User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive12

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

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)

WP:FISHING

Nice. :) Mangojuice^talk 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments about Calton and Gordon

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".

1. I said that Calton called him Gordy boy.[1]
2. I said that Calton falsely accused him of "sneaking in" something, and of lying. [2] [3] [4] (They're diffs to show that he made the accusation. I'll provide diffs to show it was false below.)
3. I said that Calton put "revert not-very-bright troll" in an edit summary.[5]
4. I said that Calton reverted Gordon with popups.[6] [7]
5. I said that Calton abused and belittled him, and shouted at him )(with capitals).[8] [9] [10]
6. I said that Calton posted a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon.[11]
7. I say now that Calton gloated when Gordon was blocked.[12] [13]

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 Linguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you may be thinking "Oh no, I post a brief paragraph to Ann, and I get back a dissertation! This reminds me of Gordon!" Don't think of all this as a response to you. I think that sooner or later, this matter will have to be investigated more fully, and therefore, I've spent some time sourcing my statements and finding links, etc. So I'm sorry to inflict it all on you! The noticeboard has been archived. And I won't be around much in the next few days. I just want it all down somewhere, for the record. Musical Linguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning

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)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My remark

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 minor aside

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)

*hug* pschemp | talk 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't mind me, I'm a sloppy sentimental drunk. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tara Subkoff

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)

User talk:Calton

Okay, what was that about? --Calton | Talk 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why all the hostility?

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)

Re: A favour to ask

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)

Thanks, Ten. JackofOz 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

International wheelchair symbol discussion

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)

LC

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. Rockpocket 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Emmett Richmond

Good point -- I've restored, thanks. NawlinWiki 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi TenOfAllTrades, I'd like to apologize to you for the misunderstanding. In the interest of context, I've explained my screwup in more detail on my talkpage. I hope you don't mind. Thanks and sorry again. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL vs. spam question

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)

3RR

There are 4. I documented them - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! He violates the rules, 4! times...and you let him go?! I demand an explanation. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten, I have tried, I have asked an admin to no avail. He may have beat the 24 hour part, but it is still a violation regardless. He asks for references, I give them, he reverts 4 times and gets away with it. You're an admin, how about you step in. I am sick and tired of him violating every rule possible with no real consequences. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My first edit was the actual adding of the references not a revert, but you know what, I don't care. This user has driven another editor away and no one seems to care. I have added alot to the radio and TV sections, done my best to follow the rules and only blocked one for 24 hours. Never had an RfC against me and always tried to solve disputes with others in the best way possible, which if you look back, I have tried to do with Calton. I have always been polite (unlike Calton) and always tried to be as helpful as possible (again, unlike Calton) and it means nothing. I don't violate a rule, yet I get in trouble. He violates MANY rules and he doesn't get in trouble, ever. He is not a good editor, he doesn't follow the rules, he pushes many a good editor off this site and no one cares. Tonight, he pushes another editor away and you had a chance to step in. Goodbye. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 03:16, 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 took a couple hours and I realized I overreacted. I let this antagonist get to me and I was at fault there. He doesn't get that he is not always right and having to beat my head into the wall just to get him to understand the slightest bit of information is, at times, stressful to say the least. He throws the "psychological projection" article at me when it is obvious from my userpage that I have Aspergers...that's just a low blow. But this is what he does when an editor has a different opinion or doesn't back down to his incivility, constant berating, rudeness, and then low blows. This would set anyone off in a heartbeat.

But, I let him get to me...and that was wrong of me and I am better than that. I apologize for my actions on your talk page. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I may, point out that Calton's RFC was made on the 6th of April, the day the block was taken off the main Stoopid Monkey page, not days before as he has stated. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting neutrality

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)

Some people may find the above comment difficult to read with the strikethrough. I reproduce it below, for clarity's sake:

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)

Though the change itself was unsigned, the remark was struck through by StuRat at 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC). StuRat also rescinded an invitation to comment on his behaviour ([27]) after he discovered that I agreed with another editor that he was being rude with this remark.

I have decided to ignore StuRat's contributions to discussions on the Ref Desk unless and until he can comport himself in a civil manner. I will not be baited or goaded. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from JackofOz

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)

Your Name

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)

TenOfAllTrades is obviously my long-lost cousin. See my user page here about the origin of "Jack of all trades".  :) JackofOz 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals

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)

Question

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)

Okie Dokie....I figured it was a round number like 5 or 10. Of course you know which page I am watching closely. With the overwhelming votes, I thought that it would be closed early, but I can wait those extra 2 1/2 days. Rock on...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian flag

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)

