This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of March 2007 through January 2008.
Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!
Your comments, were, respectively, bad misinterpretation, wrong, and false -- especially the last. Musical Linguist's prior reputation doesn't excuse her ridiculous, bad-faith, wildly out-of-proportion, and occasionally outright false attacks on me. It's "incivil" to defend myself? It's "incivil" to answer her baseless charges and her attempt to deflect attention from and excuse Gordon's continued and continual bad behavior? Her bad-faith mindreading of my motivations and her paperback psychology analysis of my state of mind is somehow excusable -- why? She -- falsely -- calls me a liar and that's a-okay? She insults me, but hey, so what? Is any gainsaying of what she says automatically "incivil" and blockworthy or am I required to mumble "yes, your grace" and tug my forelock every time she speaks? -- Calton | Talk 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice. :) Mango juice talk 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your note. I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your request to describe actions (with context) but not ascribe motives, or to "make comments that can be interpreted as mindreading". I presume you are referring to this post, which is the only one I made, though I also posted on the ArbCom page, at the Community noticeboard, and at Gordon's page — all about the same matter. I described what happened — that Calton abused him, sneered at him, reverted him with popups (which should be kept for vandalism reverts, called him Gordy boy, accused him falsely of lying. I made absolutely no implication about Calton's motives. Nor would I wish to do so. I don't know why he treats Gordon that way. I simply know that he does, and I find it very objectionable. Calton has said, in the post above this one, that my charges are "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", and "occasionally outright false". Let's have a look at some of these charges, one by one, and see if any of them can justly be called "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", or "outright false".
Okay, I think I've shown that Calton did call him Gordy-boy, did call him a "not-very-bright troll", did shout at him, abuse him, and belittle him, and did accuse Gordon of trying to sneak in a link and of lying. What I have not shown is that his accusation of Gordon trying to sneak in a link and of lying was false. So, let's have a look.
Let's imagine that User:A wants the Pope Benedict article to have a link arguing that the pope was a Nazi, and User:B wants the article not to have such a link. If the link is not in the article, and someone makes several changes, one of which is to remove the link, and User:A reverts all of those changes, right back to your last version, explaining in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, in that case, User:A's edit will involve restoring the link. His edit will show in the diff as being identical to yours. It will not be an attempt to sneak in the link, but one of the results of the edit will be that the link is there again.
However, if the link is not in the article, and another user makes several changes, and User:A opens your last version from the history, opens the edit box, inserts the link, writes in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, and presses save, the diff will show that his version is identical to yours, except that it has the link in it. In that case, it will be an attempt to "sneak it in", and it will be a lie to deny it. Is that what happened here?
The link was added to the article on 3 January, by Zenger, not by Gordon. [14] It is not a link to Gordon's site, but is to a site that he approves of. (Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger. [15])
On 28 January, User:71.141.252.50 made a lot of edits, including one which inserted a link to the North Country Gazette. [16] (Keep in mind that it's not Gordon's site, though it's one he likes, and that Calton doesn't. I have to agree with Calton on that.) On 29 January, Superm401 reverted to last version by Nut-meg. [17] Then Gordon reverted , saying that he was reverting to the last version from 71.141.252.50. [18] If Calton is correct in saying that Gordon was "sneaking in" the link (his "umpteenth attempt" to sneak it it), [19] then the diff will show that Gordon's version is idential to the anons except that it has the link in it. So, here is the diff. You can see for yourself. Gordon said he was reverting to the 71.141.252.50 version. And he was. The versions are identical.
Now, Calton says in his post above that I have called him a liar. I have never called him that. Nor have I even accused him of lying. I have said, and I say again, that he made a false accusation against Gordon. I do not speculate as to his motives. He accused Gordon of attempting to sneak in the link, and of dishonesty, and told him not to lie. [20] [21] [22] If you look at those diffs, I'm sure you'll agree that he did say all those things to Gordon. I hope that if you look at my arguments above, you will agree that reverting to another user's version, which happens to have a link you approve of, while stating in the edit summary that you are reverting to that version is not sneaking or dishonest, and that in that case, Calton's accusations against Gordon were false. (Of course, it's more than possible that Gordon was quite happy to be restoring to a version that had that link, but that does not justify the accusations that Calton made.)
If you can show me that Gordon did lie, and that Calton was justified in accusing him of "dishonesty" or "sneaking", or that any of the things I said that Calton did to Gordon (reverting him with popups, calling him Gordy boy, calling him a not-very-bright troll, shouting at him), he did not, in fact, do, then of course, I'll withdraw it. I repeat that I am not aware of having stated any opinion as to his motives, and I do not intend to do so. If you think I have done so, then please feel free to show me where.
As I sincerely believe that Gordon's behaviour is in part due to his being upset by Calton's behaviour towards him, and as I believe that Calton made false accusations, and as I believe that a judgment from the community which does not take these things into account would be unjust, I think it would be irresponsible for me to refrain from stating these matters clearly, on the grounds that Calton would be "very upset". I don't know if he's upset or not. It's obvious he's angry, but he has a record of being angry when people question his right to abuse problem editors. I can supply further details, if you wish. I do not believe that anything I said was unfair, and I don't believe that I have been aggressive about it. Certainly, I feel very calm :-), even though Calton has accused me on your page of "bad-faith" "attacks", [23] and has questioned my motives for trying to partially defend Gordon. [24] I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have worded my post more carefully. But I cannot accept that it would be right not to point out how badly Calton has behaved in this matter, just because it might upset him. One might just as easily say that Gordon's behaviour should not be discussed because it might upset him. Both editors have behaved badly, and it would be utterly inappropriate for the community discuss Gordon without mentioning the abuse that he has received. I believe that I am one of at least five administrators who have criticized Calton's behaviour to Gordon. For the record, the other four are yourself, Proto, Marskell, and Sarah Ewart. Anyway, although I disagree with you, I appreciate that you're trying to calm things down, and also to be fair to Gordon. Cheers. Musical L inguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite interesting that a 'luke warm' supporter of essjay and a 'diehard' supporter of essjay felt the need to counsel me on civility; unless I tell lie here, make false accustions against someone or flat out deceive all Wikipedia members there is absolutely no way that I could approach essjay's level of not being cicvil. Let's not lose sight of that little fact. Duke53 | Talk 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This remark is skating very close to the edge of what counts as civil behaviour.
You're being utterly ludicrous: that's not even close to skating any edge of incivility, nor is it "gloating". If you don't understand what's being said or its context, don't project your prejudices onto my notification. -- Calton | Talk 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A close colleague of mine was just diagnosed with breast cancer; I just found out today. I didn't have the presence of mind to ask about staging or or other information at the time, but since she is scheduled for chemo, surgery, and radiotherapy in the next little while, I'm assuming it's not just one of the lightweight variants ( DCIS et al.) but since treatment is indicated, I also assume that it's not an inoperable stage IV carcinoma.
Fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck.
Anyway, she doesn't drink, so I've gone and gotten drunk for her. Can't say it will help, but I don't imagine it will hurt. My liver might disagree, but I'm ignoring it for the moment.
I've got Melissa Etheridge's I Run for Life on the stereo. I doubt that will hurt either, as long as nobody with a great deal of musical taste listens in.
Anyway, if I've been particularly incoherent in the last couple of hours, that's why. Mind you, any comments more than a few hours old are just my regular run-of-the-mill orneriness. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors. And resolved amicably. As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise." Then another editor came in and said they were fine. A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting). Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken. This is why I auto-reverted: Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute. I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest. Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page. -- DavidShankBone 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, what was that about? -- Calton | Talk 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm truly at a loss. You seem to be implying that I'm sending you on some wild goose chase, to go through the entire wikipedia database without giving you the slightest hint of what I'm talking about. Quite the contrary. I directed you to a SPECIFIC discussion on a SPECIFIC page, and asked for your take it on. In case you missed it, once again, the page I'm referring to is the RefDesk talk page, and the discussion I'm referring you to is the discussion entitled "Not a soapbox". Doesn't seem much legwork to me. A couple of clicks and you're there. I don't understand your unrelenting hostility either. I keep sending you the most polite of emails praising you on your conscientiousness as an admin, and you only reply with hostility. Why?
In any case, it's all irrelevant now, so you needn't even make those two or three clicks requested. I've taken it upon myself to do the right thing, eat crow, and, at least on my part, end the whole problem here under the discussion entitled "Mea Maxima Culpa". It would have been nice, though, if you would have at least acknowledged my polite requests by doing me this small favour and checking out this very specified dicussion rather than continually reacting with undue hostility. But as I said, I've taken care of it, so I really don't care anymore. So basically it's up to you whether you even care to check out what I'm talking about, or just continue to ignore my small, polite request and go getting your jollies blocking as many users as your heart desires. Who knows, this post itself may even consist of something you find "objectionable" and warrant yet another block. I really couldn't care less. I know within myself that I did the right thing, acted like the bigger man, and gave Clio my unconditional and unqualified apologies. I had hoped that she'd respond likewise for her hurtful statements towards me, but I suppose my hopes were unrealistic. Knowing that I have the strength of character to do the right thing and apologize for MY innapropriate behaviour is really all that matters to me. The rest is bullshit. Loomis 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ten. I usually refrain from discussing third party users "behind their backs" (so to speak), but since you care enough to want to help resolve a problem, you deserve a decent response. I've recently given Loomis the benefit of my opinion about the way he's operating. That was not done because I altruistically go around helping randomly selected people; Loomis and I have established a kind of friendship, and we seem to have good rapport. If he has any respect for me, he'll give my counsel at least some thought. I'm not entirely sure he's taken what I wrote to heart, judging from his later posts - but I don't see it as my role to act as his Wiki-parent on this. He seems determined to stick around, which imo is a good thing. Whether he's sticking around for the best reasons is something only he is fit to judge. I know only too well from my own life experience that letting go of an issue can be the most difficult thing in the world. And it's particularly difficult if a person places too high a value on others' opinions of them.
I need to balance the equation though. I'm not in the business of pointing fingers, but if I were, it would be wrong to point the finger at only one person in this sorry episode. A lot of the escalation that occurred could have been avoided if both sides had taken 10 deep breaths, and said "Let's cool it before this gets out of hand. Can you explain your position in a different way, please - I really want to understand where you're coming from. I accept that you were writing in good faith and you didn't intend to offend me". Unfortunately it went way too far, and it's still going on, with Mutually Assured Contempt as the apparently permanent outcome (an unconditional apology notwithstanding). Both parties have good reason to reflect on that, because both parties played significant roles in arriving at that outcome. If that's a model for operating in a win-win way out there in the real world, pity help the real world.
Without necessarily pointing to Loomis or Clio specifically, I've been truly amazed at the display of ego-driven absurdity that we often encounter around the Ref Desk. People who, one assumes, make valuable contributions to articles often show different colours when emotional issues get raised on the Ref Desk. Some people seem addicted to getting insulted at even the slightest perceived provocation. I'm not entirely blameless here, though. I've also succumbed to what I thought was baiting - in some cases, I was indeed being baited; but in other cases, it was just a matter of an opinion not being expressed in ideally clear language. What my time here has shown me, more than anything else, is that any chink in an editor's skills with written English is apt to be misinterpreted, and in a negative way. This is one of my personal things, admittedly - I'm a stickler for good grammar, spelling, punctuation; but above all, writing what you truly meant to convey, not some colloquialised or ill-thought-out version thereof. Many people don't seem to understand that having an online debate is not like having an oral conversation. They require different (if overlapping) skills. I think a lot of the personal issues could be avoided if people could just learn to express a potentially provocative opinion in a way that does not actually provoke anybody to take precipitate action, or press their ego-buttons. I'm not saying it's easy - I've had to apologise for unintended slights on a number of occasions. (And that's another thing. Simply saying "I'm sorry; I apologise", and earlier rather than later, seems to be completely beyond the powers of a lot of people with otherwise fantastic skills. It would resolve a lot of issues; and with no loss of personal status, integrity, or respect. It takes courage, but it's well worth it.) But some people never even try to choose their words carefully, they just seem to blurt out whatever's on their mind and save their edit without the slightest review of what they're about to post. I'm rambling badly now, I know. But I think there are wider issues at stake here than what is ultimately a petty war between 2 individuals out of millions of Wikipedians.
