User talk:Hammerandclaw

Welcome with helpful links about how to edit wikipedia

Hello, Hammerandclaw! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dloh cierekim 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sockpuppet

Eh? Who did? Where? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It's sorted. --Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Userboxes

You are very welcome! I did not see the code I am afriad, but if you copy it onto my usertalk page - I'll put it onto your user page. If I can help you further, feel free to contact me. Tiddly-Tom 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up those user boxes for you, if I can help you further, drop me a line. Tiddly-Tom 07:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers man. Sorry to keep bothering you, but the vietnam war one does not show up for some reason. If you have the time to help, that would be much appreciated. I'm very grateful for the work you've been doing. Thanks--Hammerandclaw (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The Vietnam War one appears when I look at it - it is right at the bottom of the list and because the link is not very clear due to the colours used. If this was the problem your experienced, tell me and I'm sure I can come up with something ;) Tiddly-Tom 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the problem, the code's there, it's just not visible. Cheers.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? It is easy to change the colours if you wish. Tiddly-Tom 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do that? Perhaps I should try and get another one, or put it in a different place.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user box is now located on a sub page of yours (User:Hammerandclaw/Vietnam War) - I coped the code for it from the original location to put it onto your subpage, and changed the code to change the colours. I then created a special link to it on your user page which meant that it copied the user box across without the code. Tiddly-Tom 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey. Good to see someone is watching out for my spelling. Just a heads up that some editors might not like you editing their posts - even if it is just a spelling mistake. I have no objections at all though ;) When you did it, you entered a space at the begining of the next line. For some reason, this messes up the page display. It does

this.

I have fixed it, so don't worry about it With regards to your user boxes, you did not have to copy across that code, I had placed it at the bottom. To do this I added {{User:Hammerandclaw/Vietnam War}} to the list of user boxes on your page. This effectively copies the contents of the page (that is linked to) onto the page where the link is added. So at the moment you have two Vietnam War boxes ;) Your user page is messed up, on my browser at lest (boxes on top of each other) - I will have a look and see if I can fix it, if not, I'll contact someone who might be able to. Tiddly-Tom 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many Nam boxes do you have on your userpage (how many do you see)? I see two. When you look at the code, all you will see is {{User:Hammerandclaw/Vietnam War}} - it will not copy the code. This process is called transclusion. Tiddly-Tom 09:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burning Viet Cong base camp.jpg

This user is interested in the Vietnam War.

You see that? Tiddly-Tom 11:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks, seems that all of the user boxes I try and put on aren't visible, it's really screwed. You want to put that code on the page I assume?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many Nam userboxes you see on your userpage now? Tiddly-Tom 11:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, but only half is visible. Others I've tried to add are not working.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you meen by half visable? Tiddly-Tom 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the only box you are having problems with? Can you see it fine here? Tiddly-Tom 11:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are experencing theise problems. If you can explain it well, the people at the help desk might be able to help you. Sorry! Tiddly-Tom 11:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you meen the other userboxes - or boxes in general? It is not that I have had enouth - I like helping people - its that I had run out of ideas! Tiddly-Tom 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about now? I'll be back later. Tiddly-Tom 11:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed latest batch ;) Tiddly-Tom 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apoc Now...

Certainly, if it does sound like a copyrighted source that you're familiar with then I'd be fine w/changing it so it isn't anymore BUT we cannot revert to that awful prev vers w/the section breaks (if that's what you're suggesting, I've been wrong before, of course, please tell me if I am!). As a librarian I just couldn't stand to see that vers. Also, the current summary isn't mine, it was done after I attempted to put the tag on (had some trouble w/the formatting), so it's someone else's work. So, send me the source & we'll go from there, ok? Thanks much! Tommyt (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost interest in the issue? Tommyt (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apoc now

