User talk:Cedric tsan cantonais

Fair use images outside of articles
Please refrain from adding images used under a claim of fair use (usually referred to as "non-free" on Wikipedia) to pages other than articles. Please see WP:NFCC for the rule. All non-free images in any page that is not in article space are to be summarily removed. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Captains
If you want one team in your league to be decorated differently than others, feel free to. Please don't push your preference on other leagues. Discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mein Herr, I can't believe you're willing to bend in to those irrelevant North American rules. Still, if you want me to discuss, I'll do it. Cedric tsan cantonais 16:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, they're not rules, they're conventions. Not all European teams decorate their rosters with captains.
 * Second, you would have to prove that the individual you're decorating with the captaincy is actually the captain. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/wfc2/wfc2-players does not list the captain.
 * Third, yes, you should discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IIHF archived articles
thought I would let you know that the issue you had is browser related, if you access the same page with IE or Chrome wikipedia will have no trouble with the URL. I ran into the same issue previously and there is a simple fix in the script of the address but I forget what it is. If I remember I will let you know.18abruce (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * here it is, look in your address, replace [tt_news] with %5Btt_news%5D. It will link just fine. I do believe an article about world girls day is merited, while an article on the the vancouver angels is not though, good luck.18abruce (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi. I realize you've already received complaints about this, but I make one last request here. Signatures states that the purpose of signatures are to identify you as a user and your contributions to Wikipedia, and that in general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either. The username policy prohibits disruptive usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.

Your signature currently says " CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! ". This signature is not in line with the purpose of signatures, as it seems to promote a particular point of view that you have—that editors should not be allowed to contribute with an IP address. Current English Wikipedia policy and practice allows for anonymous IP editing (and remember, IPs are human too). This means that your signature automatically puts you in unnecessary conflict with our anonymous editors—a violation of WP:CIVIL. In other words, having your signature as it is right now will make participating in harmonious discussions with anonymous editors very difficult, as we already see on Articles for deletion/Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey). As a result, you need to change your signature. I have no problem with you proposing to the English Wikipedia community that anonymous editing be disabled, but your signature is not the place to do it. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VancouverAngels.png
 Thanks for uploading File:VancouverAngels.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Diacritics discussion
PBS, Fyunck, WhatamIdoing and a few others aside the encyclopedia accepts and uses diacritics. Do you know of any article which doesn't? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note Cedric, referring to an agreement you dislike as "BIGOTED", and whining about "ANTI-DIACRITIC CRUSADES" when you are on a "pro-diacritic crusade" yourself is both hypocritical and bordering on a personal attack. If you wish to build support for your position, try behaving like an adult. Resolute 15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. It's not me on a "pro-diacritic crusade". It's just that non-English names shall not be governed by English-centric rules like that bigoted "Convention №. 2". Or do you think the Wikipedia is still in ye olde colonial days, when the British Privy Council could veto a Québec court ruling?