In summary, I'm humbled that you think I could play any further meaningful role with the Loomis/Clio issue. The best I can hope is that they both read this and have a think about it. Feel free to send it on to them if you think it would make a difference. All the best. JackofOz 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A discussion concerning how we should use International Symbol of Access on Wikipedia is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. You are welcome to participate. — Remember the dot ( talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello ToaT. You may not be interested, but the recent mention of Light current on the RD has inspired him to self identify from a few IPs and sockpuppet accounts, including 88.109.82.174 ( talk · contribs), 88.111.79.170 ( talk · contribs), 88.110.145.192 ( talk · contribs), FunnyMunny ( talk · contribs) and, just for you I guess, UnderTrade ( talk · contribs). I blocked and reverted a few of them that have been used to !vote on policy and communicate with LC's associates. Its clear that he is continuing to contribute anonymously to the Ref Desk from that IP range and there is probably a paper trail to a few more accounts or IPs we could find. Personally, I have no desire to pursue him as long as his contibutions remain anonymous and he stays out of trouble, but I thought I would let you know in case you wish to investigate further. Rockpocke t 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point -- I've restored, thanks. NawlinWiki 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello - since you seem knowledgeable about some of the subtleties of GFDL, I was wondering if you could look at this AN/I thread and give me your feedback. I don't have a problem giving credit where it's due, but when the owner of another wiki inserts text from his wiki, then tags the article with a GFDL credit, it smells like vanity/spam. I'd appreciate your thoughts if you have the time - thanks. MastCell Talk 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are 4. I documented them - SVRTVDude ( Yell | Toil) 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it's not an entitlement. Honestly, I didn't even realize I had come as close as I had.
Orangemonster2k1, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what the actual rules -- and guidelines, practices, and policies -- are here, not just the 3RR. He knows what he wants, and make up stuff to justify it: witness his adding a 7.7K list of TV show logos, sourced to a fanwiki, and claiming that there's a "Wiki rule" making it okay, which doesn't even touch the issue of whether that ludicrous level of detail is called for, sourced or not. And yeah, it's listed -- and has been listed for a few days -- at RFC, which I had to do myself. He certainly didn't seem actually nterested in discussion, given his ignoring any discussion while the article was under page protection in favor of simply running out the clock.
His protests about his alleged good faith are also nonsense: every once in a while, in some fit of pique, he makes reversions of my edits he's not even bothered to read first [25] or tries to solicit allies from anyone who's crossed paths, including from abusive sockpuppets his guy being the latest. He also seems to be implying he helped drive off AMiB, and seems rather proud -- or at least happy -- with that result [26]. -- Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I just wanted to drop you a note to say I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral on Ref Desk debates. I detect a subtle lean in your position towards "having the Ref Desk be just like the articles in Wikipedia", but not the blatant advocacy of that one position I've seen from other Admins, like Friday. For example, Friday actually endorsed a poorly supported RFC filed against me by
User:Hipocrite:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat, who quite obviously was just looking for a way to make trouble. You were able to see past the fact that Hipocrite generally supports your Ref Desk position and block him for incivility at one point, something I can't see Friday ever doing. I personally think that Admins should either completely avoid listing any opinion on issues, or, if they do list opinions, should hang up their Admin hats and promise not to block those of the opposing opinion, to avoid any conflict of interest. I have even suggested to Friday that he should try to emulate the way you (at least attempt to) remain neutral.
StuRat
05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Ten. Thanks for your message. You're right, of course. I knew when I was writing that message to Orange Monster that I was breaking my own self-imposed rule, not to talk negatively about third-party users behind their backs. But I went ahead and sent it anyway - partly because I had a genuine desire to support OM, but partly because of my own history with the other guy, which after about 18 months still leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I didn't read your full interchange with OM, because I wasn't a party to it and it didn't interest me. My sole motivation was as I outlined above; however I should have realised that any intervention could have created the impression that I was siding with him against you. That certainly wasn't the case. My apologies. This is a lesson in letting go of old wounds and moving on to new challenges. All the best. JackofOz 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
How many times have we conversed and I JUST got your name....9, 10, Jack, Queen...of course "Jack of All Trades"....Duh. I am kinda slow sometimes with these things :) - SVRTVDude ( Yell | Toil) 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edition the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ten, how long does something stay on AFD before a final decision is made or someone comes by and counts the votes? - SVRTVDude ( Yell | Toil) 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I really hope that you were not really saying that the "Palestinian flag is as inflammatory as the Nazi flag" as you did here [28] and that you do not repeat something like that which can easily be construed as being hate speech. Thanks Baristarim 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. I appreciate your comments about Brandt's continued harassment of Slim, and I absolutely share your views. However, in keeping with the rulings here and here, I have removed your the link. I hope you don't mind. See also, Fred Bauder's clarification here. (Jayjg has also endorsed that clarification, although I can't find the link right now, and he was one of the arbcom members who voted in the MONGO case.) My own personal stalker put up a website with stuff about wanting to marry me, stuff about the size of my breasts, my parents' then home address and phone number, my workplace details, stuff about the hairs on my toes, and lots more. I didn't like when people posted links to his pages about me, but I also didn't like when they posted links to other pages, from where one could easily navigate to the specific attacks on me. Incidentally, the person you are defending is in favour of a prohibition of links to sites that try to "out" Wikipedians, as I am, for obvious reasons. Thanks. Musical L inguist 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi... I read that you were one who placed the '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing', I was just wondering if its possible that we transfer the #REDIRECT to 'Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing' instead of 'Do you ever go fishing'. Could you kindly suggest other possible options in this action iif its not possible. I would just like to do this merely to organize all the Fishing Articles. Thank you! Bu b0y2007 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you do this? A.Z. 05:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I ask you to note that former User Loomis is using his talk page to take words I have written out of context, adding a corrupted interpretation. I have no intention of entering into any debate in the matter: I have simply posted the entire thread in full (Nazi Racial Philosophy, Humanities RD, 19 November 2006) on his page, to ensure that other editors are not misled in any fashion. A similar message has been posted on Friday's page. Regards, Clio the Muse 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your comments at the Village pump [ [29]] were referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4. As I believe the editor who remarked on them is misinterpreting the substance of the discussion there, I'd like you to clarify your position so that a fuller understanding can be reached. If the AFD closes before you get a chance to respond, feel free to comment on my talk page and on that of the user. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for you to use my talk page, ever. Your evenhandness act has grown stale, at this point. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You certainly are welcomed to say helpful things on my talk page, but you shouldn't be calling anyone a dick, ever, much less on their talk pages. Please learn a way to communicate in a way that isn't so offensive to others. On the plus side, this may be one of the few case where Hipocrite and I actually agree on something. StuRat 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign them like at this: Wikipedia:Help desk#Watching a range of IPs. I have also answered your question. ~~ AVTN T C VPS 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TenOfAllTrades! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you can help me with my questions:
-- Goingempty 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I am, yet again, under attack by Loomis, as you will see from the Hitler and the Holocaust discussion on the Humanities RD. I have alerted Rockpocket, the admin. who unblocked him, to his observations, made without reference or context, which, once again, places my integrity in question. It's a bore, I know, but I have to make you aware of this. Clio the Muse 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The comment has now been removed by Hipocrite. Clio the Muse 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A while back you blocked a certain user for incivility and told him he could expect more of the same if he continued his behavior. I'd like to offer this recent edit for your discretion. -- Masamage ♫ 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ten, could you please read User Loomis' latest posting on my talk page. I will be removing this soon, but not before you have had a chance to read it. I have also alerted Rockpocket. Clio the Muse 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Burntsauce has deleted and now shown he has entirely ignored your request:
This user has yet to have ever contributed to an article, he only tags, removes information or has a bot run anti-vandalism. I have looked for a contribution, any contribution, for an addition to an article or a reference or anything and he seems to have never done so. This ignoring of everyone who tells him otherwise has gone on too long. –– Lid( Talk) 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The troll has restored his question twice now, and put vandalism warnings on my Talk page after I removed it twice. I'm not going to remove it again as I don't want to get into an edit war, but you might consider a 3RR warning for him. Corvus cornix 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote, "It gets confusing because some people (and many textbooks, and even parts of Wikipedia)", is it possible you meant "(and parts of Wikipedia, and even many textbooks)"? ;) David D. (Talk) 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades. I have a favour to ask of you, though understand if you are too busy, or just not interested. The request is that you read over the evidence at a case of suspected sock & meatpuppetry for votestacking, briefly conclude the case and take whatever action you feel is necessary in response.
I would do it myself, except another editor provided a lot of evidence to my anonymously, and asked me to provide it for the case. I obviously checked it and found some more evidence which I felt compelled to report. So, the consequence of this is that I now appear to be the one bringing the case, and therefore think its inappropriate for me to close it and decide what action should be taken. I did ask for assistance at AN/I but only really received feeback from another admin that is heavily involved, and therefore its not really ideal he acts either. Its kind of slipped off the radar now and I just think its serious enough that, assuming you are convinced with the evidence, it doesn't go to the archives resolved:
I have (semi) spammed Friday's talkpage with the same request, in the hope one of you doesn't mind trawling through the evidence. Thanks. Rockpocke t 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You commented the other day on this above-captionned proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) #30, citing Quiddity's argument as your reason for a "no change" view. Quiddity has since changed his/her view. Would you like to loook at the proposal again, at the added explanations, and perhaps, re-visit your conclusions? Thank you. Bielle 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I received your email. I have to say that I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you provide diffs or links to the "untoward and untrue allegation[s]" that I've made about you?
