User talk:Whwya

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:SandyGeorgia. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. I am referring to this edit. [1] Describing specific users as "immature children" and "waste of space" does not come near civility. Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's a DYK regular!

Your warning isn't tailored toward the holy civility policy. It's for a "[p]ersonal attack directed at a specific editor". I suggest you read WP:NPA, as you clearly misunderstand it. As for civility, what is the point of that again? Whwya (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a DYK reviewer. Little difference though there may be. And if I'd meant to specify WP:CIVIL I would've done so. But really, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original) is quite clear and rather difficult to misunderstand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, unfortunately that isn't applied equally to all editors. Admins get away with vindictive comments. Whwya (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so do some non-admins who are "too important" to receive sanctions for personal attacks or incivility. Too important even for their names to be mentioned, in some cases, I've been told.

But no matter; the distinction may be of great importance to you, but it is of no interest to me. I delivered the above notice about your behaviour without concerning myself to check whether you are an admin or not.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pilbara rail network

Your recent edit to Pilbara rail network has actually deleted everything below the place you placed the tag. I suggest you take a more careful approach to your edits. I've also removed the tag as I can't see any copyright violation in the article. If you do, please discuss them on the talk page. Calistemon (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll fix that. I did not delete it; the template just masks everything following. I wrote of the copyvios here Template talk:Did you know#Pilbara rail network. Whwya (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at at your concerns. You are saying that these are copyrightg violations?

My text:

The network operates the following locomotives:

72 x GE Dash-9
51 x GE Evolution Series
5 x GE Dash-8

Rio's:

Locomotives:

• 72 x GE Dash 9.

• 51 x GE Evo.

• 5 x GE Dash 8.

And this one:

My text:

With 1,300 kilometres of track, it is the largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia

Rio's:

With a network of 12 mines, three shipping terminals and the largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia, our Pilbara operations make up a major part of our iron ore activities globally.

And this one:

My text:

Treasurer Wayne Swan declared that access to the rail lines by third parties would increase competition, stop infrastructure double-ups and reduce damage to sensitive native title and environmental regions.

Source text:

Following the National Competition Council's recommendation, Mr Swan declared the rail lines accessible by other users for 20 years on the grounds it would increase competition, stop infrastructure double-ups and reduce damage to sensitive native title and environmental regions.

Are you for real, mate? I could possibly see the third one as to close in text, and that could be altered quite easily but there is absolutley nothing wrong with the first two! Calistemon (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesBWatson has done some rewording of the article. I, for my part think it sufficently solves all potential disputes. Calistemon (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Hammersley & Robe River railway#Alledged copyright violations. Whwya (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think, you need to gain some understanding what a copyright violation really is, mate. I go with User:JamesBWatson opinion that this is really a trivial matter. As to whether I'm fit to edit wikipedia or not, let Admin's decide that, luckily you don't have a say in this! Personally, having had a look at your, very limited, editing history, so far you seem to be mostly engaged in personal attacks agains user users. Calistemon (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding

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.

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding by User Whwya. Calistemon (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About name

I'm new to Wikipedia and I have recently understood my inappropriate username and I was wondering how to change it. Do you think you could tell me how? User:Doctoroctopussy.

Yes, I can. Check out WP:CHU. For renames to usernames that are not already taken, go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and follow the instructions. For renames to usernames that are already taken and have no significant edits, see Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and follow the instructions. Whwya (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You do not need a template, since you are obviously well versed in WP practice and procedure. My rationale for blocking is "you need to get your finger out of your arse and stop fucking around if you want to edit this encyclopedia." I would comment that this tariff of "indefinite" is only for as long as you feel inclined to act like a pillock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC) nb. I welcome you raising any issue with the manner of my informing you of this block.[reply]

I take no issue to the manner by which you informed me of this block. This is how it should be done everywhere. I thank you for stepping up to the plate and initiating this new style. Whwya (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Yes, I believe I went too far nominating Calistemon‎'s articles for deletion. I actually did not know they were created within the last 24 hours, so I could have done some more research before nominating them for deletion. I have done wrong in that respect, and will stop wikihounding Mr. Calistemon. Whwya (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per FisherQueen below, there is a reasonable possibility that this account constitutes an abuse of multiple accounts, e.g. to evade scrutiny or sanctions. We cannot evaluate this unless you disclose your old account(s). Sandstein 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are also blocked for "Not a new editor", which is evident from your first edit. I am not comfortable with unblocking disruptive, fake "new" users. Please disclose your previous account(s). Sandstein 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I said "victims like Malleus and me" because I have previously edited here long long ago. I was an established editor, but when people started railing on me all the time, I had no choice but to leave. Now I would like to return to editing, so I vacated that account. I would wish to not disclose it because I fear that people that came after me then will come after me now. Whwya (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the unblock request, but it isn't possible for me to evaluate whether this is a legitimate use for a second account or not, as I don't know what the previous account was. My first reaction is that, while I don't know what the issues with the previous account were, if you're making personal attacks with the new account, the issues may not be solved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines

Hi! I was reading the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines, and I noticed that you said "Your continued crybaby attitude does not help your case; I suggest you grow up.". I wanted to let you know that this came across as uncivil. Normally I would ask you to strike out the text, but that is complicated by the fact that you are currently blocked. Instead I suggest that either you place a {{helpme}} note here asking someone to strike the text on your behalf, or you include a promise to strike the text as part of any unblock request. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]