User talk:MrClaxson

{{unblock-auto}} I have just added this auto unblock so I can access the change username page so I can change my username. Thanks.

We need the IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let it drop

There's no need for you to push to get an apology. Let it drop. Thanks. PouponOnToast 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You were not a paragon of civility in this matter yourself. I strongly suggest you let it drop. PouponOnToast 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping this matter. PouponOnToast 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saxonoffice.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Saxonoffice.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rambutan (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding the image into the article, without providing a source and a rationale. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:The Sound of Drums.--Rambutan (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See here.--Rambutan (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, contains the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project, or is otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may appeal on your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you. Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} to your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked.
3. You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is a lot easier to create a new account.

Changing user name.

The user rename requests page requires me to add my request at the bottom of the page, everytime I try I keep getting told I'm still blocked. How do I go about changing my username?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrClaxson (talk • contribs)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Rambutan (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've filed it for you. Happy switching. Might want to switch the reason I gave for your own, though, once you're able. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SomeGuy0830, thank you very much for doing that for me, I'll give you a proper thank you comment on your own talkpage soon. How long should it take for it to change?--MrClaxson 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's only fair to point out that I've notified the username-changing team of your sockpuppet-report [1], and they can make their own minds up.--Rambutan (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think we are connected? I didn't know I had picked a name similar to another user until you had pointed it out, before that you accused me of being DWrules. What would of happened if I called myself Rambootann, would I get accused of being a sockpuppet of yourself?--MrClaxson 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that your behaviour is very similar, and MrClaxson is a more obvious derivative of Claxson than Rambootann is of Rambutan. In the latter case, you'd probably be accused of impersonation rather than sockpuppetry.--Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I must be a ruddy good impersonator, never even knew about Claxson! Well that is only your observation, I hope it is changed soon so I can carry on editing. Shame though I quite liked MrClaxon, similar to Mr Saxon.--MrClaxson 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I pointed it out as a kindness, and the username-changer will take it into account. I don't really want to discuss it.--Rambutan (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[2] For your further information.--Rambutan (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it exactly that I have done to warrant this abuse from you? Your little dispute with me is pretty pathetic and highly unconstructive. You seemed to be a responsible editor, so why are you persisting with this?--MrClaxson 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not that constructive yourself, are you? You have made less than 25 viable contributions, and no valuble ones. I must inform the username-changers of any litigation you happen to be involved in, and I chose to tell you what was going on. --Rambutan (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

YES, but I'm a newbie to Wikipedia. I haven't made many valuable edits? I have added continuity points to Doctor Who episodes. Okay they are not big contributions but every bit counts. I appreciate you have informed me of your actions towards me but I cannot understand your reasons behind this.--MrClaxson 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The team at WP:CU are not required to change usernames. The bureaucratic transition of nomenclatural identifier is carried out at the discretion of the pseudodemocratically appointed SecretLondon (username). SecretLondon will make an informed decision about the value of your presence on the project, and will base his/her final name-changing decision on that. If you are a suspected sockpuppet, that will be taken into account. You're not a newbie, you've made ~60 edits to pages that still exist. You understand policy and procedure, and yet you still get into stupid arguments about image licensing. You concentrate on squabbling with me rather than improving articles. That's why you have little or no value here, so why should the community do you the service of changing your username when you give next to nothing back?--Rambutan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to change my username because I was blocked. I'm a newbie to image liscening, if you check my history I have only tried adding one image. So the arguement was not "stupid", it was a case of misunderstanding and inexperience. The "squabbling" as you put it is prolonged by you making weak accusation towards me. And your attitude does not help, nor does it help your reputation as wiki editor. Comments such as "I rest my case, m'lud." and "That's why you have little or no value here" are smug and immature. It is not only with me, I have noticed that it is your attitude towards most users.--MrClaxson 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no desire to spend my life discussing it. You persist, that's your problem. Go edit some articles. Do this, or this, or something helpful.--Rambutan (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you have let it rest, thank you for the advice I'll take those into consideration. RC patrol sounds interesting as it will make me more of an experienced user.--MrClaxson 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point the recent episode are susceptible to more random fan changes. I don't think you should get too worked up over it. Things calm down after a while and the episode pages can be more nicely tidied. I think any disputes over plot description, etc should be brought and discussed on the talk page to each episode and then the page should be policed into according to what it is collectively decided. I think the problem occurs when edits are made and reasons are not given. Any unreasoned edit could be dismissed as vandalism or "Fan Cr*p" as you put it.--MrClaxson 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's really about time spent reverting, and the fact that we're just making work for each other. I can't be making valuble contributions to the page if I need to keep my finger on "rv".--Rambutan (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, but sure you're not the only one spending time reverting. If you leave them then they will be reverted by someone else. Unless it is a serious vandalism spree, but in that sense why aren't all pages semi-protected. I think you'll never stop the numerous fans wanting to make their contribution even though they may be inexperienced in wiki, the same way there'll always be vandals trying to make everyones life a misery. Don't let this reverting get you stressed, remember you can always go away and there are so many dedicated fans out there that will look after these pages. It's a good community and that is why the system works fine as it is.--MrClaxson 18:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't actually say this was about me. Every minute someone, somewhere spends reverting crap is a minute they can't spend making valuble contributions.--Rambutan (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Mr.Clarkson, i have fixed my page.thank for reminding me. User:joewinstonk