Please reply on wiki. I have no interest in being called (again) a "big pharma shill" by email, and I will not respond to further comments from you if they're not made on-the-record, on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look. I make a lot of mistakes by typing off the top of my head. I never knew whether Red or Violet refracted more or not... Feel free to edit my technical details in my explaination there by over writing the wrong bits. User:Midgley
Recently a bunch of medical interest group types had my article about electronic alternative medicine guru Robert C. Beck D.Sc. deleted and moved to my user space. Eventually I want to resurect it, but probably need lots of "organized" partisan supporters to get it back into "wiki" space again. Their magic is very powerful. ;^)
User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck Thanks. Oldspammer 02:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen your comments in the discussion about New body. Guess, you might help with my question - what about water ions (protons and hydroxyls) turnover in CNS tissue? Since they are involved in number of biochemical reactions, active movement of parzicular ion from one to the other part of CNS (and even to another body parts) can be suggested, or? Do you know any literature, where quantitative approximations of such a turnover were done? (using proton isotopes, for example). Thanks a lot in advance for any help! (not sure, if the terms used are correct, sorry!) R 131.188.175.182 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I couldn't understand what is your opinion on this proposal. At first I thought you were against the change because you think the subtle distinction between the words would be important to prevent chatting, but I'm not sure now. A.Z. 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop trolling my talk page there. All of my new proposed deletions have edit summaries as I am sure you can see. This includes not just prod but other deletions too. If you have any other problems please let me know. Burntsauce 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Also if you are looking to implement some sort of policy change with regards to edit summaries I suggest you do so on the Village Pump or somewhere else. Thanks. Burntsauce 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki's policy is unclear. What is a "personal attack" is subjective. An ironic comment could be considered so by a person with a thin skin for example. SamuelJohnson714
Ten, can you help me? I was going to vote in the Wikimedia Board Elections, but when I click on the vote link I get a security warning on my computer, advising me not to proceed; and I always listen when my internet security speaks!. Do you know anything about this? Clio the Muse 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've sent you an email regarding this. I'll try and help with this one where I can. Thanks, -- SunStar Net talk 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No probs. -- Tagishsimon (talk)
Hi, thanks for the message. I think he got upset 'cos I gave him a warning for blanking :) DuncanHill 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You available? I would prefer IRC :) -- Cat chi? 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
okay, i did some reasearch and i didnt look like he actually was a sockpuppet, so thank you for letting me know, i would hate to get him un-blocked. Tiptoety 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Who exactly were you addressing at my talk page, because if you were / are accusing me of sarcasm then the problem is yours; all I mentioned was that Jack Shea is dead: simply stated as a fact. If you are that sensitive or looking for some excuse to be snarky, then maybe it's you who shouldn't be helping. Duke53 | Talk 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I see you've spoken to Peter about this, but he's continuing. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell? Adam Cuerden talk 09:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have move protected both your user page and user talk page after a spate of move vandalism. Dragons flight 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, -- El on ka 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades. You were mentioned (unflatteringly, I expect) in an odd item in my watchlist; "Wikipedia:Obesity is for the hateful racist that is TenOfAllTrades who is a gay bastard". See [30]. Saintrain 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you assume good faith since you can clearly see the glans penis issue is contentious, and I've addressed it before that it's not my dick, so don't be a dick yourself. I'll open an RfC on the issue to get consensus. --David Shankbone 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are still ascribing motivations to me when you have no clue as to why I do anything I do, and same for me with you. Out of the 2,000 pages my photography illustrates on Wikipedia, one or two pages aren't the end all and be all, I can assure you. It's simply a content issue, and I think mine is, frankly, the best photo there. The other one looks wet like it was just oiled or sucked, and the other is fine, but not the best quality. It's really that simple. I'm going to open an RfC, so there's no need for us to be involved in this dick/douche contest. And I'll accept the results. --David Shankbone 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
May I ask you what is the meaning of your nickname? Just Googled it with no useful results. Every time I see it I wonder if that has an actual meaning in English, or was taken from some book or something. -- Taraborn 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, delete the page The_tools_given_to_administrators_should_be_given_out_to_everyone. I already moved it to my user space. A.Z. 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I expect you didn't mean to tell me that I couldn't ever edit the page without first having a discussion at the talk page. A.Z. 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Awarded to TenOfAllTrades for having the patience of Job. Anchoress 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
I see from his talk page you've dealt with him before. He is continuing to disrupt the homeopathy rewrite project, and has taken a particular dislike to my contributions. Today I have been called "an arrogant, self-appointed censor" [31]. Morrell has also declared that he has "no intention of helping you with this and you damn-well know why" [32]. I've been trying really hard to ignore his personal attacks, but he's driving other quality editors away from the rewrite. I'd post this to AN/I, but I don't think it rises to that level of a problem. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the dif correction on Pat's talk page. Hopefully it will knock some sense into him. Æon Insanity Now! 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I read your comments about proposing and changing guidelines at Trivia. I share your concern. I beleive that we need reform for the processes of adopting, changing, and deleting policies, guidelines, etc. -- Kevin Murray 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a note at WP:ANI (good faith editor, bad edits) requesting advice on how to handle this situation. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! A while back you dealt with Duke53 ( talk · contribs) and I wonder if you could take another look at his recent history (past few days). I'd be happy to be more specific if you'd like, but I don't want to prejudice you up front. If you think his contributions need more attention in a different venue (e.g., AN/I or RFCU) then please let me know. Thanks, alanyst / talk/ 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I must object to your blanket revert of my additions to Wikipedia articles. I am aware of the rules with regard to external links. If you believe that I have used promotional language, please identify an instance, because I am not aware of it. I have not written praise for the interviews or the library itself or used any promotional terms. I have added primary sources and reference material that are specific to the subjects of the articles. On WP:SPAM, under External link spamming, are the following criteria:
There were no violations of that list. On Wikipedia: Conflicts of Interest are the following criteria:
I am frustrated and bewildered by this. I would point to Battle of Midway#External links, where you have deleted my addition of an interview with two authors who are heavily referenced by the article - and yet left a link to a review of the same book (a non-primary source) and a link pointing to "Battle of Midway like strategic board game Pacific ´42 Admiral".
These additions represented a great deal of work for me and were carefully chosen to be appropriate to the articles they were added to. Please undo these reverts. Mark Heiden 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to disrubt Wikipedia. I am saving it from nonsence polocies like the one that this blue/purple writing links to. Cheers. -- Alien joe 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What if I think it should be deleted. Other pages are being nominated, but everyone seems to cling on me. -- Alien joe 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response regarding steam at high altitudes. I'm sure you have many things to do but perhaps you could briefly add that to the article "steam engine" to make it less confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.233.219 ( talk) 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
'Removed vandalism' is a reasonable edit summary when you're removing vandalism, and it's unfortunate that some editors will immediately assume bad faith rather than asking you about your edits first.
It has been proposed that your suggestion be considered very silly. If you disagree, you have 5 days to make it less silly. Friday (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing to explain, or at least dispute: I added back -- properly sourced, neutrally worded, and footnoted, to boot -- relevant material about Will Geer. TruthCrusader is removing it for no discernible reason, other than, perhaps, an impulse-control problem and one of his quarterly attempts to get me banned. The two sides are not even close to being equivalent, and the actual edit-warring is being done by one side only. The false equivalency is, at best, irritating, and worst actively insulting. -- Calton | Talk 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed to merge the content of License and permit bond into Surety bond. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. -- B. Wolterding 10:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I've already asked Rockpocket if he is still keeping my talk page under watch, but I really should have asked you to begin with. If you have a look I think you will understand why. Regards. Clio the Muse 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So you don't like blank lines between the posts. Did you have to treat it as vandalism? A.Z. 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ten: Thank you so much for that chuckle. Just when I begin to think that everyone on Wikipedia has his/her head stuck deep where the sun don't shine, all the while wondering aloud and at great length why it is so dark in here, someone like you comes along and brightens up the universe. I would look foolish indeed! Bielle 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would be appropriate to link to sites such as MayoClinic Ask a Specialist, WebMD Symptom Checker, and so forth? --- Sluzzelin talk 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I have some information about sort of personal information prompted you to delete one or mre revisions of my user talk page. Could I know who posted the material? __ meco 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey
I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.
thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — scs 23:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This issues regarding EgyptAir has been resolved. The information, according to me was contreversial because I coudn't find any reliable sources. I'm sorry if questions appear disruptive however until just recently there where no trully "reliable" references. Even that ITA code (or something code) did not give it proper referencing. Again, this has been resolved between Dethme0w and I. We have found proper sources. You are escallating the situation and I ask you to please stand down from your threats of blocking me for disruption. Goodbye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your lecture I don't want it thank you. Go defend someone worthy. What I said was completely true. Peter morrell 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction, I did not 'attack' adam cuerden, I said he and others had done a hatchet job on that article, which is blatantly true. I stand by that totally correct comment. I am not the only one to have said that. Go pick on and lecture someone else. Peter morrell 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep away from my talk page. And don't lecture me again. Such arrogant behaviour is not conducive to what you claim to seek. As I said before, go find a worthy person to defend for a change. Peter morrell 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's my intention to press for a siteban if he steps out of line during 3 months of mentoring. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you realize you just reverted my edits to remove proper referencing and that according to me this stem down to a fundemental issue with WP:V. I sure hope we will be able to comme to a concensus. I however, will not change my opinon in regards to referencing. Hence I suggest we start a dispute resolution if you are unable to accept wikipedia's policies. -- CyclePat ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We are engaged in a dispute regarding this content and you should not block me. This is because we are arguing on article content. Essentially we have a difference of opinion regarding references. Should we or should we not have references for the article millisecond? Currently there are no references because you have removed the ones that I have added. This demonstrates that there is clearly a disagreement between the both of us. It also shows that there was, previous to my block, a disagreement between the both of us.
WP:BLOCK states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." When I looked on the WP:AN (the administrator's notice board), I did not see any announcements regarding this issues. I believe, and I put it to you, that you blocked me and are threatening to block me to silence this issue and not have to deal with the contentious maters of article content and interpreting the guidelines stipulated in WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:OR. I feel as though you most recent post to my talk page, here, substantiates this accusation. You stated "Should you continue, I will block you. This is a final warning. Why not just find something that needs a footnote, and fix that instead?" You are essentially ignoring not only the aforementioned rules but the rules in regards to blocks. You are taking things into your own hands and I believe such warning should be placed onto the WP:ANI allow for another administrator to give the warning.
Secondly, you should stipulate what the issue is. I feel you are not clear within your explanation. How am I being pointy? If it's by discussing the matter, obviously, there is a conflict of interest between you and I. This is because on one hand we need to discuss the matter to resolve the issue but on the other if we discuss this matter you may just become frustrated, as previously demonstrated, and block me. Again please explain what you believe to be pointy.
I am opening the doors for discussion on the talk page and RFC as per WP:CON. (Is this considered a point according to you?) I am also offering and asking you if you wish to take this to dispute resolution. I'll be happy if you and a friend started an RfC on my conduct regarding this article and Wikipedia's fundamental rules for Verifiability.
Finally, I would like to mention, that all of the facts that are within the article Millisecond, I'm talking about things like 1 millisecond is like a wink of an eye, are not referenced. This is subjective material which needs referencing. I have placed a section template for this asking for references. Nevertheless you have removed this. (Again a difference in opinion and a content dispute). Furthermore if you look at the guidelines stipulated at WP:TRIVIA this belongs within a section called Trivia. (Another content dispute). These are simply exemples which go to fact that I believe you should not be making threats in regards to blocking me when we should be discussing the matter. And worse you should not be threating to block me because we want to talk about the matter.
Best Regards, -- CyclePat ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades,
is this going to go anywhere towards a resolution or are you just going to keep threatening me with a block? Thank you for your second warning threatening to block me if I continue doing "whatever it is I am doing"?(See
here) However, again, you fail to explain what it is exactly that is disruptive about the content. Not only that, but you fail to acknowledge that "WE" are the ones engaged within this dispute stating "Pat, you are indeed engaged in a disruptive dispute that relates to content."
Furthermore, according to you second statement you acknowledge your bias towards my editing not because of the content but because of "OUR" past interactions. You state "I reverted you because you had engaged in the same sort of POINTy editing about which you had been warned – extensively – before." I've asked you politely, in the aforementioned comment time stamped 00:39, if you could explain in further details what is "POINTy". I actually couldn't agree more with you when you say I'm "...not in a position to play the 'conflict of interest' card to escape censure here." That's not what I want to do. I want to be able to have an open discussion with you. But when you continue to threaten me with block for things to which I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about this bring the conversation to a sour end. Again, is this conversation considered pointy, what is pointy? What is disruptive? Answer the question so we can move along toward the main issue which is the articles content. Unless that is what you are trying to do, avoid the entire conversation all together and come up with your own ultimate consensus? (Too which I've expressed my opinion in the previous comment 00:39) --
CyclePat (
talk)
01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello TenOfAllTrades, thank you for taking the time to contact JzG. I am pleased to have noticed your statement on JzG's user page and will consider this to be an attempt in resolving our content dispute. If you wish we could discuss the issues there. However, my understanding is that you feal we don't need so many references. That's because you stated "He's off on a we need four dicdef footnotes to prove that a ms is a millisecond is really one-thousandth of a second kick." What if we gave the article only 2 references instead of the four references? One for the abreviation (ms) and one for the fact that it's "one thousanth" of a second? -- CyclePat ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(I've written you 850 words, 3 pages, and frankly I think this is enought in terms of contradictions. I hope this helps, but in short, it's obvious, that we contradict each other. Here is my recommendation, in light of your most recent post):
No, TenOfAllTrade. We are both staking out an extreme position. (That's called a contradiction)... we now need to find a way to flex our philosophy from contradiction to "non-opposing" views. (p.s.: It takes two to tango). My position is supported by WP:V, WP:CITE. Your position on the other hand (as you stated) "contradicts" (and, as I will tend to prove later, has no support from the community). Also, contrary to your statement on my talk page (See here) a 'compromise' is in fact, according to Wiki (See WP:DR#Discuss), part of dispute resolution.
You past recollections of my discussion regarding the AMA is simply prejudicial and has no probative value in this matter. (See article probative to which I created). A comparative example is a " Corbett Application". Someone criminal record in the Canadian court of law should not be brought up for prejucial effect on his character. (See Corbett Rule)
I will also infer that you are the only one that reverted my edit and the only one reluctantly arguing. This is because I don't see that many voices on the the talk page and I feal as though you are considering "yourself" to be a "community". The last time I checked the definition of " community" it meant "communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means "common, public, shared by all or many." (Jokingly: now I know your name has 10 in it but I don't think that means 10 people) The only quasi-community I see right now are the ones discussing the article. Ironically, the way things are going with your avoidance of the subject, I fear, I hope it doesn't happen, that I will be the only one talking on the discuss page of millisecond. Leaving "us" with just "me" or maybe "just" you?
As for now... I would like to point your attention to WP:RFC which states in the first line "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines."
