User talk:Kitchen Knife/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kitchen Knife. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Slang

Hi, Kitchen Knife. Thanks for your note re: slang terms in the article Refectory. I would remove all of the slang terms from the intro. If the slang terms are that relevent to the article (which I'm not convinced they are), it seems they should be mentioned in the body of the article, rather than the intro. To be honest, I'd never heard the other terms before; so I didn't remove them because I wasn't sure if they were slang or not. MishaPan (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re editing. I don't understand your problem with the minor alterations I have made to include the affiliation with Liverpool to the suburbs of the city. Please bear in mind that whilst I am new and very much unaware of the rules yet I am a born and bred Liverpudlian and I am not looking rewrite history. I am learning and don't wish to be branded a vandal.Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am born bred and Living in Liverpool. You need to slow down HMGs description comes first. Followed by the description of it's relationship to a city. You might not be trying to push the boundaries but you need to qualify the relation ship is it is anything other than part of the metropolitain borough, and do that after the offical descrpition. Just content your self with spelings and rewordings until you get the style of Wikipedia and remember it supposed to be facts only. I'll leave you to the tender care of Pollytyred wo is far more relaxed than I am. Happy editing.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I am still learning. I do not know how to add maps, photos,contents etc if you are observing you may be able to help with that but I imagine you have your own priorities. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mathew Street

Can you tell me in what way the resignation of an organiser of a festival in Mathew Street aids the reader's understanding of the street itself? Otherwise, it just looks like tabloid journalism. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the street really, and not events that occur in it, and I would argue that the effects of cancelling such events say nothing about the street itself; suppose an American or Australian Beatles fan is planning to visit Liverpool and reads the article. I don't see how that part would aid their understanding; however, I only took the photograph for it, so I can't get too excited over the issue. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The split is fine, it will need reliable sources, but that shouldn't be a problem. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maghull

Will you stop undoing my work, if I am not doing something right please come and tell me. I would appreciate any feedback, granted I am a little hasty to put my points across without checking how it will look. However one of the rules as I understand is if you disagree you discuss and i do not appreciate you manner in tackling my editing. Please discuss. Dmcm2008 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find we have had the Maghull discussion before. I and someoneelse have reverted you edit on this before. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool suburbs

Hello,

I'm working with User:Dmcm2008 towards a consensus on the (claimed) suburbs of Liverpool. Dmcm2008 doesn't seem keen on toning this down, but, as you've been involved with this issue before, I would appreciate your input. I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Suburbs_of_Liverpool. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this matter, it was (and still is) much appreciated. I'm going to continue working towards a way forwards.

I wondered too, if you take an interest in writing about places in the UK, if you'd come across WP:UKGEO and its guideline WP:UKCITIES? It would be great to have you onboard. --Jza84 | Talk 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liverpool. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Coldmachine^Talk 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Proposed railway stations in the United Kingdom

I have propsed a merger of this category into Category:Future stations in the United Kingdom. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22. Simply south (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Falkner Square

As you among others wish to play silly games every time I edit, no matter what I do, I have opened up a discussion page for Falkner Square. The edit I did that you have un done refers to Canning, there is no such area as Canning. You can see there is a ward but the area for the square is on the edge of town near to Toxteth. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to your comments, despite you saying there is a map provided for Canning, (I have seen your references) there is no such district..it is a modern 'phrase' for want of a better word, representing a cluster of streets. Alternatively named the Georgian Quarter. I think the definition for Canning is based on it being a conservation zone, like that around Castle Street at the other end of the city. Also, you can say the same for Granby, in Toxteth. Or Breckfield, (based on Breckfield Road) in the cusp of Anfield and Everton. There are other examples but, Canning is a modern term by whom I dont know but it has found its way in to the Council phrasebook, still does not mean it is an area. It is on the edge of Liverpool city centre near Toxteth (and Edge Hill) a mixture of L1 AND L8 postcodes. I have also found with properties for sale, in magazines and papers, there are a lot of modern/trendy names for clusters of districts...as well as Canning, although I havnt got any to hand at present. What is your conclusion ? Why must you contest my edits? I AM NOT an expert on WP so if you seek to bring in three revert rules and other such rulings I will let you win, if that is your game. All I am doing is pointing out that the article does not appear right to me because it suggests it is in the 'Canning district' but that is not like eg Toxteth, Kensington, etc it is not a district, perhaps it is a local nickname and I am aware Canning is used it is on the WP. Dmcm2008 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/The_City/City_centre/index.asp--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC) That reference doesnt change anything, it furthers my theory of 'trendy' names. In that reference Marybone is mentioned, this is developed because the area (in Vauxhall) was the 'Holy Cross Parish'. Now the church has gone and the area has high rise student buildings. It is also cut off from the main area by Leeds Street. It's proximatey to Liverpool city centre, well it is on the doorstep. However because of the students it is more prominently known as Marybone. I think it is a local term aswell. Dmcm2008 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Peter P Burdett

