User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Jul

Block
I have blocked you once again for 3RR violations as below:

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who):, , , ,.

Last of the Time Lords:

I have put the block at a week this time, for a variety of reasons. First, you used automatic reversion tools for some of your reversions. Second of all, you made your reverts in an unusually short timeframe. Third of all, these were among your first edits upon returning from a previous 3RR block. Finally, you went over the 3RR by multiple reversions on multiple articles. Phil Sandifer 13:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Riana, how was I edit-warring? And how were the edits not cleaning up WP? I don't follow you at all.--Rambutan (talk) Should be on a Wikibreak! 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rambutan, whether or not your edits were cleaning up Wikipedia, they were inappropriate. There are no exceptions in the 3RR policy to accomodate for multiple reverts surrounding OR or un-RS material.  Editors are expected to work that out on the talk page, in dispute resolution, but not by revert warring.  --Iamunknown 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Formal block appeal
I would like to appeal my week-long 3RR block on the following grounds (and I would be satisfied if, maybe, three days were removed, rather than being immediately unblocked):


 * was clearly watching me, hoping to block me at the first oppurtunity.
 * According to the definition of an edit war, I didn't. Surely the 3RR is intended to prevent edit-wars, not to stop users from keeping the encyclopedia tidy.
 * An edit war is where Alice removes a bullet point, Bob replaces it, Alice removes it, Bob replaces it and Alice removes it. I simply removed material.
 * All my edits were in good faith.
 * All my edits were under the auspices of WP:NOT, WP:CITE, WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Not one of the edits I made were contested as an edit. They were all incontrevertably (spelling?) valid.
 * I think that even if the "ignore all rules" concept doesn't apply (which it ought to... removing original research is maintaining Wikipedia, and the 3RR did prevent me from doing so), the "obey the spirit not the letter" policy ought to apply: I was simply cleaning Wikipedia up, and it's a bit unreasonable to block someone, for so long, just for making good-faith - and valid - edits.
 * Wikipedia will never improve if only three bits of rubbish can be removed each day by each person on each article, considering how much is being added in.
 * The issue of automated tools should be irrelevant: I only used Twinkle for convenience. The same effect would have taken place if I'd done a manual revert, or used the "undo" utility, or simply edited the offending passages out of the article, and I don't think (but obviously, I'm not sure) that anybody would have batted an eyelid if those sorts of edits lacked a summary.
 * On most of my reverts, I utilised Twinkle's optional edit summary system, at least to the extent that would be expected if I'd manually removed the passages.
 * As for having just returned from another block - which conveniently coincided with my holiday - it genuinely never occurred to me while I was reverting that anybody would even consider blocking me for removing original research.
 * The 3RR policy page states that only a 24hr block should be used for violations, unless they are repeated or aggravated. I think that the repetition doesn't apply, since it was different material involved and there wasn't a real edit-war - in the general sense of the term - involved. I don't feel that it was aggravated, given all these circumstances.
 * Something often said to me is that I needn't bother removing offending material, since someone else will. While this is undoubtedly true, surely Wikipedia doesn't believe in making work for each other? While "Be Bold!" isn't directly related, it is along the lines of, "If something's wrong, fix it", not along the lines of, "If something's wrong, don't worry, go feed some ducks in your local park, someone else'll deal with it". If we all took that attitude, nothing would get done!
 * I would be willing to accede to a condition, such as not to use Twinkle's revert utility for Doctor Who articles, except in cases of clear vandalism.

Please consider this argument neutrally, and explain your reasons for declining it - if you do so. Thanks very much, --Rambutan (talk) Should be on a Wikibreak! 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The 3RR policy is one of our most important, and you have been blocked for repeatedly, excessively breaking it. You may argue about it all you like, but the fact remains that you edit warred for reasons that are not excused in policy, while you could have easily discussed.  Hence your unblock request is being declined once more. Martinp23 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't wink. Wink and you're dead.
Geez, can you make people any more paranoid? Anyway, thanks for the comment on the Chronology FLC; as a WPDW participant you should've at least given the FLC a look :) Will (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's not as bad as my theory that Tom Bombadil is the Master (it says that phrase several times in Fellowship) Will (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Iceberg & Titanic
Ah, I didn't spot the added tag, I was slightly more concerned about the "fact" that was introduced. But it was my understanding the cite next to Minogue's name was also being used for Tennant (it's a BBC news release which indicates they're filming together for this episode). Mark H Wilkinson 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Martha Jones
Just a minor point - I don't disagree with your edit but I do disagree that the Master has met most of the Doctor's female companions. So far as we know he never met any of the 1st or 2nd Doctor's companions, nor did he meet Liz Shaw, Leela, Romana, (not sure about Sarah Jane Smith - they were both in the Five Doctors but I'm not sure if they actually met), or Rose. Kelpin 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Test thread
This is a test. Please don't do anything with it, including reply. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Doctor42.jpg
"Your caption is better dramatically, but not descriptively"

This is your point of view. Is it possible we could have both pictures. The original sets the scene, but my addition highlights a crucial turning point in the episode that needs some illustration.--Brinstar 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why only one picture per page? Could you direct me to the Wikipedia policy page.--Brinstar 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For the revert to my talk page! delldot talk  21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, glad to help.--Rambutan (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Teen
I wasn't deleting information... I was merely replacing all of that lengthy code with. It's much neater, and now the Imperial Teen namespace won't be listed as a band template under the list of band templates. Please do not revert these edits, as I'm merely trying to clean up Wikipedia.

Xnux  the   Echidna  16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation
I'm afraid you've violated the 3RR again on Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who):, , ,.

Because this is your third 3RR violation on Doctor Who articles within a month, I have blocked for 72 hours. Please be aware that, should you violate the 3RR again on Doctor Who articles, I am going to have to block for a prolonged period of time, as repeat 3RR violations are a major problem. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it gaming - it's just that the "revert" sending me over the limit wasn't a revert.--Rambutan (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a very small revert, but it was a revert. Given your history with 3RR violations and Doctor Who articles, you should be being careful enough that you don't hit that line on any revert, large or small. Note that the 3RR states "This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. " Although, as always, I feel your edits were made in exceelent faith and were generally correct, you have many more edits withint he 24 hour period that, while not technically reverts, serve to remove, reword, and police the article. And you have, in that period, few attempts to discuss the changes you're making on talk - in fact, your only real talk page edit consists of trying to get someone else to make a revert for you because you've hit the 3RR. In other words, you're still trying to maintain your preferred version of the article through sheer mass of editing instead of through discussion and consensus-gathering.


 * The only mitigating factor here - and it's a very large mitigating factor - is that your preferred version of the article is unquestionably more in line with our content policies than any other offered version. But your methods are those of an edit warrior, and this can only mitigate so far. Phil Sandifer 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out several times, the term "edit war" implies - never mind the dictionary definition - me removing something, an IP replacing it, me removing it, the IP replacing it: a real battle. All I did was remove OR. I don't think that undoing another editor's mistake could count as a real, genuine revert, especially when ANI agreed.


 * It is sad that I am blocked for making good edits (not just good faith edits, but good ones), not least since I am very good at dealing with them - most of my reverts are made very quickly. They weren't controversial (sp?) and edit-warring in nature, and the spirit of the 3RR wasn't violated. I honestly cannot understand what I should have done when it was added. Should I have just left a talkpage note and left it? You say that I should be aware of the 3RR; I agree I should, but you don't have to block me, let me take my chances with other admins if I've been acting in "excellent faith". At least, reduce the block timer. --Rambutan (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NB: see Kelpin, Ral315.--Rambutan (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanatory note re: unblock
I was unblocked noon on Saturday by an admin I spoke to on IRC. This is where I indicated an intention to let articles remain a pile of rubbish in the hope that IPs will gradually stop adding drivel to them.--Rambutan (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, not quite. More like one small addition that may or may not be an improvement does not make an article a "pile of rubbish", and it's better to leave it for a few days rather than upset your fellow Wikipedians with aggressive editing.  Tsk, Rambutan.  Tsk.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was only being ironic! :-) Rambutan (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 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 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked
G'day Rambutan,

I have unblocked you &mdash; the idea is to reduce your block to "time served", as it were. I accept that you were acting in good faith and did not appreciate the harm caused by such aggressive editing. As discussed, I don't think the block was inappropriate; I'm just happy that you've come back as a kindler, gentler chap. Peace and WikiLove and all that ... happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy
[''Troll-like, drivelly, poorly-written, stupid, pig-headed discussion removed - see User talk:The Fashion Icon for more information! In my opinion, The Fashion Icon is one of the worst users that I've ever come across on Wikipedia, and must actually be one of the worst users there's ever been.'']