Furthermore, I would appreciated if you concentrated on the issue. Stating a vague comment as: "Many, many editors have now observed that demanding citations for facts which are a) obvious, b) common knowledge, c) already footnoted in a wikilinked article, d) uncontroversial, without dispute over definition, or e) all of the above, is disruptive." and not giving it context is unproductive. It is also outside of context, without reference our present issue and totally inappropriate. This because it is subjective and again, contradictable:
So, we get to the core of our problem: "Such notes are superfluous, inconsistent with Wikipedia's style, inconsistent with any sort of academic or technical writing standards, and visually distracting." Which means, I believe, you simply don't like how it looks! You've reverted the trivia sections, or any possibility to expand and source this article. I hate contradicting you, but I would like to remind you that such notes are widely accepted by the community, meet the Wikipedia’s styles (see WP:CITE) and are consistent with the academic writing standards (See Wikipedia's guide Wikipedia:Footnotes and the article on Footnotes.) References are needed with millisecond and the references that I've chosen (dictionaries) are appropriate. (You're being silly and argumentative for something that is credible.) Here are the references... and you say they're not good? [1] [2] [3] [4]
Why don't we take a break for 2 days, allowing you to re-think of what the real issue is, and then you could get back to me with, perhaps a friend that supports your idea (community), or some policy. Then, instead of continuously threatening to block me for a petty issue, (With all do respect, appearing like a ((inapropriate comment removed)) administrator wanting to block me and not trying to resolve a content dispute) we can resolve this matter. (note; this is going to be difficult, because our philosphies are contradictory) p.s.: When you state "subject area in question (metrology)" what do you mean? Obviously you have some "expert" background knowledge on this subject. Perhaps, your level of understanding is above "average" (or key point b). -- CyclePat ( talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As the discussion had archive tags put on it as I was writing my response, I thought I should point out the comment I made here. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you follow policy to the letter, he's only "abused" his sockpuppet once to avoid one 3RRV a month ago. But the account GundamsRus ( talk · contribs) is unquestionably a sockpuppet of an anonymous editor on an Earthlink address. I encourage you to examine the contributions history of the following addresses - I'm almost positive they're all him.
I'm not sure if you can do anything with that or not. The editor trawls my contributions page and will often show up making questionable edits within hours (and revert them forever, thus getting other parties involved and launching edit wars), and hasn't ever had a shred of good faith towards Jtrainor ( talk · contribs) or myself, but as far as I know his shoddy conduct isn't actually against any policies. If you'd consider that "abusive" then great, but as far as I can tell he's only guilty of being a troll, and there's no policy against that. Unfortunately.
An example of this silliness can be found easily here.
Regarding the origins of this conflict, it is my assumption that it began at this AfD, where the user and Jtrainor/myself exchanged words. The IPs he edited from then have been bolded at the top of the list. You'll note that, immediately following the AfD, a rash of Earthlink addresses with the same general editing style began making unilateral edits to articles Jtrainor or I have contributed significantly to - the GundamsRus account followed shortly. I have no concrete evidence (I lack the ability to run a CheckUser) to confirm that they're one in the same, but the circumstantial pointers are all there. You can make of that what you will. MalikCarr ( talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the computers I use has some setting that does not allow me to log into wikipedia - I hit submit and IE just spins and spins (I have let it work in the background for over an hour). I have not found any technical support pages on WP that would help me figure out what I would need to do to be able to actually log in from that computer. If you can guide me to some answers, that would be great. GundamsRus ( talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right about the thing. I didn't consider any possible effect on the OP, and that was unsmart of me. If I ever do anything of the sort again, I'll be more subtle and considerate. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be helpful to the OP if you add a link to the thread on the talk page when removing his question. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I point you to the Gundam Mk II article, wherein MalikCarr tried to find a more acceptable wording and AMIB immediately reverted him. Jtrainor ( talk) 06:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your revert of MalikCarr, when he is trying to improve the article in absence of any useful contributions from AMIB or GundamsRus is not helpful at all. The onus is on them to provide proof that their edits are beneficial and useful to the article, because they are the ones that started messing with it after he rewrote it. As for your complaints of us treating this as an "us or them" matter, that's because it -is- an us or them matter-- AMIB came plowing into a number of Gundam articles like a wrecking ball, unilaterally changed a bunch of stuff against consensus, then edit warred for MONTHS to keep them in place, abusing his admin tools on a number of occasions during this. Despite this, he can, occasionally, be reasoned with, if you pound your point into his skull enough times.
GundamsRus, an account registered specifically to be disruptive (as is obvious from both the first version of his talk page and his behaviour pattern since then) has yet to make a single positive contribution to a Gundam article. I will never ever assume good faith where he is concerned since it has been proven to my satisfaction that he watches mine and MalikCarr's contribution pages so he can come mess with articles we edit.
To sum up my complaint: you completely ignore AMIB and GundamsRus's disruptive behaviour and then insist we use the talk page to negotiate with people that simply won't be reasonable. I can't start my rewrite/merge of all the Formula Project related stuff since it will be a complete waste of time to do so-- GundamsRus (and likely AMIB) will show up and start nit picking and crapping up whatever I do, and edit war to keep their versions in place. You can't honestly accuse me of hyperbole in this department, because this exact thing happened with MalikCarr when he created two new Gundam-related articles.
I might as well be under edit probation for Gundam-related articles for all the work I can get done with those two around. Jtrainor ( talk) 22:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For drawing the line with a disruptive sockpuppet. [41] Long term, it does great damage to the project to countenance that behavior. Far too many editors are willing to turn a blind eye when an obvious sock endorses their own position. I'm not sure whether you agreed with the sock's contention or not, and that speaks volumes for your neutrality. Good show! Durova Charge! 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
About Darkdealt: I pretty much have no reason to ask you to unblock him. Until the community or ArbCom can find a way to work with Jon Awbrey, I suppose he and his socks will continue to be blocked and those that try to work on philosophical articles will be inconvenienced by this dispute. Some of the things being said about him are clearly upsetting him as the link WAS 2.50 provided to that forum indicates. Even if he is banned, we must be careful about what we say about him and his contributions which many seem to me to be all right, although I am no expert. I ask though that you place the blocked template on his page rather than someone else doing it. I just believe that the blocking administrator should always do that rather than someone else. Nothing personal. I had a bad experience not so long ago trying to get someone unblocked who was not given a chance to defend himself. So when I see these seemingly "out-of-the-blue" blocks, I tend to get nervous. Wikipedia can be a very frightening place nowadays. Happy Holidays and take care! Sincerely, Ripberger ( talk) 08:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I would seek outside help, but I can't. I am not allowed. I was told by an admin (won't say who on talk space) that I was not allowed to post on ANI, AN, or any other board about Calton. I can't or I would. - NeutralHomer T: C 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Or expert administrator? I think you're a darn good admin. Maser ( Talk!) 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Check my contribs. Notice how on most pages I edit lately, he's been showing up from one of his Earthlink IP addresses? I'm poking you about it again because you didn't reply on my talk page previously.
The list that was compiled of all the IPs he's edited from is still around somewhere, and I can get it if you require it. Jtrainor ( talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want. I expect better of some of the admins here, instead they defend and allow the behaviour of an out-of-control editor to continue. If I acted this way, I will have long been indef blocked. You want to block me, you go right on ahead...otherwise, please leave me be. - NeutralHomer T: C 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I also expect you to stay clear of him...
You have it exactly backwards: I don't go looking for him, he -- constantly and unceasingly -- goes looking for me, despite multiple warnings. He does, in fact, have poor impulse control, and I'm passing on warning that I was onto his latest stunt, which he tries every month or two. And if he's true to form, you'll only have to wait a few weeks before the blind reversions and attempts to interfere with whatever I happen to be doing begin again. You might just as well start the timer now. -- Calton | Talk 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Not me. Any reason? Nouse4aname ( talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(transfered from
my talk page) -
NeutralHomer
T:
C
21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=WBZW&action=history
Can we look into a modification into Wiki policy in regard to radio stations? There appear to be many varying degrees of moderating when it comes to which on-air personalities can be listed and remain listed, despite not appearing to fall into the proper realm of notability, such as the case with the article that I have linked here.
I would suggest this: Weekday on-air personalities (Monday thru Friday) should be allowed to be listed, weekend-only personalities should not be, unless it is a nationally-syndicated show such as American Top 40, Hollywood Hamilton, MTV TRL Weekend Countdown, etc.
It would seem that allowing this would violate Wiki:NotDirectory, but for the sake of consistency with these radio station articles, I believe an exception should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.109.83 ( talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my comments on ANI about this block and reconsider it? Nobody warned EE that they had crossed the line prior to your block (I left a warning and finished editing right around when you pushed the button). A lot of abusive behavior by many people has happened related to this incident, but polite warnings and requests to de-escalate are the best way to reduce tension and drama rather than increase it.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a huge favor? Ask User:Neutralhomer to please "find things to do that don't involve" me? Yes, I realize that we both edit in the same general field of knowledge, that being radio stations, but he's basically admitted to following my edits here because I don't know what I'm doing. I think my contributions show that I don't need my hand to be held while I'm editing, and him showing up in conversations where he wasn't involved (such as this one tonight) leads into nothing but arguing in circles for hours on end. If he's trying to run me off of Wikipedia, I feel he's probably doing a good job.
I had taken to archiving anything he's posted on my talk page, as it's rarely anything, IMO, that isn't edit war inciting. Now, he's taken to posting his comments directly into my archives!.
At this point, I will be appreciative of ANY help you can provide me. Thank you for your time. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally would like to have seen that through, but oh well. I will, though, recreate it IN NAME ONLY but with something different. Not sure yet what exactly. ONLY the name will be the same. I like to keep things titled the same....call that the Aspergers in me coming out there. - NeutralHomer T: C 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw you just reblocked Neutralhomer. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_continues? I just asked if there should be another block on him 2 minutes after you blocked him (I was writing it up when you were blocking basically). Metros ( talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
How was I, as you put it, "obnoxious with an Edward R. Murrow quotation"?
A little history....
Murrow achieved great celebrity as a result of his war reports. They led to his second famous catch phrase. At the end of 1940, with every night's German bombing raid, Londoners who might not necessarily see each other the next morning often closed their conversations not just with "so long," but with "so long, and good luck." The future British monarch, Princess Elizabeth, said as much to the Western world in a live radio address at the end of the year, when she said "good night, and good luck to you all."
So, at the end of one 1940 broadcast, Murrow ended his segment with "Good night, and good luck." Speech teacher Anderson insisted he stick with it, and another Murrow catch phrase was born.
So....as a phrase, that has stuck with Edward R. Murrow since 1940 until the present, which had great meaning then as it still does today.....how did I make it "obnoxious"? - NeutralHomer T: C 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like these deleted before I leave. Thanks. - NeutralHomer T: C 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Replied :) FT2 ( Talk | email) 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A block of your has caught some likely socks. Please chime in here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at all this junk with Raggz and the denizens of the various articles he's been working on lately? You seem to be a fairly even-handed sort, so I think you would be a good person to decide whether the allegations against him hold any weight or not and sanction anyone involved appropriately.
I for one believe Raggz to be acting in good faith, though he's a little ignorant of policy; he has been trying to engage people on talk pages and so on and so forth, whereas I have seen most or all of those accusing him of things making borderline personal attacks and alleging all sorts of policy violations. Course I've only been paying attention to him for a week or so, so I can't speak for long-term behaviour.
Jtrainor ( talk) 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've protected the above, and have read your comment on the talk page. Could I ask you to have a look at the (similarly slow-burning) edit war going on at User talk:Gross1952, User:Sellick666 and User:Yeahbutnobut92 - I'd had them on my watch list for a week or so, along with List of fictional ducks and had a mental note to add them to WP:RFPP if the back-and-forth had carried on for another round. I'm not sure where the underlying dispute started, but it's spread pretty far. Thanks. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as List of fictional ducks goes, you might want to have a look at the contributions and obsessions -- deleted and otherwise -- of Feats-O-Strength ( talk · contribs), and the subsequent appearance of a supporting sockpuppet and Tor nodes and anonymous IPs editing on that list after said user was threatened with immediate indef-banning if he continued his obsession. The Duck Test -- appropriately enough -- seems to apply. -- Calton | Talk 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that I just protected List of fictional ducks due to an ongoing edit war there in which you're a participant, please be aware that I find it a somewhat...unfortunate...coincidence that you've shown up at Jack Sarfatti, an article that has been edited extensively by one of your opponents.
If I see you editing – for the first time – any other articles frequented by Calton, I will block you. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reblocked. Not only was the account vandalism-only, it's caused a whole pile of otherwise productive editors to waste a great deal of time in discussion here. Archtransit, if you've concerned about your judgement in the future, try a posting to AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of March 2007 through January 2008.
Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!
Your comments, were, respectively, bad misinterpretation, wrong, and false -- especially the last. Musical Linguist's prior reputation doesn't excuse her ridiculous, bad-faith, wildly out-of-proportion, and occasionally outright false attacks on me. It's "incivil" to defend myself? It's "incivil" to answer her baseless charges and her attempt to deflect attention from and excuse Gordon's continued and continual bad behavior? Her bad-faith mindreading of my motivations and her paperback psychology analysis of my state of mind is somehow excusable -- why? She -- falsely -- calls me a liar and that's a-okay? She insults me, but hey, so what? Is any gainsaying of what she says automatically "incivil" and blockworthy or am I required to mumble "yes, your grace" and tug my forelock every time she speaks? -- Calton | Talk 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice. :) Mango juice talk 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your note. I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your request to describe actions (with context) but not ascribe motives, or to "make comments that can be interpreted as mindreading". I presume you are referring to this post, which is the only one I made, though I also posted on the ArbCom page, at the Community noticeboard, and at Gordon's page — all about the same matter. I described what happened — that Calton abused him, sneered at him, reverted him with popups (which should be kept for vandalism reverts, called him Gordy boy, accused him falsely of lying. I made absolutely no implication about Calton's motives. Nor would I wish to do so. I don't know why he treats Gordon that way. I simply know that he does, and I find it very objectionable. Calton has said, in the post above this one, that my charges are "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", and "occasionally outright false". Let's have a look at some of these charges, one by one, and see if any of them can justly be called "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", or "outright false".
Okay, I think I've shown that Calton did call him Gordy-boy, did call him a "not-very-bright troll", did shout at him, abuse him, and belittle him, and did accuse Gordon of trying to sneak in a link and of lying. What I have not shown is that his accusation of Gordon trying to sneak in a link and of lying was false. So, let's have a look.
Let's imagine that User:A wants the Pope Benedict article to have a link arguing that the pope was a Nazi, and User:B wants the article not to have such a link. If the link is not in the article, and someone makes several changes, one of which is to remove the link, and User:A reverts all of those changes, right back to your last version, explaining in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, in that case, User:A's edit will involve restoring the link. His edit will show in the diff as being identical to yours. It will not be an attempt to sneak in the link, but one of the results of the edit will be that the link is there again.
However, if the link is not in the article, and another user makes several changes, and User:A opens your last version from the history, opens the edit box, inserts the link, writes in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, and presses save, the diff will show that his version is identical to yours, except that it has the link in it. In that case, it will be an attempt to "sneak it in", and it will be a lie to deny it. Is that what happened here?
The link was added to the article on 3 January, by Zenger, not by Gordon. [14] It is not a link to Gordon's site, but is to a site that he approves of. (Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger. [15])
On 28 January, User:71.141.252.50 made a lot of edits, including one which inserted a link to the North Country Gazette. [16] (Keep in mind that it's not Gordon's site, though it's one he likes, and that Calton doesn't. I have to agree with Calton on that.) On 29 January, Superm401 reverted to last version by Nut-meg. [17] Then Gordon reverted , saying that he was reverting to the last version from 71.141.252.50. [18] If Calton is correct in saying that Gordon was "sneaking in" the link (his "umpteenth attempt" to sneak it it), [19] then the diff will show that Gordon's version is idential to the anons except that it has the link in it. So, here is the diff. You can see for yourself. Gordon said he was reverting to the 71.141.252.50 version. And he was. The versions are identical.
Now, Calton says in his post above that I have called him a liar. I have never called him that. Nor have I even accused him of lying. I have said, and I say again, that he made a false accusation against Gordon. I do not speculate as to his motives. He accused Gordon of attempting to sneak in the link, and of dishonesty, and told him not to lie. [20] [21] [22] If you look at those diffs, I'm sure you'll agree that he did say all those things to Gordon. I hope that if you look at my arguments above, you will agree that reverting to another user's version, which happens to have a link you approve of, while stating in the edit summary that you are reverting to that version is not sneaking or dishonest, and that in that case, Calton's accusations against Gordon were false. (Of course, it's more than possible that Gordon was quite happy to be restoring to a version that had that link, but that does not justify the accusations that Calton made.)
If you can show me that Gordon did lie, and that Calton was justified in accusing him of "dishonesty" or "sneaking", or that any of the things I said that Calton did to Gordon (reverting him with popups, calling him Gordy boy, calling him a not-very-bright troll, shouting at him), he did not, in fact, do, then of course, I'll withdraw it. I repeat that I am not aware of having stated any opinion as to his motives, and I do not intend to do so. If you think I have done so, then please feel free to show me where.
As I sincerely believe that Gordon's behaviour is in part due to his being upset by Calton's behaviour towards him, and as I believe that Calton made false accusations, and as I believe that a judgment from the community which does not take these things into account would be unjust, I think it would be irresponsible for me to refrain from stating these matters clearly, on the grounds that Calton would be "very upset". I don't know if he's upset or not. It's obvious he's angry, but he has a record of being angry when people question his right to abuse problem editors. I can supply further details, if you wish. I do not believe that anything I said was unfair, and I don't believe that I have been aggressive about it. Certainly, I feel very calm :-), even though Calton has accused me on your page of "bad-faith" "attacks", [23] and has questioned my motives for trying to partially defend Gordon. [24] I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have worded my post more carefully. But I cannot accept that it would be right not to point out how badly Calton has behaved in this matter, just because it might upset him. One might just as easily say that Gordon's behaviour should not be discussed because it might upset him. Both editors have behaved badly, and it would be utterly inappropriate for the community discuss Gordon without mentioning the abuse that he has received. I believe that I am one of at least five administrators who have criticized Calton's behaviour to Gordon. For the record, the other four are yourself, Proto, Marskell, and Sarah Ewart. Anyway, although I disagree with you, I appreciate that you're trying to calm things down, and also to be fair to Gordon. Cheers. Musical L inguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite interesting that a 'luke warm' supporter of essjay and a 'diehard' supporter of essjay felt the need to counsel me on civility; unless I tell lie here, make false accustions against someone or flat out deceive all Wikipedia members there is absolutely no way that I could approach essjay's level of not being cicvil. Let's not lose sight of that little fact. Duke53 | Talk 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This remark is skating very close to the edge of what counts as civil behaviour.
You're being utterly ludicrous: that's not even close to skating any edge of incivility, nor is it "gloating". If you don't understand what's being said or its context, don't project your prejudices onto my notification. -- Calton | Talk 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A close colleague of mine was just diagnosed with breast cancer; I just found out today. I didn't have the presence of mind to ask about staging or or other information at the time, but since she is scheduled for chemo, surgery, and radiotherapy in the next little while, I'm assuming it's not just one of the lightweight variants ( DCIS et al.) but since treatment is indicated, I also assume that it's not an inoperable stage IV carcinoma.
Fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck.
Anyway, she doesn't drink, so I've gone and gotten drunk for her. Can't say it will help, but I don't imagine it will hurt. My liver might disagree, but I'm ignoring it for the moment.
I've got Melissa Etheridge's I Run for Life on the stereo. I doubt that will hurt either, as long as nobody with a great deal of musical taste listens in.
Anyway, if I've been particularly incoherent in the last couple of hours, that's why. Mind you, any comments more than a few hours old are just my regular run-of-the-mill orneriness. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors. And resolved amicably. As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise." Then another editor came in and said they were fine. A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting). Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken. This is why I auto-reverted: Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute. I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest. Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page. -- DavidShankBone 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, what was that about? -- Calton | Talk 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm truly at a loss. You seem to be implying that I'm sending you on some wild goose chase, to go through the entire wikipedia database without giving you the slightest hint of what I'm talking about. Quite the contrary. I directed you to a SPECIFIC discussion on a SPECIFIC page, and asked for your take it on. In case you missed it, once again, the page I'm referring to is the RefDesk talk page, and the discussion I'm referring you to is the discussion entitled "Not a soapbox". Doesn't seem much legwork to me. A couple of clicks and you're there. I don't understand your unrelenting hostility either. I keep sending you the most polite of emails praising you on your conscientiousness as an admin, and you only reply with hostility. Why?
In any case, it's all irrelevant now, so you needn't even make those two or three clicks requested. I've taken it upon myself to do the right thing, eat crow, and, at least on my part, end the whole problem here under the discussion entitled "Mea Maxima Culpa". It would have been nice, though, if you would have at least acknowledged my polite requests by doing me this small favour and checking out this very specified dicussion rather than continually reacting with undue hostility. But as I said, I've taken care of it, so I really don't care anymore. So basically it's up to you whether you even care to check out what I'm talking about, or just continue to ignore my small, polite request and go getting your jollies blocking as many users as your heart desires. Who knows, this post itself may even consist of something you find "objectionable" and warrant yet another block. I really couldn't care less. I know within myself that I did the right thing, acted like the bigger man, and gave Clio my unconditional and unqualified apologies. I had hoped that she'd respond likewise for her hurtful statements towards me, but I suppose my hopes were unrealistic. Knowing that I have the strength of character to do the right thing and apologize for MY innapropriate behaviour is really all that matters to me. The rest is bullshit. Loomis 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ten. I usually refrain from discussing third party users "behind their backs" (so to speak), but since you care enough to want to help resolve a problem, you deserve a decent response. I've recently given Loomis the benefit of my opinion about the way he's operating. That was not done because I altruistically go around helping randomly selected people; Loomis and I have established a kind of friendship, and we seem to have good rapport. If he has any respect for me, he'll give my counsel at least some thought. I'm not entirely sure he's taken what I wrote to heart, judging from his later posts - but I don't see it as my role to act as his Wiki-parent on this. He seems determined to stick around, which imo is a good thing. Whether he's sticking around for the best reasons is something only he is fit to judge. I know only too well from my own life experience that letting go of an issue can be the most difficult thing in the world. And it's particularly difficult if a person places too high a value on others' opinions of them.
I need to balance the equation though. I'm not in the business of pointing fingers, but if I were, it would be wrong to point the finger at only one person in this sorry episode. A lot of the escalation that occurred could have been avoided if both sides had taken 10 deep breaths, and said "Let's cool it before this gets out of hand. Can you explain your position in a different way, please - I really want to understand where you're coming from. I accept that you were writing in good faith and you didn't intend to offend me". Unfortunately it went way too far, and it's still going on, with Mutually Assured Contempt as the apparently permanent outcome (an unconditional apology notwithstanding). Both parties have good reason to reflect on that, because both parties played significant roles in arriving at that outcome. If that's a model for operating in a win-win way out there in the real world, pity help the real world.
Without necessarily pointing to Loomis or Clio specifically, I've been truly amazed at the display of ego-driven absurdity that we often encounter around the Ref Desk. People who, one assumes, make valuable contributions to articles often show different colours when emotional issues get raised on the Ref Desk. Some people seem addicted to getting insulted at even the slightest perceived provocation. I'm not entirely blameless here, though. I've also succumbed to what I thought was baiting - in some cases, I was indeed being baited; but in other cases, it was just a matter of an opinion not being expressed in ideally clear language. What my time here has shown me, more than anything else, is that any chink in an editor's skills with written English is apt to be misinterpreted, and in a negative way. This is one of my personal things, admittedly - I'm a stickler for good grammar, spelling, punctuation; but above all, writing what you truly meant to convey, not some colloquialised or ill-thought-out version thereof. Many people don't seem to understand that having an online debate is not like having an oral conversation. They require different (if overlapping) skills. I think a lot of the personal issues could be avoided if people could just learn to express a potentially provocative opinion in a way that does not actually provoke anybody to take precipitate action, or press their ego-buttons. I'm not saying it's easy - I've had to apologise for unintended slights on a number of occasions. (And that's another thing. Simply saying "I'm sorry; I apologise", and earlier rather than later, seems to be completely beyond the powers of a lot of people with otherwise fantastic skills. It would resolve a lot of issues; and with no loss of personal status, integrity, or respect. It takes courage, but it's well worth it.) But some people never even try to choose their words carefully, they just seem to blurt out whatever's on their mind and save their edit without the slightest review of what they're about to post. I'm rambling badly now, I know. But I think there are wider issues at stake here than what is ultimately a petty war between 2 individuals out of millions of Wikipedians.