The article Peter P Burdett has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Port of Liverpool Docks template

Thankyou Kitchen Knife for adding the {{Port of Liverpool docks}} template to the relevant articles. You've beaten me to it! ;-) Best wishes, Snowy 1973 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

North Corporation Primary School

Thanks for adding that reference. I've removed the tag. --JulesN Talk 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

reversing of edits

Get a life, bet you have never read a Liverpool Echo. You clearly are a stuck up so and so.Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is not a fact then it should not be in an Encyclopedia. What you are doing is adding your own opinion. Please stop.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disused Stations & Seacombe Branch on Wirral Railway

Hi Kitchen Knife. Have expanded and tidied up Liscard and Poulton railway station and Seacombe railway station, adding Disused Station navigation templates to the bottom of the articles. I noticed you've helpfully expanded the nav templates at Bidston railway station, Birkenhead North railway station and Wallasey Village railway station to include the disused branch. You've added Terminates to the following station. Out of interest, was this the case or were there not through trains to Chester, Wrexham, West Kirby and New Brighton from this branch?

I'd also be grateful if you could advise me if I'm correct in how I've used these templates. I've listed the route as LMS "Wirral Railway", where you've put Wirral Railway "Seacombe Branch" - shall I change my edits too? Perhaps I should also change the colours on the disused stations from black to green to match your additions. Any thoughts? Snowy 1973 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Terminates" explanation, makes sense. Agree that the Wirral Railway article needs a bit of expanding *and clarifying). You're right about the map on Disused Stations, although the New Brighton/Wallasey service is mentioned in my book ref in the early years of the line. I assume that's why it was advertised on the photo of the front of Seacombe Station. Cheers Snowy 1973 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

hi

See Peter Perez Burdett Victuallers (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool City Region

Wondered when you would show up. The Liverpool City region is in existance. Despite you and JZA constant challenging to my edits.The city region compises of 5 Merseyside boroughs and Halton borough. Dmcm2008 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Greater Merseyside

Hello there Kitchen Knife! I hope all is well. I noticed you removed mentions of "greater Merseyside" from the Liverpool City Region page here. The section was the subject of a breif discussion here. I'm not saying I disagree with the change, but I'd recommend raising your objection on the talk page too, for obvious reasons. --Jza84 | Talk 22:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am your opinion is important but it is not that important to me. Befor you suggest I have an obsession with Liverpool, funny, I though both you and JZA had an obsession with removing any edits I do. However the Liverpool City Region is Merseyside plus Halton i will review any references soon but I know one of them I put on from the Daily Post. The city region for Merseyside is clearly the 5 Merseyside boroughs plus Halton. I personally prefer to call that Greater Merseyside and spread it wider but it is not my opinion that counts. So everyone keeps telling me. Hence, the city region is one thing Greater Merseyside is another they have different definitions although meet somewhere in the middle. Perhaps you need to look at this again " know it may be diffcult for you to understand but when you make an edit your altering other peoples edits, why do you think yours are so important?" YOU have a habit of doing exactly the same, many times I recall. Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dmcm2008, you have to remember that Kitchen Knife is merely reflecting social norms and editorial expectations with his edits. A glance at Talk:Liverpool Urban Area confirms that it was actually you who held minority views about "greater Liverpool".

