User talk:Pitcroft

IMPROVEMENT TAGS

Hi can you stop deleting refimprove etc tags from articles they are added so that users can identify what needs improving. Removing the tags without improving the articles could be classed as vandalism. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sixth form, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. This also relates to several other recent edits, and follows the previous friendly advice above.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benjamin Franklin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• January{{nbsp}}1 and March{{nbsp}} 25, an advance of one year.</ref>{{spaced ndash}} April 17, 1790) was one of the [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] and in many ways was "the First American".

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Spectre

STOP changing the name of Spectre into capital letters: it is disruptive edit warring, nothing more. If you continue to do it, I will report you to the appropriate forum, which could lead to you being blocked. I strongly suggest that instead of edit warring over this point, you go to the talk page to discuss the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't edit war on this. Per BRD go to the talk page where it can be discussed further. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a thread on the talk page. Join in if you wish, but should you decide to edit war rather than discuss, your disruptive editing will be reported in the appropriate forum. – SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Spectre (2015 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spectre (2015 film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Spectre (2015 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Given your constant reverting at Spectre (2015 film) you have left me with no option other than to seek administrative intervention and have your editing privileges revoked. The report is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pitcroft reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ) if you wish to present a defence. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Spectre (2015 film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Creation of a talk page

Hi I am Peppy Paneer. I noticed that you might have accidentally created the article /Talk:Spectre (2015 film), which is a talk page of the article Spectre (2015 film). If you want to make your point which improves the article, please make your point here Talk:Spectre (2015 film), the talk page of this article which already exists. I have already tagged the talk page - /Talk:Spectre (2015 film) that you created for speedy deletion under housekeeping. It could be deleted anytime. Here is the content "The title of the film is SPECTRE in capital letters and the original Ian Fleming novels where SPECTRE originated are clear that it is an acronym for Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion, hence the capitalisation." Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted this page and moved your comment to a new section of Talk:Spectre (2015 film). Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am happy to be blocked if the edit warring blame is distributed evenly. To begin with I was correcting appalling grammar and punctuation, with the acronym for the organisation in the film Spectre spelt as SPECTRE. For anybody who knows English properly, this should be obvious.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:34, 1 November 2015 (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.

As has been pointed out to you here, and on the Spectre talk page, the term is not an anagram in this film. If you think it is, please identify which scene highlighted it as an anagram, and what the anagram stood for. Either way, the discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page, not by edit warring. – SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you several times, the term SPECTRE is an acronym in the Fleming novels and the films. James Bond is a continuous story arc stretched over 50 years in which the theme has remained constant, including SPECTRE as an acronym (not an anagram). As far as 'edit warring' is concerned, its a subjective matter where blame can be applied universally, and I had noticed that you had been guilty of more than a little 'edit warring' yourself!

You broke the WP:Three-revert rule, SchroCat didn't. SchroCat presented his reasoning on the talk page, you didn't. ScroCat edited in accordance with the unanimous consensus on the talk page, you didn't. So yeah, I would say the "blame" was fairly apportioned in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the reboot of the series in Casino Royale many of the original conventions and tropes have been slowly reintroduced, but in a very different format than either Fleming or the original Eon films suggested (Moneypenny as an former field agent, for example; Blofeld as the son of Hans Oberhauser for another). The name of the "new" Spectre in this film has not been described as acronym, abbreviation, anagram or any other wordplay, so we have to represent it as it stands in the film, not as it exists in some fan-based in-universe sense. I'm explaining this to you here as you seen to have an aversion to using the article's talk page to discuss it further. The current consensus of those who have taken part in the thread on that talk page is that we retain the "Spectre" format, not "SPECTRE", but if you wish your opinion to be taken into account, I suggest you join in that conversation once your block expires. – SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see that any attempt to help correct bad English is a pointless circular exercise against the nerdy mob alliance! The original Fleming books are not fan based universe but Bond canon! The correct spelling of SPECTRE is not a 'consensus' matter, but only what is in the books. Eon productions have made much of wanting to go back to the books.

Let us know which book they adapted for Spectre and we will go and check it out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. Go to the book Thunderball Chapter 5. There have been no novelizations, as far as I can gather, for the latest film.

