User talk:AaronS/Archive4

Anarchism Reverts

Please stop reverting Anarchism. It looks (at first glance) like you have breached WP:3RR. Please be aware if this continues, I may report it. I have already asked for the page to be protected. Many Thanks CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't breached WP:3RR. My sourced edits have been repeatedly deleted, and I'm just reinserting them. --AaronS 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did say may :-). I am only looking at the edit summaries, because it is now so hard to keep track of the actual changes on Anarchism duew to constant reverting etc. Beware that unless it is blatant vandalism, repeatedly inserting your edits, may be a breach of WP:3RR. Anyway, the best thing to do is walk away for a bit, which is what I will do :-). CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Regarding edits such as: [1]; Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Paul Cyr 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

You removed important sentence about Godwin. -- Vision Thing -- 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. --AaronS 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalization

No problem. -- Vision Thing -- 17:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think someone loves (or hates) you!

I think User:Aaron C might be an attempt to immitate you. I think you should be the one to decide what action (if any) to take though. I think I'll leave a note on their talkpage though. The Ungovernable Force 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Article could do with expanding

Anarchism in the United States could do with expanding to relieve the slight undue weight. I see you've been editing it before, and you probably know more about the subject than me :) - FrancisTyers · 19:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

You should ask for discussion before you make controversial changes, not after. --Vision Thing-- 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you should take a look at the anarchism talk page. You might find the discussion there useful. --AaronS 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million!

Thanks for helping me get my block lifted. I really appreciate it. The Ungovernable Force 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you haven't already, be sure to watch all those invidualist anarchism pages Francis and I mention here so that I don't have to be the only one reverting socks. Thanks again. The Ungovernable Force 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, maybe lay off tony. Although I agree with everything you have said, it's not worth arguing over anymore--I'm unblocked and anyone can see what I consider to be the ridiculous position being taken by him, so there is no point arguing anymore. I don't want him getting upset at you now :) --The Ungovernable Force 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but my main issue with him, now, is the rudeness with which he treated me. So, I'm sorry to say, it's purely selfish. ;) --AaronS 00:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I share your frustration of Tony Sidaway

I have found this person to put far too much stock in his own views and show blatant disregard to anyone who happens to disagree with him. He doesn't feel the need to explain his actions and doesn't even feel the need to discuss issues to reach conscensus. Sadly, I share your frustration here and will be avoiding this person in the future due to what I personally see as a show of bad faith and lack of common consideration (That is not an attack, its an opinion). Enigmatical 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment isn't about Tony

But is instead a commondation for what a well-worded notice to ANI, combined with a slight suggestion on how to do it better.

1. Always good to see someone who understands that they might in fact be the one who is in the wrong. Kudos. I attempt to maintain this myself, but when the other party doesn't share that sensibility it's easy to respond with "No, I'm right!"
2. Diffs to the exact edit where whomever said whatever always go over well with the crowd. Especially if it's a prolific editor or a busy page, people often cannot be bothered to hunt htings down. So instead of "At Page foo Bar said 'cheese', 'king', and 'blade'" put "At Page foo Bar said [diff1 'cheese'], [diff1' king'], and [diff1' blade']."

Thanks, happy editing.
brenneman ^{L} 01:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Hello AaronS, : - ) Um, maybe you are going a bit overboard. You have said your piece. Why not take some time to reflect on the situation for a few days? Most experienced admin understand that we are here to write an encyclopedia not administer perfect justice for indiviuals. We make our decisions based on what is in the best interest of the encyclopedia not the user. This concept is an adjustment for most people.

As members of the community we all are expected to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Sometimes this means keeping quiet to stop a dispute from escalating. Everyone can not have the last word. Give it some thought, okay? Take care, FloNight ^talk 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You probably don't realize this, but that sounds somewhat fascistic--The State Encyclopedia before the Individual. Part of a community is keeping it together without causing huge upsets. The best way to help the encyclopedia is to keep a high level of morale among users, which is why policies/guidelines like NPA, ASG and CIVIL exist. The community and the individual are equally important and deserve fair treatment. I do agree though that the situation should just be dropped since I don't see any progress coming out of it for anyone. The Ungovernable Force 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How ever did you think of this?

