User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 7

Please stop unexplained vandalism

Andy, why now are you targetting me here, you keep deleting two graffiti art links that provide really good examples of Birmingham graffiti art relevant to the article, so I restore them but you are constant in your blatant vandalism claiming this to be discussion which is dishonest IMO. Thanks Nick Boulevard 17:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making false accusations of vandalism and reduce your paranioa. Andy Mabbett 08:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Although it is inappropriate for Nick to accuse you of vandalism, the fact that he does so indicates that he does not understand of the basis of your reversions. Given the history of conflict between you, I think it would be constructive for you to accompany any reversion of Nick (and any other well-intentioned editor) with a note on the article talk page explaining your reasoning explicitly. By 'explicitly' I mean saying something like "I have reverted [diff] because it describes events in Coventry, which is not part of Birmingham". The implicit equivalents are "I have reverted an irrelevancy" or "I have reverted [diff] because it describes events in Coventry". —Theo (Talk) 09:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Thanks for pointing out my inappropriate language at User talk:Nick Boulevard. It was discourteous. I have amended it. Would you like me to identify the behaviours that create the impressions to which I allude? —Theo (Talk) 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Theo/Andy, I should not have used the word vandal in this case.

Andy Mabbett

Sorry for listing this rant here. Nick Boulevard 22:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Red copyvio

Andy, the suggestion that Nick Boulevard added the Midland Line copyvio is an unverified suspicion and to state it as evidence could be considered libellous. That is why I removed it. I am sorry that you see this as censorship. By all means raise a report that you believe that Nick was using a Tiscali IP address to make anonymous copyvios in April. Finally, I feel that your continued repetition of allegations against Nick, and your attempts to link the misbehaviours of other users to his, amount to harrassment. I have mentioned this on several occasions before. Should you make any more edits that I consider to be harrassment, I will raise an RFC about your behaviour. —Theo (Talk) 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed several other items. Frankly, given your recent behaviour, and the above ludicrous and fallacious allegation, I'm not really interested in hearing your personal opinions, nor your threats. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other item (singular, unless you are using item to mean words, sentences or some other subdivision of what I consider to be an item) was your criticism of User:Leonig Mig, which I felt then and now to be better suited to an RFC/wikiquette alert/equivalent about Leonig Mig, rather than the Nich Boulevard RFC. I can see no way that your criticisms of Leonig Mig's behaviour can help Nick to improve his behaviour. Please expalin your rationale. Also, please explain why my deletion of your criticisms is "censorship" while your similar deletions are "removal per policy". Leonig Mig and I have both explained that we feel that your criticisms are not appropriate to this page. Please stop reposting the criticism there. Thanks. —Theo (Talk) 00:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean items, plural. I'm not here to explain Wikpedia policies to you; read them for yourself, Andy Mabbett 12:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain which specific policies are pertinent here. Specifically, I need help finding the policy that defines "item" in this context. It would also help me if you could explain broadly which policies apply. Thanks. —Theo (Talk) 23:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small Heath

Apologies if this is the wrong protocol...

This is scfitch... I added Small Heath (disambiguation) and wanted to remove the Birmingham entry on the Small Heath Butterfly page...

How do we remove the reference to the area of Birmingham and make the disambiguation page work instead? You can update my User talk page to reply.

Thanks, Stephen

I've added the {{otheruses}} tag. Andy Mabbett 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alerts

Hi there. I see you've extracted that item from the archive and back to the main page. I am not sure what the purpose of this is. As I understand things, there is a current RfC open on the issue/users in question. It will serve everybody better to confine all discussion of the RfC to the RfC talk page. Since resurrecting the Wikiquette alert is basically a fork of the RfC, I am going to archive it again. If you want to make a new alert, please do so under today's date, but please do not create another avenue for comment other than the RfC. Thanks. -Splash 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is, to the best of my knowledge, as yet, no RFC about the user concerned. Andy Mabbett 16:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, you're right, I just looked at the diffs you had provided today, which were to an RfC. Still, I think it better to confine comments on the RfC to the RfC. Feel free to make a new Wikiquette alert under today's date though. The main thing I wanted gone from the main page was the old argument; that shouldn't have been on the page in the first place, as the guidance at the top says. -Splash 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You resurrected the 1st of July, despite my request. I'm not sure why, to be honest, but I'll leave it there. -Splash 17:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judgemental tone in edit comments

Our policy Wikipedia:Civility gives as an example of behaviours that contribute to an uncivil environment "judgmental tone in edit comments". Your edit summary "rm ludicrous claim […]" at Birmingham hip hop scene is judgmental in tone. Wiktionary defines ludicrous as "Idiotic, often to the point of being funny." Describing an edit as idiotic says that the editor has behaved like an idiot. Comparing someone to an idiot in this way is judgmental. Please be more careful about your tone. —Theo (Talk) 00:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent history of making judgemntal comments, you're in no position to lecture anyone else, and, as I've already pointed out, I have no interest in (and attach no particular worth to) your personal opinions. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why speedy deletion?

Dear Andy Mabbett, please can you explain why you have listed [Punch Records for deletion immediately after I created it, thankfully others did not agree with you and it will now remain but I would still like an explanation, thank you. Nick Boulevard 11:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason stated in my edit summary. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not satisfactory, explain further please mate Nick Boulevard 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied; I'm not here to satifsfy you - and I'm certainly not your "mate". Andy Mabbett 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. In the edit summary, you say that it is "insigniificant [sic]". It may be, but Nick is right; that's not a speedy deletion candidate. For more information, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. — Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 14:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why removal of factual content

Dear Andy, please can you also explain why you have removed the list of record shops at Birmingham Hip Hop scene, without the record shop selling Hip Hop records there would not be a Hip Hop scene in the city, the list is fairly brief and the shops specialise in Hip Hop, as in they all have substantial Hip Hop selections. Thank you Nick Boulevard 12:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason stated in my edit summary. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not satisfactory, explain further please mate Nick Boulevard 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied; I'm not here to satifsfy you - and I'm certainly not your "mate". Andy Mabbett 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease being uncivil Andy, I am trying to communicate with you. Nick Boulevard 18:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why removal of Mohammed Ali

Dear Andy, Please can you explain why you have removed reference to Graffiti artistMohammed Ali from here, I have provided a link to the BBC article, he is, as far as I know the only Graffiti artist to incorporate religion in this way in Britain and as such is relevant to Birmingham graffiti. Thank you Nick Boulevard 12:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason stated in my edit summary. Andy Mabbett 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not satisfactory, explain further please mate Nick Boulevard 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]