Ok - I replied to some other posts there. My main concern is not at all Palestine, have a look :) Baristarim 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your last post. I am sorry, I did go a bit overboard with that one but I had never run into you and really had no idea if you really meant to equate them or you were using it in context with that particular user. In that respect, yes you are right - I should have checked in with you. I should put WP:AGF somewhere high up on my userpage :) Listen, I apologize if I offended you with that, and I later took back that post from AN/I (before anyone could notice it - or so I hoped :)). As for the political statements thing, if you just take a look at my userpage maybe you can see that I have had enough of all sorts of soapboxing in userpages and can't stand it to be honest. Again, sorry if I overdid it. Cheers! Baristarim 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care... Baristarim 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

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 Linguist 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

shortcut|WP:FISHING

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)

Minor edit on proposal

Why did you do this? A.Z. 05:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Corruption and spin

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)

Hello again, Ten. As I suspected the full thread I posted on this user's talk page have been removed with the editing comment Please take your Nazi Apologist filth elsewhere. It's not welcome on my talk page. Needless to say, my words, robbed of all context remain. I have no intention of entering into a 'war' over this, nor engaging with User Loomis to any degree; but I would ask that the full post is restored and protected or, at the very least, that all reference to this particular discussion is removed from his page. It would seem that he is using this last loophole to continue his campaign of hate and misrepresentation. I'm all too aware of the venom that is being spewed out against me at the absurd 'Wikiversity'. I have no wish to see it here. I regret having to bother you with this rubbish. Clio the Muse 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the matter has now been addressed, and I thank you for it. Regards. Clio the Muse 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments at the Village Pump

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)

nothanks.

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)

As long as the two of you are calling each other 'lost causes' an insistence on being less offensive rings hollow. Please, if you disagree with my belief that you and Hipocrite were being dicks with your comments, seek a review of my assessment at WP:AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That would obviously be an absurd escalation. You could have said what you wanted in a less offensive manner, without referring to a male genital, don't you think ? Also, if you think Hipocrite was wrong to insult me, and I was wrong to insult him back, you hardly demonstrate the proper way to behave by then insulting us both. StuRat 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if you prefer, ask JackOfOz if the two of you were being dicks. WP:DICK is an important part of the policy trifecta, and I'd value the opinion of a neutral third party on my interpretation of it as applied to your actions. (My statement to Stu and Hipocrite.)

I'm well aware that calling WP:DICK on someone is a bit of a dick move in and of itself, but I'm sick of you and Hipocrite being the most inflexible, insulting, aggravating, arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing, personalize-every-debate-as-much-as-possible, assume-the-worst-of-everyone so-and-sos on the guideline discussion page. I'm sick of the tired hipocrisy from both of you, demanding everyone else assume good faith of you while treating anyone who disagrees with you with contempt and scorn. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'm being co-opted into discussions that have nothing to do with me. What's going on lately? First it was A.Z. stating to a third party that I don't think he's a troll, without ever hearing my opinion on the matter. Then it was StuRat bringing me into "18 Changes ...?" (to which I've just replied), and now this. I'm not a name to be just bandied about. But since I'm here anyway, I would never call anyone a "dick" - but I might well say they are operating like one. Does this apply to anyone above? JackofOz 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign you messages.

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)

Welcome to VandalProof!

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)

Help?

Do you think you can help me with my questions:

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Family_Trusts.3F

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hostile_Takeover.3F

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#NYSE_stocks_-_alternative_trading_methods.3F

--Goingempty 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No one was replying my questions since may 4th. :( --Goingempty 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Under attack

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)

User's incivility

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)

User Loomis

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)

User:Burntsauce

Burntsauce has deleted and now shown he has entirely ignored your request:

• History with no edit summaries
• Edit summary-less prod

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)

Thanks for trying to get his attention. I've been tempted to troll through every day's PRODs and remove the template from every article with an improper edit summary; but, I'm afraid it would be just making a WP:POINT. Regards. Neier 05:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk

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)

Been here too long?

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)

A favour

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:

• The sock/meat puppetry evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits
• The checkuser on the one likely sock: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits
• The AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#Vintagekits again
• The user: Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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. Rockpocket 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of "Discussion" Tab to "Talk" Tab

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)

Big Pharma

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)

Not at all sure what makes you think that you were the subject of a 'pharma shill' reference (your claim -- sans link as mentioned). Since you seem to be laboring under several misapprehensions for some time now, it seemed that it would be best to discuss the matter rationally, preferably via e-mail, rather than responding to on-Wiki debate points. In point of fact, while actual pharma shills are relevant to the content of many articles you have edited, your role seems to be quite distinct from that of a shill. Your renewed and untrue claims of being called a shill (there hasn't been any particularly obvious reason to believe you have any stake in benefitting from big pharma's profits, so your claim isn't easy to understand) could easily be replaced with a stronger dose of AGF, hence the request for you to stand down. It would be greatly appreciated, and welcomed, if you would concentrate more on anchoring discussions on mainspace content matters. Ombudsman 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't seem particularly interested in 'discuss[ing] the matter rationally' in the email that you sent me. You seemed more interested in slinging more mud at other editors ('dishonest debating tactics', 'good cop/bad cop', 'abusing process' 'exploiting...double standards', etc.) and clinging to your conspiracy theory that you've been targeted in the 'drug peddler wars'.