What Wikipedia is not
If you want to make that degree of change to an official policy, you ought to address it on the talk page first. The guideline on WP:TALK doesn't say that "Any irrelevant material on talkpages should be deleted, with an appropriate edit summary." It says that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." These are not equivalent statements — the former is an instruction, the latter is an option. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. Even if WP:TALK did say what you say it says, it is a guideline and guidelines are not policy and cannot be cited to justify a unilateral amendment to a policy. -- DS1953 talk  20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Salaskin
Yeah I realised that but I doubt if Phil Sandifer goes to my talk page much if ever so he's not likely to see it there. As for the unblock you're welcome, just sorry it didn't do any good. Kelpin 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gematria for fun and profit
Hello Rambutan. Irrelevant is a considered opinion, inherently POV. If 23/6/81 isn't relevant to the article, remove it. If it is, then so is the ice-cream joke. Do you really believe a website designed to mimic that of a UK ice-cream company would draw attention to this particular date for no reason at all? If so, go back to school and try to pass that GCSE, whether it's maths or literature you failed to understand. Otherwise, that's two three comment blankings today. Try number three and you'll be discussing the matter with an admin - whether someone else's comments are relevant being POV, I doubt you'll make a very good case for yourself with this attitude. Incidentally, most of the web monkeys I know are buggers for this sort of joke. It's gematria to you, it's social bonding to them. 23/6/81 being, of course, and entirely arbitrary date, the possibility of it actually being "true" rather than forced gematria is lessened considerably. If it is forced, it's been forced for a reason. It's clear there are some coincidences in an ongoing serial and associated media, but Who is known for it's humour and, particularly in the present form, the threading of apparently meaningless data which, if looked at in more detail, provides a... you know what? It's easier to just say nothing is in fiction without a reason. It may not be a good reason, or one you understand immediately (or ever, if you've had to sit through The Matrix trilogy or Pulp Fiction), but it's there because someone thought enough about it to put it there. So you don't like ice-cream... does that mean ice-cream isn't relevant? Does that mean a 99 joke isn't there, just because you don't get it? No. And if it's not relevant... who made you sole custodian of this page? The whole purpose of talking to other people in this fashion is to garner opinion and discuss any given matter. How dare you silence someone simply because you personally disagree with what they're saying? Can you cite me even one person who, after reading my comment, has said "you know, that's not relevant" ? No. Not even yourself, because you haven't the good graces to say so, join in the discussion, and end it in the normal way, as you had the previous comment, which was, I think, irrelevant. Yes, this particular talk page is cluttered and overlong and there is a lot of less-than-important commentary on it, but the acceptable answer to that is and has been for a very long time to archive the page, not to blank the most recent comments. In my opinion, your frankly rude behaviour aside, this whole problem stems from your initial failure to assume good faith. If I had produced a 200-line mathematical proof of 23/6/81 being the date on which the Antichrist was born, sure, gematria, whatever. But I didn't, and you don't seem to know the difference between fiction - where everything is made up for a reason, prima facie to entertain (which a joke does) - and interpretation - where the indisputably real yet wholly coincidental is forced into "proofs" of anything the interpreter happens to wish to prove.

I'm copying this to your talk page in case you've not watchlisted the message. Remember, you may remove any discussion from your own domain without comment, but elsewhere, well, I'd advise you to take more care in future. You're being very selective about applying those talk page rules. 172.143.209.80 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems your over-zealous and imbecilic attitude has reverted the page whilst I've been writing to you. That's three. It's going back, and for the record, I cannot be blocked since a new IP is 30 seconds away at any given point in time. Nor can my ISP be contacted about "abusive behaviour", before you start with that old chestnut - discussion isn't considered abuse. Kindly read the above and take heed, I'm off to find an admin to discuss the matter with, and for the record, you can also be blocked.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.209.80 (talk • contribs).


