Ceoil, comments like this are not useful, are rude, and are obviously a threat to another user and have NO place here. Jmlk 1 7 01:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
While you're out I'm going to listen to some Tindersticks. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Lucifer can you copy this to AN/I.
I just woke up; can someone give me the Reader's Digest version of what the heck this is about? Was Ceoil honestly blocked for saying he would call a bot a bot? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
One comment: I don't think you deserved a block (and said so on WP:AN), but I hope you'll be able to take the actions of BetacommandBot philosophically. Betacommandbot does a very valuable service in forcing us to keep ourselves honest in our goal to create a free encyclopedia. That isn't always pleasant and sometimes forces us to jump through hoops that feels unnecessary when you just want to write your article. But however annoying the bot is, its actions are very much in the spirit of "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". But perhaps there is a way to do this in a less confrontational way, do you have any ideas? henrik• talk 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours. Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place. Terrorist.
Ceoil, I don't plan to post at ANI again, but I just wanted to remind you how much you're admired as an editor. Get mad if you can't help it; but don't get so mad you leave. And if you can avoid getting mad, and figure out how to get a productive outcome out of the conversation, you're an even better editor than I thought. Mike Christie (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ceoil,
I'm (obviously) not a perfect person; very far from it. I don't try and act as if I am, and I do make more than my fair share of mistakes sometimes. Including my block of you yesterday. I don't view myself as "above the law" around here (as it seems some people think I do), and I hope you don't share their sentiment (though I would not blame you for that right now). I cannot erase your block log, but all I can do is offer my apologies for my mistake. I hope that any paths we cross from here on out are more than productive, and hopefully someday we can look back on this with an amusing thread on our talk pages and laugh at my mistake. Either way, please accept my sincerest apologies, and I am a man who can recognize when he is wrong, and this is one of those times. I wish you Happy Holidays, and I hope to see you around the project!
Very sincerely,
Jmlk17
What happened to you was wrong. The wrong was (later) undone but it cannot be reversed. You are angry, and you are justified in your anger, because it happened. It cannot, however, be changed, but hopefully your anger will subside. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you can take the advice from a stranger and leave your computer for a few hours. Go do something else for a while and ignore us silly fools on wikipedia. Sleep on it, come back tomorrow and then we can talk about how things could be improved so things doesn't happen again. Right now you're angry and reacting, just waiting a few hours can drastically change ones outlook - I know, I've been pissed plenty of times myself. After all, this is just a website. henrik• talk 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't take my "shallow," or rather tongue in cheek, comments at WP:AN at face value. I actually spend a fair amount of time trying to calm the lynch mobs around here, and my most recent effort was unsuccessful. So I've been venting a bit -- and perhaps aping the attitude of the ban hammerers -- at your expense. I hope you didn't take anything I wrote too seriously. If you ever were the subject of an unjust block that no admin wanted to lift I'd be among those leaping to your defense. -- Kendrick7 talk 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you like a beer? WesleyDodds ( talk) 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ceoil ( talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Either read the full thread and look into the background, or walk away. Too many reflexive, random comments I've seen tonight from tourists to the discussion. Ceoil ( talk) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editor? Woah! I suppose you have some semblance of credibality, or is it just random illinformed insults from 4 section reviews that make you happy. Grow up. Ceoil ( talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Loutish acts? Ha ha, an acceptial dig out of a hole, but transsparently what it is. Drive by, snapshot judgements? Hmm, life is short, such a waste to spend it making poor judgements on situation you know nothing about. Whatever, that's your choice, have fun. Ceoil ( talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You moralised on the situation of your own free will, I did not go looking for you. You made a judjement on me, you disregared it with 'bluster'. Not good enough; actually poor form. have carefully scrutinized the disruptive actions ?? Ha, please Im not an idiot or a child. Ceoil ( talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Mark LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - have a good one! Johnbod ( talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If this image is correctly tagged (I don't know, and I hope you could correct me if it is not), it is a fair use image, and thus not eligible for use anywhere except in article space, per our policies. I think it would be a good idea if you yourself either correct the tagging to clarify the copyright if it's mistagged, or remove it from your user page. I'd consider it a personal favour as well. Thanks for your consideration. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, you wily Irishman. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Royalbroil 13:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to. I'll take a look in the morning and see where I can help out. Merry Christmas! Regards, Dan.— DCGeist ( talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I submitted Alice in Chains for Peer review, would you mind commenting on
Wikipedia:Peer review/Alice in Chains.
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth!