Not especially, it's just I don't judge you as being at the top of my priority list. All better?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All better?" Well, that depends on you, I think, & I'll quote you again, "I look forward to your reply" from 2/3. I guess you weren't looking forward to my reply after all. So, we'll just leave the matter there. Have a better one! Tommyt (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to you getting so concerned over me not responding to your messages, but obvoiusly you failed to pick up on this. Speaking of which I waited longer for you to respond to me, than me to you, did you realise that? Third of all, I intend to re-write that summary, properly, and I won't need you to assist me in any way, so take leave.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may want to reconsider your rhetoric so others you communicate w/don't get the wrong impression, IE, you should use a phrase other than "it's just I don't judge you as being at the top of my priority list." That sounds quite dismissive. Just a piece of constructive criticism. It was your idea to furnish proof of a copyrighted source that you thought the summary had been lifted (for lack of a better term) from, but you obviously changed your mind & felt providing a reason was unnecessary. BTW, there will be others out there who will be willing to "assist" you, so be prepared. Wikipedia is about contribution to articles, not control of them. Tommyt (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone offering assistance, I appreciate their offer, but not yours, since you couldn't actually write it yourself, no?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, I'm not permitted to contribute to the plot summary you plan to write? Or am I not qualified somehow? Hrrrrmmmm, not very Wikipedian of you, I'm afraid. I think I'll just have to watch it closely now... Tommyt (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to tell me you work for Wikipedia? To quote you, "I tried to change the page but it was overturned." That seems to demonstrate other users were not impressed with your changes,so maybe you are not qualified to write the article after all. Care to explain what you tried to do?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't, not in the classical sense, so I'm not a member of Wpedia's "board of directors" or whatever entity governs it. BUT, as a registered user of W-pedia, I DO have the right to change any content I choose, so yes, I do work for Wik, & so do you. Whether or not my changes are accepted is up to my fellow users. When I tried to change the Apoc Now article I felt that something radical was necessary, the section breaks were badly done, the writing was poor, it had b/c bloated & unencyclopedic, so I tried to chop out the entire thing & replace it. I admit, not the best move. Someone reinstated the bad vers & I tried a more diplomatic approach; went to the talk page & requested that we tag the article (I'm a bit rusty w/attaching warning tags) to encourage others to help improve it. And it worked much better, so my headstrong attempt was clearly not the best method. I thought that more would agree w/me but I was wrong. Now, as for me not being qualified to write the article, I think I am. I've been a fan of the film for nearly 20 yrs, I own 2 diff vers of it on DVD, I eagerly went to a showing of the Redux Vers in Manhattan in 2001, I've read much literature on Vietnam & films about the war, & I have a degree in English & Literature. I also recognize that plot synopses in Wik are NOT the place for interpretive rhetoric, which seemed to plague the old vers. They should be concise, extraneous details should not be incl, like quotations, no matter how famous they are ("I love the smell of napalm..."); not necessary in summarizing the plot. I've written other summaries before & over the few yrs I've been contributing to Wik, I've learned that many of them are too long & bloated & full of fancruft. Also, sect breaks are generally discouraged; fans only put them there to make the article look better but they just sit there, taking up space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyt (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The napalm quote was there when I last checked. Anyway, your knowledge and interest in the film

is certainly not to be argued with, be it true, and, same as you I find the film, the war in general and the themes of the movie very interesting, but I still cannot bring myself to agree with you, in the main. Hmmm, tell you what, perhaps I shall try and locate the original writer of the article and vouch for his opinion. Till then, I'll leave the article alone. P.s You need to sign your posts. --Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed signing the last post, just a fluke, nothing more. Oh, my interest in the film be true, trust me! Yup, the napalm quote is there & it shouldn't be, along w/all the other quotes. They simply don't lend themselves to the synopsis. If anyone wants to hear it they should just watch the film. If they want to see how famous it is there's a myriad of books & even more websites out there w/probably 1000s of interpretations. Incl it will just encourage users to put blockquote formatting around it, increase the size, whatever. Pretty soon you're right back where you started, the article is bloated, crufty & ludicrous. BTW, look in the history sect under the date 1/23, some user named Tony Sidaway. Tommyt (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Browser

Hey, I have a tool that might be useful for you, if you use FireFox. Drop me a note on my talk page, thanks ;) Tiddly-Tom 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to get involved in reverting vandalism? If so, I suggest you read this page and do as instructed. I then suggest you read this. After you have done that, read on with this message. I suggest you use Twinkle for reverting, and Lupins tool for finding vandalism. After you have put them both in your monobook, and refreshed your cache by clicking ctrl+shift+R, click on Recent IP edit in the left menu, then when edit appear, if they are vandalism, click diff then revert using the red twinkle revert button. When using lupins tool, I suggest you click the following boxes at the top: Ignore talk pages, Ignore pages outside the article namespace and Automatically expand new content. Good luck, and leave a message if you have any questions or problems. Tiddly-Tom 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Now

