User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Pigsonthewing Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:03, 17 August 2005 editPigsonthewing (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,365 edits →Euston station ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:10, 17 August 2005 edit undoLeonig Mig (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,527 edits →Sort this out.Next edit →
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 141:		Line 141:
	After reading some stuff about how other users feel about you frequently and stubbornly removing peoples' additions, I think you should focus some energy on making additions instead of being some kind of pseudo-wikicop. The stuff you are doing doesn't seem to be helping in any significant way. ] 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)		After reading some stuff about how other users feel about you frequently and stubbornly removing peoples' additions, I think you should focus some energy on making additions instead of being some kind of pseudo-wikicop. The stuff you are doing doesn't seem to be helping in any significant way. ] 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
	:I think you don't now what you're talking about. ] 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)		:I think you don't now what you're talking about. ] 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Sort this out.==

			The abuse you cite on your user page was wrong on my behalf but was illicited in response to your behaviour towards me. You edited every single article I had written over a period of two months systematically in a period of 24 hours after repeated requests for moderation. That made me so angry you would not beleive. I felt violated, hurt, abused. I was so sad that someone could be so cruel, not disbeliving, but disappointed it could happen to me. All that was needed was a few explanatory and concilartory words (I received these eventually from RayGirvan) but all I got from you was frankly, pith and vitroil and silence.

			Since then, every time I make an edit on an article you either revert or alter it within a few hours. You have now been stalking me for three months. Anyone can verify this from the history pages. In an attempt to make you realise the sort of emotional pressure your odd behaviour was putting on me I replicated the same behavoir towards yourself, and you didn't like it either. Immediately you created alerts about me, with your greater knowledge and experience of the wikipedia, and therefore I was soon offered reprimands and moderation from other users.

			This second episode is conclusive evidence that your emotions did not sit well on the recieving end of the kind of treatment you had given to me. As my next action I chose simply to disist, which I did, and made clear that I did not wish anything further to do with you on the wikipedia. Now a month later I come back and contribute, with the expectation that everything is dead an buried, and immediately (monday morning to sunday night's edit) you have continued the same behavoir towards me which began this whole problem- wholesale rewriting my contributions in a systematic fashion (i.e. without fail and within hours of submitting). All I can say is please consider not stalking me, that would solve the entire problem here. ] 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:10, 17 August 2005

Why do you follow me to every article I create and put notices at the top of the page

Dear Andy,

I realise you are trying to improve wikipedia but please explain why have you done this to so many of my articles, the time it takes you to add the notice you could have cleaned up the article yourself. This is what I refer to when I say that you are the only person following me like this, it is obsessive, and believe me these are just a few examples:

Nick Boulevard 12:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't. HTH. Cease making personal atttacks. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I just credited you by assuming that you were editing for the good of wikipedia, however you have interestingly chosen to pick up on the negative aspect of my post, taken from wikipedia itself, (my reason for believing your behaviour obessive with relation to edits pertaining to me)

Obsessions are thoughts and ideas that the sufferer cannot stop thinking about. Common OCD obsessions include fears of acquiring disease, getting hurt or causing harm to someone. Obsessions are typically automatic, frequent, distressing, and difficult to control or put an end to by themselves. A sufferer will almost always obsess over something which he or she is most afraid of. People with OCD who obsess over hurting themselves or others are actually less likely to do so than the average

Of course, I am not suggesting for one minute that you have OCD but surely Andy, if you are to step back for a moment, regardless of your reasons, you must admit that you have followed me around wikipedia ever since I arrived... if you had any honour and integrity about you then you would admit the truth. Thank you Nick Boulevard 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Abuse noted. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett,

please explain why have you deleted/censored this comment from the discussion.

You have accused me of trying to mislead people by claiming my comments towards you to be "fallacious", well I find your accusation of my comments being "fallacious" and your removal of my comment to be fallacious.

By removing my comments here (which anyone can see are not abusive) are you to suggest that my opinion is of no worth in relation to your allegations. Would you prefer it if I were to not exist in Misplaced Pages? Nick Boulevard 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Andy,

I am interested to learn that you have also been guilty of copyright violation on wikipedia.

