User talk:Groupthink/Archive 2

Cleaning up government agencies article

I agree that trimming in-universe summary is important, but sourcing does not seem to me to be a useful way to approach the matter, especially as sourcing is, by longstanding convention, not an issue with the sort of material being used here. I think a more productive approach would be to simply remove it per WP:FICT. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Waring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope John Paul II. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --71.167.76.13 (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.167.76.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I ignore all comments from IP addresses, especially ones like this that violate WP:DICK and WP:DISRUPT, and especially especially ones that misspell "Warring". Groupthink (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

December 26 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to List of government agencies in comics, you will be blocked from editing. --Basique (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. And obnoxious. But feel free to list me at WP:AIV. I suspect that you are the one who will be admonished, and possibly even blocked, for misusing and abusing WP's safety mechanisms. Groupthink (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws

Hi there, you undid my explanation where the name of the Jim Crow Laws comes from, stating it was detailed later in the text. [1] I could not find anything in the text about the origin of the name, there was not even a link to Jim Crow. I checked again. Barcovelero (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

rm ws?

You made an edit comment: "rm ws". "rm", presumably, means "remove". What does "ws" mean? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Protected edit

I can't edit the article in question to do what you would like, that is a matter involved in the dispute and I'm not going to misuse my admin tools to take sides. However, I will put the protection tag on momentarily. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Twentieth Century

I don't think AD vs. CE constitutes vandalism...please consider not using "rvv" for that case. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

This would be a clear misuse of process. Quit being disruptive and assist in making the article better. Dreadstar † 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of another 3O, why don't you put in a Request for Comment. And no, it's not a threat - it's an observation - why don't you have a nice cup of tea and relax? Dreadstar † 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-abortion, pro-abortion

Pro-choice implies that it should be the woman's choice, and is used by groups supportive of legalized abortion. Pro-life implies that aborting a fetus destroys a life, and is used by groups opposed to legalized abortion. The terms I use describe both groups, but aren't loaded since neither group uses them to describe themselves, among other reasons. Allow me to explain:

From the pro-life viewpoint, a woman's choice is less important than a baby's life, just as anybody's right to choose to murder somebody is less important than their right to live. On the same token, from a pro-choice viewpoint, a woman's right to choose to abort something that clearly isn't a life is more important than the government's right to tell her otherwise.

So, pro-abortion and anti-abortion only show whether you think abortion should or shouldn't be legal, and don't imply that the other side is anti-choice or anti-life. They're much more neutral and more accurate than pro-choice" and pro-life. SteveSims (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for your helpful response to my questions to you on the 2001 debate. I read the links you suggested, and will think about them. (I posted essentially the same reply there on the article talk page, but I must have forgotten to save it after preview, because it seems to have disappeared.) Of course none of our particular opinions are decisive, but it still seemed useful to me to be sure I understood the roots of the problem. I am glad you liked the movie and Clarke's work, but was unsure if controversy about the subject matter was driving the argument, or if it was about the Wiki context and its due process. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest message, which I appreciate. I am delighted to find you not a grumpus, even to someone who is maybe a bit too aggressively friendly at times. I do admire your defense of Wiki's integrity, which is critically endangered I know, and look forward to continued interaction as I learn better how things work. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring/3RR violation on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. You could also be cited for a WP:NPA on Dreadstar here. Please be more careful. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your email, Dreadstar did not break 3RR, you did, so there is a difference. Dreadstar edited after the protection ended prior to you, so it was actually you who reverted him first, which was this edit. I checked one of the refs you did not approve of, and it actually had footnotes, so I feel it is a viable ref. You also called Dreadstar "unreasonble" and said "...the draft that you railroaded through by disingenuously asking...", which while aren't blockable in my opinion, also aren't exactly the best way to state your case either, so I let that be a nonfactor in my decision. In short, I'm not unblocking you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re second email from you, if User:Keilana is willing to protect it again (I think she protected it the first time) and you agree to work things out on the talk page vice edit warring, and state so here on wiki, not in an email, I will not object to the protection nor to her unblocking you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're monitoring my talk page. Based on the comments on User:Keilana's talk page, she does not seem inclined to reprotect, so I'm not going to ask her. However, I would appreciate it if you would relay the following: I am going to voluntarily recuse myself from editing Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey for an additional 24 hours after my block expires. However, once my block has expired, I am going to open an RfC regarding whether or not the sources cited in the article pass muster under WP:V, and whether or not this article is original research/synthesis. Thank you for your time. Groupthink (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you agree, I will reprotect the page and unblock you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, posted that last comment before yours. I'll agree to the following: 1) I will apologize for any content that I posted that was perceived to be an ad hominem/personal attack. 2) I will not edit Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey for 48 hours. 3) I will follow the dispute resolution process, beginning with an RfC. 4) After 48 hours, I will not edit Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey without talk page discussion first.