Don't presume to lecture me on the principle of assuming good faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rife Microscopes on M's Talk page

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 assume you're referring to me. You don't need lots of partisan supporters, just some reliable sources that demonstrate notability. I'm sorry that you feel partisanship was at work. I'd like to see the article come back, but only if it's become encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

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)

Labile protons will have a similar turnover time to water in the body; I don't know the exact half-life, but it's going to be short: on the order of a few days. Protons (really hydronium ions) and hydroxyl ions in the body are rapidly created and consumed by the dissociation and re-association of water molecules—a given proton won't spend very much time as a proton, but will fairly quickly end up as part of a regular water molecule once again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

aha... ok, thank you! and water molecules - if I understand right, they can make complexes (clusters?) - do that structures relatively stable or they dissociate and associate regularly and their molecules constantly exchanged? R 131.188.175.182 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Transient clusters of water molecules have a very short lifetime, much less than one second. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, excellent... Thanks a lot one more time! R 131.188.175.182 16:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discussion" to "Talk"

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

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)

May I comment? You really should provide edit summaries, because many of your edits are controversial and viewed as disruptive. For example, in your recent mass deletion of material from Duggie Ferguson and spin the bottle (as well as many, many other not-so-recent edits), you failed to supply an edit summary. Although it is not policy that every edit must have a summary, it is considered to be an editing guideline. Consistently failing to adhere to this guideline may be viewed as disruptive to other editors (in fact, it has). Thus I find it totally appropriate that there should be consequences for consistently failing to adhere to this guideline. You are hurting the Wikipedia community. Silly rabbit 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously I hope you can tell the difference between a redirect and "blanking" of an article. I did not replace it with blank material, I took a deadend stub and redirected the page where it belongs. That helps, not hurts the community as a whole. Are you here to improve this project or not? Burntsauce 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please indicate in an edit summary, or at least don't complain when someone reverts your edit. If I look and see that 90% of the article suddenly vanished with no explanation, I revert it: regardless of the contents which were removed. It is impossible to tell what you are doing unless you help others by explaining yourself. Based on looking at the remarks you posted to your own talk page, I know that you really don't like explaining yourself, but I think you will find that you frequently must do so at Wikipedia. Explanation begins with an edit summary. Silly rabbit 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits that I feel warrant justification are being summarized, such as those related to WP:BLP and verifiability policy, as well as those which I have identified as non-notable or a combination of all of the above. It is a waste of time and energy to provide meticulous summaries for each and every edit, and I must say that very few practice such copious notation. Burntsauce 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

Who are you and what are you talking about? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Board Elections

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)

Light current

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)

Your RV

No probs. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Reference desks

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)

Hi, lets talk

You available? I would prefer IRC :) -- Cat ^chi? 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't use IRC. And I'm not sure what discussion we need to have outside of the current one on WP:AN/I. Further comments there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you do email? I do not find ANB/I comfortable. -- Cat ^chi? 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tugjob

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)

Jack Shea

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)

RFC

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)

move protect

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

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, --Elonka 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting item in my watchlist

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)

Hi

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 aren't assuming good faith because in this edit summary you are ascribing motivations to me motivations that 1. don't exist, and 2. are incorrect. So, you know, don't be a dick, or a glans penis as the case may be. --David Shankbone 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. I'm sure you have snuggled up with that one a good deal. But since you weren't chastising me for being incivil, but saying I was trying to get my dick on Wikipeida, I think probably you would do well to read both Douche and Dick a few times. --David Shankbone 20:22, 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)

Hello, I've replaced the image because there's absolutely no reason to not include it right now. It provides a different perspective and until there's a community consensus (with reason) to remove it (other than "I don't like the gallery being expanded") it should stay. The Rambling Man 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your nickname

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)

It's just a play on the phrase 'Jack of all trades (master of none)'. In a fit of (false?) modesty, I figured I didn't quite qualify as a even a Jack of all trades; the next lowest rank (in cards) is a ten—hence the nick. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request

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)

It was done already. A.Z. 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Further changes

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)

For jollying along junior editors

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to TenOfAllTrades for having the patience of Job. Anchoress 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter morrell

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)

Homeopathy rewrite draft

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 correction

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)

Reforming the process for proposing and changing guidelines

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 would say that Help:Modifying and creating policy was a good primer, but has lost its focus in the last several months. I do not seek to find ways to make policy creation easier. I want to see a requirement for broader involvement before policies and guidelines are developed, and definately want to discourage editors who are unfamiliar with the processes from modifying the rules. --Kevin Murray 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)

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)

Need your look at a user's recent contributions

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)

Your reverts to my edits

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:

• It has a banner plastered across the video giving you a website address to go to.

There is no banner.