Why, hello! Now I have it that you are the writer of the new Apocalypse Now plot synopsis, would that be correct? If so, drop me a message on my talk page, I think we need to have a discussion on it...--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The plot summary currently there was put there by me. It's a copy of the one at this old revision as edited by User:Freakofnurture at 14:17, 23 July 2006. I've just noticed you started a discussion on the talk page, and I'll take it up there. --Tony Sidaway 12:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Carcharoth, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – nh.jg 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on User talk:Carcharoth

This is unacceptable. Continue attacking other editors will result a temporary or permanent revocation of your editing privileges from an admin due to your editing abuse. – nh.jg 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your email to me

You suggested I reply here, rather than email you back.

I was not as concerned with the deletion of sections of people's talk pages (more on that below), as I was concened about your very aggressive tone in messages you've left on several pages today, including mine. Your ISP problems do not explain your vandalism of Carcharoth's user page, and I see no evidence of racist or unacceptable edits by User:Nh.jg‎ (please show them to me if I missed them), yet you keep making that assertion. If the existance of those warnings (his and mine) on your talk page distress you, feel free to archive them. If you can't justify your assertions about User:Nh.jg, it would be good form to remove them and apologize. Tony Sidaway's advice is excellent in this regard.

As for your technical problem, I have a couple of comments;

These talk pages don't appear to be any longer than some of the articles you're working on. I don't understand why you can't load and save the whole page. i think mine is longer, yet you were able to post there.
You don't mean "broadband", right? I assume you mean your ISP? Is it dial-up or something?
I think you can avoid your problem by using the "+" tab above (adding a new section, rather than adding on to entire page). Similarly, if you're replying, click the [edit] link of that section, instead of editing the whole page.
If these things don't work, add a question to the Help desk, or village pump asking for help. It's over my head, but I'm sure someone can help you.
If you need to post on someone's talk page and can't, leave a message for them here on your talk page, and add a {{helpme}} template asking someone to post it for you. Lots of people watch the {{helpme}} category, and your message should get posted for you pretty fast. This is obviously a short term solution, but should help until your ISP problem is worked out.

--barneca (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

I have started a thread about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hammerandclaw. Feel free to participate there. --barneca (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hammerandclaw

I need some newbie admin advice on my first potential block for incivility rather than simple vandalism. Yesterday, User:Hammerandclaw was deleting portions of user talk pages at User talk:Tony Sidaway and User talk:Carcharoth, in theory due to some issue with his broadband service. User:Nh.jg‎ warned him about this, and Hammerandclaw reacted poorly, being rather uncivil on User talk:Nh.jg, vandalizing User:Carcharoth, and claiming that User:Nh.jg has made now-deleted racist comments on someone's talk page. I've looked, admittedly not at every single edit, and have found nothing of the sort. I noticed this while watching recent changes, and left a message asking him to stop, and that further disruption would be met with a block. His reply to me wasn't very civil, but I don't care. He later emailed me, explaining the supposed technical difficulties, and I replied on his talk page. Meanwhile, Nh.jg had evidently had enough, and has retired. Hammerandclaw's response was this: [1]. My questions:

That final hahahahahaha seems over the top after his warning yesterday, and I consider it worth a 24 hr block. Yes? No?
I'm unclear whether, due to being the subject of some of his incivility, I've somehow become "involved", and in a bad position to issue a block. I don't think so, but better safe than sorry.
I'm unclear on whether, in addition, to somehow push for a retraction (or I suppose, verification) of his comments about Nh.jg before lifting the block, but that seems heavy-handed. Still, at this point he appears to have driven someone off the project.

Any and all advice appreciated. I will notify him of this thread. --barneca (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing other editors. 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. Black Kite 14:36, 19 February 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).

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

Request reason:

improper allegations and overly harsh block duration

Decline reason:

Userpage vandalism + attacks on editors = declined unblock. The encyclopedia will still be here when the block lifts. — Kwsn (Ni!) 14:52, 19 February 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.

Note to reviewing admin: reason for block is at the bottom of this section. Black Kite 14:45, 19 February 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).

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

Request reason:

accidental infringements

Decline reason:

You claim that there's some sort of bizarre problem with your broadband. As such, if we unblocked you now, I'm sure the problems would just continue. Once you have resolved the problem, please contact unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org with an explanation and someone will be happy to lift your block. Until then, you are not permitted to edit. We cannot have your broadband connection continuing to mess things up around here. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 19 February 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.