Although I sent you a lengthy message about how we need to change the approach here, in short you need to stop adding your opinion to articles - it's distruptive and unwanted. Then, when people disagree with you, treat them with respect. It's as simple as that. --Jza84 | Talk 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The produce yo references here please which ones define the CIty region as Merseyside plus Halton. Offical sites ie HMG local government trump papers by the way. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can tell that Kitchen Knife is more of a expert on this subject than I am considering the changes made to revert Greater Merseyside page last week, my understanding is here the article only reports on the six boroughs. However after only 5 minutes of reading on some of the information to do with Liverpool City region I can see there is this core area plus additions of West Lancashire, Warrington etc which is NOT reported in the newspaper article nor any reading materials I have read on City Regions. It is a bit confusing then.This "multi-region" is what I would have thought Greater Merseyside should beDmcm2008 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Canada Dock Branch; Garston and Liverpool Railway; Mersey Docks and Harbour Company; Southport railway station; List of civil parishes in Lancashire; Fratton railway station; Hope Street, Liverpool; Mersey Railway; City of Salford; Skelmersdale Branch; Warrington and Newton Railway; Great Altcar; Liverpool, St Helens & South Lancashire Railway; North Union Railway; Port of Liverpool; Liverpool and Bury Railway; City of Lancaster; Trevor Jones (Liberal politician); Downholland Cross

Cleanup: Southport; Wakefield Line; Caldervale Line
Merge: Blackpool; Rainford Junction; Ligurian Sea
Add Sources: Edge Hill, Liverpool; Llanbadarn railway station; Chester railway station
Wikify: The Beatles Story; Milton Bradley; RAF Abingdon
Expand: Church of Saint Francis Xavier, Liverpool; Sacred Heart Catholic College; Ladybank

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

Hello there Kitchen Knife! I'm sorry that you were accused of acting in bad faith and croneyism by our mutual friend. That's a shame and, of course, totally uncalled for.

However, I've come to the conclusion that this gentleman will not be changing his editting style at any point in the future and thus I've given him an ultimatum to change or be managed off Wikipedia outright. His presence has been a net-negative for Wikipedia and I'm only just beginning to scratch the surface of his damage to categories and articles.

My point though? Well, I don't have many ~~Liverpool~~ Merseyside articles watchlisted, so if you recieve ANY abuse from this user, or you spot a repeat of the cycle, do please let me know and I'll turn on the electric fense. This also applies to ip addresses and suspected sockpuppets you encounter.

Hopefully this will put an end to this nonsense that has been damaging the Merseyside corner of Wikipedia for the last 8 or 9 months. Hope you're well, keep in touch, :) --Jza84 | Talk 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Join us?

At last, WP:MERSEYSIDE is up and running! It would be great to have you onboard! :) --Jza84 | Talk 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm there.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Disused railway stations on the Wirral

Chester and Birkenhead Railway (Wirral Way)

Hi Kitchen Knife. Have just made a start expanding station articles on the former Hooton-West Kirby (Wirral Way) railway branch. From the edit summaries I've noticed that you added some of the Disused Rail Start/End route templates. Having checked each station article along the route there appears to be some discrepancies with the name of the original company (both in the templates and in the rest of the articles). Some stations attribute initial ownership to the Chester and Birkenhead Railway (see Thurstaston), others to the Birkenhead Railway (see Neston South). It's apparent that the latter name is the result of the former's merger with another company.

Since the Chester & Birkenhead Railway had become just the Birkenhead Railway by 1860 and the stations on this branch line didn't exist until after this date, I'm proposing that the latter name be used across all station articles on this branch. I was wondering what you thought of this. Cheers. Snowy 1973 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediaeval measure

ah i see from your talk page there's a stack of people who think your a wanker. I was going to have a word about the relevance of rods. poles and bovates, but i can see from this page it would be a waste of time

82.21.206.85 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Schofield

Please leave the page involving me alone, I am from Kirkby and was born there when Kirkby was a part of Liverpool and not Knowsley, this is why I have edited to reflect that I am just from Kirkby and not about Knowsley anymore. DrewSchofield (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Waterspaces

Could you please stop goading this guy, as I'd like any block I impose (which may well be soon) to be watertight, and I prefer not to give him any leeway whatsoever. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 15:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Merseyrail

I just noticed that unfortunately the above article did not pass the GA criteria. The biggest problem was that some section are unreferenced, and per wikipedia's policy on verification "material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". The article is an important one for WP:MERSEY so it's possible that some of its members may be interested in helping out.

Recently there was a discussion at WT:MERSEY about working together to get articles to GA. Merseyrail cropped up as one we wanted to get to a good standard, however we thought it was best to let the dust settle after a recent edit war on the article (which I'm sure you're aware of). I'm not sure how much experience project members have in writing railway articles, so I can't guarantee being able to provide sources, but I'm sure the project will help if they can. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The review wasn't very detailed, but I think it was essentially right. If you want more detailed feedback you can always drop WT:MERSEY a note or submit the article to peer review. Nev1 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Merseyrail article improvements

I noticed you submitted the article for GA without success. Although the review didn't really help, I do agree that references here is a major issue. I am also keen to get it up to GA standard, but I think it first needs someone to go through all the existing references and make them consistant. What I mean by this is changing them to use the cite template (I find myself doing this on other articles I edit that I want to get to GA, it is helps the process greatly - see an example on my edit from yesterday). I'm also very willing to go off and find references for paragraphs that are entirely unsourced (I made a start yesterday).