• It has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site or to another spamming video, even if it is only one link among many legitimate links. — [see exception below]

There are no links to commercial sites or spamming videos.

• It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site. For example, "book available at xyzBooks dot net" — [see exception below]

There are no text links to specific commercial sites.

• It is a clone of a video that has been deleted.

There are no clones of videos that have been deleted.

There were no violations of that list. On Wikipedia: Conflicts of Interest are the following criteria:

• Citing oneself

I have not cited myself.

• Financial: "then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)."

Please identify instances in which my edits have been non-neutral (biased) in any way, shape, or form.

• Legal antagonists

Not applicable.

• Autobiography

Not applicable.

• Close relationships

Not applicable.

• Campaigning

No advocacy has taken place.

• Promotional articles on behalf of clients

I did not produce these articles.

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 certainly willing to defer to your judgment on the validity of the links to U-505 and George Washington. Neither article had an excess of external links, and I thought the related interviews might be useful sources and/or supporting material. (I didn't add them to the top of the list, of course.) However, the bulk of the links I added were specific to their person or book. (In some cases, particularly with the Medal of Honor recipients, links to the interviews were already in the articles.) If you will revert the reversions to valid additions, I will be more stringent with specificity in the future. All right? Mark Heiden 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

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?

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)

steam

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)

Actual edit summaries

'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.

Reality check: it's a lousy edit summary if it's not actually informative. And this one, you know, wasn't: it was used to describe blanking what looked like a perfectly valid entry. I've cleaned up thousands of similar edits on the date pages, and 99.9% are crap. If he doesn't want his edits mistaken for crap, he should leave an obviously accurate edit summary instead of forcing people to check their validity. It's called "wasting other editors' time", don't you know.

Oh, and the rule is "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Given JackofOz's actual track record in my encounters with him, assuming good faith is the last thing that should be done with him. Quite the opposite, really. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, what? What justifies your assumption of bad faith in this case? If Jack has been vandalizing articles with sneaky edit summaries (or engaging in any sort of subtle vandalism) I would like to know. That sort of behaviour – especially from a long-term contributor – would be extremely worrying, and the sort of thing that would tend to require investigation and administrator intervention. If he hasn't, then you owe him an apology. Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

? If Jack has been vandalizing articles with sneaky edit summaries (or engaging in any sort of subtle vandalism) I would like to know.

And if I had actually said any of what you just claimed, I would tell you about it. Since I didn't, that would be rather difficult. Are there any of bits of projection you wish to add to what I actually wrote? Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, perhaps?

Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here

Reverting a long-term editor's contributions on sight and accusing him of vandalism just isn't how things are done around here

As for blanking what looked like a perfectly valid entry, on one of a series of pages where 99.9% of similar edits are vandalism, using an edit summary that on the face of it didn't apply in the least, by an editor whose "long-term" contributions, in my experience, include edit-warring -- incorrectly, at that -- over trivialities? Thanks for the advice, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with what actually happened. --Calton | Talk 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When you revert an editor's edit with the edit summary "Undid actual vandalism by JackofOz...", it rather appears that you're accusing him of vandalizing an article. Since JackOfOz used the edit summary "removed vandalism" for his edit, it would appear reasonable – had your edit summary been correct – to conclude that Jack was indeed vandalizing articles with deceptive edit summaries. If it wasn't your intention to suggest that JackOfOz was vandalizing articles under the cover of misleading edit summaries, what exactly did you mean by your edit summary?

The fact that 2007 is a frequent target of vandalism is both absolutely true and entirely irrelevant in this case. The vandalism – "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" – that that article sees is very nearly wholly carried out by anonymous IPs and new, minutes-to-days-old vandalism-only accounts. I imagine I would be hard pressed to find any instances of vandalism to that article by any regular contributor; if such incidents actually occur with any appreciable frequency, I would be interested to know.

That you've had a disagreement with JackOfOz in the past is not a reason to revert his contributions without conducting any research. Leaving aside what you think of Jack, a cursory examination of the article history would have supported his edit. The line that Jack removed from 2007 had been added two edits earlier ([33]) by an anonymous IP whose contributions were conspicuously 'semi-subtle' vandalism. In reverting Jack, you restored a notice giving the nominal date of the 'death' of 1960s singer Mary Hopkin, who is still alive and well. The IP editor had added a date of death to that article, along with such valuable information as "Her favorite words are motherfucker and (fucking) lag" and that her last hit was the 2007 chart-topper I Hate The Angry German Kid.

What it looks like is that you reverted Jack based on your old grudge against him, and in the process restored vandalism to an article and accused a good-faith contributor of being a sneaky vandal. You didn't do any fact-checking on the material that you reverted. After another editor cleaned up your mistake, you left a snarky message on Jack's talk page blaming Jack for your lack of care [34]. You've continued to heap insults and criticism on Jack here. Regardless of what issues you've had with Jack in the past (your run-in was over a year ago, wasn't it?) he's been a courteous and positive contributor for as long as I've dealt with him. You, on the other hand, have always treated our requirement for civility as something that applies to other people. Follow your own ground rules—quit treating Wikipedia like a personal war, don't assume other editors are stupid, and stop treating everyone with whom you disagree (or have ever disagreed) with contempt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PROD

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)

You've just done something silly. Behave yourself!