 * Also, just in case you didn't notice, good sir, the use of diacritics is more serious than rock bands adding diacritics to their names, and we the supporters of diacritics bear twice the pressure you opposers bear and do more than twice the research you opposers do because we need to ensure that the diacritics are used correctly and properly. In most cases, that means having to venture into territories as unfamiliar as the Mariana Trench or Olympus Mons. Any false move would be ground for opposers to pick us up. If you would ever think that eliminating diacritics is even one thousandth as gutsy as venturing into unfamiliar territories like the Polypterī, please think again.  Cédric SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades! 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I support the use of diacritics. But you are behaving like an immature child throwing a tantrum, and it makes it damn hard to want to side with you on anything.  Zealots such as yourself are a net negative to this project. Resolute 15:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's make a deal here: I'll hold back all my future offences if you, good sir, openly state that you oppose "Convention №. 2". And don't worry, I'm not about to start any editing war unless someone else starts and editing war against my constructive edits.  Cédric SAYS NO to anti-diacritic crusades! 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally enforced that convention in years. But I appreciate your willingness to tone it down a little. Resolute 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your attention please
Hi. I added subsections at my proposal to differentiate between opposition on technical grounds, and opposition in principal. Would you please move your opposition to the most suitable section? Thanks. fredgandt 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Whitecaps FC 2. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Laber□T 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hijiri88 pinged me in that talk going on at ANI. I can't really follow the detail of what's going on and I don't know the context and haven't been watching this. I am sure Hijiri88 is joking not attacking me - I like Hijiri88 was one of the editors supporting the restoration of Czech and so on names after efforts to "Anglicize" them by a minority of Tennis editors. And again restoration of Vietnam articles after a similar actions by one editor who moved the entire Vietnam article corpus. And has since been banned. I cannot follow what Walter Görlitz position or lack of position is, but don't see a problem. I suggest just smoothing it all over if that is possible. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Diacritics
Hardly going to argue much about the wording of your own template, but what conventions are you citing? The wording change in question would address them if they exist, and any that people would want to impose. I.e., "any" is more inclusive. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruption, following the clear consensus here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &#8209; Iridescent 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less who's right and who's wrong, and have no interest in your case; what I see is that every single person to express an opinion regarding you has concurred that the most appropriate course of action is an indefinite block. Unfortunately, you don't get to "refuse to be tried by popularity contests", since consensus is a core Wikipedia policy; if you just want a free space to vent about how you're right and every other person in the world is wrong, I'm sure you can manage to locate Wordpress. If you insist the arbitration committee get involved, fill your boots, but I'll warn you they'll take a considerably less lenient view of this situation than I have; you'll note that at present you're still able to post unblock requests, still able to comment on your own talk page, still able to send emails and only blocked indefinitely, not permanently. &#8209; Iridescent 22:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then so be it. Sonner or later I'll locate an admin who will take another look on the case. Thank you for your time. Cédric  the wrongfully recused 22:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cedric, if it's really your desire to ever contribute to Wikipedia again, and all the stuff about diacritics and edit summaries is a big misunderstanding, then please STOP NOW. You're now WP:FORUMSHOPPING and hoping for a WP:WHEELWAR, and that's not going to happen. Think about what you have done to lead to this block, and when you can make another unblock request acknowledging that -- no sooner than one week from now -- make another request. If you instead post another request like the one above, then that will likely be the end of your participation here permanently.  E Eng  22:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No admin has the authority to unilaterally overturn a community imposed indefinite block. That is a blatant violation of [WP:WHEELWAR] and any admin who unblocks you is liable for a desysop. Your only recourse is a community appeal, which is guaranteed to fail at this juncture, or an appeal via the Arbitration Committee, who would most likely reject the case as it is a community imposed case and would refer it back for community review anyway. The only way ArbCom would review would be if there was a fundamental misapplication of process, which in this case there wasn't. There was unanimous community consensus for the indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record:
 * 1) Just because I'm looking for an admin who will "take another look at the case" does not mean that I will make this admin break any rules. I don't know where the misunderstanding originated, but if you think for a moment that I would make anyone break the rules, you have another thinking coming.
 * 2) All I will seek is to clear my name from wrongful accusers through an unblock. After that, I have no desire to be a frequent editor (but that doesn't mean I'll start stirring sh#t up, for the record) on English WP 'cause the culture here clearly doesn't honour technocracy, and all I would be doing here will be minor clean-ups or removing contents that are proved false. You want me to stop attacking others, I'm already doing that until a wrongful accusation (which says that "suspected vandalism" counts as a personal attack) unilaterally provoked me. You want me to stop using IPA in edit summaries, fair enough, I'll stop, but only as a measure of proving that "all the stuff about diacritics and edit summaries is (indeed) a big misunderstanding" and that Walter Görlitz's accusations against me are anything but legit.
