User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 15

Hi, I see you created a new template and used it in Animals (album). Can you tell me something about what it's for? I had a hard time finding the template, as it doesn't seem to come up in a search, and when I did find it, I saw the instructions page has no information on what it's for or what it does. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the display of in-line common and scientific names of living things, and emits the (draft) "species" microformat. I'll update the template documentation to clarify that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words just display like they did before, and are not highlighted, nor are they links, so the changes do not appear to provide more information or resources to people reading the page. As for screen scraping, is it likely that someone will want to go out and search for every page on the WWW that mentions "sheep"? I guess the point is to cut down on the need to do that, by highlighting pages that are really about sheep, rather than just containing the word. That being the case... Since the article says nothing science-related about these animals as real-life species (it's about a record album, and the "animals" are poetic representations of human traits), what is the purpose of choosing this article to use this template? Are you intending to use it on every occurrence of any animal name in all Wikipedia articles, regardless of the context? And if so, doesn't that defeat its point? I'm not asking these questions to complain; I just have no idea what the intended purpose is, and if I can understand it, I might put a note about it on the article's talk page for the benefit of anyone else who is wondering. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"::The words just display like they did before" - They do so if the same formatting was used; in other cases, the template introduces the standard formatting for biological nomenclature. The purpose of using it on that particular article was by way of a demonstration and no, I'm not "intending to use it on every occurrence of any animal name in all Wikipedia articles, regardless of the context". Have a look at its use on Peregrine falcon. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, although you were "not asking to complain", you have reverted the edit concerned. The more general comments you make on the article's talk page, about the template's usefulness, are based on a misapprehension, and I will reply there when I am able. I thought I had addressed you concerns fully, and regret not only that you do not think I did, but that you acted without asking for further clarification. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside my questioning the template's usage on WP at all, and just looking at my question of why it was used on this particular article, your reply was that it was a "demonstration", and did not address the issues I raised on why this is not an appropriate article for it. I would suggest that to demonstrate it, you create a personal sandbox page and copy the article, to show how it could be used. But I would also recommend you choose a better, more science-related article, where the intent of the template is clearer. As for your "regrets" that I "acted" (reverted), this is starting to get absurd. Before reverting the change, I tried to find out what the template is about, struggling with its documentation page which gave no clue, then posted a question about it on this page, got your reply that it's a demonstration, which seems to confirm that it shouldn't be in the live article, reverted with a proper edit summary, and then posted a lengthly explanation on the article's talk page. Your average WP revert of controversial, not-to-standard experiments doesn't get a tiny fraction of this amount of attention. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is intended for use on any article, scientific or not, which refers to a type of animal or plant. When I said that it was used on Animals as a demonstration, I meant that's why it was used there fist; it's use is quite legitimate, an the template is ready and fit for deployment in article space, having first been tested in my sandbox, as you suggest. When used on articles, it has no detrimental effect whatsoever on readers who are not using microformat-detecting software. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biota has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been pointed out to me that you are currently unable to respond, so I have withdrawn the nomination for now. I will nominate it once this is dealt with. Hesperian 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I oppose the deletion, and have replied by e-mail in the interim. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're back, so its back. Hesperian 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been slowly catching up on the Template:Biota talk(s), and was noodling around with a similar template (see User:Steveprutz/Sandbox). Maybe take a look and perhaps we can trade ideas, etc. StevePrutz (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If there is consensus that multiple common names should be displayed (which is what I understand to be the aim of your template), then the two templates can perhaps be merged, and I'll be happy to work with you on seeing how that might be possible, and if so, making it happen. Having said that I believe there has previously been opposition to including multiple vernacular names in {{taxobox}}, so it really would be wise for you to obtain consensus for your proposal first (for the record I'm ambivalent on the matter).

If you would like to have a more general chat about the 'Species' microformat, please drop me an -mail off-wiki.

Please also see discussion (Biota_template, TfD nomination of Template:Biota) and my notes about {{tl|biota}], above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. My understanding is that devices such as readers can be set to indicate and/or emphasize formatting such as italics and bold both visually and/or orally. Using italics on template pages to indicate placeholders, parameter types, optional parameters, etc, etc seems to be a standard on Wikipedia -- presumably to reduce the potential for clutter and/or maintain templates' formatting -- but as {{Infobox Bilateral relations}} is pretty straightforward, I guess a dagger-sign is as good as anything else. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

An edit summary such as this:

Revision as of 23:07, 15 September 2008 (edit) (undo) Pigsonthewing (Talk | contribs) (again restore template for weasil-words)

using terms such as "weasel words," clearly fits the definition of "pejorative," and certainly does NOT "assume good faith."