Conveniently, Titoxd has provided the perfect response to editors who do silly things like that. Maybe I'll have to turn it into a template. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Will Geer

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)

• I would think that ... would be something you might want to discuss.

• So your false equivalency -- and nice bit of passive-aggression there, BTW -- is being applied to the issue of my being harassed by someone else? Someone calls me a "nazi" and a "pedophile", and the best you can come up with is, "gee, what's your side of the story? Feel free to break your own privacy, whatever shreds of it remain, because gosh, we'd really like to know everything."? I'm REALLY starting to doubt your motives. --Calton | Talk 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: License and permit bond → Surety bond

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)

Clio

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)

Hello both. I'll reply here to keep things centralized. This new editors does have some of the hallmarks of an old friend, do you think it is worth a checkuser, Ten? Rockpocket 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked User:Serinmort, since he's explicitly admitted that he's a sock of a banned user, and he's using the account for personal attacks: [35]. Incidentally, does anyone else find the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lewis interesting? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-incidence? I happen to know Lewis and A.Z. have been continuing to discuss their issues with Wikipedia (and certain Wikipedians) by email as recently as last month, and of course Lewis had touted the idea of returning as a sock puppet previously on Wikiversity. Rockpocket 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ten; I could see exactly what was going on. Clio the Muse 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blank lines

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)

No, I wasn't trying to say anything to you. I was going to make a comment replying to Rockpocket, but then I decided not to. You can see in my contributions that I often make comments, then, just a while after that, I either remove them or change them, because I think they wouldn't be productive. When I see posts without blank lines between them, especially on the reference desk, I sometimes add those lines. I gave up on posting, but I saw that there were no blank lines between the posts which were already there. I never considered that this would make a message appear on your screen. A.Z. 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And all pages that I edit are automatically added to my watchlist. I have edited yours before, so it was already on my watchlist. A.Z. 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday's Admin Recall

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)

Medical advice

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)

My talk page deleted (and restored)

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)

Appreciate the heads-up! __meco 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey

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)

D=K

Thanks. —scs 23:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved.. Please stand down your threats of blocking me

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)

Lecture

For context, Peter is responding to my request and warning here and here to stop making attacks on Adam Cuerden on Talk:Homeopathy ([36], [37]) and instead to engage in constructive criticism of the article content. He removed my warning from his talk page immediately after it was posted – as is his right – so I'm keeping a file copy. - note to self. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 16 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)

Porcupine

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)

You realize this is going to require hours of discusion!

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)

p.s.: My opinion has been stated on the talk page of millisecond. I suggest we discuss things there. --CyclePat (talk) 20:26, 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:

• a)ms acronym, as I have shown, is not obvious. Just look at the first reference I found which someone removed "Ms" (upper case)(obviously wrong)
• b)I put it to you that the term “milli” is not common knowledge... heck it’s not even in my MS word 2007 processor dictionary.
• c)I put it to you that the term milli-, from the word millisecond, is not properly referenced with verifiable information within it's own article.
• d)This point "uncontroversial" is out of context, if you could kindly point it out that would be appreciated, then we could discuss this further on why it doesn't apply in our situation.
• e)This point "disruptive" is out of context, if you could kindly point it out that would be appreciated, then we could discuss this further on why it doesn't apply in our situation.

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?

References

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)

Given your last statement on my talk page (see here), I understand that you feel offended with the aforementioned statement. In particularly when I called you ((inapropriate comment removed)). I do apologize. According to this article (ranking number 3 on google) the term meins deceitfull, etc...)[38]. In no way am I alleging anything of the sort. And I apologize.

Given the nature of Wikipedia, and the obvious method of how things operate, (which is everyone can revert your edit), there is inherently complex motivational and psychological background which I haven't considered. If it helps, I could explain: That I felt this way because of all the contradictory statements which you continue and have previously provided to me. Again, I apologize for the last statement and am willing to strike it from the record. In fact, I've noticed, given all the controversy, that you've actually been quite patient. Currently, given your statement to my talk page, I would like to ask you, "Do you believe we agree to disagree on this matter!" If such is the case I will be happy to write my final statement to the talk page of "millisecond"... you may then write yours... I will rebut, and you may rebut. That would be end of the story. Again, I can't help but feel as though you are avoiding discussing this subject, please, let's come to a concensus and stop with "I should read this, and that" and I should be an expert here... when in all truthfulness, you know, this article requires references. --CyclePat (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s.: In light of WP:DICK, which says, "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are." I would like to say, as I stated on user JzG's talk page... [39] You can say it to me, and no offence will be taken, "I'm a DICK". Thank you again for your interest in what is happening at millisecond and per your last post on my talk page... I believe you need not worry about the content dispute or continue wathching my every move to try and block me regarding this issue, since it appears there is now a community that is or has voiced their opinion (partially thanks to the RfC). --CyclePat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

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)

True enough. I hadn't checked his most recent contributions, and that !vote does include some supporting rationale. On the other hand – at least as of yesterday – he's still continuing to make his rather ridiculous 'self-noms are prima facie evidence of power hunger' opposes. His blanket condemnation of all teens which immediately followed the reasoned comment you cite is also unhelpful, as is his unsubstantiated slur on Ilyanep and Anonymous Dissident that led to the AN/I thread.