Blanking talkpages

I'd just like to say that this gave me a huge laugh! Bearing in mind the number of times you've blanked yours, I mean.--Rambutan (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not be childish Rambutan.--MrClaxson 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a childish comment, it was a rebuke.--Rambutan (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making a rebuke when clearly I have made a fair comment on this page. The comments I removed from my talk pages were your edit-wars you had with me. I have know realised that I should of archived them at the time, but now there seems no need. As you can see I leave all your pointless comments on my talkpage now. The page you referred to was a situation when a user removed a sign stating they had been blocked. I thought that was an exception when it came to removal of content from talkpages.
I'm not offended by your criticism of me, but you can't deny that your attitude towards me (it also seems apparent towards other users too) is deliberately antagonistic and immature.--MrClaxson 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, users are allowed but discouraged. See WP:USER. If you remove a comment, it's taken as an indication that it's been read.--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

With that you have just contradicted your initial comment. "Bearing in mind the number of times you've blanked yours...", Why that should be funny is beyond me, but I suspect you're wasting time with a pointless arguement with me. Please stop doing this.--MrClaxson 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What I found funny was that not only were you telling someone off for doing something they're allowed to do, it's also something you've done yourself. It would be like me telling some old lady off for feeding ducks.--Rambutan (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I took your advice and went on patrolling recent and new page changes. I made a mistake and instead of being sensible and educating me in the correct policy you decide to laugh and mock me. This doesn't do much for your reputation as a user. So you can see why I thought your initial comment was childish. --MrClaxson 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mock you. But my explanation above, combined with the fact that you once said to me, "Don't be a hypocrite Rambutan", describes my feelings of hilarity.--Rambutan (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that I removed your pointless comment on my proposal, since it bore no relevance to the subject at hand: in fact, I imagine you just wanted to say that and had no new views on the proposal.

I don't want a reply. If you leave one on my talkpage it'll be removed; if you leave one here it'll be ignored.--Rambutan (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break

Due to harrassment from an antagonistic user, I have decided to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. Hopefully this will give the user in question time to think about their behaviour.--MrClaxson 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice time. Hope you're less stressed on your return.--Rambutan (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't let him / her get to you - its only a webpage at the end of the day. Kelpin 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite! Who is the user in question?--Rambutan (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Who?

Who is the one that made you take a break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewinstonk (talk • contribs)

Blocked

This account has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Claxson. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence can be seen here, by the way.--Rambutan (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block has been made from a singular viewpoint and has been insuffiently backed up with evidence. I have made worthy edits and contributions despite harrassment from another Wikipedian. I do not want to edit-war with the user and would like to continue Wikipedia as I was doing so. Thank you.