 * If this editor adds the comment again I'd be more than happy to remove it to save you going over the 3RR. Kelpin 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Banned users cannot edit Wikipedia. It is the correct thing to remove content that banned users have created. Blnguyen was doing this.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict with Ryulong, who explains the issue much better than I) Unless I'm missing something (quite likely generally, and even more likely when I'm commenting without having made even a cursory examination), the query requested that a revision containing some indecorous accusations be oversighted from Blnguyen's talk. Inasmuch as the ostensible reason for oversight was to protect Blnguyen from besmirchment (although Blnguyen suggests, apparently rightly, that the request was simply the undertaking of a banned user toward the end of subtly making his accusation more public; this would not have merited oversight in any event), it is almost surely fine for him to have removed it from AN/I (where oversight requests ought not, in any case, to be situated), especially in view of his having the oversight privilege (if he wanted the revision oversighted, that is, he could have removed it himself, notwithstanding our general disfavoring of one's using technical tools in the context of an issue with which he/she is previously involved).  This issue seems, I guess, to be entirely the making of a disruptive editor, but even were it not, I think Blnguyen would have been altogether justified to remove the AN/I post (although I surely appreciate that you were acting in good faith and with the best of intentions in restoring it). Cheers, Joe 06:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Per your repeated editwarring and editting on behalf of what is by all counts a banned user, I have blocked you for 3 hours.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Doctor Who tie-in websites. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Just for the record, mate!! Rambutan (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Are you sticking a 3RR warning on your own talk page? :/  Sala Skan  16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT
Hey Rambutan... my whole point is that the discussion you deleted were attempts to improve the page. Pleae don't use WP:NOT as a baseball bat. It's just a discussion page.--Dr who1975 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Find something more productive to do than pick at expired discussion threads. Archive the page if it bothers you so much. WP:TALK isn't a bat you can swing around at your leisure. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The part where you have no comprehension of "irrelevant". The second thread you deleted discusses the website's accessibility. You obviously aren't paying much attention when you're deleting things, and with your recent and frankly idiotic edit war on the ANI board, I'd think you'd want to pay more attention to what you're doing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, just to disrupt your mistaken belief that WP:TALK justifies you, you'll note that it's a guideline. You'll also note that WP:NOT is the policy. Lastly, you'll note that you were reverted for trying to justify yourself through that policy. Here's a piece of advice: pick on recent discussions, and do it sparingly. I happen to get away with doing the same because I edit cartoon articles, where incoherent praise threads are a dime a dozen, and even then I don't do it that often. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Rambutan, I realize the wording of the statement is very causual. But the substance is not. Specualtion based on sources can lead to substantive facts and thus improve the article. More importantly, the comemnt was so old by the time you got to it that it was really like changing an historic edit. You would have been better off archiving it. I wouldn't have said a word. Remeber, It's just a discussion page.
 * Speculation is allowed on talk pages. In fact, it's the first place people should go if they have somewhat specualtive information that they want to flesh out. While discussion should not degrade into the unrelated, trivial, or opionated (for instance, if I were to say I think the Mastee's favorite color is green and then encourage a whole discussion about it). By discouraging specualtion on the talk you are encouraging it on the article page.--Dr who1975 15:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Archangel Network
It's in the scene when Jack, Martha and the Doctor are in an abandoned warehouse, after Jack's accessed the file sent to Torchwood by Vivien Rook and the Doctor's worked out what the purpose of the network is, he also says: "Oh! Yes, that's how he hid himself from me, 'cause I should've sensed there was another Time Lord on Earth. I should've known way back... But the signal cancelled him out." It ties into the Doctor's claim in Dalek that he would be able to sense the existence of another of his race. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - though wasn't the Dalek thing satisfied by the fact that the Master wasn't a Time Lord?--Rambutan (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in but I think the point the Doctor makes is that he didn't sense the Master during The Runaway Bride, or Smith and Jones (to give 2 examples) when the Master was on Earth and was a timelord (as these events take place after Utopia from the Master's perspective). The Dalek story is set a few years in our future so who knows whether the Master is around then or not! Kelpin 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) That wouldn't explain how Simm's Master could be on Earth and not have the Doctor sense him in any of the stories which took place there between The Christmas Invasion and the season 3 finale. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The most obvious reason is that if the Doctor had known, and said so, it would have completely messed up the suspense. Whatever the in-universe reasoning for this might be doesn't really matter.  It isn't real, it's all made up. --Tony Sidaway 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I never knew that. You'll be telling us the Cybermen are just ordinary people in suits, next. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now now, let's not indulge in fantastic musings! --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MrClaxson
So what? He can't edit, and anyone who cares can check the page's history. I'm still not convinced that he is a sock puppet. The fact that I got blocked for being his sock puppet only reinforces my view that it may have been an error. Kelpin 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange (plot)
I see you placed a hoax tag on the Clockwork Orange article. When I created the article, I did put two sources (Hansard and Paul Foot are, or were, good mainstream sources). A quick google for Colin Wallace and/or Clockwork Orange will find plenty of references to it, not necessarily ones that pass WP:RS. For example, these   are just a few random google hits on the subject, but you'll find plenty more. Mainstream journalists like Martin Dillon (in his book 'The Dirty War') and David Mckittrick (in the Irish Times) have commented on the existence of the allegations in print (but I didn't have any handy citations from those two to hand when I wrote the article and still don't). What makes you think there's any possible hoax as to the existence of the allegations? Whether the allegations are true or not is a different matter. --Aim Here 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than play ping-pong with the user talk pages, I've replicated the discussion on Talk:Clockwork Orange (plot) and replied to your comment there. --Aim Here 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned
Hi, I've undone your deletion of other user comments until there is a consensus on this issue. There are 2 users that feel strongly that the comments should stay, so I think they should stay until more people argue for their removal or an Admin rules on this. Kelpin 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What you did appears to contradict the advice given here though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TALK#Editing_comments . May I suggest you try to be a little less aggressive with some of your comments, it will only get people's backs up. (For example telling me I may as well leave Wikipedia now).  Thanks.  Kelpin 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first comment you removed has no relevance to the Forum guidance you keep quoting though. That was discussing how much citation should be in the article - and that is exactly what a Talk Page should be for.  The 2nd comment I'm less inclined to defend but 2 other editors feel differently and you should discuss this with them rather than just unilaterally deleting the comment. Kelpin 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We will continue this discussion when you decide to be civil. Kelpin 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also suggest you remove this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voyage_of_the_Damned_%28Doctor_Who%29&curid=12025511&diff=146777832&oldid=146776578 before I report it. Kelpin 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't undo the removal of proposed deletion tags
Please don't do this. If a prod tag is removed it means that the editor in question doesn't agree with deletion. If you want to delete the article, take it to articles for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Block
I have blocked you for a week for gross disruption, including severe incivility and personal attacks, replacement of PROD tags that have been removed, misapplication of WP:FORUM, misuse of Twinkle to revert edits that were not vandalism as vandalism, and generally being totally unrepentant on the issues that have led you to being blocked before. Phil Sandifer 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Splendid. Will you write me a CV reference?--Rambutan (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, I am unconvinced that a three-comment village pump discussion really forms the basis of a blanket acceptance of removing talk page comments. Phil Sandifer 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you would be unconvinced, being biased. However, WP:TALK is fairly clear.--Rambutan (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. If editors say stupid things, so can I. After all, Tony Sidaway says "bollocks" about a lot of people's contribution to WP.--Rambutan (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock!
unblock|1=It's not disruptive to remove talkpage comments, as per this thread. I didn't abuse Twinkle, and would have manually reverted if it didn't exist. Even if I did abuse Twinkle, it's not a blockable offence, I don't think, particularly labelling poor-faith edits as vandalism just because a block-happy admin doesn't agree. I didn't make a personal attack.