Do you still have any interest in trying to get this article to GA? It might also be worth submitting it for peer review so at least there will (hopefully) be some constructive feedback on the areas which require the most attention. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think peer review would be a good idea. I have been looking for references in the Library today but to no avail yet.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that you have been adding some more refs, some of which are the same. I would strongly suggest you look through the ref and citation template guides, as you can put names in refs and reuse them, without creating loads that are the same. I only say this as someone else would have to go through all the references you are adding now (and existing ones) and fix them up properly, if the article has any chance of getting to GA... Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to change the "accessdate" to read the date of the day you are adding the references, and not leaving it the same :) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is enough refs how do we put it up for peer review. Is it a B article yet?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is B quality myself. Whilst refs have improved, the overall article layout could still do with some touching up. A reasonably sized article with a few references here and there doesn't auto quality it for a particular grading - there are other factors to consider. Personally, now might be a good time to submit for peer review, and get some proper constructive suggestions on how best to move it forward. 10:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to the peer review queue.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll watch it for progress. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Waterspaces

Hi, please can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waterspaces and add any comments you might have. Thanks :) Raywil (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Hopefully this will put an end to all the trouble. Raywil (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it didn't. Click here. Raywil (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You have violated the three-revert rule on Park Lane railway goods station. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this - I don't see a breach of WP:3RR in the history of Park Lane railway goods station. Did you mean to use Template:Uw-3rr? Raywil (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Did you do more than a superficial check of the edits, Jeff? Removing unsourced information is part of policy. Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The three reverts by Kitchen Knife in 41 minutes, without mention of any exception to WP:3RR, were: 1; 2; and 3. Thus, I felt justified in using the text of that warning. Given the adversary, I have struck out that warning. Sorry for any inconvenience. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR states "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time. The rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts count together." so there was breaking of the rule. You should read and understand a rule before clsaining that some one has broken it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Can you explain this edit and more specifically your edit summary [1] Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

Perhaps a disambiguation page would be better? Until you can respond politely to another good faith editor I will be reverting your change. Please note that I created a hat note at Leeds Marsh Lane railway station for those looking for the other article.

Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kirkby Branch Line

The article Kirkby Branch Line has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Skylon

The Skylon article could use your checkover for British grammar. I am an American English speaker, so I might have missed some spellings. Your contributions to this article would be greatly appreciated.-- Novus Orator 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion.-- Novus Orator 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox UK disused station - line

Hi, re this change - did you consider the huge impact this has had on how the station history is displayed? Several editors have used |line= as a synonym for |original=, and in these cases it now looks somewhat peculiar. See, for example, Abbeyhill railway station which now shows

Line North British Railway

Pre-grouping North British Railway

Post-grouping London and North Eastern Railway

when it used to show

Original company North British Railway

Pre-grouping North British Railway

Post-grouping London and North Eastern Railway

--Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I did consider the effect but came to the conclusion that the information needs to be displayed somehow and that while it may look slightly awkward now, as Wikipedia is a work in progress it will eventually lead to an overall improvement, without being completly wrong during the extended transition. I don't think the problems should be fixed as "Targets of opportunity" rather than hunted down.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also baring in mind Private railway station the owner manager reuse potential causes problems. What is needed IMHO is a Wikipeida wide mechanism in which would mean that when any of the entries is opened for editing a message is displayed requesingthe editor to check, and perhaps add some form of token if the change is made or not needed?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... what I think you're saying is that we should actively seek out those stations using |line= when they should really be using |original=, and amend them (except of course for those requiring both, such as Knotty Ash railway station). To this end, I've set up hidden Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox station template which now has nearly 800 members. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No I was saying the opposite. I do not think the problem merits a deliberate effort. I think they should be fixed when editing the station entry for another purpose. It just isn't worth going out of our way. If a mechanical way can be found to do some of the work that would be great or reduce the workload then great but I do not know of a tool which will do that. However it may be better to add a variable BranchLine for the enteries I have done. In general I think it perhaps best not to have alternates and in the case the names do not seem to be really alias.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I've amended the template so that the |line= parameter will show as Original company (ie same as before today), unless |original= is given as well, in which case |line= will show as Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the work.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found a case where |line= and |original= are both useful, but neither |pregroup= nor |postgroup= are sensible - Abercynon North railway station. I think this one looks alright. What do you reckon? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks right to me.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool, Southport and Preston Junction Rly