I must say, this made me smile. The Ungovernable Force 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your questions on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kylu

I've answered them for you, sorry about the delay! Hope they help. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism as featured article

I have posted the anarcho-capitalism article to undergo a major review due to my belief that it is not up to the standards of being the best wikipedia has to offer. If you are interested in participating in the process please do. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash

Help!, other useres are trying to delete my article but I objected saying that the plane crash is notable. Please vote keep on the vote page in order to save this article. Storm05 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User RJ

Given the extensive damage that I believe user RJ has inflicted on wikipedia with his campaign of deception and abuse, I have taken the time to compile a very extensive and (imho) convincing account that RJ and Vision Thing are the same user. I have already placed two inquiries to Vision Thing on this subject, both of which have been ignored. I noticed that when he first arrived you believed vision thing was a sockpuppet. Could you please direct me as to the proper procedure in notifying admins of this new evidence? Thanks! Blahblahblahblahblahblah 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I'm worried that a checkuser will fail for the same reasons it did when infinityO called for it, namely that the IP address for the two will not be the same. As such I don't want to have some admin quickly run through that and move on without checking out the evidence, so I've posted to Jeffrey_O._Gustafson's talk page for more advice. In the meantime I have posted my evidence in a sandbox. I wouldn't want to distract you from real editing, but if you feel like it you are welcome to take a look and comment/edit. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello ! We need pictures of Boston, see here, thank you.

TfD nomination of Template:Anarchism table

Template:Anarchism table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. FrancisTyers · 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thankful for your support, and glad that your questions gave me another opportunity to show off a bit. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

MEDCAB

Just add the page to your watchlist, add yourself to the list of mediators, and jump right in :) If you have any questions, just ask either me, or ask on the talk page... there is also an irc channel for mediators, #wikipedia-medcab on irc.freenode.net - FrancisTyers · 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on July 19 2006 (UTC) to Anarchism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit confused

{{unblock reviewed|It was a self-revert...|Good faith, but still a violation of the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] (reviewed by [[user:Mangojuice]]). // [<small>[[WP:ADMIN|admin]]</small>] [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (^{''[[User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]''}/_{[[m:User:Pathoschild|map]]}) 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}} The changes that I made were discussed on Talk:Anarchism. Furthermore, it was a self-revert. I changed the page back after another user had pointed out my mistake. I don't see how therewas any edit warring, as the changes were discussed, and because it was a self-revert. I was careful to discuss the issues at hand before making any changes. Anyways, I had decided to take a break from this page today (see here). --AaronS 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused. It wasn't your self-reversion that was a problem, it was the removal of the {{POV}} tag so many times. [3] [4] [5] [6]. This is a violation of the 3-revert rule, which is why you are blocked. Mangojuice^talk 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The last time it was removed was after discussion on the Talk:Anarchism page. You'll see that it was replaced for entirely different reasons. I only removed it the fourth time after discussion showed that there was no reason for it to be there. Is it still a revert, then? If so, then I recognize my error and apologize. Regardless, I would appreciate a lift on this block, as blocks are meant to prevent further disruption, not to punish. I don't plan on editing anarchism for a while, as I'm taking a break from it. I would like to be able to continue working on New England, which is approaching featured article status. You have my word that I won't touch anarchism. I did not intend to disrupt, and won't. --AaronS 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:Intangible's edits are attracting more and more attention from various contributors. You might be interested in User:Cberlet's proposal, available here Tazmaniacs 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to the discussion in which a decision to remove the tag was agreed upon? I didn't find it in a cursory look through the talk page, and I hope you understand my hesitation to read the entire page. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing -- it's located at Talk:Anarchism#individual_sovereignty_and_NPOV. I would not want to subject anybody to the experience of reading Talk:Anarchism. ;o) Anyways, I repeatedly asked User:Intangible to bring discussion of the tag to the talk page, and he eventually did (although it's hard to dig out). He added the tag, because I removed a controversial claim that he backed up with an unreliable source. The discussion is mostly about the source. User:VoluntarySlave pointed out that the source actually did not say what Intangible thought it said. There was no more discussion, after that. Seeing that things had cooled down, and that there was no real reason for the tag, I removed it, and then made note of my reasoning on the talk page. User:Vision Thing then re-added, although for entirely different reasons. As you can see Talk:Anarchism#POV_tag_2, I respected his decision to do that and opted to engage in discussion with him. I don't have a history of mindless reverting. I think that there's a misunderstanding, here. Further, I have no intention to edit this page for some time. I deeply appreciate your consideration of the matter -- thanks! :) --AaronS 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, I understand a little better now. What you probably didn't realize is that User:Intangible was blocked for his own excessive reverting in continually adding the tag. You may be right that the discussion died down, but that only really happened because Intangible was blocked. From the talk page, I didn't see an agreement from Intangible or the others wanting the tag there that it could be removed, just no further discussion, so I think the block was appropriate. In the future, when dealing with those tags, I would say you need to leave more time before removing them. They look ugly, I know, but it's supposed to be something that can remain on the article page while editing continues. I believe you were acting in good faith, but your actions were still a violation of the 3-revert rule. Mangojuice^talk 17:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did realize that User:Intangible was blocked. I guess I just didn't wait long enough. That makes sense. I apologize for the unintentional disruption. Sometimes you gotta learn things the hard way. ;) --AaronS 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail: OK, I've unblocked you. Keep your promises William M. Connolley 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)