User talk:Þjóðólfr

Individuals banned from the United Kingdom

Thanks mate I was having trouble with these (Arabic?) namesAndrewjlockley (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I know how difficult names can be! Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contentboard message

Hello, Þjóðólfr. I'm letting you know that I removed your message from the content noticeboard, as the content notice board is for dealing with content issues, not behavourial issues. I would suggest going to WP:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to dealing with issues of stalking and edit wars. If you have any questions about them, please ask me here, I'll watch the page for a few days. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many of these do I have to put up with? Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you have to put up with people reverting your undiscussed attempts to remove British Isles from Wikipedia? For as long as you carry on doing this without gaining consensus first. Your 3RR at [1] is enough to get you blocked, BTW. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Þjóðólfr provided a reference for his statement that the trees are native to Ireland as well. Why isn't this good enough? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help request, moved from Talk:Nordenfelt v Maxim, Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co

{{help}} Is it actually possible to strike out in blue (as in Blue pencil doctrine)? Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think WP:Reference Desk is what you are looking for (or did I misunderstand your question?).~~ BTW, please do not leave {{helpme}} requests on the article talk page; use the user talk page. Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please use the {{helpme}} template in your user talk space, rather than on article talk pages. Thank you. Intelligentsium 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC) And yes, it is possible to strikeout in blue ~~Like so~~. --Intelligentsium 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict x 2)

Do you mean like this?

~~The quick brown fox~~

That is, {{fontcolor|blue|<s>The quick brown fox</s>}}.

If that's not what you're after, please use another helpme. Chzz ► 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you want the font to be black and the line to be blue? Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is this what you want? ~~aaa~~

It is {{fontcolor|blue|<s>{{fontcolor|black|aaa}}</s>}}. Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd write a template to simplify that; template:Blue pencil

Example: {{blue pencil|This is a test.}}

Result: This is a test.

Chzz ► 01:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery editor at British Isles discussion

Would his/her 'latest' account, happen to have #43 within it? GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I deleted your response at my Userpage, 'cause I didn't know how to transfer it to my User talkpage. Please, feel free to re-add it (at my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currency Convertor

{{help}} I am sure I have seen a template to convert £3,000 (in 1909) into the equivalent for today. Can someone point me in the right direction? Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would {{Inflation}} do the trick? Skomorokh, barbarian 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful!! Thank you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That was an interesting question at my RfA, I liked the slightly left-field ones. Thanks for the support too. Fences&Windows 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Weavers

No worries. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on BI articles

I shouldn't need to do this, but this is a reminder for everyone to use the Specific Examples page for discussion on the use of British Isles nomenclature. I do not want to have to intervene by using admin tools, but there have been a number of issues of disruptive editing revently. I am sending this message to all users involved in this issue, so do not assume that I am accusing you of such behaviour. Thanks, Black Kite 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for persistent edit-warring on BI articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 19:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I discarded the revert of the sock, and I am quite aware that you are reverting against multiple other editors, but you should have stopped at one revert. Black Kite 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear to everyone

I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for

Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI

I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yr edits to Russ Nelson

You removed the subject of the sentence "was thought (by some) to be racist" and turned it into the passive voice. Who thought that my posting was racist given your new wording? The reality of it is that a small finite set of people thought it was racist, but I'm not sure that the article would be improved by saying "was thought by 113 people to be racist". Maybe it's better the way it was before you changed it? --RussNelson (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to apply WP:Weasel, but I accept the end result was no nearer the guidance than the original. I have self reverted. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

Even if I could think of a good answer to your impertinent question (i.e. good vs. evil), I cannot and do not wish to discuss such matters. Please do not post anything else of this nature to my talk page. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you are a credit to the Project! Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I have reported you to WP:ANI. As an unbanned editor I cannot be involved in the kind of behavior you are exhibiting. And you have no right to tell me what messages I must keep on my own talk page! Please leave me alone. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it difficult both to reply to you and to respect your wishes. Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Any admin may lift this sanction without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the edits and while they justify a block I can't see how an indef is appropriate. The previous block history is for edit wars (and most of those provoked if you look at the history). "Piss Artist" is obviously unacceptable but I have seen a lot worse just get a warning. An indef surely requires more justification. --Snowded ^TALK 05:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, while I appreciate your comments, I have witnessed User:Black Kite being treated so badly that he quit - and he is an Admin! To get back to square one, I need to contribute something so profound that it is worth the rigmarole. I will however contemplate "Doing the right thing". Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless I would still like some explanation as to the justification of an indef. on this. --Snowded ^TALK 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block is indefinite because a finite block does not address behavioral issues - it merely postpones a potential resumption. An indef block can be lifted just as soon as the concerns are addressed; an unblock request which includes an undertaking not to repeat the behaviour that caused the block would be effective. For that reason I noted that any admin inclined to unblock need not refer the matter to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification --Snowded ^TALK 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, an indef block like this one can be lifted within a few minutes if the blocked editor posts a straightforward answer acknowledging the reason and showing a meaningful willingness not to do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't in this case think its going to be that simple, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 18 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

My desire to amend inaccuracies to Stanhope essay prize Here are now greater than my desire to re-engage in the fuckwittery that preceded by block.

