![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For this comment, you have become my model of a diplomat. Thank you and take care for your excellent work in promoting intra-wiki editor understanding. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. I just saw you had 6171th place in most edits (7714). Good job! Probably went up by the time you read this. Here:
PS: you had an argument with User:71.146.19.240, a few months ago. I sincerely apologize for arguing with you (that was me). I'm sorry :( A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip :) Goldblooded ( talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not happy about this edit. I thought we'd already covered this. An IP editor asks an admin to unprotect an article that was protected with a so-far-unexplained reason of sockpuppetry, and you remove the request with the edit summary of "troll"? What am I missing here? 28bytes ( talk) 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, my man, I have been cooperating with the other editors, and we had to do multiple reverts on an disruptive editor, who chnages citations from what sources say and sprinkles unrelated content into agreed edits. He has been warned for edit waring, and you got the wrong man. Look more closely, then you see. Look at the talk page (Alprazolam) Please remove the warning from my page. Thanks. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I told you to look at the corresponding talk page, then you see that this was an agreed edit and consensus, which was disrupted. I have resored it. Not edit waring. Now look at the talk page, finally. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You see what the other user 67.x.x does is sprinkle changes in without discussion. When reverted he reverts back. He gives no ref for his changes. He misrepresents refs, by stating what is not said in the ref. He changes citations to the opposite of what the ref says. He does not react to whatever arguments. He is a vandal, disrupting the integrity of the article. The temazepam article needed a deep revert to rid it of such misrepresentations by an editor with the same pattern, who is now blocked. Look there, and then look at the deep revert by Fvasconcellos there, which was needed to weed out countless nonsense citations. Almost half of the volume of this article was nonsense, misrepresented references, when we noticed it. Then you see. It is a new method of insidious vandalism. Besides, he should now have more reverts, but he continued to revert. What to do then, let him go on and massacre the whole article by a long series of edits, which can not be reverted due to 3rr, and which cannot be discussed, because he does not discuss? 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Misrepresentation of sources is vandalism. If the source says "X is true", and I cite it as "X is not true" and then do not react to any discussion on that it is obviously willful disruption of the integrity of WP. I have now spent a dozen hours on weeding out nonsense of exactly this kind from several articles, by proofreading against the given references. There is no other way to find that, but to open the ref and compare against the statements little by little. Very tedious. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The edits after that are by 174.x.x and continue the previous edits of 67.x.x. Also this guy cites no refs and does not respond when directed to the discussion, except by claiming to be a doctor. He has been reverted by me and Dmacks and the Xlinkbot for that, as he is using a clone of Wiki at mahalo.com as a reference, which is braindead. You cannot use copy of an old version of the Wiki article as a ref for Wiki. This has been told, like talking to an ill horse, but he just doesn't respond to the matter at hand.
Good faith edits are characterized by willingness to discuss the matter. Insofar, as I have seen no attempt to ever discuss facts (I don't count I'm a doctor as an argument) I really doubt good faith here. Besides he does not add to the article, but reverts earlier repairs which have been done due to inconsistency with the cited references. You have to go further back in the history, then you see. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is besides not really a content dispute. he has been reverted in series first by the bot, then by me, then by DMacks, wo is an admin. Then he has reverted the admin, always without any explanation. His edit is a revert to an earlier version, removing a series of edits which have been done on the article. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok I won't troll, I was just trying to respond to his accusations of me. I never ment to be in a war with him. I was trying to run a discussion on the issue of the British airman, pointing out that official sources and international media regard him as a casualty of the NATO campaign against Libya and trying to point out that his personal oppinion on the matter couldn't be taken into consideration if official sources say otherwise. I was trying to point out Wikipedia policy. He accused me of making threats by pointing out policy. o.O EkoGraf ( talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's great, isn't it?
--
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Jasper, i replied to your comment. "Return Fire" simply means reply i saw it when someone posted it on my page i think it might of been scout or Σ its instead of the "talk back" link. Eko is just trying to twist it so ill get banned. I dont know why he doesnt like me probably because we disagreed on something but judging by his talk page hes stirred up quite a storm. Thanks for your comment anyway. Goldblooded ( talk) 21:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I know! I even told him on the talkpage to WP:assume good faith And im not; im putting my hands up and walking away im not falling down that trap again. Although smell foul play since why else would he send deogratory messages to me and then try and twist my words? Goldblooded ( talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright thanks :) Goldblooded ( talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for helping me to realize to cite what I add to articles. Here is a pie in return. Hfmmr ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
Here's a glass to relax after a day of crapy debates :p ~ AdvertAdam talk 04:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Doubly/triply protected. That ought to fix 'em. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright i wont from now on, But i got that idea from my wikipedia adoptee as Zscout openly uses it... Goldblooded ( talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but i was trying to followin in Zscout's example. Besides, Ekograf was just stirring up trouble; Anyways no harm done ive learnt my lesson i wont use "return fire" anymore. Goldblooded ( talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
...the policy basis for this since its common for editors to replace accidental IP edits with their signature. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You wrote to me "I believe you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide a free, neutral, and verifiable encyclopedia"
No I am exactly clear on that. I provided that.