Decline reason:

By definition, not one of your edits with this account has been productive as you were abusing a sockpuppet to avoid the earlier block on Claxson (talk · contribs). As an indefinitely blocked vandal, you are not welcome here. — Yamla 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

But I'm not User:Claxson. This is a case of mistaken identity. My editorial behaviour is cleaner than this vandal. Other than that there is no possibility of it being proven otherwise. Look at my contributions to Doctor Who articles and my work in RC Patrol, they are productive, you are letting this name cloud your judgement over me as a contributor. If you cannot provide a reason behind the accusation I am this Claxson vandal and I am not unblocked. Then I'll have to make an appeal. This seems to be a clear case of Cyber Bullying.--MrClaxson 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is your appeal (see Wikipedia:Appealing a block). Your contributions to Doctor Who articles have not been valid or appreciated, especially the one in which you added "NO" pointlessly to a talkpage. Please also see WP:POINT and WP:TROLL before continuing this argument.--Rambutan (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply from email: open discussion only please... don't email me, I'll just reply here anyway. If you want to appeal to the ArbCom, then by all means do so, but it won't work, because you haven't got a hope of being unblocked. Plus: your case has nothing to do with my so-called harassment, ******, it's only about you and User:Claxson being the same person.--Rambutan (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the Administrators I do not believe this block has been properly thought through. I have looked at the evidence Rambutan has posted and a number of things strike me:

1. He alleges that MrClaxson is a sockpuppet of Dwrules. However the evidence he presents does not give one single instance that I can see where MrClaxson and Dwrules have worked together to the same aim on the same article (which is surely the whole purpose of a sock puppet?).
2. I fail to see how blanking your Talk page proves you are a sock puppet?
3. There is clearly a long running war of words between these 2 users. Even to the extent that Rambutan felt the need to set up this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Rambutan/Fan-cr%21p which includes a personal attack on MrClaxson.
4. Much of the evidence is circumstantial and relies on Rambutan's interpretation of writing styles. I do not believe he is a reliable witness, not least because he made untrue statements about myself (before I had an account when I posted under ip address 83.105.96.154) on this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Last_of_the_Time_Lords. He has admitted his mistake here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:83.105.96.154 but refused to remove the slur.Kelpin 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelpin, my actions other than on this case are irrelevant. Two admins have reviewed the evidence and considered it conclusive. What's the problem?--Rambutan (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with Akhilleus and Yamla. I am not Kviki and Kviki is not me, but the two have stuck together in using a sockpuppetry accusation in an indefinite block of Kviki. --Rogerfgay 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I believe you are drawing Administrators into what is a petty argument between the two of you. There is fault on both sides. Kelpin 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not fault on both sides. He's a sockpuppet. I'm not. That's all he's been blocked for: sockpuppetry. See here, by the way, it might amuse you.--Rambutan (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I have said all I have to say on the matter, I see no point in continuing this further until an Admin has reviewed the case. Kelpin 17:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, I did not realise that you would not reply via e-mail. I should of mentioned not use my name I use for my e-mail address. I think for civil terms of internet privacy, you have partially broken them. Nothing can be done now but I thought I should tell you how I feel about it. And in response to your reply, we are not the same people.--MrClaxson 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for using your name. I didn't reply by email because I don't want you to find out my email address. Now, two admins and myself are convinced that you are all the same person, so that's enough for Wikipedia.--Rambutan (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has nothing been done? (Unblock 2)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Has this case of a misunderstanding been discreetly swept under the carpet. Where is the evidence that I am a sockpuppet of Claxson? The reasoning behind this block is fundamentally flawed.

Decline reason:

The explanation of why you have been determined to be a sockpuppet further up your talk page. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Trolling

Due to your continued trolling and general abuse of this talkpage, I've requested that an admin protect this page to prevent you editing it.--Rambutan (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just let it drop? Kelpin 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been full-protected for 6 months. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)