On a related, yet separate note, I think that the infobox of Barton railway station and some of the others on this line look rather cumbersome. There are five railway companies mentioned, with four headings (one, Post-grouping, being duplicated). First, is it necessary to mention both the WLR and the LSPJ? The line was built, and originally owned by, the LSPJ; it was operated, but never owned, by the WLR (although they had many shareholders, directors and officers in common, they were legally separate entities). Both these railways were absorbed by the LYR on 1 Jul 1897 (confirmed by LYR Act of 15 Jul 1897). So, we have

|line=[[Liverpool, Southport and Preston Junction Railway]]

|original=[[West Lancashire Railway]]

|pregroup=[[Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway]]

but is that too much information? Can one pre-1897 company be eliminated - perhaps the WLR as non-owning. After that I have a bigger difficulty. You've put

|postgroup=[[London and North Western Railway]]

|owner=British Railways

The LNWR was never a post-grouping company - it lost its identity on 1 January 1923 when the LMS was formed. Whilst it's true that the LYR amalgamated with the LNWR, the combined organisation taking the name of the latter (and larger) company, this greater LNWR was formed prior to grouping, on 1 Jan 1922 - so it lasted as such for only a year. Few LYR stations elsewhere mention the LNWR in the infobox, and I also don't think the LNWR needs a mention there (as far as the LYR was concerned, little changed during 1922 except for a few high-ranking officers being shuffled about), so really we should have

|postgroup=[[London, Midland and Scottish Railway]]

I also think that the mention of British Railways is superfluous, and it certainly looks odd if the way that the infobox template is written means that it gets placed above a company which predated it. However, in some areas they put that info in with the post-grouping company to give

|postgroup=[[London, Midland and Scottish Railway]]<br />[[London Midland Region of British Railways]]

which I can accept, although I don't do it myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that whilst I was typing that lot in, you've amended Barton railway station etc. However, I would prefer that the LYR, not the LNWR, be mentioned as |pregroup= for the simple reason that the LNWR owned the station for a very short period compared to the LYR. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While you where tyoing in that I'd done somemore. I've removed the West Lancashire Railway and the BR. I'll consider the other changes, howevere LNWR is the imeddiate predecessor. So I think that will have to stay. Several lines have more complicated history than this, so I think we should stick to the bald facts, regardless.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I don't know the term sockpuppet but i understand it's a negative term. I understand you refer to edits i have done. What problem do you have? With Merseyrail i noticed that City Line did not have a template and went about doing what i could. I got in to difficulties and someone has offered help. You seem to be frowning on this.

Regarding other edits, i noticed you reversed an edit i made. I may have not given a reason and i apologise. I merely refer to a number of phrases used that are what i would describe as business terminology. You may well wish to oppose my edits such is your nature but i am just making these pages less "business orientated" and more relative to the average person. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at your actions since this "sockpuppet" subject came to my notice i am disappointed with your aggression to have my edits investigated. It is a shame you take such a hard lined stance and did not even consider to discuss anything with me Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO we have been here before.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not like me thats fine you disagree with my edits thats fine. Do you not have the courtesy to discuss my edits? Instead you convince yourself that my edits are bad. I have learnt to moderate. Why do you insist on taking this aggressive stance? Why don't you tell me why you think my edits, assuming this is Merseyrail that you refer, have made you think this is a "sockpuppet" or whatever? Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss I suggest that you go to the page set aside for discussion of the subject. Which is linked to from the nitice on your User page.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's nice of you to respond, however forgive me but i would discuss (a subject) if i knew what the subject was. You have not said. I wanted to discuss with you what has offended you. You may refer to Merseyrail edits or the edit on Central Village, or is it both? It doesn't really matter because you have by passed any discussion by reporting me as a Sockpuppet. You are more experienced and knowledgeable but this does not give you the right to assume my edits are bad.