Now I am getting "Gang" mail from you and others about a personal attack, when I made a comment that is TRUE about removing the truth from an alleged "encyclopedia"
Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.
I do not need to devote my time to this - I will get more hits and higher search engine rankings using my own websites - and make money and revenue by not being bothered with this wiki - or emails from ANY of anyone here associated with wiki.
Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.
2bobburns ( talk) 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
User talk:2bobburns, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:2bobburns and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:2bobburns during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. VQuakr ( talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not care how you do it - I want nothing else to do with wiki
Delete my page and account - not interested in wiki at all
OR learning all these little nuances to not be pestered further
2bobburns ( talk) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, 24.36.132.108 did additional vandalism at David Ben-Gurion. Dimension31 ( talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't obvious to me.
—
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk
22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
What personal attack? Tbhotch requested a discussion regarding Rio Ferdinand's height, so I started one on his talk page, but he immediately deleted it. Am I not allowed to question that? – Pee Jay 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jasper Deng, Thank you very much for your explanatory note, the first note that showed constructive criticism, even help and support. The notes of DGG and Bearcat are of such character I now understand why Wikipedians have such a bad name, which is really unfortunate as I thought the whole purpose was to build a worldwide encyclopedia together. I might have made mistakes in an honest attempt to ad content to the WP project, but seen from the reactions it might be better to turn away from all of it. As an entree such as the International Student Senate doesn't have a place on WP so be it. I guess that is the difference between the live world where people build and create and a virtual WP-world where courtesy and diplomacy seems to have lost all meaning. But if it takes that kind of attitude to build a good encyclopedia, we'll accept it. Peter Vonke ( talk) 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper I just wanted to comment on you accusing me of sock puppetry. It seems like the case will be closed soon. I am not sure how this all works. Do you comment on the closing and or apologize? DouglasCalvert ( talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for patrolling my page , and reverting that little smirks's edit i dont even know how he found me since ive never had any contact with him ; Unless hes a sock puppet of that Ekograf or somthing. Anyway long story short , i appreciate the help- Sorry i havent been on wikipedia as much as i should of been ive been busy with a lot of things, ive been down the archives searching for local history to write in my book im currently writing. Goldblooded ( talk) 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saw your latest RFPP requests - dude, two IPs vandalising or edit-warring is not something for page protection. It is something for WP:AIV. Before submitting a page protection request, ask yourself "would a limited number of blocks fix this problem?" If the answer is "yes", close the window, report them to AIV and make yourself a coffee or something. Ironholds ( talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you be more specific regarding the warning you've placed on my talkpage? First you tell me about a discussion about the article for DJM. If you look closely at the edit history, my initial edit was to redirect it to DJM Records. This was done over FOUR YEARS AGO. Then your next edit warns me about a Conflict of Interest. What CoI is this? And then your third and final edit warns me about creating inappropriate pages. Again, please be more specific.
I notice you made all three edits with Twinkle. I'll be reporting you for mis-use of this tool and maybe it is you who needs to be blocked. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have observed with concern your apparent lack of care for a long while, but have deferred to your mentors, and haven't said or done anything about it. If they are willing to spend a lot of time guiding you, more power to them. But I am quickly coming to the point where I may feel compelled to take some sort of action. So first, explain why you made those further two edits, and then, explain how you are going to avoid that happening again (or anything of similar magnitude happening again). -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The way to not get blocked by me, going forward, isn't just to read up on policies, or disable Twinkle, although both are good ideas. It's to slow way down, think about what you're doing, and not do it if you aren't 100% sure. BOLD doesn't really apply to you anymore. If you aren't 100% sure about something, and it's important, ask first. if it isn't important, don't do anything for a while, just watch. If you are 100% sure about something(*), and it is as wrong as this episode was, then (as much as I hate to say it to someone who's trying to help), I think you might need to be blocked until you've aged, and gained some more wisdom. I'm not talking about a 3 day block, here. I think I gave this same general advice a few months ago, and I still don't see evidence you're doing it.
*For example, your comment at 28's talk page "I understood COI right there, and based my judgement off the page involved." is very worrying.