He made a sensible, rational oppose !vote, and then managed to simultaneously shred any credibility he might have earned for it and start an unrelated argument with his subsequent comments. What on Earth was the benefit – to him, to the candidate, to the process, or to Wikipedia &dnash; of his decision to supplement his well-reasoned comment with a remark that he knew was both controversial and potentially insulting? I'm afraid that as long as his signal-to-arbitrary-unpleasantness ratio remains this low, I'm going to stand by my assessment that his comments are 'seldom helpful to the process', that they 'generate more heat than light', and that they remain 'a net negative at RfA'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, others are opposing on grounds of age. I disagree, but not to the extent that of shouting down the opinions of others, or calling them unhelpful. I think that Kmweber has a lot of bridge-building to do to regain the trust of the (other) RfA regulars, but that they shouldn't cold-shoulder him or focus on him rather than others making just as questionable statements. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:GundamsRus

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.

• 207.69.137.39
• 207.69.137.29
• 207.69.137.42
• 207.69.137.7
• 207.69.137.10
• 207.69.137.27
• 207.69.137.28
• 207.69.137.36 note: this account has now been blocked for one year
• 4.158.222.133
• 4.158.222.49
• 144.15.255.227 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalikCarr (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• User:GundamsRus

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)

To add onto this, I would very much like for this guy to go away, preferably permanently. There are a number of article rewrites and so forth that I have not started as of yet and cannot start until he desists, because as soon as I do something, he will show up and start messing with it. I've seen this happen with MalikCarr's edits. The name of the account GundamsRus, combined with the initial content of his talk page (check the first revision) and the edits he's made since then have made it fairly clear that his account was made for more or less one reason only. Jtrainor (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding to this, I must say that the User GundamRus does not really hide behind the anno IPs, he even signed his post here here without logging in.

On my account, I assume good faith on both parties here, Malik and Jtrainor are both enthusiastic contributors for quite some time, while GundamRus first appeared to be quite disruptive(especially on his user page having uncivilly calling people fanboy), he at least helped me in the edit of the article Antarctic Treaty (Gundam) (please see talk page discussion). The problems I sensed here are mainly about GundamRus stopped helping the rewrite I proposed and only point me to the WP:CYF without telling me what is wrong with the particular article even it got quite some facts included in it. While Malik is way over the time of WP:AGF and cannot help but WP:ABF due to all the disputive actions and incivil communication along with some of the irrational cn/fact tags added by the opposing party(GundamRus and User:A Man In Black). And yes, this is a mess, I tried to solve it, and I failed and given up. This is possibly a time for Formal Mediation. MythSearcher^talk 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to mediate. I will not negotiate or compromise in any way with that account and associated IPs because it's edits are not being made in good faith and are intended to be disruptive. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate, but Jtrainor (talk · contribs) is not blessed with as much patience as I am, and has reacted somewhat excessively to GundamsRus/Mr. Anonymous IP. Responding to bad faith with more bad faith is never a good idea, but I really can't say I blame him at this point. Both of us have called GundamsRus a vandal before, and reverted some of his edits as such. GundamsRus has done the same rather consistently. However, a vandalism report -had- been filed against Jtrainor, and it was dismissed by the admin as a "content dispute." GundamsRus continued to revert Jtrainor as "vandalism" afterwards regardless of this finding, at which point Jtrainor began reacting less civilly. Perhaps that set him off - it certainly aroused my ire, but I controlled myself anyway.

Regarding mediation, an RfM between Jtrainor, A Man In Black and myself was filed in October, before the AfD and involvement of GundamsRus/Anonymous IP. There have been no results yet. Do RfMs usually take this long?

At any rate, aside from immediately going to work on articles I've edited, GundamsRus has also just about unilaterally supported any edit made by A Man In Black, and the latter has done the same. This suspects to me at least some shared interest between the two of them as far as I can tell; I would like to assume this common interest is "annoy the hell out of MalikCarr", but it's not as though I can prove anything in that regard other than pointing at contribution histories.

