Rpeh

Research assistance

Thanks for this edit which found a reference for a claim I had reluctantly deleted. It's so nice when great minds work together to save ideas. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs - although using a Daily Mail article as a source is not something I want to do too often! rpeh •T•C•E• 19:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Königgrätz

Sorry for my edit summary, but I really fail to see what your rationale for Prince Albert of Saxony removal from the infobox was, if any. Could you explain your reasons for (other that he was a corps commander, which is an undeniable truth, yet does explain his removal from the infobox only slightly better than a hypothetical sentence "Hey, there goes Edna with a saxophone") your removal on the talk page prior to another repeating this action? The template documentation does not appear to impose any limits on "Commanders in chief only". Thank you.Tom soldier (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This was thoroughly discussed on the talk page Battle of Waterloo when one editor (and I'm going to guess it was you) decided to change what had been previous consensus about who should be mentioned in the infobox. It is not for leaders of individual detachments, it is for the person or people who can take command decisions during the battle. A corps commander is not such a person. On the Prussian side for Sadowa, William and Moltke both get mentions because they were both commanding separate forces. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the talkpage of the Battle of Waterloo article consensus, what I'm interested in is what the template documentation says and how it supports your claims, thank you very much. -Tom soldier (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You should be interested in that one, because it's where you lost the argument. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I did not. -Tom soldier (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes you did. You left the discussion with your changes having been reverted and decided to create an account to distance yourself from your previous activity. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, try to check out when I created my account, and only then start another round of false accusations against me. Thank you.Tom soldier (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. You created it after that discussion, then used the same arguments including the same page. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at wp:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated removals of content from the Battle of Königgtätz article by user rpeh. Thank you. —Tom soldier (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And you even used the wrong forum. Please go and read some policies before bothering me again. You're wasting my time at present. Do not edit my talk page any more. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

{{subst:User:NekoBot/3RRAttn|WP:AN/EW#User:rpeh_reported_by_User:{{subst:Tom_soldier_.28Result:_.29}}

God, he's so incompetent he managed to screw up the reporting bot! Incredible. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, the block was neccessary. Two uninvolved, independent admins agreed. To harass the blocker for protecting the project is unbelievable. You have zero concept that you harmed the project, and by getting reblocked, the harm that you think was occurring is simply going to continue - your fault, of course. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're just proving the point about admins on this site. If you had bothered doing what you were supposed to do, you would see that I hadn't harmed the project, had long since stopped doing what I was accused of doing and had moved on. The fact is that Sandstein, you and Beeblebrox just blindly toed the party line like the good little automatons you are.

As I said to Sandstein: no wonder so many people consider WP admins to be jokes. You are a perfect example of it.

Now go on. Remove talk page access to make sure you have the last word. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" rpeh •T•C•E• 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful there, trying to make it look like I said something I did not won't go over well with others. Would you like someone to WP:REVDEL that insult against me that you just deleted from your talkpage before you make your unblock request? Let someone know by using {{adminhelp}} anywhere on your talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of making an unblock request, so no I won't be asking for a REVDEL. And if you're claiming that you weren't trying to incite another admin to remove my talk page access, I don't believe you. It was pretty blatant. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't give a crap really, the more talkpage access you have, the more WP:ROPE you have, and you're using it so well. All I said was that I personally would not be baited into playing a childish game. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I'm terribly sorry. You seem to have mistaken me for somebody who gives a flying toss. The reason I won't be making an unblock request is that once the 72 hours are up I'll be blanking my userspace and quitting. I'm only replying because I currently get email notifications, and you're providing more evidence that you're unsuitable to be an admin for when your next challenge arrives.

There's no point in trying to edit WP when there are so many idiots out there. In just the past few months I've had to deal with some moron who thinks deleting articles is the way to improve the site; another bunch of idiots whitewashing a page because they can't face the idea that people do bad things in the name of their imaginary friend; and now a moron who doesn't understand the basics of military command. Add to that you, Sandstein and Beeblebrox who clearly believe that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit, and it's time to say goodbye. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth (I was the administrator who had most to do with the AN/I which initiated this furore) I do not myself think a 72 hour block is justified here. Mind you, neither do I think it was the best idea in the world for rpeh to come out of a block with a vitriolic outburst against the original blocking and reviewing admins.

rpeh, you were impatient with Tom soldier and tbh I did consider whether your 3RR deserved a block. I came very close, but decided against; Sandstein thought otherwise. It's a judgement call, and we each came to slightly different conclusions. You did not then handle the situation well. If you think that flying off the handle and raging against one admin is going to make another look calmly and dispassionately at your case, think again.

You then fired back today with another tirade for which BWilkins gave you a 72 hour block. I'm not sure I do agree with this block, certainly not its length. The admin corps has developed a fairly thick skin and I've read worse. However I don't think it was a smart move on your part - certainly not one calculated to raise your image as a calm, measured editor who is willing to curb your impulses to strike back.

So I have an offer for you, based on what I saw of your very constructive and knowledgable editing to military history articles. You have been blocked once for 3RR and once for incivility. If you make an unblock request I will unblock you, provided that you can accept that at times you can act impulsively and in an uncivil way and that you intend to try and curb this. Saying that you were provoked or that blocks were undeserved will not wash; you need to stay civil and collegial EVEN WHEN you think/know yourself to be right. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For now, I'd just like to thank Kim Dent-Brown for this message. I'm not going to make an unblock request right now because when I say I'm not sure that I want to contribute any more, I mean it. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)