User talk:Ec5618/Block

I was blocked for a period of 24 hours for reverting a template five times within a period of 24 hours. The conflict was the result of an initial edit of mine, made to the template, but which was quickly reverted, and a brawl quickly ensued when I noticed the same thing happen again, with another editor. Another editor had tried to edit the template, but his edit was reverted, apparently for the reason that he didn't use the template himself, and thus had no right to edit it. I got involved, and stubbornly refused to back down, reverting the template several times in the process.

The template in question was {{User Aspie}}, the user was Mistress Selina Kyle, and the whole thing was silly beyond belief. The template was modified in the end, to some extent, and the whole issue laid to rest.

Suffice it to say, I have no hard feelings for anyone involved, and would like to thank Prodego for mediating this extemely silly event. I hope never to have need for his services again, though I reserve the right to like ver. -- Ec5618 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User Aspie}}[edit]

Hello. Can you please stop abusing your admin privileges (privileges granted to you by the community, not "rights") to revert non-vandalism to {{User Aspie}}.

I made most of this template, and am one of the several people who use it on their user page. I notice you do not, so I am unsure why you are so determined to edit war (again, an abuse of your admin rollback privileges).

I hope you are willing to discuss instead of blindly reverting, but if not I'll be reporting you. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^(Α⇔Ω 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not an adminitrator. Secondly, I don't see why it should matter whether or not I personally include the template I edit on my user page. Thirdly, the edit I made had no effecto on the layout of the template itself, so they should not cause any problems for you. Fourthly, I did try to edit the template, and I was immediately reverted, without an explanation. Could you please tell me why the template is itself in the Category:Aspergian Wikipedians? -- Ec5618 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard as per other user categories like Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship and many more. See WP:UB --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of a 'standard' style, on WP:UB. I did find templates like {{User:UBX/Photoshop}}, {{User browser:Opera}}, {{User alcohol}}, {{User:UBX/milk}}, etc, all of which use the <includeonly>-tag. Perhaps there is no standard to uphold, and perhaps the includeonly-tag should be used in your userbox. -- Ec5618 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Aspie[edit]

If you're going to endlessly revert this template, at least use the talkpage. Morgan695 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Aspie[edit]

I have noticed a large number of reverts going on at this page, and would like to help you resolve this dispute. First of all, I am not an administrator, however I know some administrators who would be able to help if this situation got out of hand. I would like to know the reason you reverted to the template with 10pt text. What about is better then the 14pt text? Not just change for changes sake, but why 10pt font is actually better.

Prodego ^talk 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I edited the template a while back, when I noticed it was looking a bit odd, when viewed directly. I noticed that the template itself appeared in Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, which didn't make sense to me. I made changes that did not in any affect the way the template looked, but was reverted within minutes by Mistress Selina Kyle. Believing at first that my edit had been reverted in error, I reverted the template, to allow her to review my edit. I could have used the Talk page, but thought my edit was quite straightforward, and didn't require much discussion. In hindsight I believe I should have explained my views to her on the Talk page immediately, if only as a show good faith. Mistress Selina Kyle responded by calling my edit vandalism, and suggested I didn't have any business editing pages I didn't directly use. I was literally shocked by the very idea, and posted on the Talk page, asking for advice in removing the template from the category. It was my hope that this post would illicit a response from Mistress Selina Kyle, explaining her views for keeping the template in that category. It didn't, though two people did respond, one of them you, with technical advice, which was not quite my intention, though it hardly showed that my edit was controversial. I didn't pursue the matter further, at that time.

As I had edited the template, it appeared on my Watchlist, and I noticed a few days later that Mistress Selina Kyle was telling yet another user off for editing a template they didn't personally use. I checked the edit, and found it quite harmless. Feeling peeved, and hoping to illicit discussion, I reverted the template to the edited version, which both appeared nicer, and adhered to standard userbox style. It also didn't use the overly cute term 'Aspie' to refer to a person with Asperger's syndrome, which I quite agreed with, and I found the three-letter 'ASP' a suitable replacement. I specifically noted in my edit summary that Mistress Selina Kyle should stop claiming ownership of the template. Her response was literally: "No one's 'claiming ownership': the point is, if you don't even use it on your page, why are you modifying other people's user page templates?" Quite remarkable. Not ownership, just claiming that the privilege of editing the template must be earned. Quite remarkable also in that my initial edit to the template was utterly harmless; it had no effect on the look of the template. She has repeated this claim several times.

I reverted again at that point, suggesting Mistress Selina Kyle try using the talk page to explain her reasoning, which was my second revert of the template, to which she responded with her third. She never posted on the Talk page.

In the end, she simply refused to let me, or anyone else it seems, edit the template at all, simply because she didn't see anything wrong with it. To a perfect template, any edit is detrimental.

I am willing to admit that I acted wrong, but not that my views were wrong. I don't think discussion on the Talk page could have helped her understand my point, as my point was quite clear to begin with. The only effect might have been that a heated debate could have ensued on the Talk page, unbeknownst to anyone. -- Ec5618 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actualy I noticed your edit summary, but I didn't act until Mistress Selina Kyle put a message up onto the administrators noticeboard(although I'm not an admin). Of course, just because you don't use a page dosen't mean you can't edit it. I am going to wait for Mistress Selina Kyle's response and then we'll try to work this out. Prodego ^talk 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, please revert Anal glands [1]. Its embarassing. -- Ec5618 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Prodego. -- Ec5618 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "standard userbox style" you mention? I can't find it. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to imply that there was a decided upon standard for userboxes. I just noted that most userboxes use slightly less wide text. By simply reducing the font of the text, I felt the template looked more in line with other templates. (See, for example, a random user page using boxes: User:Jim62sch. Had the 'Aspie' template appeared on this page, it would have looked overly wide.)

When Mistress Selina Kyle reverted me without cause (either time), I took offense. I honestly don't care about the layout of the template itself, though I would like to see it removed from the Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, as per my initial edit. I just had no intention of bowing to a bully. Had Mistress Selina Kyle taken up the discussion on the Talk page, I would have gladly accepted that the text remain the same size (for whatever reason). I would have accepted any explanation for the template being categorised as a wikipedian (surely there is a reason). Had she Talked to me, I'd have happily moved on. She never did though, and even went to call for help before contacting me, called me a bigot (in so many words) behind my back before contacting me, and was still not shown any interest in sitting down to work this out. -- Ec5618 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you both have explained your reasoning to me, please do so with Mistress Selina Kyle at the Aspie template talk page Prodego ^talk 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a proposed userbox, let's work on it now. Prodego ^talk 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation[edit]

As you made 5 reverts to Template:User Aspie on Jan 8, I have blocked you for twenty-four hours for violation of the Three revert rule. Please discuss changes at the talk page, and refrain from edit warring when you return upon expiration of your block. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, atleast you blocked Mistress Selina Kyle too, though that's hardly a comfort. I must say, this seems rather a petty thing to be blocked for. Not a proud moment, in the least. -- Ec5618 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]