Again if i knew what edit(s) made you take such a hard stance then i would discuss. Incidentally i have discussed edits i made on Merseyrail with another user because i knew i had made mistakes. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is pointed to there. Please keep it there.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Liverpool to Manchester Lines

We still have a problem with the St Helens line here. Further study of this junction in Jowett, on the RCH diagrams provided and on Sub Brit as a result of a look at the St Helens line diagram show it to be more like the third suggestion I have put on the talk page. What do you think? Britmax (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Widnes Dock Junction

You're right. Thanks for that. Britmax (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hunts Cross and Woolton

Hi there - there's a user repeatedly adding a particular link as a ref to Hunts Cross, Hunts Cross railway station and Woolton. This link doesn't work for me, so I've removed it - I've also tidied up only to be fully reverted. This has happened several times, and I've posted to his talk page with no response. What's your opinion? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Page userfied

I moved Talk:Listed buildings in Liverpool/Format 1 to User:Kitchen Knife/Listed buildings in Liverpool/Format 1. In my opinion it was obvious that said talkpage was actually a userdraft. If you disagree with me, please write me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes i work for the council, im going by my peers who say that legislative boundaries matter, i understand the whole suburb debate but face facts litherland is not Liverpool in any way shape or form no matter how many times you try to deface a wiki page, Liverpool has to end somewhere and sefton has to start somewhere. i know your probably going to retort with the yawnsome debate that councils dont matter but they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Once again your wrong, your thinking of a dormitory suburb, oh and hide your ip adress next time :) and your editing is a disgrace 'Litherland is a suburb of Liverpool in the Sefton, Merseyside, England' and i actually work for the council so stop thinking your a keyboard warrior, i will come on this page and change it every time you do :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scouserrr (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool Urban Area:

Please check your actual references:

1 - The Liverpool Urban Area is not a legislative area (or otherwise). 2 - is not a recognised boundary (legislative or otherwise) 3 - provides no political office, nor representative. 4 - is solely used for the purpose of the ONS.

In contrast: 1 - Merseyside is a legally recognised metropolitan area. 2 - Knowsley / Liverpool / St Helens are recognised unitary authorities within Merseyside.

Use of the "Liverpool Urban Area" in the lede is intentionally misleading as it conflates legal boundaries with "terms of reference". It should be included within any discussion on economy, population, and not to define what a town is or its location (if the assertion was even accurate).

As per the notes on your last revert: To locate Whiston in the ONS one needs to only type in "Whiston" in the search box to have St Helens South & Whiston statistics brought up (for 2010) or Whiston North / South wards (for 2001)[2]. If one should type in "Liverpool Urban Area" in comparison, you will find no statistics specifically referring to Whiston. Your argument is a red herring.

The actual Liverpool Urban Area article does not list "Whiston", nor is it mentioned in the data source from which it is derived:

D84100 Liverpool Urban Area 816,216

 D84103 Bootle	59,123
 D84101 Crosby	51,789
 D84107 Haydock 16,955
 D84105 Huyton-with-Roby 54,766
 D84102 Litherland 22,242
 D84104 Liverpool 469,017
 D84108 Prescot 39,695
 D84106 St. Helens 102,629

Any attempt to assert Whiston is part of this "urban Area" must then fall down on explaining where within these sub-divisions it is meant to fall. Koncorde (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Liverpool Urban Area contains Whiston so all the data is included in the totals. Your assertion that this represent a geographic placement is clearly false. You assertion that we should only mention the lowest group which contains Whiston is again false, if it where true then then the only geographic description that would be allowed would be Prescot and the reader would have to look in Prescot to find the Borough of St Helens and in that to find Merseyside and in Merseyside to find England. What you are doing is trying to remove all references to Liverpool from the article despite St Helens economic and Social ties to the city, it is as much a matter of bias as it would be to assert Whiston was part of the City.

I have no issue with the mention of Liverpool or the Liverpool Urban Area. However it is superfluous to the mention of Merseyside and Knowsley for defining where in the country it actually is. It is therefore only a functional term for statistical purposes which it is specifically not being used for. I have an issue when the Liverpool Urban Area is asserted to mean something that it doesn't with no rationale.

You state that you need to list the ONS reference to the Liverpool Urban Area in order to find ONS statistics for Whiston. You don't. Whiston (north and South) are both listed in the ONS. The Liverpool Urban Area does not mention Whiston - this means that in actual fact it is impossible to discern any factual information related to Whiston from the Liverpool Urban Area reference.

If you need to explain "oh Whiston comes under Prescot" then it fails to actually clearly and concisely explain what particular relevance there is for its inclusion.