Does that sound OK? Groupthink (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. I think the protection should be 1-2 weeks at least. If Keilana agrees, the protection and unblock and your agreement are fine with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fully protecting the page indefinitely, I want both you and Dreadstar to come to me and tell me/show me you've reached an agreement before I unprotect. I am also unblocking you per your conditions set out above. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Groupthink, hope we can use the protection time to bat around the issues, the validity of particular references, etc. I don't have much time either, but there is no reason this has to get settled on a time limit, in a week, if we can just talk, adjust, talk, adjust,... incrementally move it rather than revert to the "crap" [? who said it?] we had before. Since it is obvious we all care about the article, surely we can do better somehow. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note of apology on the Io2001 talk page, I totally understand your frustration, been there myself many times. But the best way is to find consensus. I look forward to further discussions on the article, since I'm in my third year of editing, with around 23,000 edits and a slew of articles under my belt, I'm just as good with marathons as I am with short sprints. :) Good luck in school and enjoy your wikibreak! Dreadstar † 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here, I've appreciated your olive branches and hope you can return to the discussion as school allows, which really does demand top priority in the life of a student. I hope your concerns are heard and considered, and remedied by consensus of the community, so that you can feel good about the result and your contributions to it. Good luck -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR With Sock Puppet

As seen here Circumventing policy. Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions. (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what second account are you talking about, exactly? I edit as Groupthink. Period. Feel free to post something at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, but don't go throwing around groundless accusations like that. Groupthink (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Treatise

An editor has nominated Treatise, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatise and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

pwned. :) Groupthink (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Much better. Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Interp 2001

Hi Groupthink, I was curious as to your intentions with Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. There has been no further activity on the RfC for sourcing, and no agreement to the merge proposal. Are you content to leave the article or will you continue to delete material if protection is removed? Dreadstar † 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated already, I currently lack the time to do anything regarding that article, and will not be watching or editing it for at least two months. Groupthink (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What are your intentions after two months? Will you continue your previous deletions? Dreadstar † 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I run across content either unsupported by any source or supported by a source that doesn't meet WP:V standards, then I reserve the right to remove that content, just like any other editor. Groupthink (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm asking about your previous behavior on the current article's contents, deleting material the material that's there now. I'm trying to assume good faith, but from your responses thus far, it appears to me that in two months, you intend to pick up where you left off if the article stays in its current state. Am I right? Dreadstar † 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you've stated that you won't be editing the article for at least two months, I'm going to ask for unprotection. When and if you do begin edting it again, I highly recommend you discuss any major changes before making them. Dreadstar † 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make an effort to be more communicative on discussion pages, but that's not going to prevent me from being bold whenever I see a glaring need for a given edit. Groupthink (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest in turn that you pay greater attention to WP:OWN. Groupthink (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have no support for your positions, I have several editors who agree with the current article's status, content and sourcing. Your RfCs and merge proposals all failed to provide support for your views. You need to read and understand WP:OWN before you start accusing other editors of violating it. I have not violated it and I resent your accusation. Dreadstar † 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if your feelings are hurt, but I disagree with every argument in that comment above, and I stand by my suggestion. Groupthink (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My feelings aren't hurt, I just don't appreciate being falsely accused. Dreadstar † 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask that this be the end of the discussion. I will consider any further comment from you on this page to be harassment and will take appropriate action if you won't drop this. Groupthink (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I was just trying to ascertain your position on the article, I don't want it to be subjected to further mass deletions or edit warring - no harassment intended. Dreadstar † 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, let me just outright state what I think you're trying to get at here: I don't hold grudges. I will vigorously and ardently assert and defend my positions, but I am not sitting by a calendar with a red marker X'ing off the days until I can take a virtual hatchet to the article in question. Maybe I'll take a peek at the article after the current semester, maybe I'll suggest some changes, and maybe I'll make some changes. Or maybe I won't. It depends on what kind of shape the article's in in two months, whether or not I have time, and whether or not I still care. Period. Groupthink (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just want to express faith in good faith (even when I don't exactly understand the problems), the hope that we can negotiate our concerns and differences to arrive at a better article than any of us would have made separately, and also the hope that even if none of us are perfectly satisfied with it yet we can all feel reasonably pleased about the result. (And thanks for not holding grudges!) Look forward to meeting you again, in this or other contexts. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Link removal "Biography of Foo"

Whenever I think I must be missing something, I gotta ask "what am I missing?". You removed a link from Pope John Paul II to Biography of Pope John Paul II with the summary "unnecessary link removal". Umm, wasn't this the natural place to link to that article? Shouldn't article "Biography of Foo" have a link from article Foo? Shenme (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, hey then, that's what I was missing! :-) Thanks. Shenme (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and apology accepted. ;-) Groupthink (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Socianianism citation

You want me to cite a two word addition to a Wikipedia article that currently contains absolutely no citations. My addition is simple, straightforward, and non-confrontational and does not fall under the guidelines for when to cite as discussed on the page you so kindly sent me to. Judging by section 3 of the citing sources page, there is no reason to add a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columcille (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot Karl

I do see I can buy a CD from a number of folks who made the mistake of getting a Hot Karl CD, and I saw the EMI claim. I don't know what on Earth they may have been thinking, but that does seem good enough for notability to me. Thanks for pointing it out. Erechtheus (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

MOVE

I'm sorry did I miss something? Though you may be a self declared arbiter of what constitutes OR, use the talk page before moving an entire block of text that is up for a debate. Judging from your user page you seem to have quite a few experiences with 3RRR. The text you removed will be returned tomorrow baring you actually present evidence as to why it should be removed.Rastov (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Baring me? Are you threatening to strip me nude? Sorry, I don't swing that way, bro. Groupthink (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Perhaps you should read your own template spam Rastov (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your obnoxious conduct and poor spelling is making it extremely difficult for me to assume good faith. Keep this up and you'll earn yourself a posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Groupthink (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Prod removal

I am curious about your comments in contesting my deletion of the Jail 4 Judges article. A Google search reveals only about 4500 hits on the term, most of which go either to websites affiliated with the organization or to blogs which do not qualify as reliable, independent sources. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those citations do not deal with the group, but with the South Dakta ballot initiative. The ballot initiative is probably worth an article on its own, but the group itself has no meaningful existence (which is demonstrated by the tiny number of independent Google hits. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, and that's part of my point. The group has no meaningful existence; it's simply a front organization for a small number of crank activists pretending to be a larger group. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And therefore any notability attaches to the activists, not to the front groups. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)