 * Also, I would like to notify you that the first thing I'll do after I'm unblocked is to motion an amendment to WP:BATTLEGROUND and the sole aim of my motion is to make false accusers held equally accountable as the user(s) they provoked into displaying battleground behaviours. Let's be honest: Who would ever want to swallow false accusations? Cédric  the wrongfully recused 19:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK. I understand there's another Wikimedia project you're involved in. Go work on that, then after a year come back and reread what went on here. If you're able to see things in a new light, then maybe you'll be able to resume participating. With your current attitude there's zero chance of your being unblocked, and I mean zero. I realize this is hard to understand, but you need to trust us on this.  E Eng  20:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't understand what you mean by "see[ing] things in a new light". I have already promised to stop adding diacritics and to stop attacking others and I have in fact stopped attacking others. Cédric  the wrongfully recused 22:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But you're still insisting on vindication for something someone said which no one but you even remembers. That's never going to happen. If I demanded that for every stupid thing someone ever said about me, Arbcom would be busy until the universe runs cold. Read my talk page if you don't believe me.  E Eng  22:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're basically saying that I shan't even demand to clear my name... That's just another reason for me not to be an active contributor on English WP after I get myself unblocked. On all other Wikis where I contribute on a regular basis, when I get wrongfully accused, the action of defending myself would never be deemed as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Even when the accuser is an admin, they would at least admit that they got it wrong when it's clear that I got wrongfully accused.
 * If you think I should stop demanding a vindication, fine, I'll swallow the verdict.
 * Also, let me clarify something further: When I said I would "look for an admin who will take another look at the case", all I sought was for this admin to say "the consensus did get it wrong". That's it. No WP:WHEELWAR. Cédric  (the wrongfully recused) 19:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should stop demanding vindication. Wikipedia's processes are designed to get people back to editing, not settle scores and salve hurt feelings.  E Eng  21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're down a very big hole and yet you're uselessly trying to dig up out of it. Please take a read of WP:HOTHEAD and think about how it might apply to your situation. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what had transpired between Hijiri88 and I. Cédric  (the wrongfully recused) 01:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been reading this dispute since before your current block. I very much do understand what is going on here and I also know that if you violate WP:NPA again ("are you done humpty-dumptying?") you'll have your talk page access revoked by one of the many admins watching this talk page. I want to see you unblocked and returned to editing productively. But that won't happen unless you realise it was your behaviour that caused your block. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, when I use the term "humpty-dumpty", the reference is clearly "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" — In other words, Hijiri88 has been intentionally making up meanings that simply don't exist in my words. If I was to attack Hijiri88 based on his/her appearance, background, etc., I would've used other more blatantly derogatory terms. But I didn't, did I? I'm telling you politely: If you think for a moment that that was a personal attack, you've added yourself to the long list of people who had misunderstood me. Cédric  (the wrongfully recused) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, stop pinging me, I am watching this talk page and will know when you reply. Second, you are attempting to wikilawyer your way out of admitting that what you wrote could be interpreted as a personal attack. Third, you are actively refusing to look at the situation with the view that your behaviour in response to the false accusation is what led to the block. If you had ignored it and moved on, you would not have been blocked, but instead you chose to raise it at ANI which obviously boomeranged hard leading to the situation you find yourself in. Once you raised the issue at ANI, everyone reading it looked into the interactions between the two of you and saw that your behaviour has been repeatedly disruptive and your use of "gibberish" compounded the issue. The only way you will be unblocked is if you stop talking about the accusation and instead focus on your behaviour in response to it, which is what got you here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So anything that could be interpreted as personal attacks will be interpreted as a personal attack... Fine, I can work with that. Cédric  (the wrongfully recused) 06:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding the power and the responsibilities of admins here. When an admin closes a community proposal for a sanction, all they are allowed to do is assess what the actual consensus is, and not whether that consensus is correct. In this case, the consensus is unanimously behind a block, and no admin could possibly have closed it any other way. Your complaint appears to be that the community consensus got it wrong, but that is not a judgment that is open to admins to make. I see only two ways in which you could get that community discussion overturned: One is to appeal to the community again, by requesting a new review of the case (which would be held at WP:AN, I guess). I don't think that would stand any chance of success right now, so soon after the current decision. You might stand a better chance by waiting for at least the usual six-month WP:OFFER period and then asking for a new review. Alternatively, you could appeal to Arbcom. But as has been suggested, I also suspect they would be very reluctant to get involved at this stage unless there has been some procedural error - and there has not been one that I can see. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but I hope it does at least help you understand why no admin can do what you appear to want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, many unanswered users supported an indefinite block for you. I was not involved in the ANI although I followed it and I couldn't see any procedural inconsistency. Even if you could convince an admin to review the case all they would advise is that it be taken to WP:AN for community review, because it is a community imposed sanction. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And why should I even trust you? Ever since we crossed paths, all you did you intentionally misinterpret my words to the point that I simply had to fight back and doing everything you could possibly do to get me blocked. And now you say you're giving me advice on how to get unblocked? Not even Lee Harvey Oswald would take the bait. Alas, I even suspect that this entire "advice" thing is a trap: Nobody knows better than you that wrongful accusations are the easiest way to trigger my DEFCON, and when I decide to fight back, anyone could easily accuse me of "displaying battleground behaviour" because of certain stupid culture on English WP that encourages swallowing accusations and frowns upon defending one's name.