If you were looking for some kind of justification for edits on either side, it should be considered that GundamsRus and A Man In Black have both been reported for 3RRV by yours truly on multiple occasions regarding these articles; as far as I know neither Jtrainor, myself, or any of the other editors who have partaken in the ongoing war have broken that policy. This entire business has been a total mess, and no party (save for perhaps Mythsearcher (talk · contribs), L-Zwei (talk · contribs) or Silver Egde (talk · contribs)) are wholly innocent of any wrongdoing; however, if you happen to be of the opinion of degrees or shades of guilt, I should like to point my finger at GundamsRus in that regard (I have my quarrels with A Man In Black, but I'll save those for the RfM, assuming it isn't dead). MalikCarr (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Logging in

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)

Bladder cancer

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)

Removed urination question

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)

If you post on my talk page to complain about my Ref Desk post, please provide a dif to the whatever I posted that bothers you, not to a post by someone else. That avoids the necessity of my spending 10 minutes looking through the Ref Desk history to find my actual post [40]. In that post I cautioned against Wikipedians offering medical advice. In fact, I did not ask the poster's age, and I did not offer any diagnosis whatsoever. I advised the poster that any symptoms which caused concern would be better taken up with their doctor than with Wikipdeia Ref Desk volunteers, and I stand by that advice. Edison (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When you criticize the postings of another long-time Ref Desk volunteer on the Ref Desk talk page , please let them know on their talk page so they can participate in the discussion, rather than being talked about in absentia. As for age, I agree that a male of any age could have difficulty passing urine for a variety of reasons, such as sexually transmitted diseases, in addition to the prostate enlargement (cancerous or benign) which affects males of a certain age. No info what if any reasons might cause difficulty (as opposed to pain) in urinating by females. The main goal of my post was to head off the solicitation of symptoms and patient information preparatory to diagnosis. I think that my general comment about seeing a doctor about symptoms which cause concern is a valid one. Thanks for your efforts to keep ref desk away from remote diagnosis. Edison (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

sigh

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)

You know, your position on the Gundam Mk II article is rather annoying-- you seem to be treating all parties' contributions as equal, when in fact, they are not.

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)

To which my response to Jtrainer is the statement that exists on the bottom of every edit page:

• If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it.

and a suggestion to read WP:OWN. GundamsRus (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And another thing: GundamsRus is following me around the wiki and adding his two cents wherever I go. I want this to stop. Jtrainor (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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! DurovaCharge! 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkdealt

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)

Re: Calton

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)

Let me email you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check your email. Thanks. - NeutralHomer <;span style="font-size: 0.8em;">^T:C 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate administrator?

Or expert administrator? I think you're a darn good admin. Maser ^(Talk!) 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of the stalking thing with regards to GundamsRus

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)

User talk:Jtrainor took his grievance to WP:AN. Perhaps because it is the holidays, there was no administrative response, and it was archived [42] . What is the typical procedure when this happens? 207.69.137.22 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Find things to do that don't involve Calton...

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)

Dude, please check your email. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect better

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)

Doppelganger?

No. Not me. Any reason?Nouse4aname (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio Station Personality Listings

(transfered from my talk page) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

Er, I'm not sure why I would be recruited to make such a policy change; I've never had anything to do with radio station articles. Take it to the Village Pump, perhaps? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ElectricEye block

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)

I warned EE that what he/she was doing was harassment here They have been around since April 2006, no way they would not have known the consequences of that kind of behavior. R. Baley (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A personal request

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)

Re: Top Deely

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)

This is the final product. Again, NAME ONLY....but with Edward R. Murrow's classic "Good Night and Good Luck" tag, with Wikilink. If you are an MSNBC viewer, you may have heard Keith Olbermann use this. Olbermann borrowed it from Murrow. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know....and it feels like I have to step quietly around everyone. It actually kinda pisses me off (pardon my french). I meant actually nothing rude or incivil by it...I just didn't want them posting there. After SOOOO many arguements and my "New Message" banner lighting up every three seconds, it was getting old quick. Could the banner have been better worded to be polite, yet still get the message across...yes. But, when you are at your wits end with people messaging back and forth over and over and over....you kinda lose it. Excuse, no. But that's the way I felt. But now my speech is being limited...which, on Wikipedia, that is all we have. What's next? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer block

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)

OK, What now?

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)

OK...what? You can't call it "fine" here and "obnoxious" here. It's either one or the other, it can't be both. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's calling the content of the page fine, but he's calling your usage of the page and your actions surrounding it (the baiting of me) "obnoxious". Metros (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Cecilia_PG.jpg
• Image:Flatsky2.jpg
• Image:Flatsky_what.jpg
• Image:Kittehpictar.jpg
• Image:Ozzy_Tybois.jpg
• Image:Pauley.jpg
• Image:Peekers2.jpg
• Image:Taffy.jpg

I would like these deleted before I leave. Thanks. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Replied :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP case

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)

Post on SSP who the master is, it's not SaxonUnit, he's too experienced for a newbie. Maybe we need an RFCU. Comment at SSP please. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the SSP page, a CU found even more and some IP tagged some of the pages as France a socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo~

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)

List of fictional ducks

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)

Scratch my request above - as they're continuing with their revert war, I've added the pages at WP:RFPP anyway. Thanks. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:25, 22 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)

No, what seems to apply is long term edit warring dating back a a full six months by Calton. The material he continues to revert is sourced and there appears to be a consensus for its inclusion on the list. Rather than accepting and abiding by the consensus, Calton apparently would prefer to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet of author Wyatt Erhfrenels. Surely, you can check out the fact that there are TRULY multiple editors reverting Calton, who is edit warring for what appear to be purely personal reasons on the article. MegaMom (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from Calton????