I'll check back in later; I'd value 28's (and Kansan's) opinion on my comments as well. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For this comment, you have become my model of a diplomat. Thank you and take care for your excellent work in promoting intra-wiki editor understanding. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. I just saw you had 6171th place in most edits (7714). Good job! Probably went up by the time you read this. Here:
PS: you had an argument with User:71.146.19.240, a few months ago. I sincerely apologize for arguing with you (that was me). I'm sorry :( A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip :) Goldblooded ( talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not happy about this edit. I thought we'd already covered this. An IP editor asks an admin to unprotect an article that was protected with a so-far-unexplained reason of sockpuppetry, and you remove the request with the edit summary of "troll"? What am I missing here? 28bytes ( talk) 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, my man, I have been cooperating with the other editors, and we had to do multiple reverts on an disruptive editor, who chnages citations from what sources say and sprinkles unrelated content into agreed edits. He has been warned for edit waring, and you got the wrong man. Look more closely, then you see. Look at the talk page (Alprazolam) Please remove the warning from my page. Thanks. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I told you to look at the corresponding talk page, then you see that this was an agreed edit and consensus, which was disrupted. I have resored it. Not edit waring. Now look at the talk page, finally. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You see what the other user 67.x.x does is sprinkle changes in without discussion. When reverted he reverts back. He gives no ref for his changes. He misrepresents refs, by stating what is not said in the ref. He changes citations to the opposite of what the ref says. He does not react to whatever arguments. He is a vandal, disrupting the integrity of the article. The temazepam article needed a deep revert to rid it of such misrepresentations by an editor with the same pattern, who is now blocked. Look there, and then look at the deep revert by Fvasconcellos there, which was needed to weed out countless nonsense citations. Almost half of the volume of this article was nonsense, misrepresented references, when we noticed it. Then you see. It is a new method of insidious vandalism. Besides, he should now have more reverts, but he continued to revert. What to do then, let him go on and massacre the whole article by a long series of edits, which can not be reverted due to 3rr, and which cannot be discussed, because he does not discuss? 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Misrepresentation of sources is vandalism. If the source says "X is true", and I cite it as "X is not true" and then do not react to any discussion on that it is obviously willful disruption of the integrity of WP. I have now spent a dozen hours on weeding out nonsense of exactly this kind from several articles, by proofreading against the given references. There is no other way to find that, but to open the ref and compare against the statements little by little. Very tedious. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 16:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The edits after that are by 174.x.x and continue the previous edits of 67.x.x. Also this guy cites no refs and does not respond when directed to the discussion, except by claiming to be a doctor. He has been reverted by me and Dmacks and the Xlinkbot for that, as he is using a clone of Wiki at mahalo.com as a reference, which is braindead. You cannot use copy of an old version of the Wiki article as a ref for Wiki. This has been told, like talking to an ill horse, but he just doesn't respond to the matter at hand.
Good faith edits are characterized by willingness to discuss the matter. Insofar, as I have seen no attempt to ever discuss facts (I don't count I'm a doctor as an argument) I really doubt good faith here. Besides he does not add to the article, but reverts earlier repairs which have been done due to inconsistency with the cited references. You have to go further back in the history, then you see. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is besides not really a content dispute. he has been reverted in series first by the bot, then by me, then by DMacks, wo is an admin. Then he has reverted the admin, always without any explanation. His edit is a revert to an earlier version, removing a series of edits which have been done on the article. 70.137.153.193 ( talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok I won't troll, I was just trying to respond to his accusations of me. I never ment to be in a war with him. I was trying to run a discussion on the issue of the British airman, pointing out that official sources and international media regard him as a casualty of the NATO campaign against Libya and trying to point out that his personal oppinion on the matter couldn't be taken into consideration if official sources say otherwise. I was trying to point out Wikipedia policy. He accused me of making threats by pointing out policy. o.O EkoGraf ( talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's great, isn't it?
--
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Jasper, i replied to your comment. "Return Fire" simply means reply i saw it when someone posted it on my page i think it might of been scout or Σ its instead of the "talk back" link. Eko is just trying to twist it so ill get banned. I dont know why he doesnt like me probably because we disagreed on something but judging by his talk page hes stirred up quite a storm. Thanks for your comment anyway. Goldblooded ( talk) 21:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I know! I even told him on the talkpage to WP:assume good faith And im not; im putting my hands up and walking away im not falling down that trap again. Although smell foul play since why else would he send deogratory messages to me and then try and twist my words? Goldblooded ( talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright thanks :) Goldblooded ( talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for helping me to realize to cite what I add to articles. Here is a pie in return. Hfmmr ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
Here's a glass to relax after a day of crapy debates :p ~ AdvertAdam talk 04:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Doubly/triply protected. That ought to fix 'em. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright i wont from now on, But i got that idea from my wikipedia adoptee as Zscout openly uses it... Goldblooded ( talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but i was trying to followin in Zscout's example. Besides, Ekograf was just stirring up trouble; Anyways no harm done ive learnt my lesson i wont use "return fire" anymore. Goldblooded ( talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
...the policy basis for this since its common for editors to replace accidental IP edits with their signature. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You wrote to me "I believe you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide a free, neutral, and verifiable encyclopedia"
No I am exactly clear on that. I provided that.