03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Leave Wikipedia. Your contributions are not appreciated. Wikipedia cares about those who delete fair use images but does not care about those who write featured articles. If article writers walk away, either Jimbo will realise what is wrong and make sure the project gets its priorities right (then you should come back) or the project will be ruled by those who delete fair use images, with nobody to write articles (then you should not come back). Just some friendly advice from a lurker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.144 ( talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for that anons comments, everyones contributions are welcome even yours. If there was a problem some one would have told you by now and they would not tell you to "leave" that only applies to vandals. I am warning the user for personal attacks. If you need anything from me do not hesitate to ask. Rgoodermote 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Pleasure to contribute. Great article. Tyrenius ( talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Primal Scream is the current COTW. Could you spare a brother a soundclip of "Loaded"? Also, I'm probably going to go through your Back Pages account to look for reference material. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ceoil, I'd be glad to help with the Venus, the Pope, and all things Velázquez. Thanks for asking. Great work, by the way, on Las Meninas. JNW ( talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Christmas was alright. I didn't go to any gigs though, since there were none on that really caught my interest. I'm more of the "listen to the CD" type than go to the gigs a lot really. Hope your Christmas went well. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I talked to the user, Ceoil, and advised him/her to stay away from the people in question, and to be careful to stick within the rules. I'll also be keeping an eye on things. The blocking admin had no objections, so I unblocked on that basis. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey comrade. I discussed it with CloudNine and he gave me the go-ahead. Most of our project articles, as well as most high-quality articles in general list the references above the notes. I find this way to be favorable because if the references are above the notes, the reader can familiarize themselves with the full sources, before seeing the abbreviated citations within the notes. It seems clearer and more logical that way—to me at least. I should note however that there don't seem to be any guidelines on this issue as yet, so logic and clarity are all I really have to go on. If you'd kindly revert your reverts, I'd be very thankful. Best wishes. Grim ( talk) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The admins are more janitors than managers. An admin may unblock an editor or perform one of the functions permissable not because of a complete understanding of the matter but because other (non-admin) editors have formed a consensus but needs somebody to carry out the task. The other matter is that admins are very civil when involving themselves in circumstances that another admin has already acted - what you saw was diplomatic language (I am also of an opposing viewpoint over several matters of policy interpretation with SV, so being ultra civil indicates a willingness to work together despite other differences). There is also the matter that I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. Lastly, do I think you are a child...? I am 48 years old. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict):I am explaining why I used the language I did - when I write civilly I use the terminology that is natural to me, which might be considered arcane - rather than indicating that I have some claim of intellectual mastery or the like. In the event SV replied to me in similar language, which indicates that my message was properly delivered. Whatever, why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Dont carry on fights with other users at my user page. It is extending the disruption. DGG ( talk) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
So what would you call this:
or this:
Given this [1].
I have no idea what all this shouting is all about, but wouldn't your time be better spent dancing to the music? WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments in my successful RFA. I'm not sure what you feel "substantial" contribution is, but I hope you'll see that I'll make my best effort to use the mop wisely. AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Ceoil, comments like this are not useful, are rude, and are obviously a threat to another user and have NO place here. Jmlk 1 7 01:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
While you're out I'm going to listen to some Tindersticks. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Lucifer can you copy this to AN/I.
I just woke up; can someone give me the Reader's Digest version of what the heck this is about? Was Ceoil honestly blocked for saying he would call a bot a bot? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
One comment: I don't think you deserved a block (and said so on WP:AN), but I hope you'll be able to take the actions of BetacommandBot philosophically. Betacommandbot does a very valuable service in forcing us to keep ourselves honest in our goal to create a free encyclopedia. That isn't always pleasant and sometimes forces us to jump through hoops that feels unnecessary when you just want to write your article. But however annoying the bot is, its actions are very much in the spirit of "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". But perhaps there is a way to do this in a less confrontational way, do you have any ideas? henrik• talk 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours. Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place. Terrorist.
Ceoil, I don't plan to post at ANI again, but I just wanted to remind you how much you're admired as an editor. Get mad if you can't help it; but don't get so mad you leave. And if you can avoid getting mad, and figure out how to get a productive outcome out of the conversation, you're an even better editor than I thought. Mike Christie (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ceoil,
I'm (obviously) not a perfect person; very far from it. I don't try and act as if I am, and I do make more than my fair share of mistakes sometimes. Including my block of you yesterday. I don't view myself as "above the law" around here (as it seems some people think I do), and I hope you don't share their sentiment (though I would not blame you for that right now). I cannot erase your block log, but all I can do is offer my apologies for my mistake. I hope that any paths we cross from here on out are more than productive, and hopefully someday we can look back on this with an amusing thread on our talk pages and laugh at my mistake. Either way, please accept my sincerest apologies, and I am a man who can recognize when he is wrong, and this is one of those times. I wish you Happy Holidays, and I hope to see you around the project!