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 have to say, I am somewhat dumbfounded by your message. There appears to be some confusion here. My sole edit to the Jack Sarfatti article had nothing what-so-ever to do with Calton. I was doing some research about Wikipedia Cyberstalking victims for an article I’m writing and came across his name. I had a look at his biography and made ONE edit to it that is entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s policies regarding biography’s of living people.[43] I had no idea that Calton was a “regular” editor to the article.(Although somehow I'm not surprised!) Now that I look, I see that he made one edit to the article back in November and another back in July I’m really not sure that makes him a regular editor to the article. As near as I can tell, the information I addressed in my edit was not even contributed by Calton. Has he stalked me to the page and reverted my legitimate edit? Yes, he has. I am not following Calton, he is following me – as seen here and in this blind revert to this edit. Why are you leaving me a warning and not warning Calton? I have simply reverted some talk page vandalism by Calton, as numerous other editors have also had to do. Honestly, I don’t understand why administrators are not reverting his page blankings. Isn’t that vandalsim? Aren’t unsourced defamatory statements about living people, such as the revision I made to the Jack Sarfatti article supposed to “be removed immediately” in accordance with WP:BIO? Is there some rule that I don’t know about, whereby, people who disagree with Calton are not allowed to edit any articles he has edited? I am confused. I, sincerely, am not trying to make any kind of trouble here. I am legitimately concerned that "Calton" is using Wikipedia as a means of slandering and harassing people and I believe he needs to be exposed and stopped. As I see it, he is in clear-cut violation of Wikipedia’s policies. You leave me a warning when I have done nothing wrong – what are you doing about him? MegaMom (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

unblock

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)

"caused a whole pile of [...] editors to waste a great deal of time"? We're talking about it because several people disagree with it. It actually has very little to do with the actions of the user himself, and this comment sounds a lot like WP:POINT. Archtransit made a block which, while justifiable, was entirely out-of-process. It's certainly not the blocked party's fault that we're talking about him. - Revolving Bugbear 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A block that is justifiable but "out-of-process" deserves consideration under WP:IAR. But going back a step, it's not "out of process" to block a new account that vandalizes one's userpage. I think if you asked a hundred admins at random, very few would consider that block "out-of-process". Though some might find it a bit quick on the trigger, it's well within standard practice in my experience. I can certainly understand applying close scrutiny to User:Archtransit's administrative actions given recent history, but this one is a non-starter. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a thing is common practice does not mean it is not out of process. There is, as far as I am aware, not a single policy or guideline that endorses such a block, although I could quote several places which seem to advise against it. However, I did say before Archtransit undid the block that I was willing to let the block stand without further objection, even though I find this sort of block highly objectionable. What I am objecting to now is TOAT's statement of why he reinstituted the block, which I find needlessly contentious and provocative. - Revolving Bugbear 07:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A new admin who had previously made a few mistakes unblocked a throwaway, vandalism-only account because he couldn't take the browbeating that he was getting on his talk page. That's not a good reason for an unblock, and I take full responsibility for the reblocking. I don't think the unblock would have occurred in the first place if the discussion had taken place in wider view someplace like AN/I, or if some of the editors who showed up on Archtransit's page hadn't been making false accusations of impropriety and abuse. You yourself asked Archtransit three times in succession why he blocked Bqwe123, bordering on harrassment.

Bugbear, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that 'common practice' pretty much defines what we consider to be in- or out-of-process. If a practice is sufficiently common then someone will eventually write it down in a policy document, but policy almost always lags practice. I don't have anything else to add to this thread; if you feel I've misused my admin tools in any way then file a report at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you misused your tools -- if I did, I most certainly would have said so. As I said, I am perfectly willing to let the block stand, and I don't have a problem with the fact that you reblocked. There is no reason to take it to ANI because I've given up my objection to the block. The only reason I came here is because I thought your comment about "causing editors to waste time" was quite perplexing. Discussion takes time. - Revolving Bugbear 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes—discussion takes time. Harrassment and browbeating waste it, however. You need to examine your own conduct before you lecture other editors about being "needlessly contentious and provocative". As with your recent misguided hounding of Archtransit, I now consider your questions for me to have been asked and answered. If you're unsatisfied with any aspect of my conduct, then either take it to another stage of dispute resolution or let it go. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)