Hengist Pod

Welcome!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Fancy a Tart? Hello Hengist Pod, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 00:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've been an anon IP editor for a while, and hope to be able to contribute more content when I have more time. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good faith reversion to consensus wording is NOT vandalism. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. No dispute over that one :) Best. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 01:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Can't you read?"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please try to avoid personal attacks when reverting good-faith edits, no matter how misguided. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Alt account?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would you by chance have edited as Hengistmate?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not me. Hengist Pod (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Very good. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You said - "Take this to the Talkpage, please. Now"

Although you started off on a good foot by saying please, you then demanded ..."now". You wouldn't have the courage to speak to people like that in real life. Vexorg (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I would, because the WP:BRD cycle is an easy way of establishing a constructive dialogue that is more likely to reach consensus than poorly-directed and limited discourse through edit-summaries; that's a model of communication I've seen working perfectly well in real life, and see no reason why delaying good-faith negotiation is beneficial to reaching an appropriate solution. More formal Dispute Resolution measures tend to be more sluggish, but the sooner disputants grasp the nettle, the sooner the dispute should be resolved. And by "now", I perhaps meant "without further edit-warring". That way, it doesn't get out of hand and escalate to places where it should not go. Hengist Pod (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Removal of link

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi!

I recently put up a link to www.philosophersstonecomputer.com for the Van Morrison website; there was a temporary error when the server was down, but now it's back up and running. And the edit summary should have said, "The philosopher's stone Van Morrison sought." Please consider allowing me to put the link back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin Daniels PhD (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dubstep vandalism

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I love how we keep duplicating our warnings haha! I'll remove mine to stop his/her talk page looking a bit overcrowded doomgaze (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:TWINKLE should spot duplicate messages, I think, but I've seen simultaneous ones arrive. I don't think this user is going to last long, however. Cheers. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Choobedoo

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You'll be pleased to know that I have granted this editor's request for a Wikibreak. Mjroots (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

So I saw. Good move. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Blocked

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry, but you'll have to contact ArbCom before considering a return to editing. — Coren ^(talk) 03:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

How bizarre, to block a good-faith editor whose main recent contributions have been reverting vandalism and wiki-gnoming, to improve articles. That seems inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. However, nothing here really surprises me any more, since it seems quite clear that rules take precedence over value. I'm not going to labour the point, because it would take too long, and I'm not sure my audience would get it anyway. Suffice it to say that you've got it badly wrong, in my opinion. In the absence of chapter and verse as to why you think I'm banned, rather than just blocked, I can only assume that you've erred in your block notice. IF this is not the case, kindly do me the courtesy of dropping me a {{YGM}} here, and explaining privately, if necessary. I'm used to being misunderstood, for various reasons, and I usually reject simplistic solutions if none exist; but if you want the full story, it can be made available to those who wish it. I'd prefer to keep it private, but that may no longer be possible. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll put sock tags on if you like, so everyone knows which Arbcom block applies to you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Banned or blocked? You haven't answered the question, and Jimbo hasn't mentioned that I'm banned in any of our email discussions. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

“

You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power - he's free again.

”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

People aren't talking to me, and they should be. For one thing, it's not clear if I am banned or blocked, and I am at least entitled to know which, and why. Suffice it to say that unsubstantiated rumours are insufficient to support a ban, yet I have invited ArbCom to explain to me privately why they think I am banned. They haven't done so. I'd have thought that if they were on such strong ground, they would have done so. Jimbo's email message to me of 15 April doesn't mention a ban at all, and if I don't get an answer here, I am at least entitled to one from him, because I've had no indication that he has changed his position since that email. Meanwhile, in practical terms, I could do with a pork pie, some pickles, and another bottle of wine. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of anything Solzhenitsyn may have said, you are not free to edit Wikipedia with sock accounts, and if you want to be unblocked, you need to make a request to Arbcom.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You still haven't answered my question. You may do so by email if you'd prefer. Hengist Pod (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have, at your first email on May 10th. That you did not like the answer does not make it magically unanswered. — Coren ^(talk) 22:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, for some reason, I haven't received it. Other emails since then have come through unscathed, but not yours. Would you kindly resend it, since I don't really want to bother Jimbo with sorting this out. But, I repeat, his stance, as last notified to me, is at odds with ArbCom's, and that cannot be allowed to continue. Thanks. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've resent the email to both the address you emailed your question from as well as this account's email on record. — Coren ^(talk) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, received. ~~Please remove unsourced garbage from the lead of Ferguslie Park~~. Hengist Pod (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply