, he confessed only after evidence was put forward that he was indeed picking a fight. Without that I'm pretty sure he would have continued to play the innocent. I found the decision not to censure him in any meaningful way, like a short block, rather strange. Carson101 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning

 * Carson101 this is a formal warning that your behaviour with regard to User:GoodDay has become unacceptable. Since mid-October 2011 your edits to wikipedia have been solely involved policing GoodDay's activities. This is not appropriate and at this point constitutes harassment. There is a difference between seeking to resolve a dispute and seeking to escalate it unnecessarily - your recent edits are crossing that line. Step back and allow the mentors to do their job. Wikipedia is not a war-game - actions that result in the frustration of dispute resolution processes that others are involved in, and to which you only have tangential, or no involvement, are unacceptable. Since you have neither edited any articles since mid-October, nor actively participated in discussion of article improvements since mid-November, I suggest you leave dispute resolution to those actually involved in editing & discussing these pages. To make matters worse, today you have made an ad hominem attack on one of GoodDay's mentors (User:DBD). Further edits in this vein (either targeted at GoodDay or his mentors) will result in an interaction ban (under the discretionary sanction imposable under the ArbCom ruling at WP:TROUBLES, as these matters fall within its remit) in order to prevent further disruption of wikipedia. You are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to contribute positively to the project, but this is formal notification, and fair warning, that your current manner of interaction on this project needs to change-- Cailil  talk 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's get something clear Cailil. If I think one of GoodDay's mentors is not suitable I'll say it. I said on a previous occasion that I thought you were defending GoodDay despite being shown evidence that he was harming the project. I hope you have not been biding your time waiting to give me some sort of warning after my past comment. Oh, and when I get my own internet connection I'll contribute more substantially. Sitting in a library looking for a job doesn't give one much time. I contributed fine thanks very much when I did have an internet connection. Now, I would rather you didn't pay any more visits to my talk page in defence of GoodDay or his mentor. Thanks. Carson101 (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, why don't you fuck off you snake. The evidence given to you about GoodDay a while ago was so clear it was obvious that you were defending him for your own twisted reasons. It's also quite obvious that since then you've been itching to come here and throw your adminship about. I'll be retiring now because people like you use the little bit of authority they have for their own agendas. Carson101 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for Incivility and continued battleground behaviour after due and fair warning re WP:TROUBLES. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Cailil  talk 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)  Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."


 * As per the bock log since this is not your first retirement I'm blocking this account. The period of the block is three weeks, due to the prolonged and proliferating ad hominem nature of your comments to various accounts. You may appeal directly to ArbCom via email (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). For clarity no I am not defending GoodDay nor have ever done so in fact (I didn't see his actions as grounds for blocking). I looked at the behaviour of all involved and while many have good faith issues with how GoodDay edits and have attempted to resolve them with him via the RFC and mentoring process you alone have attempted to grief and/or frustrate that process. Those actions reflect upon you and nobody else. You are in control of your actions and decisions and you are accountable for them. Responding to a warning about harassing behaviour with further invective about GoodDay and his mentor (DBD) is what resulted in this block. If and when you return from retirement you will be under an indefinite interaction ban with regard to all edits by, discussions involving, and discussions about User:GoodDay. This is not a longer term ban but rather one of no definite duration and can be removed if you demonstrate it is no longer required with constructive editing-- Cailil  talk 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)