Decline reason:

Unclear request. Please address the reason for your block and use standard English words. Sandstein 22:13, 1 March 2010 (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.

My desire to amend inaccuracies to Stanhope essay prize Here are now greater than my desire to re-engage in the fuckwittery that preceded by block. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain said "fuckwittery" a little more clearly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"re-engage" would indicate that I was engaged in fuckwittery"Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Þjóðólf, if you want a hand with this ask. Only a very narrow cultural range would understand the meaning of your phrase above. --Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Snowded, I would appreciate an advocate. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It less that you need an advocate, but you may need help in drafting the request. It needs to show (1) that you understand the reason for the block and (2) that you do not intend to repeat the behaviour. In this case as I remember it you allowed yourself to get sucked into an edit war and then used bad language. That means an acknowledgement that you were sucked in and an undertaking not to break 3rr again (you could offer a voluntary 1rr which is good practice anyway) and a clear promise to moderate the language. Happy to review anythink/make suggestions but it has to be you saying it, and meaning it, --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded; I dont think those are the issues. I have tried to address the comment of User:LessHeard vanU An indef block can be lifted just as soon as the concerns are addressed; an unblock request which includes an undertaking not to repeat the behaviour that caused the block would be effective I myself interpreted this as calm down; ("Do you know me" User:LessHeard vanU? - no and I was suitably shocked/intimidated out of being Mr Angry by your profile. I am embarassed that I managed This Reply without having read Rms' comments directly above it - I suspect I am not the suspect suspected. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I intend to make an unblock request in the near future (essentially when my desire to edit is greater than my aversion to go through the unblock process). I presume no one watching this page has a problem with this? Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have an unblock request already active above - ~~without any actual request inside of it. Please add reasoning, or it will need to be declined - and that's never good.~~ fixed it for you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:17, 1 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Having just read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request, I was just wondering Why exactly (or even roughly) am I blocked?

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reasons for you block at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (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'll let another sysop review this but you are blocked for disruption, harrasment and sock-puppetry [2][3][4].
BTW where did you see a posting about the above Ani thread?--Cailil ^talk 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped.^[1]^[2]^[3]

”

^ The Family Court: A view from the outside Issues Paper No. 3 Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, College of Business, Massey University, October 1998. See section 2.2.2 Judges' Standards
^ The Birmingham Six: An appalling vista. The web page says: "The following account of [The Birminghand Six] case was copied from a web site (which later closed) set up for MOJO, the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation formed by Paddy Hill after the convictions were quashed. This case and the treatment of these men is far too important not to be available for all to see."
^ Stephen Sedley A benchmark of British justice The Guardian 6 March 1999. Paragraph 15.

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).

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

Request reason:

The Block was unjustified, I have nothing to address

Decline reason:

Your block was just explained to you above. Address that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

My Block has NEVER been explained to me

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 21:59, 6 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

My block does not address my reason for being blocked.

Decline reason:

The reasons for your block have been outlined most recently by Cailil, above, at 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC). I have no opinion about whether these reasons are valid or not, but since you continue to make unblock requests without addressing these reasons, I am disabling your editing privileges on this talk page. Sandstein 22:34, 6 September 2010 (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.

Wikihounding listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikihounding. Since you had some involvement with the Wikihounding redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Wishva de Silva | Talk 03:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikra Britannia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mikra Britannia. Since you had some involvement with the Mikra Britannia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"25 Henry VIII." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 25 Henry VIII.. Since you had some involvement with the 25 Henry VIII. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Family Court: A view from the outside Issues Paper No. 3 Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, College of Business, Massey University, October 1998. See section 2.2.2 Judges' Standards

[2] The Birmingham Six: An appalling vista. The web page says: "The following account of [The Birminghand Six] case was copied from a web site (which later closed) set up for MOJO, the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation formed by Paddy Hill after the convictions were quashed. This case and the treatment of these men is far too important not to be available for all to see."

[3] Stephen Sedley A benchmark of British justice The Guardian 6 March 1999. Paragraph 15.

[1]

[2]

[3]