User talk:pablo X/Archive7

yahn (2005—2007) | tahn (2009 part 1) | tether (2009 part 2) | mether(2010) | mumph (2011)

hither (2012) | lither (2013) | auver | dauver | dic

locked, but unblocked socks/alternate accounts

Hi
Yes, you are technically correct that the account is locked, not blocked, and thus the template wording is not 100% accurate, but does that really matter? And if you must, then please at least replace the sock-template with an appropriate 'alternate account' that puts the user page still in the sock category so that the connection remains in place.
By the way, the named greeting in your edit notice doesn't work anymore, this quirky behavior of the REVISIONUSER magic word was removed well over a year ago.
Amalthea 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to you. But this kind of inaccurate tarring / tagging / painting a target on the forehead / slur /smear / call it what you will is part of the reason that wikipedia is such a toxic place. Consider the similar case of Malleus Fatuorum, doomed to walk the earth dragging a lengthy log of (mainly unjust) blocks behind him.
Put it in a category if you must, but what purpose is served by incorrectly labelling the account as indefinitely blocked?
Thank you for the tip on the edit notice. pablo 00:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention any of this when you removed the template with "Account is not blocked"; I addressed that concern of yours already by revoking the courtesy unblock so that it is now "accurate", if you want it even more accurate you can add ban templates to all accounts.
Beyond that, I had the exact same discussion before. When he is given another chance by the community we can re-evaluate how to connect the accounts, but at this time it makes no sense.
And if I may, in my corners of the encyclopedia, the atmosphere isn't toxic. I'm betting that any plain article editor also doesn't feel it. Maybe the toxicity you notice comes from reading too many noticeboards and back-room e-mail lists.
Amalthea 12:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I just mentioned that the account was not blocked. Which it clearly wasn't.
I agree that the toxicity shows most on various noticeboards however as just an ordinary editor I have no knowledge of nor access to "back-room e-mail lists" as you speculate - nor any interest in gaining it. pablo 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Ah, well, in June 2011 you were always CCed in the mails from the Jack Merridew posse, I assumed this was still going on and what prompted the edit on User:Barong. Amalthea 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. I thought you meant wp mailing lists or IRC or something. No, it was a post on New York Brad's page by a user who appears to think that the horse requires further chastisement. All quiet on the email front. pablo 18:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yeah, that's not really productive now either. My apologies for misjudging your intent! :) Amalthea 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no problem; I can see why you might have done. pablo 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"toxic place" - define toxic. What should I think (not to take your precious time with the long discussions you, Amalthea, found anyway, thanks for commenting!) of this little well-crafted gift? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a bilingual pun! Classy! pablo 10:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bzzt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did you know that the image above letting go of the past doesn't show well on a small screen because of the TOC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably archive and let go of the 2012 stuff. Nice poem. pablo 11:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letting go of the past is still needed, probably always will be. I offered the poem before, it wasn't so well received ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

ten years
Thank you for contributing to this project for ~~eight~~ ~~nine~~ ten years! You defended endangered articles and endangered users and added thought-provoking humor, you Fictional Wikipedia editor in popular culture, using your "wit as a pitchfork" and driving "the brute off". You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 223rd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! x pablo 21:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can admire two trees given to me on my talk, one legendary by now, the other one recent. (Also an opera house.) The music on top - I heard it. Fighting a friend being banned - again, with memories, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ban seems out of question, - there's music, DYK and a new quote on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha

This gave me a good laugh. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing, I would have missed it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the article has moved to a more sensible title now and stands a better chance of ending up as a meaningful and useful list. Good news for the encyclopaedia, but the end of that joke. pablo 09:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know what appeared today as a quirky (!) Did you know? My promised article, see top of user and talk. Ha! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]