In summary, I'm humbled that you think I could play any further meaningful role with the Loomis/Clio issue. The best I can hope is that they both read this and have a think about it. Feel free to send it on to them if you think it would make a difference. All the best. JackofOz 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A discussion concerning how we should use International Symbol of Access on Wikipedia is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. You are welcome to participate. — Remember the dot ( talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello ToaT. You may not be interested, but the recent mention of Light current on the RD has inspired him to self identify from a few IPs and sockpuppet accounts, including 88.109.82.174 ( talk · contribs), 88.111.79.170 ( talk · contribs), 88.110.145.192 ( talk · contribs), FunnyMunny ( talk · contribs) and, just for you I guess, UnderTrade ( talk · contribs). I blocked and reverted a few of them that have been used to !vote on policy and communicate with LC's associates. Its clear that he is continuing to contribute anonymously to the Ref Desk from that IP range and there is probably a paper trail to a few more accounts or IPs we could find. Personally, I have no desire to pursue him as long as his contibutions remain anonymous and he stays out of trouble, but I thought I would let you know in case you wish to investigate further. Rockpocke t 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point -- I've restored, thanks. NawlinWiki 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello - since you seem knowledgeable about some of the subtleties of GFDL, I was wondering if you could look at this AN/I thread and give me your feedback. I don't have a problem giving credit where it's due, but when the owner of another wiki inserts text from his wiki, then tags the article with a GFDL credit, it smells like vanity/spam. I'd appreciate your thoughts if you have the time - thanks. MastCell Talk 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are 4. I documented them - SVRTVDude ( Yell | Toil) 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it's not an entitlement. Honestly, I didn't even realize I had come as close as I had.
Orangemonster2k1, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what the actual rules -- and guidelines, practices, and policies -- are here, not just the 3RR. He knows what he wants, and make up stuff to justify it: witness his adding a 7.7K list of TV show logos, sourced to a fanwiki, and claiming that there's a "Wiki rule" making it okay, which doesn't even touch the issue of whether that ludicrous level of detail is called for, sourced or not. And yeah, it's listed -- and has been listed for a few days -- at RFC, which I had to do myself. He certainly didn't seem actually nterested in discussion, given his ignoring any discussion while the article was under page protection in favor of simply running out the clock.
His protests about his alleged good faith are also nonsense: every once in a while, in some fit of pique, he makes reversions of my edits he's not even bothered to read first [25] or tries to solicit allies from anyone who's crossed paths, including from abusive sockpuppets his guy being the latest. He also seems to be implying he helped drive off AMiB, and seems rather proud -- or at least happy -- with that result [26]. -- Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I just wanted to drop you a note to say I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral on Ref Desk debates. I detect a subtle lean in your position towards "having the Ref Desk be just like the articles in Wikipedia", but not the blatant advocacy of that one position I've seen from other Admins, like Friday. For example, Friday actually endorsed a poorly supported RFC filed against me by
User:Hipocrite:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat, who quite obviously was just looking for a way to make trouble. You were able to see past the fact that Hipocrite generally supports your Ref Desk position and block him for incivility at one point, something I can't see Friday ever doing. I personally think that Admins should either completely avoid listing any opinion on issues, or, if they do list opinions, should hang up their Admin hats and promise not to block those of the opposing opinion, to avoid any conflict of interest. I have even suggested to Friday that he should try to emulate the way you (at least attempt to) remain neutral.
StuRat
05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Ten. Thanks for your message. You're right, of course. I knew when I was writing that message to Orange Monster that I was breaking my own self-imposed rule, not to talk negatively about third-party users behind their backs. But I went ahead and sent it anyway - partly because I had a genuine desire to support OM, but partly because of my own history with the other guy, which after about 18 months still leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I didn't read your full interchange with OM, because I wasn't a party to it and it didn't interest me. My sole motivation was as I outlined above; however I should have realised that any intervention could have created the impression that I was siding with him against you. That certainly wasn't the case. My apologies. This is a lesson in letting go of old wounds and moving on to new challenges. All the best. JackofOz 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
How many times have we conversed and I JUST got your name....9, 10, Jack, Queen...of course "Jack of All Trades"....Duh. I am kinda slow sometimes with these things :) - SVRTVDude ( Yell | Toil) 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edition the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ten, how long does something stay on AFD before a final decision is made or someone comes by and counts the votes? - SVRTVDude ( Yell | Toil) 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I really hope that you were not really saying that the "Palestinian flag is as inflammatory as the Nazi flag" as you did here [28] and that you do not repeat something like that which can easily be construed as being hate speech. Thanks Baristarim 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. I appreciate your comments about Brandt's continued harassment of Slim, and I absolutely share your views. However, in keeping with the rulings here and here, I have removed your the link. I hope you don't mind. See also, Fred Bauder's clarification here. (Jayjg has also endorsed that clarification, although I can't find the link right now, and he was one of the arbcom members who voted in the MONGO case.) My own personal stalker put up a website with stuff about wanting to marry me, stuff about the size of my breasts, my parents' then home address and phone number, my workplace details, stuff about the hairs on my toes, and lots more. I didn't like when people posted links to his pages about me, but I also didn't like when they posted links to other pages, from where one could easily navigate to the specific attacks on me. Incidentally, the person you are defending is in favour of a prohibition of links to sites that try to "out" Wikipedians, as I am, for obvious reasons. Thanks. Musical L inguist 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi... I read that you were one who placed the '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing', I was just wondering if its possible that we transfer the #REDIRECT to 'Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing' instead of 'Do you ever go fishing'. Could you kindly suggest other possible options in this action iif its not possible. I would just like to do this merely to organize all the Fishing Articles. Thank you! Bu b0y2007 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you do this? A.Z. 05:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I ask you to note that former User Loomis is using his talk page to take words I have written out of context, adding a corrupted interpretation. I have no intention of entering into any debate in the matter: I have simply posted the entire thread in full (Nazi Racial Philosophy, Humanities RD, 19 November 2006) on his page, to ensure that other editors are not misled in any fashion. A similar message has been posted on Friday's page. Regards, Clio the Muse 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your comments at the Village pump [ [29]] were referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4. As I believe the editor who remarked on them is misinterpreting the substance of the discussion there, I'd like you to clarify your position so that a fuller understanding can be reached. If the AFD closes before you get a chance to respond, feel free to comment on my talk page and on that of the user. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for you to use my talk page, ever. Your evenhandness act has grown stale, at this point. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You certainly are welcomed to say helpful things on my talk page, but you shouldn't be calling anyone a dick, ever, much less on their talk pages. Please learn a way to communicate in a way that isn't so offensive to others. On the plus side, this may be one of the few case where Hipocrite and I actually agree on something. StuRat 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign them like at this: Wikipedia:Help desk#Watching a range of IPs. I have also answered your question. ~~ AVTN T C VPS 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TenOfAllTrades! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you can help me with my questions:
-- Goingempty 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I am, yet again, under attack by Loomis, as you will see from the Hitler and the Holocaust discussion on the Humanities RD. I have alerted Rockpocket, the admin. who unblocked him, to his observations, made without reference or context, which, once again, places my integrity in question. It's a bore, I know, but I have to make you aware of this. Clio the Muse 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The comment has now been removed by Hipocrite. Clio the Muse 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A while back you blocked a certain user for incivility and told him he could expect more of the same if he continued his behavior. I'd like to offer this recent edit for your discretion. -- Masamage ♫ 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ten, could you please read User Loomis' latest posting on my talk page. I will be removing this soon, but not before you have had a chance to read it. I have also alerted Rockpocket. Clio the Muse 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Burntsauce has deleted and now shown he has entirely ignored your request:
This user has yet to have ever contributed to an article, he only tags, removes information or has a bot run anti-vandalism. I have looked for a contribution, any contribution, for an addition to an article or a reference or anything and he seems to have never done so. This ignoring of everyone who tells him otherwise has gone on too long. –– Lid( Talk) 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The troll has restored his question twice now, and put vandalism warnings on my Talk page after I removed it twice. I'm not going to remove it again as I don't want to get into an edit war, but you might consider a 3RR warning for him. Corvus cornix 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote, "It gets confusing because some people (and many textbooks, and even parts of Wikipedia)", is it possible you meant "(and parts of Wikipedia, and even many textbooks)"? ;) David D. (Talk) 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades. I have a favour to ask of you, though understand if you are too busy, or just not interested. The request is that you read over the evidence at a case of suspected sock & meatpuppetry for votestacking, briefly conclude the case and take whatever action you feel is necessary in response.
I would do it myself, except another editor provided a lot of evidence to my anonymously, and asked me to provide it for the case. I obviously checked it and found some more evidence which I felt compelled to report. So, the consequence of this is that I now appear to be the one bringing the case, and therefore think its inappropriate for me to close it and decide what action should be taken. I did ask for assistance at AN/I but only really received feeback from another admin that is heavily involved, and therefore its not really ideal he acts either. Its kind of slipped off the radar now and I just think its serious enough that, assuming you are convinced with the evidence, it doesn't go to the archives resolved:
I have (semi) spammed Friday's talkpage with the same request, in the hope one of you doesn't mind trawling through the evidence. Thanks. Rockpocke t 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You commented the other day on this above-captionned proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) #30, citing Quiddity's argument as your reason for a "no change" view. Quiddity has since changed his/her view. Would you like to loook at the proposal again, at the added explanations, and perhaps, re-visit your conclusions? Thank you. Bielle 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I received your email. I have to say that I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you provide diffs or links to the "untoward and untrue allegation[s]" that I've made about you?
Please reply on wiki. I have no interest in being called (again) a "big pharma shill" by email, and I will not respond to further comments from you if they're not made on-the-record, on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look. I make a lot of mistakes by typing off the top of my head. I never knew whether Red or Violet refracted more or not... Feel free to edit my technical details in my explaination there by over writing the wrong bits. User:Midgley
Recently a bunch of medical interest group types had my article about electronic alternative medicine guru Robert C. Beck D.Sc. deleted and moved to my user space. Eventually I want to resurect it, but probably need lots of "organized" partisan supporters to get it back into "wiki" space again. Their magic is very powerful. ;^)
User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck Thanks. Oldspammer 02:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen your comments in the discussion about New body. Guess, you might help with my question - what about water ions (protons and hydroxyls) turnover in CNS tissue? Since they are involved in number of biochemical reactions, active movement of parzicular ion from one to the other part of CNS (and even to another body parts) can be suggested, or? Do you know any literature, where quantitative approximations of such a turnover were done? (using proton isotopes, for example). Thanks a lot in advance for any help! (not sure, if the terms used are correct, sorry!) R 131.188.175.182 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I couldn't understand what is your opinion on this proposal. At first I thought you were against the change because you think the subtle distinction between the words would be important to prevent chatting, but I'm not sure now. A.Z. 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop trolling my talk page there. All of my new proposed deletions have edit summaries as I am sure you can see. This includes not just prod but other deletions too. If you have any other problems please let me know. Burntsauce 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Also if you are looking to implement some sort of policy change with regards to edit summaries I suggest you do so on the Village Pump or somewhere else. Thanks. Burntsauce 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki's policy is unclear. What is a "personal attack" is subjective. An ironic comment could be considered so by a person with a thin skin for example. SamuelJohnson714
Ten, can you help me? I was going to vote in the Wikimedia Board Elections, but when I click on the vote link I get a security warning on my computer, advising me not to proceed; and I always listen when my internet security speaks!. Do you know anything about this? Clio the Muse 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've sent you an email regarding this. I'll try and help with this one where I can. Thanks, -- SunStar Net talk 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No probs. -- Tagishsimon (talk)
Hi, thanks for the message. I think he got upset 'cos I gave him a warning for blanking :) DuncanHill 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You available? I would prefer IRC :) -- Cat chi? 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
okay, i did some reasearch and i didnt look like he actually was a sockpuppet, so thank you for letting me know, i would hate to get him un-blocked. Tiptoety 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Who exactly were you addressing at my talk page, because if you were / are accusing me of sarcasm then the problem is yours; all I mentioned was that Jack Shea is dead: simply stated as a fact. If you are that sensitive or looking for some excuse to be snarky, then maybe it's you who shouldn't be helping. Duke53 | Talk 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I see you've spoken to Peter about this, but he's continuing. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell? Adam Cuerden talk 09:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have move protected both your user page and user talk page after a spate of move vandalism. Dragons flight 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, -- El on ka 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades. You were mentioned (unflatteringly, I expect) in an odd item in my watchlist; "Wikipedia:Obesity is for the hateful racist that is TenOfAllTrades who is a gay bastard". See [30]. Saintrain 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you assume good faith since you can clearly see the glans penis issue is contentious, and I've addressed it before that it's not my dick, so don't be a dick yourself. I'll open an RfC on the issue to get consensus. --David Shankbone 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are still ascribing motivations to me when you have no clue as to why I do anything I do, and same for me with you. Out of the 2,000 pages my photography illustrates on Wikipedia, one or two pages aren't the end all and be all, I can assure you. It's simply a content issue, and I think mine is, frankly, the best photo there. The other one looks wet like it was just oiled or sucked, and the other is fine, but not the best quality. It's really that simple. I'm going to open an RfC, so there's no need for us to be involved in this dick/douche contest. And I'll accept the results. --David Shankbone 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
May I ask you what is the meaning of your nickname? Just Googled it with no useful results. Every time I see it I wonder if that has an actual meaning in English, or was taken from some book or something. -- Taraborn 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, delete the page The_tools_given_to_administrators_should_be_given_out_to_everyone. I already moved it to my user space. A.Z. 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I expect you didn't mean to tell me that I couldn't ever edit the page without first having a discussion at the talk page. A.Z. 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Awarded to TenOfAllTrades for having the patience of Job. Anchoress 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
I see from his talk page you've dealt with him before. He is continuing to disrupt the homeopathy rewrite project, and has taken a particular dislike to my contributions. Today I have been called "an arrogant, self-appointed censor" [31]. Morrell has also declared that he has "no intention of helping you with this and you damn-well know why" [32]. I've been trying really hard to ignore his personal attacks, but he's driving other quality editors away from the rewrite. I'd post this to AN/I, but I don't think it rises to that level of a problem. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the dif correction on Pat's talk page. Hopefully it will knock some sense into him. Æon Insanity Now! 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I read your comments about proposing and changing guidelines at Trivia. I share your concern. I beleive that we need reform for the processes of adopting, changing, and deleting policies, guidelines, etc. -- Kevin Murray 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a note at WP:ANI (good faith editor, bad edits) requesting advice on how to handle this situation. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! A while back you dealt with Duke53 ( talk · contribs) and I wonder if you could take another look at his recent history (past few days). I'd be happy to be more specific if you'd like, but I don't want to prejudice you up front. If you think his contributions need more attention in a different venue (e.g., AN/I or RFCU) then please let me know. Thanks, alanyst / talk/ 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I must object to your blanket revert of my additions to Wikipedia articles. I am aware of the rules with regard to external links. If you believe that I have used promotional language, please identify an instance, because I am not aware of it. I have not written praise for the interviews or the library itself or used any promotional terms. I have added primary sources and reference material that are specific to the subjects of the articles. On WP:SPAM, under External link spamming, are the following criteria:
There were no violations of that list. On Wikipedia: Conflicts of Interest are the following criteria:
I am frustrated and bewildered by this. I would point to Battle of Midway#External links, where you have deleted my addition of an interview with two authors who are heavily referenced by the article - and yet left a link to a review of the same book (a non-primary source) and a link pointing to "Battle of Midway like strategic board game Pacific ´42 Admiral".
