User talk:Quaidy

Quaidy has permanently left Wikipedia and will not be making any further contributions. He/She does not have a personality disorder big enough to continue here.

Stop it

You've gone on a mass redirecting spree, both unilaterally deleting practically every regional railway station and creating redirects where there should be redlinks. There is a long-standing consensus that these articles are notable, as there's abundant sources: hell, to show how arbitrary this was, a bunch of the articles you randomly decided to redirect were buildings on the Register of the National Estate. In any case, if you want to change that longstanding precedent, please go and actually get a consensus, instead of making a complete bloody mess. If you a pull a stunt like this again, you can expect to be blocked. Rebecca (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised the sheer extent of the mess you've created - you've redirected every single railway-related redlink in the entire state, including entire suburban lines. This is an incredibly controversial thing to do without so much as a word beforehand, and it's going to take me the rest of the morning to clean up. As such, I've blocked you for 24 hours as a warning not to do something like this again. Rebecca (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what I have actually done you stupid bloody idiot you will realise that I have added rail station related info on the town or city pages on most of the stations I have redirected to. Go ahead and revert it you bloody self righteous idiot. I don't see any reason why rail station info can not be put on a town's page with a redirect to it. At least I am adding constructive info. Take a look at Bowning, New South Wales, Towrang, New South Wales‎, Breadalbane, New South Wales‎, Moree, New South Wales‎ etc etc. This is has been a NSW convention, what are you a bloody Victorian or something? I object to my sanctimonoius blocking and am going to take this further.Quaidy (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made somewhere in the vicinity of a hundred redirects which you knew to both be controversial and against longstanding precedent, causing a huge mess took ages to clean up. If you want to get a consensus to not have articles on these topics, as we already have in other states, then get it. Trying to make an exception for NSW by force is just disrupting the project. Rebecca (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected blank, let me repeat, blank, pages to other pages with info on them. Did I remove anyones work? No. I'm not saying that these stations should not have their own stand alone articles, it is just that there is not enough information on any of them that anyone but me has contributed to make a stand alone article worthwhile. Until such time arises, it seems much more logical to have a redirect to the town page with station information on that page. You have gone and blocked me for something that only you and I are disagreeing on, some admin you are. By the look of your talk page, you have a history of this. I'm thinking of leaving anyway becasue I don't appear to have a personality disorder large enough to put up with this sort of crap.Quaidy (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is completely unjustified- I have added rail station related info in good faith to varoius NSW town pages and redirected uncreated rail station links to the town pages, because at this stage there doesn't seen to be enough info to create stand alone railway station pages for many minor railway stations in NSW, especially those that have been closed, and no-one else seems interested in creating any of these pages at this stage. This block seems a little vindictive from someone who has made no effort to contribute info to these topics.

Decline reason:

reason — totally justified block, when you're warned, listen and learn from this. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

There was exactly 6 minutes between the warning and the block!!!! Some of us are not on Wikipedia 24/7Quaidy (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There was exactly 6 minutes between the warning and the block!!!! Some of us are not on Wikipedia 24/7[[User:Quaidy|Quaidy]] ([[User talk:Quaidy#top|talk]]) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There was exactly 6 minutes between the warning and the block!!!! Some of us are not on Wikipedia 24/7[[User:Quaidy|Quaidy]] ([[User talk:Quaidy#top|talk]]) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There was exactly 6 minutes between the warning and the block!!!! Some of us are not on Wikipedia 24/7[[User:Quaidy|Quaidy]] ([[User talk:Quaidy#top|talk]]) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}