 * Also, you're still insisting that I'm "continu[ing] to host (attacks on IPs) on (my) user page". That only further shows that you're in fact making up reasons to keep me blocked instead of giving me any real advices of getting unblocked. Just because I campaign for an all-registered Wikipedia does not mean such campaign is an automatic attack on IPs, except in your straw-man arguments.
 * Finally, when you left your first message, I had already warned you that you're a persona non grata here and your messages will be deleted. So how about we have a little armistice which we're at it: I say away from your talk page and you stay away from mine? 'Cause it's clear that your presence would only muddle the water even more. So let's not turn this into another Tenerife disaster, OK? Cédric  (the wrongfully recused) 16:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Both of you, stop talking to each other. Hijiri88, stay away from this talk page as requested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This user can't move on when reminders of the past are given frequently. Cedric, you are free to remove comments as you please, as long as the block notice remains intact. While you are confined here for now, it's still YOUR talk page. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The block is not infinite, it is indefinite, which means it's for an as-yet-undetermined time (rather than forever). If you want to be unblocked after a year (or however long), you are free to make an unblock request at that time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's one thing to reject my appeal for technical reasons, but it's something completely different to reject my appeal simply because I expressed my disagreement with the culture of English Wikipedia. Expressing disagreement with the culture and actually breaking rules are two different things. Cédric (the wrongfully recused) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't just express disagreement with the culture of English Wikipedia, you said there are irreconcilable differences. For you to edit here without breaking the rules would require some degree of reconciliation, and you have said that is impossible, therefore you contradict yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is a collaborative environment. If your beliefs cannot be reconciled with this environment (and its culture), that will cause just the kind of disruption that saw you blocked in the first place. Huon (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already made every effort to reconcile in the dialogues above. What else do you want to see? You want me to stop personal attacks, I've already stopped. You want me to discuss in the cases of disputes, I talk. But do I also have to say that "I whole-heartedly support the culture of suppressing anyone's effort to clear their names"? 'Cause that is the only one thing I simply can't reconcile to. In nearly all other Wiki projects that I contribute on, even an admin would have to acknowledge "the fault is on me" when they find out they've wrongfully accused anyone. English Wikipedia is the only Wiki Project I know to openly tell users to just swallow it. Cédric  (the wrongfully recused) 17:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw this pop up on my watchlist. I'm just going to say that there is no way your unblock request will be accepted. If you were going to ArbCom to open a case for yourself that might be possible, but what you're asking for is going to be rejected. While you're blocked the last thing you need to be worried about is what's going on in articles. Get yourself unblocked first then worry about articles. Blackmane (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll just withdraw everything, then. I had already stated that I won't seek vindication of my old beef and I have to keep my words. Heck, at this stage I don't even care that much about when I'm gonna get unblocked, since the culture here would act as the better deterrant, anyway. Cédric  06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say this, but someone whose only proposed activity is defending himself/herself is WP:NOTHERE.  E Eng  00:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {ping|EEng#s}} I remember it's you who suggested me to work on other Wiki projects. That's exactly what I'm doing and that's the reason why I will not be active on English Wikipedia. Also, I looked through WP:NOTHERE and nowhere does it prohibits self-defence, unless, of course, someone's willing to stretch the rules for the sole purpose of taking me down.