Taken from here

07:44, 16 Jul 2004 Guanaco deleted "India pale ale" (content was: '{(copvyio|url=<http://realbeer.com/hops/renegade.html>}}Andy Mabbett 23:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)')

we all make mistakes Andy Nick Boulevard 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If that was my edit, then once is a mistake; your copyright abuse was delibearte and repeated. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

mmm, Andy, my copyright abuse was probably as deliberate as yours I would suspect, how do I know that you haven't made other copyright violations maybe even under different IP address, although I am not accusing you of being another user there are similarities between you and other IP addresses which I am keeping to myself for now. I have never been blocked from wikipedia, infact I have never been discussed on the net in a negative way before, PRIOR to wikipedia have you? I notice that you have been blocked twice for ignoring warnings from responsible wikipedians, once I can understand but to have this happen twice highlights a fault somewhere do you think? Nick Boulevard 23:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

hey bro, what gives?

Why are my edits bein reverted? Half these cats I know personally.

Perhaps a candidate for WP:NOOB is what gives. ;-) hydnjo talk 03:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fragments

I know you like editing my work but by deleting half sentences you create fragments which are not proper sentances of the english language. Please don't make edits like this which add nothing but introduce poor grammar. Also I notice you are working through all the work I did yesterday, please do nothing to inflame an already problematic situation. Thanks. Leonig Mig 08:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please provide more detail about edits than simply "rv". "rv" is an abbreviation for "revert" which in turn is the most aggressive action availible to a non-admin wikipedian. A revert is not simply a trivial thing, but requires explanation, in order to maintain good faith. Please provide such an explantion for , there is every chance I will assume good faith and accept, however I require an explantion. Leonig Mig 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think you have improved this article? . You must know that this kind of editing (removing facts and calling them irrelevant, and rewriting stuff) does not sit well with me. It does not seem as if you are acting in good faith. I am going to revert this edit although on balance I agree with your other edits this morning. Leonig Mig 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that your prefered style of writing is a simple list of facts, however that does not mean you can go through the plain English prose I contribute to this project deleting any sentance which does not meet this criteria and then citing the justification "plain english". Also I do not see the necessity to remove the facts which you have removed; the fact that Targebigge was granted to the Abbey by Queen Maud is relevent to the history of Tardebigge. Finally, I requested you to comment here on your views which you have not done and which I will expect you to do before making anymore edits to that page otherwise I must conclude that you have assumed back faith and are being uncivil, and that all you really want is a revert war. Leonig Mig 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you are familiar with the newpages section: . In all seriousness your brand of wiki-use might be useful on that page, where the wheat is completely dominated by chaff. Leonig Mig 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You should revert yourself here: . In fact name is quite correct (domain name system). An address or URL is composed of a protocol (i.e http://) a name (i.e. www.wikipedia.com) and then a resource locator on the server (i.e. /index.html or /article.php?etc). All that the DNS server resolves is the name, not the whole address. Leonig Mig 10:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I can say nothing more about your argument here apart from that you are wrong. I do not intend arguing about it, however I would request you cease introducing factual inaccuracies into the wikipedia. DNS is protocol agnostic, whereas you cannot specify an address without one. Your arguement is false. Leonig Mig 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please resist removing discussion on my user page again

Stop it please.

I only read the remark from another user by chance, I happened to look at the edit history of my discussion page and you are now trying to control things there, you have no right to do this.

Andy, you are taking up my valuble edit time here, I am now thinking about billing you for this. My tariff is as follows:

1 x Andy Mabbett rvt = £5
1 x Andy Mabbett removal of notice at top of page = £2.50
1 x Andy Mabbett illegal parking fine on my RFC discussion = £0.50

All services are subject to VAT. Nick Boulevard 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop it please.: No. Andy Mabbett 13:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. I will ask you again, please stop reverting my talk page, I am perfectly capable of policing my own discussion page. Andy and if you are going through some difficulties please do not take out your aggression here, you can email me if you would like to talk, please don't write anything nasty though. Thanks Nick Boulevard 22:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. No, it is not. See here; a Misplaced Pages policy to which I have already referred you. Andy Mabbett 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that a comment towards you is offensive on my talk page then please approach me before attempting to hide it from the discussion, otherwise, by your deleting of other peoples comment/abuse I will not get the full picture of the discussion on my own talk page, should I discover that you continue to remove comments I could assume that you are guiding the conversation for your own means, one more thing Andy, Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks is actually being disputed, probably because of misuse I wouldn't doubt. Nick Boulevard 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No. See here; a Misplaced Pages policy to which I have already referred you. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks

Hey there, I noticed you removed a couple of comments of which you believe are personal attacks, one of which had a very uncalm edit summary (in capitals). I really think you should be very careful about wholesale-removing other peoples comments and it's likely to inflame situations rather than calm things down. My suggestion is for you to leave the comments which you believe to be attacks in place, and if they really are personal attacks, someone else will be willing to intervene to sort it out, otherwise it could lead to making things worse. Regards, Joolz 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read this. Andy Mabbett 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Which states "though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial" and also links to a disputed guideline. Nevertheless I really suggest you reconsider. -- Joolz 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The line you cite refers to banning. Though I look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. Andy Mabbett 14:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, that does refer to banning, but it also applies to removing attacks, which is controversial, and as I've just said, a disputed guideline and not a policy. -- Joolz 15:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it refers to banning alone. Count the full stops. Andy Mabbett 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I said it what it said is also true of the removal of personal attacks, not that it refers to both in that instance. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say about removing personal attacks, it is controversial and it will only inflame matters, not calm them down, so I again appeal to you to rethink. Regards, Joolz 15:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I again look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I blocked you earlier, because I believed you had violated the 3RR. I realised I had made a mistake and soon unblocked you again. My apologies. G-Man 21:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Then why am I still blocked? Andy Mabbett 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I checked for you and could find only that #31470 was blocked and that due to expire here shortly if not already - Marshman 17:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Still blocked, from this machine. Andy Mabbett 20:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Stalker

This edit may indicate that you have been brooding on this for the last 4-6 weeks. I cannot tell whether Leonig's failure to take your request seriously 42 days ago, or his suggestion (which he subsequently claimed to be in jest) 28 days ago that he was stalking you might have affected your behaviour here but I do feel that you should have mentioned your annoyance/distress/concern/other response earlier. I wish that I understood you better and that I could help you to feel more comfortable here. —Theo (Talk) 22:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Euston station

In response to your request on my page. I would have linked it if I could, but the motco.com maps are only available as pop-ups, which don't have urls. You can find the 1862 map here Click on "Overview maps" and then click over Euston twice to get to the detailed level. Rather confusingly the large scale map then appears in first window. Bhoeble 00:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when people try to break the web like that? Fortunately, Firefox allows one to work round such silyness. Here's the individual map. You can use the "North, South, East, West" links to move around the whole thing. Andy Mabbett 07:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Why remove my trivia item that Black Sabbath is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, stating that Misplaced Pages archives stuff that happens, not what doesn't happen, but not remove the only other trivia item that says that they have never had a US Top 40 hit. These two pieces of info are in the same vein, and is why I included it. This makes no sense to me at all. It also seems that your "stuff that happens" comment is a personal rule that you made up; or maybe you're just too lazy to remove the whole section rather than revert. Static3d 00:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.. Andy Mabbett 07:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading some stuff about how other users feel about you frequently and stubbornly removing peoples' additions, I think you should focus some energy on making additions instead of being some kind of pseudo-wikicop. The stuff you are doing doesn't seem to be helping in any significant way. Static3d 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you don't now what you're talking about. Andy Mabbett 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sort this out.

The abuse you cite on your user page was wrong on my behalf but was illicited in response to your behaviour towards me. You edited every single article I had written over a period of two months systematically in a period of 24 hours after repeated requests for moderation. That made me so angry you would not beleive. I felt violated, hurt, abused. I was so sad that someone could be so cruel, not disbeliving, but disappointed it could happen to me. All that was needed was a few explanatory and concilartory words (I received these eventually from RayGirvan) but all I got from you was frankly, pith and vitroil and silence.

Since then, every time I make an edit on an article you either revert or alter it within a few hours. You have now been stalking me for three months. Anyone can verify this from the history pages. In an attempt to make you realise the sort of emotional pressure your odd behaviour was putting on me I replicated the same behavoir towards yourself, and you didn't like it either. Immediately you created alerts about me, with your greater knowledge and experience of the wikipedia, and therefore I was soon offered reprimands and moderation from other users.

This second episode is conclusive evidence that your emotions did not sit well on the recieving end of the kind of treatment you had given to me. As my next action I chose simply to disist, which I did, and made clear that I did not wish anything further to do with you on the wikipedia. Now a month later I come back and contribute, with the expectation that everything is dead an buried, and immediately (monday morning to sunday night's edit) you have continued the same behavoir towards me which began this whole problem- wholesale rewriting my contributions in a systematic fashion (i.e. without fail and within hours of submitting). All I can say is please consider not stalking me, that would solve the entire problem here. Leonig Mig 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)