These additions represented a great deal of work for me and were carefully chosen to be appropriate to the articles they were added to. Please undo these reverts. Mark Heiden 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to disrubt Wikipedia. I am saving it from nonsence polocies like the one that this blue/purple writing links to. Cheers. -- Alien joe 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What if I think it should be deleted. Other pages are being nominated, but everyone seems to cling on me. -- Alien joe 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response regarding steam at high altitudes. I'm sure you have many things to do but perhaps you could briefly add that to the article "steam engine" to make it less confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.233.219 ( talk) 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
'Removed vandalism' is a reasonable edit summary when you're removing vandalism, and it's unfortunate that some editors will immediately assume bad faith rather than asking you about your edits first.
It has been proposed that your suggestion be considered very silly. If you disagree, you have 5 days to make it less silly. Friday (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing to explain, or at least dispute: I added back -- properly sourced, neutrally worded, and footnoted, to boot -- relevant material about Will Geer. TruthCrusader is removing it for no discernible reason, other than, perhaps, an impulse-control problem and one of his quarterly attempts to get me banned. The two sides are not even close to being equivalent, and the actual edit-warring is being done by one side only. The false equivalency is, at best, irritating, and worst actively insulting. -- Calton | Talk 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed to merge the content of License and permit bond into Surety bond. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. -- B. Wolterding 10:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ten, I've already asked Rockpocket if he is still keeping my talk page under watch, but I really should have asked you to begin with. If you have a look I think you will understand why. Regards. Clio the Muse 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So you don't like blank lines between the posts. Did you have to treat it as vandalism? A.Z. 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ten: Thank you so much for that chuckle. Just when I begin to think that everyone on Wikipedia has his/her head stuck deep where the sun don't shine, all the while wondering aloud and at great length why it is so dark in here, someone like you comes along and brightens up the universe. I would look foolish indeed! Bielle 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would be appropriate to link to sites such as MayoClinic Ask a Specialist, WebMD Symptom Checker, and so forth? --- Sluzzelin talk 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I have some information about sort of personal information prompted you to delete one or mre revisions of my user talk page. Could I know who posted the material? __ meco 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey
I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.
thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — scs 23:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This issues regarding EgyptAir has been resolved. The information, according to me was contreversial because I coudn't find any reliable sources. I'm sorry if questions appear disruptive however until just recently there where no trully "reliable" references. Even that ITA code (or something code) did not give it proper referencing. Again, this has been resolved between Dethme0w and I. We have found proper sources. You are escallating the situation and I ask you to please stand down from your threats of blocking me for disruption. Goodbye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your lecture I don't want it thank you. Go defend someone worthy. What I said was completely true. Peter morrell 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction, I did not 'attack' adam cuerden, I said he and others had done a hatchet job on that article, which is blatantly true. I stand by that totally correct comment. I am not the only one to have said that. Go pick on and lecture someone else. Peter morrell 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep away from my talk page. And don't lecture me again. Such arrogant behaviour is not conducive to what you claim to seek. As I said before, go find a worthy person to defend for a change. Peter morrell 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's my intention to press for a siteban if he steps out of line during 3 months of mentoring. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you realize you just reverted my edits to remove proper referencing and that according to me this stem down to a fundemental issue with WP:V. I sure hope we will be able to comme to a concensus. I however, will not change my opinon in regards to referencing. Hence I suggest we start a dispute resolution if you are unable to accept wikipedia's policies. -- CyclePat ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We are engaged in a dispute regarding this content and you should not block me. This is because we are arguing on article content. Essentially we have a difference of opinion regarding references. Should we or should we not have references for the article millisecond? Currently there are no references because you have removed the ones that I have added. This demonstrates that there is clearly a disagreement between the both of us. It also shows that there was, previous to my block, a disagreement between the both of us.
WP:BLOCK states "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." When I looked on the WP:AN (the administrator's notice board), I did not see any announcements regarding this issues. I believe, and I put it to you, that you blocked me and are threatening to block me to silence this issue and not have to deal with the contentious maters of article content and interpreting the guidelines stipulated in WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:OR. I feel as though you most recent post to my talk page, here, substantiates this accusation. You stated "Should you continue, I will block you. This is a final warning. Why not just find something that needs a footnote, and fix that instead?" You are essentially ignoring not only the aforementioned rules but the rules in regards to blocks. You are taking things into your own hands and I believe such warning should be placed onto the WP:ANI allow for another administrator to give the warning.
Secondly, you should stipulate what the issue is. I feel you are not clear within your explanation. How am I being pointy? If it's by discussing the matter, obviously, there is a conflict of interest between you and I. This is because on one hand we need to discuss the matter to resolve the issue but on the other if we discuss this matter you may just become frustrated, as previously demonstrated, and block me. Again please explain what you believe to be pointy.
I am opening the doors for discussion on the talk page and RFC as per WP:CON. (Is this considered a point according to you?) I am also offering and asking you if you wish to take this to dispute resolution. I'll be happy if you and a friend started an RfC on my conduct regarding this article and Wikipedia's fundamental rules for Verifiability.
Finally, I would like to mention, that all of the facts that are within the article Millisecond, I'm talking about things like 1 millisecond is like a wink of an eye, are not referenced. This is subjective material which needs referencing. I have placed a section template for this asking for references. Nevertheless you have removed this. (Again a difference in opinion and a content dispute). Furthermore if you look at the guidelines stipulated at WP:TRIVIA this belongs within a section called Trivia. (Another content dispute). These are simply exemples which go to fact that I believe you should not be making threats in regards to blocking me when we should be discussing the matter. And worse you should not be threating to block me because we want to talk about the matter.
Best Regards, -- CyclePat ( talk) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi TenOfAllTrades,
is this going to go anywhere towards a resolution or are you just going to keep threatening me with a block? Thank you for your second warning threatening to block me if I continue doing "whatever it is I am doing"?(See
here) However, again, you fail to explain what it is exactly that is disruptive about the content. Not only that, but you fail to acknowledge that "WE" are the ones engaged within this dispute stating "Pat, you are indeed engaged in a disruptive dispute that relates to content."
Furthermore, according to you second statement you acknowledge your bias towards my editing not because of the content but because of "OUR" past interactions. You state "I reverted you because you had engaged in the same sort of POINTy editing about which you had been warned – extensively – before." I've asked you politely, in the aforementioned comment time stamped 00:39, if you could explain in further details what is "POINTy". I actually couldn't agree more with you when you say I'm "...not in a position to play the 'conflict of interest' card to escape censure here." That's not what I want to do. I want to be able to have an open discussion with you. But when you continue to threaten me with block for things to which I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about this bring the conversation to a sour end. Again, is this conversation considered pointy, what is pointy? What is disruptive? Answer the question so we can move along toward the main issue which is the articles content. Unless that is what you are trying to do, avoid the entire conversation all together and come up with your own ultimate consensus? (Too which I've expressed my opinion in the previous comment 00:39) --
CyclePat (
talk)
01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello TenOfAllTrades, thank you for taking the time to contact JzG. I am pleased to have noticed your statement on JzG's user page and will consider this to be an attempt in resolving our content dispute. If you wish we could discuss the issues there. However, my understanding is that you feal we don't need so many references. That's because you stated "He's off on a we need four dicdef footnotes to prove that a ms is a millisecond is really one-thousandth of a second kick." What if we gave the article only 2 references instead of the four references? One for the abreviation (ms) and one for the fact that it's "one thousanth" of a second? -- CyclePat ( talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(I've written you 850 words, 3 pages, and frankly I think this is enought in terms of contradictions. I hope this helps, but in short, it's obvious, that we contradict each other. Here is my recommendation, in light of your most recent post):
No, TenOfAllTrade. We are both staking out an extreme position. (That's called a contradiction)... we now need to find a way to flex our philosophy from contradiction to "non-opposing" views. (p.s.: It takes two to tango). My position is supported by WP:V, WP:CITE. Your position on the other hand (as you stated) "contradicts" (and, as I will tend to prove later, has no support from the community). Also, contrary to your statement on my talk page (See here) a 'compromise' is in fact, according to Wiki (See WP:DR#Discuss), part of dispute resolution.
You past recollections of my discussion regarding the AMA is simply prejudicial and has no probative value in this matter. (See article probative to which I created). A comparative example is a " Corbett Application". Someone criminal record in the Canadian court of law should not be brought up for prejucial effect on his character. (See Corbett Rule)
I will also infer that you are the only one that reverted my edit and the only one reluctantly arguing. This is because I don't see that many voices on the the talk page and I feal as though you are considering "yourself" to be a "community". The last time I checked the definition of " community" it meant "communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means "common, public, shared by all or many." (Jokingly: now I know your name has 10 in it but I don't think that means 10 people) The only quasi-community I see right now are the ones discussing the article. Ironically, the way things are going with your avoidance of the subject, I fear, I hope it doesn't happen, that I will be the only one talking on the discuss page of millisecond. Leaving "us" with just "me" or maybe "just" you?
As for now... I would like to point your attention to WP:RFC which states in the first line "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines."
