User talk:Rochdale pioneer

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Alderman Fatpimple! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Ϣere SpielChequers 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed

I noted you removed what you felt was advertising (actually NPOV material) from an article and then tagged it with {{Ad}} afterwards. Bt you had removed the material which you felt was advertising. I wonder if you might expand on your thought process? Or am I mistaken? I have been before :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I removed some of your NPOV material such as "The Marine Society and the Sea Cadets work well together. The combination of these two powerful brands makes for a potent force in the promotion of maritime careers and the task of raising the profile of shipping and its importance", but it still has a promotional tone. . . Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mistake 'promotional tone' and 'written like an advert' for this article. The former tends to be NPOV the latter is blatant advertising. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I bother. . . Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Christian High School (San Jose, California)

Hi, AF. Was the inclusion of stupid a product of much forethought? I'm not overly concerned with your chosen task of cruft-removal, but you should take some care in its execution. Regards Tiderolls 19:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of genteelisms and euphemisms is intended to improve the encyclopedia. . . Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability, or unwillingness, to recognize the inappropriateness of your edit is concerning. And now you're edit warring at this article. Again, please take care in the execution of your edits. You are not serving your case well and are jeopardizing your editing privilege. Tiderolls 20:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave all the promotional and advertising material for someone else to remove. . . Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one solution; alternately you could leave the pouting behind and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiderolls 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way am I not following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? (apart from adding the single word "stupid" which I accept was not constructive.Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My post also referenced edit warring. Tiderolls 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I reverted only once, not three times, so as to avoid being accused of edit warring. I see I was not successful as you plainly consider a single revert to be edit warring. Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only me; from Wikipedia:Edit warring "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." (Emphasis made in the original) Tiderolls 20:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the definition is vague, but that is no reason to accuse someone with no past history of edit-warring on the basis of a single revert. Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear, you reverted twice. The first edit you made counts as a revert per policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the definition is vague, but we'll leave that for another conversation. Another informative page: Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. Tiderolls 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Alderman Fatpimple", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because many editors would consider it offensive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be considered offensive ? Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing occurs to you? Fat pimple is gross, and alderman is a council member. So, you're associating a governmental figure with a fat pimple. Perhaps you could explain why you picked it. Somehow I sense that you're smart enough to understand why some people might find it offensive, but you prefer to punt it back to me. I'd just as soon not play games.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been Fatpimples in Ruislip Gardens since time immemorial. . . Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you either want to be blocked or you don't care if you're blocked as your cyrptic responses are singularly unhelpful. Are you saying that fatpimple is an herb or a flower; if so, I can't find any evidence of that. Are you saying that a pimple is an herb or a flower and that you are referring to a fat herb or flower; if so, I can't find any evidence of that, either. So, either explain yoursel fully or you risk being blocked if you continue to edit under this account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an explanation of my user name, refer to Humour. It appears to be an alien concept to you. . . Alderman Fatpimple (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

{{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.

At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)--->[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Rochdale pioneer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

There are usernames on here that are far more against policy than your old one. To me your old name was somewhat ironic, and redolent of oversize aldermen. With your new user name I am at once reminded of Cyril Smith. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no conscious connection with Cyril Smith, though I appreciate the similarity. The original Alderman Fatpimple was a character in a comedy sketch by The Two Ronnies; his passing will be regretted. On the other hand the title of the sketch was "Embarrassing Names", so perhaps citing it as an offensive username may have been justifiable for someone with no sense of humour. . . Rochdale pioneer (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was good while it lasted. Cyril was a mayor in his day, so the similarities keep piling on. I raise my glass to the health of the late Alderman Fatpimple. [irony mode]Now, do you suppose we should go after The Pope and the C of E and other similar names?[/irony mode] Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MediaTek updates

Hi RP, I'm going to take a crack at updating the MediaTek page. I read that you previously flagged some issues with the language on the page, so I dug up some authoritative source material to help improve it in line with Wikipedia's rules. Any tips or advice you might have would be most welcome. Thanks, Rick. Rgfhkc (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]