Ah, c'mon, I'm sorry...I won't do it again...--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:58, 19 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I did not issue a legal threat, and the broadband problem has been rectified

Decline reason:

Please follow Yamla's instructions above. — Revolving Bugbear 21:44, 19 February 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 have read his instructions Revolving Bugbear, as you can see at the bottom of the page!!!!!! WTF do I need to do???!!!--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the legal threat, I'm talking about the alleged problem with your broadband. - Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solved that, again see the bottom of my page. Now what?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you fixed the broadband ... Yamla asked you to "please contact unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org with an explanation". Have you done that? - Revolving Bugbear 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My brother sent one on my behalf, if you look it's in there somewhere.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat warning

Legal threats, like the one you made here, are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Please do not make them. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2008

Uh, I've got problems of my own right now thanks.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you are now blocked until these are resolved. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most grateful if my new friend Hammerclaw, who evidently is new to Wikipedia, could be unblocked. I see no legal threats here (really!) and his few infractions seem to be due to his newness and a certain abruptness of manner. --TS 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the legal threat, but would you agree that an apology to Nh.jg, and an assurance that there won't be any more personal attacks or vandalism (i.e. fix the "broadband problem" or don't post), would be appropriate first? --barneca (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon if he's retired nh.jg isn't going to see it, is he? Thanks Tony, but I don't think these guys are going to unblock me....--Hammerandclaw (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerandclaw, please keep the faith, and for the rest, please accept that Hammerandclaw did respond favorably to my suggestion that he make friends with nh.jg. --TS 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did, I saw that, and mentioned it in my comment to him last night. Then, after that, he called Nh.jg a racist a couple more times, and expressed joy over chasing off someone who appears to have done nothing wrong. --barneca (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because obviously, I love taunting annonymous users online. You strike me as insecure barneca. Perhaps you would like to apologise to Nh.jg on my behalf. Oh, and that racism thing was made after he called me a nigger over e-mail. --Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come I can no longer see my own thread on the Admin Incidents page, it won't open!--Hammerandclaw (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you want to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor, please stop taunting other editors. Please. I would like to help you to get out of this hole, but we do need to agree on basics. Contact me on tonysidaway@gmail.com or on this talk page. --TS 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I should just take the block, when does it end?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

legal threat 2

Bullshit. I've looked over all of his edits, and there's not even a hint of that kind of attitude. Plus, doesn't gel with your story. Plus... I'm done here. --barneca (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit? Who are you to state that, do you have access to my email, no, you don't. You're done here, fine by me, I'll serve my ban, and be back to continue my "duties" to the Wikipedia community, I'll see you all in two days time, signing out.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... calm down. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you have to do with this, what are you, a therapist?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerandclaw, your comment above epitomises what you seem not to understand about the Wikipedia community and how it works. Firstly you must understand that no conversation on here is "private" - almost by definition everything is public, to the extent that private conversations by email are under some circumstances discouraged. Secondly the comment by Kwsn was, you'll find, typical of good practice - many editors will attempt to reduce the level of hostility on here because hostility is a Bad Thing for the Wikipedia project. Many people edit here and it would all just not work at all if an atmosphere of hostility were to prevail. Expect that people whom you have never interacted with will give you advice. That is the way it works. Thirdly comments such as the above are simply unacceptable.

Please take the time of your block, which I hope will last 48 hours rather than be indefinite, to read (and re-read) some of the basic concepts on which this project is founded, especially the Five Pillars and especially WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Fourthly please remember that no page on here, including "your" userpage, is "yours". I should like to see your threat, however jokily meant, of castration with a butter knife removed from "your" userpage- read WP:UP about "attacks on other editors" (which includes pre-emptive attacks, in my view). Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, the castration with a butter knife thing was....never mind. You've actually changed the block duration have you? Nice of you.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, still indef. I've said my apologies....looked at the pillars...fixed the bloody broadband. That's it, let me back online please!!!!!--Hammerandclaw (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the 48hr block still stands, regardless of the status of the indef. Black Kite 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet attempt

unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org just received an email from Hammerandclaw claiming to be his brother (despite originating from Hammerandclaw's email address) and requesting that we unblock the IP address. --Yamla (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, you'll see that Hammerandclaw has already said that his brother sent one on his behalf. - Revolving Bugbear 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he posted that four seconds before I posted my message, and I did not see this until after I posted mine. Note that Hammerandclaw did not state that his brother sent a message using Hammerandclaw's email address. Given Hammerandclaw's claims of problems with his broadband, it may be that these problems extend to email as well. --Yamla (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the email, it clearly states it's my brother, he showed it to me. There are no problems with my email, thanks for your concern. Is the IP problem solved?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The email was sent from your email address. Given that you share your email account, what reason do we have to believe you will not also share your Wikipedia account? --Yamla (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... we ask him? The indefblock named the legal threat and the broadband compromise as reasons. Given that the legal threat seems to be retracted, if you're satisfied that the broadband was but no longer is compromised, it should be lifted. If you think it still is, and that somehow this person is also abusing his e-mail, that seems awfully convoluted to me. - Revolving Bugbear 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied the broadband either ever was compromised or, if it was, it no longer is. The email sent to unblock-en-l gives no information on this. The fact that other people admittedly have access to Hammerandclaw's email account tends to indicate there are still outstanding problems. --Yamla (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if you're not satisfied regarding his claims of broadband compromise, then that is what needs to be communicated. Hammerandclaw, do you now understand what the problem is, and are you willing to attempt to rectify it? - Revolving Bugbear 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see nowhere in Wikipedia policy where it says you can't let other people access your e-mail account. It says you can't let other people access your Wikipedia account. Let's not invent new policy here. - Revolving Bugbear 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The email was sent from googlemail. Their terms of use prohibit account sharing. We are not responsible for enforcing that, but when someone claims that he has "broadband issues" and then we discover that someone else also has access to his gmail account, and when that person has provided no explanation of these broadband issues, nor any explanation for how these have been resolved, it's way beyond fishy. When the person who is sending the email, while claiming to be Hammerandclaw's brother, hand-signs his brother's name, I think I am justified in claiming that this was a sockpuppet attempt. --Yamla (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere in those terms that prohibits account sharing. I see the provision that "you will be solely responsible to Google for all activities that occur under your account" and "if you become aware of any unauthorised use of your password or of your account, you agree to notify Google", both of which continue to allow for authorized use. The provision that "you will not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services for any purpose" is likewise not a prohibition of sharing, as no duplication or transaction is taking place.

On the other hand, I agree that the lack of an explanation for the alleged broadband issues is problematic, which is why I have told Hammerandclaw that we still expect a reasonable explanation. - Revolving Bugbear 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the legal threat retracted? On email? As the threat was made here, for transparency, the retraction needs to be made here. There needs to be a clear statement of contrition from Hammerandclaw that he intends to contribute according to policies before consideration of lifting or reducing the indef block. I still read plenty of hostility in his postings here. —Moondyne 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

Somewhat annoyed, I unwatchlisted this page earlier, which was probably unprofessional since I started the ANI thread. Things look complicated and are getting complicateder. Since things would probably be a lot simpler right now if I had imposed the block myself, I'll add my 2 cents on how to resimplify. My opinion/view:

The current block is indefinite.

Consensus seems to be to reduce back to 48 hours after:

Hammerandclaw apologizes to Nh.jg (already done)
Hammerandclaw email the unblock mailing list with an explanation for what happened with his broadband service, and an assurance it is fixed.

Considering that some of us question whether there was a broadband problem, this is not a silly hoop to jump thru. If a suitable explanation can’t be provided, then we are still having our chain yanked. In my mind, the explanation is vital to restore some modicum of good faith; but whether it takes place on the mailing list or here isn’t that important. I understand Yamla's concern about the email, and truly share the suspicion it raises, but if we're going to give a second chance, we should probably not complicate issues too much. I'd therefore drop the email address issue if it were up to me.

So, once an explanation of what happened yesterday is provided, here or on the mailing list, an admin will reduce the block to Black Kite’s original expiry time, approx. a day and a half from now.