 * Also, if you wouldn't mind, explain something to me: If "someone whose only proposed activity is defending himself/herself is WP:NOTHERE", then how is someone who constantly falsely accusing someone else WP:TOTALLYHERE? Cédric  (the wrongfully accused) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But you're still focused on vindication. You even said, right out, "If you unblock me, I won't be contributing, just defending myself." That's flat out being here other than to help build the encyclopedia, which is what WP:NOTHERE is about. I'm glad you're working on sister projects. When you have something you actually want to do here -- work on a particular article that specifically needs improvement, let's say -- that would be the time to ask for an unblock. I doubt it will work this time, give the unblock rationale you've given.
 * As to your last question, focusing on others' behavior in the context of a unblock request will never work. We've got a handy link for that too: WP:NOTTHEM.  E Eng  00:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to challenge your premise right here: You talked about "being here other than to help build the encyclopedia", but the case is that I will not even be here as long as nobody falsely accuse me of anything, since I'll be too busy working on other Wiki project, which itself can't be an violation at English Wikipedia.
 * If you want me to come up with "a particular article that specifically needs improvement", there're plenty: nearly every single article related to U Sports programmes needs to be updated. But here's my case: their corresponding articles at French Wikipedia need to be created but every university sport contributors there, except me, are only interested in the university sports in the USA. That's my priority right now and it has nothing to do with WP:NOTHERE. Cédric  (the wrongfully accused) 00:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I give up.  E Eng  01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have no plans on being an active editor, why are you even requesting the unblock? The only reason to request an unblock is because you have learned from your past mistakes, that you know how not to repeat them, and that you will contribute positively to the project. Last April you voluntarily disappeared rather than receive an indefinite block, yet you returned and continued the same behavior. The community agreed that you did not learn and that you had no intent at the time to change, so you were indefinitely blocked to protect the project. In the interest of full disclosure, I supported the indefinite block in December. Perhaps it would be best for you to drop the WP:STICK and walk away for at least a few months. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 22:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That only gives me another reason to believe that you did not take the time to go through all my evidence. I maintain that I had already stopped all kinds of personal attacks and every single edit, except for one false positive, after that was a good edit. The battleground behaviour that I demonstrated was merely the result of being falsely accused.
 * Also, I'm just gonna say it right here, right now: 9 out of every 10 persons who wants to apply WP:STICK to cases of false accusations either had never been falsely accused (which I hope is your case) or is a false accuser oneself and wants to keep getting away with it.
 * You know why I won't return as an active editor but yet I'm appealing? Because: On one hand, no matter how I try to avoid my previous mistakes, I can no longer guarantee that I won't be falsely accused again and, further more, I can no longer guarantee that my effort to defend my reputation won't be used against me (meanwhile, on French Wikipedia, even an admin would need to admit that they got it wrong if they got it wrong indeed); On the other hand, laypeople who visits Wikipedia don't give a damn on why a user is blocked. In their eyes, a blocked user is nothing more than any other blocked user. That's why clearing my name is a must.
 * P.S. I wish staying away from English Wikipedia is as easy as you said. But whenever I create new articles or add new contents to other Wiki projects, I still have little choices other than pulling contents, references, etc. from English Wikipedia. Cédric  (the wrongfully accused) 23:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the culture (and policy) changes that I will be advocating include: Also, I demand access to my user page in order to prevent my opponents from blanking it through the intensional misinterpretation of WP:POLEMIC. Cédric ''SAY NO TO WP:WIKILYNCHING!' 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)  Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))
 * Complete decriminalisation of seeking vindications (making the action of seeking vindications no longer punishable) as long as no personal attacks are involved;
 * Giving admins the power of ignore the demand of majority voters should the admin have sufficient reason and evidence to conclude that such demand constitutes WP:WIKILYNCHING, just like giving pilots the power to ignore the air traffic controller's instruction in the case of TCAS alarms.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Simon Fraser Clan
I need someone (anyone) to get rid of the logo on the page, since the terrier was never one of the logos used by the programme, and replace it with the real one. I would've changed it myself if I wasn't stuck here. Alas, I even have enough to suspect that the terrier image wasn't even "own work", since vectorising an image doesn't mean the vectoriser gets to claim the copyright. Cédric 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)