Whiston is in Knowsley, in Merseyside. It has its own ONS references and does not require in any form a secondary reference to a topic that does not reference Whiston in and of itself.. You can say it's 6 miles from Liverpool, and I have no issue discussing the Liverpool Urban Area within the appropriate section (i.e. dealing with statistics if there are any of any relevance) but it is not a legislative boundary and is being used in a way to purposely muddy the waters with a mish-mash logic behind its inclusion.Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is only you who sees the inclusion as and attempt to insinuate that the ONS Urban Areas are a legislative boundary.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And this makes me less right about their inherently misleading nature and patently poor methodology behind its inclusion? Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Because What is written is one thing and what you are reading into it is another. It is you that is claiming to be mislead, when you clutching at straws and making poor arguments.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How else would you read "It is located within the greater Liverpool Urban Area" in the opening paragraph? It is not located in the Liverpool Urban Area. It is located in Knowsley in Merseyside as it already states. The Liverpool Urban Area is not a physical area of land, boundary or legislative region in any shape or form, it is a statistical criteria or category. Would you in the article of Christopher Lee state that he is "Located in the 65+ age category"?

The accurate use of the "Liverpool Urban Area" in the lede would be something along the lines of "In the 2001 census, Whiston was included under Prescot as part of the Liverpool Urban Area as part of the wider analysis of UK conurbations". At least then it would be a complete sentence with some kind of logic behind it explaining the obvious discrepancy between the LUA's listed areas and Whistons absence from it.

More accurate still would be to actually make some kind of statement as to why the Liverpool Urban Area is even relevant to the article lede and couldn't be included as part of the body structure. Koncorde (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The ONS defines an area it designates as the Liverpool Urban Area. WHiston is within the area. Could it be any simpler. The ONS can define whatever it wants. BT can define a Liverpool area code, it is open to any organisation to define an area and give it a name. It is not the sole prerogative of any organisation to define areas. The ONS, a governmental body has an area. If I said that St Helens was in the Open Universities North Western Zone it would be true. It is you that is reading far more to the phrase because of your Liverpool phobia.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

BT's Liverpool area code doesn't mean in the lede of an article you would write "Whiston is in the Liverpool telephone code region" does it? Would you put in the lede of the St Helens article that it falls within the Open University North Western Zone? I don't think you would. You would put it in a relevant part of the article that actually goes some way to explain what on earth the Liverpool Urban Area actually is and why that has any relevance.

I lived in Liverpool, I have nothing against Liverpool (especially not fear), I dislike the forcing of Liverpool into completely unrelated areas for little reason (and even less rationale). The Liverpool Urban Area is being mis-used in such a way that is entirely inconsistent and confusing to people reading the articles when no mention is made of the areas you talk about within the LUA article, or the LUA's statistics (which makes linking to the LUA citations a tad difficult without some expounding). You say Prescot contains Whiston, but what citation is provided to this effect? And doesn't that mean that for accuracy's sake the article should say "Whiston falls within Prescot for ONS purposes". The LUA is meaningless addition in the lede and should be properly qualified in the article.Koncorde (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

When taking that action, I consulted a number of folks who are long time admins here to determine the correct course of action. In the end, our feeling (which was vetted through the WMF's legal team) was that the image does not comply with our current policy, which requires that:

"Low- rather than high-resolution is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)."

In this case, because it was a high-resolution scalable graphic, we believe that a low-resolution graphic complies with both the letter and the spirit of the policy. Should a suitable low resolution graphic be substituted, neither I nor the police have any issue with it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if they declined to provide one were you to contact the police and request a low resolution version (I'll gladly email you and make the connection, if you send me an email to philippe

wikimedia.org) and request a low resolution version. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm legally constrained from doing what you suggest: our legal team is very clear that the Foundation does not create content for addition to the encyclopedia. We can not do it. Doing so would compromise our immunity under Section 230 of the CDA. So, your suggestion - while logical - is not something I would be allowed to do. The community creates content - the Foundation provides for the legal protection of the projects. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. That still would be content creation. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I have no objection to a reasonable alternative being substituted, but we don't create content. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Chelcee Grimes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chelcee Grimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelcee Grimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. the wub "?!" 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Phil Redmond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knowsley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Merseyside

Your recent editing history at Merseyside shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Historic counties of England

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kitchen Knife reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: ) .. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The full report of this case is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kitchen Knife reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 31 hours). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I have attempt to discuss this in several area, so much so that I have been accused of arena shopping GHMytrle and the several other editors have refused to join those forums, simply because they will loose as they did with the previous pro ABC campaigns. but have kept on editing. regardless. As the blocker acknowledged other have been involved it is therefore wrong to block just me. Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. --Chris (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