Anyone see things differently? I'm off again, but will check in in a few hours. Thanks to all the admins here who helped me out today. --barneca (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and this has been my view all along. - Revolving Bugbear 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with this as well. --Yamla (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Google Mail does not approve of account sharing, but what led Yamla to believe my brother signed my name in email I'll never know. Anyway, due to my rural location, the best broadband connection we can get is 1/2 mb per second, which is adequate for editing Wikipedia alone, but recently my router has been very faulty, has been for a couple of weeks, so we had to get it replaced, new router was installed last night, during peak times, and is now closer to our computer, thus it can now run at full strength. Yay!--Hammerandclaw (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable explanation (though I still fail to see why it obliged you to delete parts of peoples' talkpages). Why did you take so long to come up with it? I'd agree with removing the indef block, and returning to Black Kite's original block (now around 26 hours). Tonywalton ^Talk 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse Tonywalton's suggestion. - Revolving Bugbear 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A network connection of 1/2 megabits per second would absolutely not explain why he deleted parts of talk pages. Many people edit Wikipedia with network connections slower than that. --Yamla (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the explanation above I have stated that due to the faulty router the broadband was runnig much slower.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not explain why you were deleting content from talk pages. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Yamala, by brother wants to know if the Ip has been unblocked.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The request was reviewed by other administrators and declined. The email was sent to your address. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not receive his second email?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block expiry

Following what looks like consensus here, and after consulting Yamla, I've removed the indefinite block and replaced it with a block expiring at around the time Black Kite's original 48-hour block would have expired (about 2:35PM 21 Feb, UK time (GMT); 9:35AM EST/6:35AM PST).

Hammerandclaw, please be aware that following all this your every edit might well be scrutinised, particularly for poor compliance with Wikipedia policy on civility. While you're awaiting the block's expiry, take the time to look at WP:CIV (again, it's important) and such things as WP:NPA, WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE and the outgoing links from those pages. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few hours left, and then I'm free again!--Hammerandclaw (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think my block should've expired about four hours ago. Is this incorrect?--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on Tonywalton's userpage, and on #wikipedia . Somebody should check for autoblocks and then you'll be okay. --TS 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to edit, you may be autoblocked. See Template:Autoblock for instructions. --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue

Thanks to Tony Sidaway, Revolving Bugbear, and anyone else who restored my block to what it should be. I'll try to more civil in future.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did my removal of the autoblock work? If so, you can remove the template. Black Kite 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm free at last.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe

No worries mate. Yes, it got a bit interesting there, with what I still feel are totally spurious "excuses" about dodgy broadband, emails from brothers, you name it. Normally a block for incivility's a bit simpler than that! I concur by the way with the people that said you aren't classed as "involved" if you apply a block following incivility to you, if the incivility is a response to your warning them in the first place (did that make sense?) I find the main thing around here is to CYA - follow process (but with due regard to WP:IAR) and you should be fine! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we all gotta learn some time, right? I agree with Tony's assessment of "the main thing around here". Just keep your wits about you -- which you did, barneca -- and you'll always be fine. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the craftier troublemakers, upon being warned or blocked, will attack the blocking admin directly with an eye toward "involving" him/her. Having someone get mad at you doesn't make you "involved". But the best thing in those situations is to go to AN/I and spin the roulette wheel. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is taken from another talk page, but anyway, I love being called crafty...--Hammerandclaw (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over here in the UK, crafty is a compliment, but it might be taken differently elsewhere :) Black Kite 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scrutinising'

I don't think anyone including me will be "scrutinising" you in any formal sense (and there are formal setups whereby someone is subjected to mandatory mentoring, of just about their every edit). Just that when that amount of Sturm und Drang happens on WP:AN/I it attracts a fair bit of admin (and other) attention and editors would like to know how it all turns out! As for your question whether I will answer [your] calls for assistance if and when [you] call for it well of course I would, to the best of my ability, just as I would for any Wikipedia editor calling for assistance. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 09:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top spin 3

Here is a copy of an email I sent to the PR staff and customer service. It is up to us to demand a game that is worth our money. Please feel free to use my email and send it to the following addresses:

marcelyn.ditter@2kgames.com, jan.sturm@take2.de, etramblais@taketwo.fr, barbara.ruocco@take2.it, sandra.melero@take2espana.com, warner.guinee@take2benelux.com, snezana@2kgames.com, customerservice@2ksports.com

Good afternoon,

We must say that we are extremely disappointed with the roster of players that will be included in Top Spin 3. 2k Sports declares that they want to give players the opportunity to play with their favorite characters, but how is that the case when so many good and exciting players are not included? How are the Australian Open Finalists left off? How is the 3-time French Open champion left off, except on the PS3? How can you have a list of legends that includes only 3 players? How can you call it a list of legends without an individual who has the most Grand Slams in the open era and an individual who accomplished a Career Grand Slam? Are you toying with us? Essentially, you lied to us by claiming what is not true; you have not giving us the players consumers want to play with. Only 17 players to play with, that is unacceptable; clearly other players must be included into this weak lineup.