And aside from misspelling "weasel," you did not at all make it clear what the issue is here.Ryoung122 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, a discussion of "Weasel words" below:

Weasel words help to obscure the meaning of biased expressions and are therefore dishonest. For example, an editor might preface the statement "Montreal is the best city in the world" with a disclaimer: "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world". This is true: some people do say that Montreal is the best city in the world. The problem is that the reverse is true as well (some people say Montreal is not the best city in the world, and some go further and say that it is the worst), and thus it is easy to mislead the reader and to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda, which is contrary to the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia (see WP:V and WP:NPOV).

Yet I am not claiming that "some say extreme longevity tracking is an important field." Rather, it's the other way around: I'm saying that "some don't believe this field to be all that important." That hardly constitutes propaganda. Also, it might be COI for me to add a section about myself, but to add sections about long-dead people that I have no personal association with does not violate COI. In fact I've been asked by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation to expand this article. If you could approach this issue with a little more spirit of "working together" it would be helpful for everyone.Ryoung122 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong on a number of counts. I was about to copy & paste the parts of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words which show that it applies to the statement in question, but it would have involved most of the page, so I suggest that you read it at its source, instead. My meaning should then be clear to you. If you disagree, please feel free to call for a 3rd opinion.

As to being pejorative and not assuming good faith, you will notice that I commented on what you wrote, not why you may have written it or who you are.

As to commenting on my spelling... Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we will soon be supporting Unicode minus for number display, as opposed to the traditional ASCII HYPHEN-MINUS character.

While I can see the advantage from a typographic viewpoint, most software is still Unicode-unaware, and using Unicode minus signs will break all sorts of tools that only understand HYPHEN-MINUS when parsing numbers, including dump-parser code used for geodata maintenance. If we're not careful, we will end up propagating bad data through the system, as regexes and number-parsing routines fail and negative numbers are either ignored, or worse, turn into positive numbers.

Once we see Unicode minus in displayed numbers, it will increasingly leak into the content of templates themselves, possibly breaking other tools, and generating invalid microformat data, unless those data formats, and all the tools that consume them, are already Unicode-aware.

I believe you have contacts at Google. Could you warn them about this forthcoming changes? -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; though I shan't be able to do so for about 10 hours from now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many more than ten hours later: Done. Sorry for the delay, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: they have replied, saying Our parsing does not currently handle the unicode minus, so we'll need to make some changes to deal with this change and that they will inform me of progress. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing my signed comments. -- User:Docu (signature added per [1]: Docu (talk · contribs))

I changed only the heading, which was both outdated and otherwise misleading, and dabbed a link to ensure that it would work. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring it up for discussion, possibly I might agree with you, but in the meantime, please restore the initial headers. -- User:Docu (signature added per [2]: Docu (talk · contribs))

I see no point. The headers are not yours to own, they are for the benefit of other readers. Please sign your posts correctly, with links to your user and/ or talk page; especially (but not only) on this page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert you then. -- User:Docu

As you did here? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you removed the references in the "Bibliography" section of For Darwen Party with the comment "not a bibliography; links superflous per policy". Can you please identify which policy you are referring to? If your problem is solely with the section title then deleting the references along with it is not really appropriate. The section could have been combined with the references section as it was previously, or separated into "Notes" and "References" sections instead. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL & WP:NOT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Was there a particular element of the WP:EL guideline and WP:NOT policy that was breached? Taking a quick look through the deleted references, some of them may be salvageable for in-line citations (though I notice that at least one is already used as a citation). Road Wizard (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was more the general spirit of those polices. If, for example, a link is used as a citation, it needn't be included in a spurious bibliography. And there were far too many links for such a short article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. I will take a look at the article again when I have time later this week to see if any of them are worth salvaging. Road Wizard (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Richard Wright (musician)

You're right to cite the book, but your personal knowledge, like mine, is original research and discountable. Do I know you from uk.legal? Regards, --Rodhullandemu 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove anything I have added from personal knowledge only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- just a quick note because I'm confused about your edit summary. First, I didn't actually "revert" anything; I made a correction to an error I correct so often (and think of as so minor) I sometimes forget where I last applied it. I think your point was that I'd already made the correction there and you'd actually reverted it? And your perception was that I came back and changed it again? Is that right?

