Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 27 September 2010

TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer.

Archives

Index • edit List of archives by month December 2006 to March 2007 March 2007 to early May 2007 Early May 2007 to mid-June 2007 End of June 2007 All archives beyond this point are done automatically by bot. Any threads that are five days old will be archived to the appropriate one of the following exciting subpages, for your enjoyment: July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 Threads only need be two days old from this point on to be archived. November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March (and end of Feb.) 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 + the end of May July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May and the end of April 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011

Just to fix the formatting...

Picture of the day Roadside hawk Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Going against consensus

Apparently, you still have a hard time abiding by consensus. Please do not try to force the issue in this way. I suggest you revert yourself before anyone else does. Keeping up this edit war will end up in a 3RR report. — Edokter • Talk • 13:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because one revert is really a violation of the 3RR. please do not edit my talkpage again. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Unblock

{{]}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): unblocked per agreement to cease edit warring and take it to RFC Request handled by: SarekOfVulcan (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

• Regarding your (twice) reverting of modifying the section header change: it was not a six-minute block. It was a 24-hour block that was commuted within six minutes. So the section header is misleading. Would it be a good time to point out the irony of initiating a thread disputing a block for edit-warring and then edit-warring with an uninvolved admin enforcing talk page guidelines on the same section? –xeno 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I did not revert the header twice. I reverted it once and produced an entirely original header the second time, using more elements from your preferred version than from mine. Irony noted and I am giggling away like a jackal, though :) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Ok, so amended. Nevertheless, it was still not a "six minute" block. –xeno 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I should probably let you know in advance that I am massively disinterested in a long semantic quibble about the terminology of blocks, but it is my position that since I was blocked for a period of six minutes, it was a six-minute block. You are, of course, welcome to place any alternative interpretation on the situation that you wish, but attempting to impose it on everyone via editing someone else's section-header seems somewhat inappropriate to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  We'll agree to disagree on the semantics. But as far as ownership of section headers, see WP:TPG#Section headings. –xeno 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I know what that says. I linked to that page just a couple of minutes ago, in fact! However, my point was not that you had no right to be modifying the section-heading at all; it was that you had no business to be modifying it to satisfy your semantic interpretation of things above mine: who's to say that yours is any better? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  The heading I chose was the least ambiguous and most neutral. And as a neutral party, of course I had the right to change it... When I modified the section heading, I used the {{formerly}} template to ensure that no meaning was lost (as your section header formed part of your message). Anyhow, I've left your compromise version and registered my (admittedly pedantic) objection to the current title. –xeno 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  And as a neutral party, of course I had the right to change it... – er, no, but I can't really be bothered to argue about it any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunate, because I'd be interested to to hear why you feel that an involved party (who was probably somewhat heated coming off a block they felt was 'taking the piss') is better suited to prepare a neutral section heading as opposed to a neutral party with no dog in the hunt. –xeno 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)