Players to add to make this roster the best that it can be:

David Ferrer, Novak Djokovic, Nikolay Davydenko, Marcos Baghdatis, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Richard Gasquet, Marat Safin, Nicolas Mahut, Fernando Gonzalez, Paul-Henri Mathieu. Mikhail Youzhny, Ivo Karlovic, Carlos Moya, Canas, Lleyton Hewitt, Anna Ivanovic, Daniela Hantuchova, Jelena Jankovic, Anna Chakvetadze, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Elena Dementieva, Patty Schnyder, Maria Kirlenko.

We have been eager since July for the release of this game. Now what you have done has only negated our excitement. Thus, we, and our contemporaries, have come to the conclusion that since we've waited this long for the release, we will continue to wait until another game, such as the Smash Court Series, makes a proper tennis game that one can enjoy, because it will have players that consumers will want to play with. So we will not be purchasing Top Spin 3 until acceptable changes have occurred.

I hope you are paying attention to message boards and blogs on how dissatisfied your potential customers are. The opportunity to make a really fine tennis game and succeed in areas where others have failed is still achievable. Please listen to your consumers; because in the end they are the ones who will be purchasing the game -- but only if they have cause to purchase. At the moment, cause is lacking.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Dissatisfied consumers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas1982 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but be warned, I got blocked from this site for speaking...well let's say abruptly. Just try not to annoy them, but your plan is excellent, and you are correct, the roster ain't great, but they're going to add to it I think.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. The rumour is that other players can be "purchased." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas1982 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hammerandclaw for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. barneca (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your attitude to other editors even after a recent unblock, I have now blocked you indefinitely. If you wish to submit evidence or make submissions in the above case, you may email it to myself or another admin, and it will be copied to this case on your behalf. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not even been given a chance to defend myself here. I haven't even had a warning, and I can't post anything on my own sockpuppet thread as you've blocked me so quick. The evidence may seem to be a sock puppet, but User:Drillerman is a user from my school (IP a proxy remember), and appeared to make the edit on my account, while I left my computer.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm done here. Maybe soon I'll be back to shorten my block, some day, maybe soon, but now, I just am sick to the teeth of pathetic users such as SmithJones who, in his criticism of me whinging has forgotten that he's whinging himself, and that there's such a thing of self-defense (look it up, on this site maybe.) A final thought, the editors on here can claim there doing a service to humantiy, and maybe, they are, in principle. But I will tell you know, Wikipedia today is still derided for its inaccuarcy, inconsistency and deletionist attitudes, and admins, in the worst form, are pompus, pretetious, arrogant nerds, who fail to get a job, and so state their authority on Wikipedia, because "it's work." It's not work, and when I see people wasting their intelligence by editing non-stop, I just feel bad for them. If you're editors, you suck up to admins to try become one, if you're an admin, you suck up to other admins so you feel part of the "community." Well, I'll leave you to it. I know that was a few points, but what the hell. Maybe I'll be back someday, finding my way through this place, because Wikipedia may grow, but it will never get bettter. Here's a video you'll all enjoy. You may feel inspired, or you'll quietly laugh at how wierd this video is. Enjoy.Here's Jimmy--Hammerandclaw (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

query

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).

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

Request reason:

I'd likle to request the block be changed to a set time period, perhaps a week, or a month, as opposed to indefinite.

Decline reason:

There are serious accusations of threats and trolling, and the user has notably harassed other users. An open SSP case may prove that there is more than meets the eye. You also have a long list of blocks in a very short period of time, legal threats, etc. that indicate this is nothing more than a disruptive-editing account. — seicer | talk | contribs 14:52, 1 March 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).

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

Request reason:

That's not true, I have made far more constructive edits than disruptive ones, and the one threat I've made is barely even a threat, and I've retracted it anyway.

Decline reason:

You have less then 20 edits to mainspace out of nearly 300 so I think it would be a significant stretch to describe you as someone who is making significant constructive contribution to the project. Funny how you and Drillerman both make unblock requests within minutes of each other. Since you are clearly the same person I'd say this was an abuse of the unblock system so I'm locking down both pages — Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 1 March 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.