As I'm the admin who blocked you, I won't handle any unblock requests you make, but I would advise you, as Crazycomputers does above, to read WP:NOTTHEM. Edit wars by their nature take more than one person, but you're the only one who's gone over 3RR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

The blocker now claims I broke 3RR I did not, not all edits are reverts

Decline reason:

I see reverts at 21:30, 19:59, 19:41, 19:35, 19:01, 14:48, 14:28, 13:55, and 00:10. Your assertion seems to be clearly incorrect; please do not post any further unblock requests until you have had a chance to read through WP:3RR. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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 received your e-mail, and I'll reply here. 3RR is a section of edit warring, and they're frequently used interchangeably. I couldn't possibly care less about the article's content, my article interests are very much removed from the Flag Institute. I also want you to know I was forwarded a copy of the e-mail you sent to Ghmyrtle. If you do that again, I'll extend your block and disable your e-mail access; you cannot use e-mail to continue attacking editors. Don't do it again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by repeating the same behaviours as your last block. Although you did not break WP:3RR, you went directly in and edit warred on the same article. I recommend you hold yourself to WP:1RR in future. Remember, there is no deadline, you can be patient, discuss matters at the talk page and wait for consensus to develop. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not broken the rules as the admin admits therefore I should not be blocked.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 14:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not caused damage or destruction, I am trying to stop myrtle from damaging Wikipedia and using it as a platform for his POV. I have been making a useful contribution. The block was not necessary in the first place as I had not damaged Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Please review WP:NOTTHEM before posting any more such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Because Beeblebrox is mad. I have said what I'm tying to do. I didn't blame anyone else. Is there some kind of requirement to have a subnormal IQ to be an Admin

Decline reason:

Friendly advice: don't insult the people who will review your unblock requests. That notwithstanding, this is still a WP:NOTTHEM argument, and you still aren't willing to accept the obvious fact that you've edit warred, etc. Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Actually to quote the person who impoosed the blockk "Although you did not break WP:3RR"

Decline reason:

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement. You can be edit warring even if you don't break it. And, in this case, you were. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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 not broken the rules as the admin admits therefore I should not be blocked" confuses the heck out of me. You've been blocked for repeating the same behavior that got you blocked last time. --B music ian 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was blocked for reverting 3RR. I have not engaged in a edit war. I have simple edited a file and reverted the changed. Perhaps If whatI have have said conuses you Wikipedia isn'tthe place for you.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, the rules are "no edit warring" and "no disruptive editing". 3RR is a bright line, automatic block, but you were clearly edit warring and being disruptive, even if not reaching the bright line. As such, you did break "the rules". Worm^TT · (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Then so did GHmyrtle so have half the other editors on WikiPedia who make an edit that is the reverted and reverted back. You just pandering to Myrtles bullying in various forms where he refuses to engage in discussion on the subject. Such as Wikipedia:reliable source. As I said in my email you decision is pathetic.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You made 1 edit and 2 reverts to the same article, within a matter of hours of the end of your block for edit warring. I assessed GHMyrtle's behaviour, which was also at 2 reverts, but he attempted discussion, which you did not. There's a difference there. I'll leave it to another admin to review your block - but I will point out that Kitchen Knife sent me an email through the Wikipedia system with the single word "pathetic". I wouldn't have paid it much heed, but I see he's already been chastised for abusive emails, so I wouldn't have any issues with another admin increasing the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss it in so many forum I have actually been accused forum shopping. In those myrtle has stated he doesn't want to discuss it, as I said he is manipulative. I you think my emails are abuse then bring it on. You understanding of what constitutes abuse seems rather strange. I see you have use the same passive aggressive bullying techniques as myrtle.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Define "bullying". --B music ian 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get someone to do something by coercion. In this case his unwilligness to discuss the subject in Wikipedia:reliable sources. His use of warning templated. When he was in exactly the same position as I, and his mockery when I use the same template on him, despite the edit count showing that he had in fact reverted more than me. His generaly condescending attitude.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sending me an e-mail, especially a patronizing one, is wholly unnecessary. If there is something you wish for me to review in the unblock that you felt I missed, please post it here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest if I though there was anything I could say I would. Bit you admin have your heads firmly stuck up you backside and don't really understand what real "damage" is.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)