Briefly: I can't remember the exact phrasing, but I always correct "their" (or "them") when it's used (incorrectly) as a singular possessive (e.g., "When a student forgets their lunch, try and remind them."). I think you changed my edit back (right?), and your edit summary advised me to look here, which I did, because even though I've been copy-editing outside of WP for years, it's true that sometimes WP doesn't follow ChiMan or AP and has odd little consensus-based rules that surprise me all the time. However, from that article:

The Chicago Manual of Style notes: "On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun ('he' in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using 'he/she' or 's/he.' for example) or to use 'they' as a kind of singular pronoun.

This sort of seems to support my edit than otherwise (especially since I hate the "h/she" too, and try to avoid, as often as possible, using "he/she," if I can reformat the syntax), so I thought I'd ask you what you meant, just so I understand what you're trying to tell me. Thanks! Sugarbat (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to discuss it.

1. Your first change at 16:32, 18 September 2008
2. I change back (i.e. I "revert" you) at 17:56, 18 September 2008
3. you revert me at 01:10, 19 September 2008

In quoting selectively from singular they, you've ignored the evidence of widespread and long-standing use (Shakespeare!). Singular "they" (and "their") is widespread on Wikipedia; your "I hate it" is (by analogy with WP:ILIKE) not a good reason to remove it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I'd just like to draw your attention to this comment in case you've not seen it. Regards. Adambro (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had missed it, but have now replied there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, can you check that I've haven't screwed up the microformat on {{Infobox NI station}} (a template which I have just created)? Also, there's something the code "type:railwaystation_region:GB_scale:10000": I'm not sure what it does, but the "GB" part suggests it may not be entirely relevant to Northern Ireland. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've added a couple of additional properties. "GB" is the correct ISO690 code for "the UK of GB & NI". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Please use {{Start date}} for the first given date. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it, and for telling me about {{start date}}. Incidentally, I removed the "nickname" class, as the "othername=" field is meant for names in other languages, rather than nicknames. --RFBailey (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; there being no property in hCard for "translated name" or "alternative name", "nickname" is used correctly for such, so I'll re-add it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although it does sound a bit odd! --RFBailey (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also updated the code in {{Infobox Ireland station}} to match that in the NI template; can I ask the same question again? (I guessed "IE" for the country code.....) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] is blatant trolling. Drop it, please, or you are very very likely to end up blocked. If you are not capable of discerning that you are skating on thin ice right now then you are far less astute than I give you credit for. The time to pull back from the edge is about now. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utter poppycock. I've even been thanked by Docu, the user I was addressing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for communicating with Google.

I've now made a list of 267 {{coor title *}} geotags that fail to pass the some of the simple regexp-based checks I'm using to qualify tags for auto-conversion to {{coord}} format. These are generated from a two-month-old dump, so some of these may have already be fixed or removed, but most of them are still waiting to be fixed. A lot of these use name=, display=, or other named parameters, and I'm not yet clear what these do to {{coord}}. -- The Anome (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted a couple, and they work OK (in that they display properly and the map links work (they are no more broken then before the conversion; if they had a "72 seconds" value before conversion, then they will have afterwards). As for the named parameters you list, they apply only to {{coord}}, and are ignored in the older, deprecated templates. I think it's best to convert them; but I shan't be offended if you want a second opinion. Those with a "page=[URL]" parameter appear to have been fixed already. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on this yesterday, but my regexes are crashing the machine... Rich Farmbrough, 23:56 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Ouch! Thanks for helping. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wright sailed his yacht around the Virgin Islands. For all we know, he may have crossed from UK to US VIs daily; and it may have been registered at Lowestoft. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My humblest apologies for engaging in a silly edit war over this. Wright's article has been updated 50 times a day this week, so I haven't been able to follow who added what. The edit looked like half a factoid (and unsourced, too), so I thought I'd try to force the editor to recheck and quote his source. Didn't mean to get into a fight with a fellow regular. I shall now punish myself by eating plain oatmeal cookies without any chocolate chips or candy sprinkles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good humour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from refactoring my comments. -- User:Docu (signature added per [4]: Docu (talk · contribs))