Now I am getting "Gang" mail from you and others about a personal attack, when I made a comment that is TRUE about removing the truth from an alleged "encyclopedia"
Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.
I do not need to devote my time to this - I will get more hits and higher search engine rankings using my own websites - and make money and revenue by not being bothered with this wiki - or emails from ANY of anyone here associated with wiki.
Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.
2bobburns ( talk) 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
User talk:2bobburns, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:2bobburns and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:2bobburns during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. VQuakr ( talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not care how you do it - I want nothing else to do with wiki
Delete my page and account - not interested in wiki at all
OR learning all these little nuances to not be pestered further
2bobburns ( talk) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, 24.36.132.108 did additional vandalism at David Ben-Gurion. Dimension31 ( talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't obvious to me.
—
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk
22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
What personal attack? Tbhotch requested a discussion regarding Rio Ferdinand's height, so I started one on his talk page, but he immediately deleted it. Am I not allowed to question that? – Pee Jay 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jasper Deng, Thank you very much for your explanatory note, the first note that showed constructive criticism, even help and support. The notes of DGG and Bearcat are of such character I now understand why Wikipedians have such a bad name, which is really unfortunate as I thought the whole purpose was to build a worldwide encyclopedia together. I might have made mistakes in an honest attempt to ad content to the WP project, but seen from the reactions it might be better to turn away from all of it. As an entree such as the International Student Senate doesn't have a place on WP so be it. I guess that is the difference between the live world where people build and create and a virtual WP-world where courtesy and diplomacy seems to have lost all meaning. But if it takes that kind of attitude to build a good encyclopedia, we'll accept it. Peter Vonke ( talk) 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper I just wanted to comment on you accusing me of sock puppetry. It seems like the case will be closed soon. I am not sure how this all works. Do you comment on the closing and or apologize? DouglasCalvert ( talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for patrolling my page , and reverting that little smirks's edit i dont even know how he found me since ive never had any contact with him ; Unless hes a sock puppet of that Ekograf or somthing. Anyway long story short , i appreciate the help- Sorry i havent been on wikipedia as much as i should of been ive been busy with a lot of things, ive been down the archives searching for local history to write in my book im currently writing. Goldblooded ( talk) 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saw your latest RFPP requests - dude, two IPs vandalising or edit-warring is not something for page protection. It is something for WP:AIV. Before submitting a page protection request, ask yourself "would a limited number of blocks fix this problem?" If the answer is "yes", close the window, report them to AIV and make yourself a coffee or something. Ironholds ( talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can you be more specific regarding the warning you've placed on my talkpage? First you tell me about a discussion about the article for DJM. If you look closely at the edit history, my initial edit was to redirect it to DJM Records. This was done over FOUR YEARS AGO. Then your next edit warns me about a Conflict of Interest. What CoI is this? And then your third and final edit warns me about creating inappropriate pages. Again, please be more specific.
I notice you made all three edits with Twinkle. I'll be reporting you for mis-use of this tool and maybe it is you who needs to be blocked. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have observed with concern your apparent lack of care for a long while, but have deferred to your mentors, and haven't said or done anything about it. If they are willing to spend a lot of time guiding you, more power to them. But I am quickly coming to the point where I may feel compelled to take some sort of action. So first, explain why you made those further two edits, and then, explain how you are going to avoid that happening again (or anything of similar magnitude happening again). -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The way to not get blocked by me, going forward, isn't just to read up on policies, or disable Twinkle, although both are good ideas. It's to slow way down, think about what you're doing, and not do it if you aren't 100% sure. BOLD doesn't really apply to you anymore. If you aren't 100% sure about something, and it's important, ask first. if it isn't important, don't do anything for a while, just watch. If you are 100% sure about something(*), and it is as wrong as this episode was, then (as much as I hate to say it to someone who's trying to help), I think you might need to be blocked until you've aged, and gained some more wisdom. I'm not talking about a 3 day block, here. I think I gave this same general advice a few months ago, and I still don't see evidence you're doing it.
*For example, your comment at 28's talk page "I understood COI right there, and based my judgement off the page involved." is very worrying.
I'll check back in later; I'd value 28's (and Kansan's) opinion on my comments as well. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)