• So it's got nothing to do with the current film or of the new Spectre... This film has limited connection to the Bond canon but where there is a connection they have been tweaked into a new universe, such as Moneypenny as a field agent and Blofeld as the son of Hans Oberhauser – which is MASSIVELY unconnected to the Fleming canon. – SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• It has everything to do with why Sam Mendes chose SPECTRE as the name for his new film. If the name and description of the criminal syndicate didn't exist in the books, then it is very unlikely he would have chosen it as the title for this terrific movie! If the Fleming canon wasnt the basis for ALL the movies in one way or another, then his name wouldnt be mentioned in the title sequence for each movie, and the legal ramifications would be huge for EON productions.

• You're not listening, so I'm not going to bother continuing this any further. All I will say is that in the film they visit a safe house/shop called "Hildebrand Prints and Rarities". Funnily enough it didn't look like a fish. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• That makes two of us! At least I can state my opinions without resorting to abuse and sarcasm, and will continue to do so without totalitarian and autocratic interference!

• "totalitarian and autocratic interference"? If that is how you chose to understand WP:CONSENSUS, then maybe Wikipedia isn't for you? There has been no abuse to you at all, although I will admit there was a small amount of sarcasm in my last post, but if you are going to wilfully ignore everything except a deeply entrenched opinion, then there is nothing more to say. Pip pip. –'SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• You sure do talk a lot for someone who wanted to finish a conversation! I have seen the SPECTRE talk page and there is no consensus at all, and several opinions have been expressed on my valid point of original sources needed in such an important matter as a wikipedia page on a major motion picture release. All that's happened is that a couple of online bullies want to stop opinion in favour of their own views by blocking dissent. This by definition is totalitarian in nature. If no compromise is possible then I will continue to tag the page as needing improvement.

Good luck with that; edit warring for any reason is unacceptable, and if you can't achieve consensus on the talk page, and instead continue as you say you intend to, you'll find yourself unable to edit here at all, which I don't think is the solution you desire. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The term 'edit warring' is a subjective one. Everyone here is guilty of that! A consensus doesnt mean accuracy. Lots of people can believe in something incorrect, and often that is how mobs are formed! I suggest you people actually go and the read the Fleming novels rather than rely on each other for information.

I have read them all about 8 or 9 times. The have only a passing connection wth the films. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thats good! Then there is no excuse for deviating from the novels in how SPECTRE is spelt. The Bond books are the canon, and acknowledged as that by EON, whether in passing or otherwise. Also the word SPECTRE in the film's adverts and credits are in capitals! Pitcroft

• I have given my reasons here and on the article talk page. I stand by all that and wll point out again that the safe house/shop called "Hildebrand Prints and Rarities" in the film didn't look like a fish... I've gone back over the Fleming works and can't see any connection between Blofeld and Oberhauser either: Fleming makes absolutely no connection between the two - indeed he gives Blofeld a very, very different back story. Have fun trying to rationalise the differences between the two. I'm off to do other stuff, as you're clearly not listening to anything anyone else is saying on the talk page thread, where the consensus is very much against you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Once again I reiterate that consensus doesn't mean correct, and I repeat that objectivity and accuracy musnt be sacrificed to 'consensus'. We will just have to agree to disagree, just so long as more balance is injected into the article over time. I apologise if my vehemence offended you, its just that your whole tone from the start was very school headmaster cum jobsworth, and you seemed to demonstrate the complete lack of social skills and manners that often come with computer literate 'nerdiness'. Im sure that wasn't the intention though!

• I strongly suggest you read WP:NPA and refrain from commenting negatively on other editors. Not only is it against our policies to do so, there is a strong possibility that someone will turn round and speak even more freely about you. – SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• You can't simply state your own opinion and those of your accomplices (so called editors) and expect no disagreement. You havent exactly held back so perhaps you can listen to your own advice matey!

• I don't expect no disagreement, but those who have commented have done so without insulting others - me included. Perhaps you should take that on board when you comment on others again. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps your tone is more haughty and pompous sounding than you realise? Telling people you are going to report them to the wikipedia forum like some teacher's pet, especially when they have only just started editing, is insulting. Your talk page is freely sprinkled with references to 'idiot', so perhaps we should stop lecturing each other on good manners? At least my arguments are honestly forthright and somewhat rude, and not couched in moralising self righteousness! Having said that we could probably go on forever like this, and i'm sure we both have better things to do?

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring yet again

Your recent editing history at Spectre (2015 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)