 * This was a personal attack and so was this  Kelpin 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (an update) Ah well, I'm on holiday anyway, and I'm out of internet-range until Thursday week, after tomorrow. Pity your block can't really affect me.--Rambutan (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine then, but given your outburst on IRC, I don't believe you're as calm as you pretend you are. --Deskana (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dwrules
I never realized how much you cared about him. P.S. This is not vandalism.--67.62.103.180 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What is and is not vandalism
Please note that WP:VANDAL that vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Calling a good-faith edit, however misguided, vandalism has, in the past, been treated as a personal attack.

In light of this, your edits such as and  are problematic. Please be more careful in labeling things vandalism. Phil Sandifer 13:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS is certainly vandalism - it's the deliberate insertion of false information. It wasn't good faith. Plus: under what policy can mistakenly or otherwise calling "good" edits vandalism be disallowed (and when I say "good" I use the word in its very broadest sense).--Rambutan (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As it happens, that wasn't vandalism. When The News of the World broke the story of Minogue's appearance, they made the (incorrect) assertion she'd be a Cyberwoman.  So it was true to say at least one tabloid newspaper had made the assertion, which was then taken up by a number of other news sources.


 * (At the time, I almost mentioned something to you about it, but I didn't think the article especially needed more about what the papers got wrong.) --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I made a mistake by not checking every tabloid newspaper's archives for mentions of Kylie Minogue in the same sentence as the word Cyberwoman! :-) Rambutan (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)