Furthermore, I would appreciated if you concentrated on the issue. Stating a vague comment as: "Many, many editors have now observed that demanding citations for facts which are a) obvious, b) common knowledge, c) already footnoted in a wikilinked article, d) uncontroversial, without dispute over definition, or e) all of the above, is disruptive." and not giving it context is unproductive. It is also outside of context, without reference our present issue and totally inappropriate. This because it is subjective and again, contradictable:
So, we get to the core of our problem: "Such notes are superfluous, inconsistent with Wikipedia's style, inconsistent with any sort of academic or technical writing standards, and visually distracting." Which means, I believe, you simply don't like how it looks! You've reverted the trivia sections, or any possibility to expand and source this article. I hate contradicting you, but I would like to remind you that such notes are widely accepted by the community, meet the Wikipedia’s styles (see WP:CITE) and are consistent with the academic writing standards (See Wikipedia's guide Wikipedia:Footnotes and the article on Footnotes.) References are needed with millisecond and the references that I've chosen (dictionaries) are appropriate. (You're being silly and argumentative for something that is credible.) Here are the references... and you say they're not good? [1] [2] [3] [4]
Why don't we take a break for 2 days, allowing you to re-think of what the real issue is, and then you could get back to me with, perhaps a friend that supports your idea (community), or some policy. Then, instead of continuously threatening to block me for a petty issue, (With all do respect, appearing like a ((inapropriate comment removed)) administrator wanting to block me and not trying to resolve a content dispute) we can resolve this matter. (note; this is going to be difficult, because our philosphies are contradictory) p.s.: When you state "subject area in question (metrology)" what do you mean? Obviously you have some "expert" background knowledge on this subject. Perhaps, your level of understanding is above "average" (or key point b). -- CyclePat ( talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As the discussion had archive tags put on it as I was writing my response, I thought I should point out the comment I made here. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you follow policy to the letter, he's only "abused" his sockpuppet once to avoid one 3RRV a month ago. But the account GundamsRus ( talk · contribs) is unquestionably a sockpuppet of an anonymous editor on an Earthlink address. I encourage you to examine the contributions history of the following addresses - I'm almost positive they're all him.
I'm not sure if you can do anything with that or not. The editor trawls my contributions page and will often show up making questionable edits within hours (and revert them forever, thus getting other parties involved and launching edit wars), and hasn't ever had a shred of good faith towards Jtrainor ( talk · contribs) or myself, but as far as I know his shoddy conduct isn't actually against any policies. If you'd consider that "abusive" then great, but as far as I can tell he's only guilty of being a troll, and there's no policy against that. Unfortunately.
An example of this silliness can be found easily here.
Regarding the origins of this conflict, it is my assumption that it began at this AfD, where the user and Jtrainor/myself exchanged words. The IPs he edited from then have been bolded at the top of the list. You'll note that, immediately following the AfD, a rash of Earthlink addresses with the same general editing style began making unilateral edits to articles Jtrainor or I have contributed significantly to - the GundamsRus account followed shortly. I have no concrete evidence (I lack the ability to run a CheckUser) to confirm that they're one in the same, but the circumstantial pointers are all there. You can make of that what you will. MalikCarr ( talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the computers I use has some setting that does not allow me to log into wikipedia - I hit submit and IE just spins and spins (I have let it work in the background for over an hour). I have not found any technical support pages on WP that would help me figure out what I would need to do to be able to actually log in from that computer. If you can guide me to some answers, that would be great. GundamsRus ( talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right about the thing. I didn't consider any possible effect on the OP, and that was unsmart of me. If I ever do anything of the sort again, I'll be more subtle and considerate. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be helpful to the OP if you add a link to the thread on the talk page when removing his question. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I point you to the Gundam Mk II article, wherein MalikCarr tried to find a more acceptable wording and AMIB immediately reverted him. Jtrainor ( talk) 06:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your revert of MalikCarr, when he is trying to improve the article in absence of any useful contributions from AMIB or GundamsRus is not helpful at all. The onus is on them to provide proof that their edits are beneficial and useful to the article, because they are the ones that started messing with it after he rewrote it. As for your complaints of us treating this as an "us or them" matter, that's because it -is- an us or them matter-- AMIB came plowing into a number of Gundam articles like a wrecking ball, unilaterally changed a bunch of stuff against consensus, then edit warred for MONTHS to keep them in place, abusing his admin tools on a number of occasions during this. Despite this, he can, occasionally, be reasoned with, if you pound your point into his skull enough times.
GundamsRus, an account registered specifically to be disruptive (as is obvious from both the first version of his talk page and his behaviour pattern since then) has yet to make a single positive contribution to a Gundam article. I will never ever assume good faith where he is concerned since it has been proven to my satisfaction that he watches mine and MalikCarr's contribution pages so he can come mess with articles we edit.
To sum up my complaint: you completely ignore AMIB and GundamsRus's disruptive behaviour and then insist we use the talk page to negotiate with people that simply won't be reasonable. I can't start my rewrite/merge of all the Formula Project related stuff since it will be a complete waste of time to do so-- GundamsRus (and likely AMIB) will show up and start nit picking and crapping up whatever I do, and edit war to keep their versions in place. You can't honestly accuse me of hyperbole in this department, because this exact thing happened with MalikCarr when he created two new Gundam-related articles.
I might as well be under edit probation for Gundam-related articles for all the work I can get done with those two around. Jtrainor ( talk) 22:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For drawing the line with a disruptive sockpuppet. [41] Long term, it does great damage to the project to countenance that behavior. Far too many editors are willing to turn a blind eye when an obvious sock endorses their own position. I'm not sure whether you agreed with the sock's contention or not, and that speaks volumes for your neutrality. Good show! Durova Charge! 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
About Darkdealt: I pretty much have no reason to ask you to unblock him. Until the community or ArbCom can find a way to work with Jon Awbrey, I suppose he and his socks will continue to be blocked and those that try to work on philosophical articles will be inconvenienced by this dispute. Some of the things being said about him are clearly upsetting him as the link WAS 2.50 provided to that forum indicates. Even if he is banned, we must be careful about what we say about him and his contributions which many seem to me to be all right, although I am no expert. I ask though that you place the blocked template on his page rather than someone else doing it. I just believe that the blocking administrator should always do that rather than someone else. Nothing personal. I had a bad experience not so long ago trying to get someone unblocked who was not given a chance to defend himself. So when I see these seemingly "out-of-the-blue" blocks, I tend to get nervous. Wikipedia can be a very frightening place nowadays. Happy Holidays and take care! Sincerely, Ripberger ( talk) 08:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I would seek outside help, but I can't. I am not allowed. I was told by an admin (won't say who on talk space) that I was not allowed to post on ANI, AN, or any other board about Calton. I can't or I would. - NeutralHomer T: C 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Or expert administrator? I think you're a darn good admin. Maser ( Talk!) 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Check my contribs. Notice how on most pages I edit lately, he's been showing up from one of his Earthlink IP addresses? I'm poking you about it again because you didn't reply on my talk page previously.
The list that was compiled of all the IPs he's edited from is still around somewhere, and I can get it if you require it. Jtrainor ( talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want. I expect better of some of the admins here, instead they defend and allow the behaviour of an out-of-control editor to continue. If I acted this way, I will have long been indef blocked. You want to block me, you go right on ahead...otherwise, please leave me be. - NeutralHomer T: C 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I also expect you to stay clear of him...
You have it exactly backwards: I don't go looking for him, he -- constantly and unceasingly -- goes looking for me, despite multiple warnings. He does, in fact, have poor impulse control, and I'm passing on warning that I was onto his latest stunt, which he tries every month or two. And if he's true to form, you'll only have to wait a few weeks before the blind reversions and attempts to interfere with whatever I happen to be doing begin again. You might just as well start the timer now. -- Calton | Talk 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Not me. Any reason? Nouse4aname ( talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(transfered from
my talk page) -
NeutralHomer
T:
C
21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=WBZW&action=history
Can we look into a modification into Wiki policy in regard to radio stations? There appear to be many varying degrees of moderating when it comes to which on-air personalities can be listed and remain listed, despite not appearing to fall into the proper realm of notability, such as the case with the article that I have linked here.
I would suggest this: Weekday on-air personalities (Monday thru Friday) should be allowed to be listed, weekend-only personalities should not be, unless it is a nationally-syndicated show such as American Top 40, Hollywood Hamilton, MTV TRL Weekend Countdown, etc.
It would seem that allowing this would violate Wiki:NotDirectory, but for the sake of consistency with these radio station articles, I believe an exception should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.109.83 ( talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my comments on ANI about this block and reconsider it? Nobody warned EE that they had crossed the line prior to your block (I left a warning and finished editing right around when you pushed the button). A lot of abusive behavior by many people has happened related to this incident, but polite warnings and requests to de-escalate are the best way to reduce tension and drama rather than increase it.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a huge favor? Ask User:Neutralhomer to please "find things to do that don't involve" me? Yes, I realize that we both edit in the same general field of knowledge, that being radio stations, but he's basically admitted to following my edits here because I don't know what I'm doing. I think my contributions show that I don't need my hand to be held while I'm editing, and him showing up in conversations where he wasn't involved (such as this one tonight) leads into nothing but arguing in circles for hours on end. If he's trying to run me off of Wikipedia, I feel he's probably doing a good job.
I had taken to archiving anything he's posted on my talk page, as it's rarely anything, IMO, that isn't edit war inciting. Now, he's taken to posting his comments directly into my archives!.
At this point, I will be appreciative of ANY help you can provide me. Thank you for your time. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally would like to have seen that through, but oh well. I will, though, recreate it IN NAME ONLY but with something different. Not sure yet what exactly. ONLY the name will be the same. I like to keep things titled the same....call that the Aspergers in me coming out there. - NeutralHomer T: C 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw you just reblocked Neutralhomer. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_continues? I just asked if there should be another block on him 2 minutes after you blocked him (I was writing it up when you were blocking basically). Metros ( talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
How was I, as you put it, "obnoxious with an Edward R. Murrow quotation"?
A little history....
Murrow achieved great celebrity as a result of his war reports. They led to his second famous catch phrase. At the end of 1940, with every night's German bombing raid, Londoners who might not necessarily see each other the next morning often closed their conversations not just with "so long," but with "so long, and good luck." The future British monarch, Princess Elizabeth, said as much to the Western world in a live radio address at the end of the year, when she said "good night, and good luck to you all."
So, at the end of one 1940 broadcast, Murrow ended his segment with "Good night, and good luck." Speech teacher Anderson insisted he stick with it, and another Murrow catch phrase was born.
So....as a phrase, that has stuck with Edward R. Murrow since 1940 until the present, which had great meaning then as it still does today.....how did I make it "obnoxious"? - NeutralHomer T: C 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like these deleted before I leave. Thanks. - NeutralHomer T: C 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Replied :) FT2 ( Talk | email) 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A block of your has caught some likely socks. Please chime in here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at all this junk with Raggz and the denizens of the various articles he's been working on lately? You seem to be a fairly even-handed sort, so I think you would be a good person to decide whether the allegations against him hold any weight or not and sanction anyone involved appropriately.
I for one believe Raggz to be acting in good faith, though he's a little ignorant of policy; he has been trying to engage people on talk pages and so on and so forth, whereas I have seen most or all of those accusing him of things making borderline personal attacks and alleging all sorts of policy violations. Course I've only been paying attention to him for a week or so, so I can't speak for long-term behaviour.
Jtrainor ( talk) 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've protected the above, and have read your comment on the talk page. Could I ask you to have a look at the (similarly slow-burning) edit war going on at User talk:Gross1952, User:Sellick666 and User:Yeahbutnobut92 - I'd had them on my watch list for a week or so, along with List of fictional ducks and had a mental note to add them to WP:RFPP if the back-and-forth had carried on for another round. I'm not sure where the underlying dispute started, but it's spread pretty far. Thanks. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as List of fictional ducks goes, you might want to have a look at the contributions and obsessions -- deleted and otherwise -- of Feats-O-Strength ( talk · contribs), and the subsequent appearance of a supporting sockpuppet and Tor nodes and anonymous IPs editing on that list after said user was threatened with immediate indef-banning if he continued his obsession. The Duck Test -- appropriately enough -- seems to apply. -- Calton | Talk 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that I just protected List of fictional ducks due to an ongoing edit war there in which you're a participant, please be aware that I find it a somewhat...unfortunate...coincidence that you've shown up at Jack Sarfatti, an article that has been edited extensively by one of your opponents.
If I see you editing – for the first time – any other articles frequented by Calton, I will block you. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reblocked. Not only was the account vandalism-only, it's caused a whole pile of otherwise productive editors to waste a great deal of time in discussion here. Archtransit, if you've concerned about your judgement in the future, try a posting to AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)