It's OK; EncMstr has kindly refactored it for us. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the fix. In future i will use the correct template. Thanks for notification. Greetings diba (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, the episodes are all updated with the production details template. What happened with your bot, did it get approved? --Deadly∀ssassin 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. It's not my bot, but my bot-request. Rich Farmbrough is working on it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have lifted a promotion blurb from an Amazon .com advertisement of MY OWN BOOK COPYWRITED BY ME,WRITTEN BY ME AND ACCURATELY SOURCED IN THE WALKER COLT ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have alleged a copyright violation where none exists and have managed to take the article offline. I also note that you have researched my contributions and made other deletions of debatable merit. I apparently blunderd into an area that offended your sensibilities. Whatever this might have been, I had no prior knowlege of you and no motivation to attack your core values--Mcumpston (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you (re-)read the boilerplate text I added to your talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are clearly more proficient with wiki mark up than me. You have added more to the code that I just added to the above template but the rest of the template you have left as it was, even though to me the code lookss the same. Does it all need doing and what does the code you added actually do ? Thanks Waterden (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template already emitted an hCard microformat. I added mark-up to the fields you had just added, so that they are included within that, as "agents" of the subject. There is no hCard property for the remaining data in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Awarded to User:Pigsonthewing for the very sensible idea at Template_talk:Convert#Overuse_of_this_template to use a CSS class to enable hiding of backward units of measurement. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blush* Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't make sense when I first read it, does now. Sorry again. Fintan264 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help ! Please explain why you think this page is written like an advert. It is not. It is a page that describes a computer application that is no longer available. What needs to be done to stop you modifying this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.180.116 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for [5] and [6]. This is blatant trolling, of precisely the kind I believe you undertook to stop. What part of "leave Docu alone" were you having trouble understanding? If anybody is going to refactor his comments or timestamp his signatures, then it is not you, due to the long-running dispute between the two of you. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never undertaken to stop blatant trolling; because I have never undertaken any blatant trolling. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:SIG#Docu's_unlinked, undated signature there is no support for your assertion that his sig is unacceptable per policy, and even if it was, you should not be changing it. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great deal of support for that view, not least in the ignored and blanked messages on Docu (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I also note that Docu only http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=241319561&oldid=241197503 complained to you] about my five-day-old edit after I asked for comment on his apparent WP:POINT edits, today.

No, there's acceptance that it would be better if it were linked and timestamped (and I completely agree with that), but not for the idea that failure to do so contravenes policy and absolutely no consensus for you running around changing it just to piss him off. Oh, and per your third unblock request below? [7]. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're ascribing motives to me, falsely. Please desist. Your block says you have blocked me for refactoruing a TfD comment. I had good reason to do so. Docu had previously thanked me for refactoring another of his comments. No-one had warned me not to do so; your cited comment included. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pigsonthewing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The user who has blocked me has twice recently made false accusations of trolling (see above) and "being a dick" against me (on WP:ANI, for following published guidelines when raising a valid Copyvio report). The refactoring for which I am blocked (and which was five days ago) was, after a reversion, refactored by another editor, who has not been blocked.

Decline reason:

I'm not sure that I would call it trolling, but it is certainly disruptive; you should not be altering other editors' comments without a very good reason, and you were previously warned not to do so [8]. I see no indication that Docu wanted or requested you to alter his posts. -— ChrisO (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pigsonthewing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did have a very good reason; and did so in accordance with consensus on WP:SIG. Where was I previously warned not to do so? Please also note [9] for another editor's view; and that I was earlier previously thanked by Docu] for refactoring another of his comments.

Decline reason:

I see no such consensus. WP:SIG tells editors what they should do, but does not give any sort of permissions for other editors to "fix" signatures left by others. Given that you had specifically told to desist and chose not to, the block is good. — Coren ^(talk) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pigsonthewing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock or cite a diff me being "specifically told to desist".

Decline reason:

[10]. You are clearly able to understand requests not to continue with disruptive behaviour, yet you refuse to do so. I have also protected your talkpage for 24 hours — Black Kite 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I note that you failed to provide the requested diff. I have raised the matter of your and others' inappropriate behaviour in this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Andy Mabbett; though I appreciate that, in part, you were misled by another admin. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad to help. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]