Very sincerely,
Jmlk17
What happened to you was wrong. The wrong was (later) undone but it cannot be reversed. You are angry, and you are justified in your anger, because it happened. It cannot, however, be changed, but hopefully your anger will subside. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you can take the advice from a stranger and leave your computer for a few hours. Go do something else for a while and ignore us silly fools on wikipedia. Sleep on it, come back tomorrow and then we can talk about how things could be improved so things doesn't happen again. Right now you're angry and reacting, just waiting a few hours can drastically change ones outlook - I know, I've been pissed plenty of times myself. After all, this is just a website. henrik• talk 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't take my "shallow," or rather tongue in cheek, comments at WP:AN at face value. I actually spend a fair amount of time trying to calm the lynch mobs around here, and my most recent effort was unsuccessful. So I've been venting a bit -- and perhaps aping the attitude of the ban hammerers -- at your expense. I hope you didn't take anything I wrote too seriously. If you ever were the subject of an unjust block that no admin wanted to lift I'd be among those leaping to your defense. -- Kendrick7 talk 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you like a beer? WesleyDodds ( talk) 23:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ceoil ( talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Either read the full thread and look into the background, or walk away. Too many reflexive, random comments I've seen tonight from tourists to the discussion. Ceoil ( talk) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editor? Woah! I suppose you have some semblance of credibality, or is it just random illinformed insults from 4 section reviews that make you happy. Grow up. Ceoil ( talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Loutish acts? Ha ha, an acceptial dig out of a hole, but transsparently what it is. Drive by, snapshot judgements? Hmm, life is short, such a waste to spend it making poor judgements on situation you know nothing about. Whatever, that's your choice, have fun. Ceoil ( talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You moralised on the situation of your own free will, I did not go looking for you. You made a judjement on me, you disregared it with 'bluster'. Not good enough; actually poor form. have carefully scrutinized the disruptive actions ?? Ha, please Im not an idiot or a child. Ceoil ( talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Mark LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - have a good one! Johnbod ( talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If this image is correctly tagged (I don't know, and I hope you could correct me if it is not), it is a fair use image, and thus not eligible for use anywhere except in article space, per our policies. I think it would be a good idea if you yourself either correct the tagging to clarify the copyright if it's mistagged, or remove it from your user page. I'd consider it a personal favour as well. Thanks for your consideration. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, you wily Irishman. WesleyDodds ( talk) 10:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Royalbroil 13:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to. I'll take a look in the morning and see where I can help out. Merry Christmas! Regards, Dan.— DCGeist ( talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I submitted Alice in Chains for Peer review, would you mind commenting on
Wikipedia:Peer review/Alice in Chains.
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth!
03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Leave Wikipedia. Your contributions are not appreciated. Wikipedia cares about those who delete fair use images but does not care about those who write featured articles. If article writers walk away, either Jimbo will realise what is wrong and make sure the project gets its priorities right (then you should come back) or the project will be ruled by those who delete fair use images, with nobody to write articles (then you should not come back). Just some friendly advice from a lurker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.144 ( talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for that anons comments, everyones contributions are welcome even yours. If there was a problem some one would have told you by now and they would not tell you to "leave" that only applies to vandals. I am warning the user for personal attacks. If you need anything from me do not hesitate to ask. Rgoodermote 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Pleasure to contribute. Great article. Tyrenius ( talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Primal Scream is the current COTW. Could you spare a brother a soundclip of "Loaded"? Also, I'm probably going to go through your Back Pages account to look for reference material. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ceoil, I'd be glad to help with the Venus, the Pope, and all things Velázquez. Thanks for asking. Great work, by the way, on Las Meninas. JNW ( talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Christmas was alright. I didn't go to any gigs though, since there were none on that really caught my interest. I'm more of the "listen to the CD" type than go to the gigs a lot really. Hope your Christmas went well. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 14:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I talked to the user, Ceoil, and advised him/her to stay away from the people in question, and to be careful to stick within the rules. I'll also be keeping an eye on things. The blocking admin had no objections, so I unblocked on that basis. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey comrade. I discussed it with CloudNine and he gave me the go-ahead. Most of our project articles, as well as most high-quality articles in general list the references above the notes. I find this way to be favorable because if the references are above the notes, the reader can familiarize themselves with the full sources, before seeing the abbreviated citations within the notes. It seems clearer and more logical that way—to me at least. I should note however that there don't seem to be any guidelines on this issue as yet, so logic and clarity are all I really have to go on. If you'd kindly revert your reverts, I'd be very thankful. Best wishes. Grim ( talk) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The admins are more janitors than managers. An admin may unblock an editor or perform one of the functions permissable not because of a complete understanding of the matter but because other (non-admin) editors have formed a consensus but needs somebody to carry out the task. The other matter is that admins are very civil when involving themselves in circumstances that another admin has already acted - what you saw was diplomatic language (I am also of an opposing viewpoint over several matters of policy interpretation with SV, so being ultra civil indicates a willingness to work together despite other differences). There is also the matter that I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. Lastly, do I think you are a child...? I am 48 years old. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict):I am explaining why I used the language I did - when I write civilly I use the terminology that is natural to me, which might be considered arcane - rather than indicating that I have some claim of intellectual mastery or the like. In the event SV replied to me in similar language, which indicates that my message was properly delivered. Whatever, why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Dont carry on fights with other users at my user page. It is extending the disruption. DGG ( talk) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
So what would you call this:
or this:
Given this [1].
I have no idea what all this shouting is all about, but wouldn't your time be better spent dancing to the music? WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments in my successful RFA. I'm not sure what you feel "substantial" contribution is, but I hope you'll see that I'll make my best effort to use the mop wisely. AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)