User talk:Brainhell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page  :)

Joe I 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Socialist Democracy

Hi there. First of all, normally when one Wikipedian wants to contact another they leave a note on their talk page. You can find mine by clicking on my username and then clicking on the "discussion" link on the top of the page. It allows everything to be done out in the open on Wikipedia.

The reason I tagged the page as POV is mainly because of the last paragraph. It renders a judgement about the ruling party in China and leaves the reader with the impression that "Chinese Socialist Democracy" is a propaganda term. While this may be true it is not NPOV. The best way to include such information would be to quote someone else who has said something similar. Tnikkel 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up. Tnikkel 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atens

Hi there. I'm sorry there is already an article for Aten asteroids.  :( -- Perfecto  01:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A big thank you for your contributions, though. They're all great! -- Perfecto  01:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Requested articles

It's great that you are doing so much work for Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year; I do a little work on it myself, and it always warms my heart to see requests taken care of after languishing so long. However... You need to be more careful. You recently started Interactive Visualization (the double capitalization of which is against naming guidelines), but you completely missed the fact that a fairly respectable article already existed... at Interactive visualization. That, and you need to learn wikiformatting eventually, and so on and so forth. Be more careful, alright? --maru (talk) Contribs 03:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, you are really on the verge of a block from further editing. Let's not engage in a silly edit war. Your contribution is little more than a placeholder for the external link. That's a no-no. So is reposting it time and time again. Please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 05:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold it right there, bubbie. I am not doing the vandalism. I was trying to help you. You go ahead and write your article...but you do it by the rules and you do it without any further personal attacks. You may wish to consider writing it offline with at least three good sentences. BUT...if you come back with any more attacks, you'll be blocked. Like I said, please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 05:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

Hi Brainhell, and welcome to Wikipedia.

A common frustration of new users is to see their starts on articles deleted immediately after they create them. This occurs because we have standards for what is immediately deletable--e.g. short articles that have nothing but external links, or contain little or no context--and many of us who are administrators watch for incoming "junk" (do it for a while and you will see what I mean: probably 90% of incoming new articles are test creations, vandalism, or jokes). The best way around this is to create a complete, but short article, offline, and then upload it--at least one paragraph but preferably more, assuming that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. And please don't threaten other users "...perhaps there is a complaint mechanism for constraining your behavior that does not involve me deleting you, or your creations" -- we try to be nice to each other here. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Please don't threaten my contributions and wikipedia by labeling my statement a threat. That's dishonest. The point of saying "...perhaps there is a complaint mechanism for constraining your behavior that does not involve me deleting you, or your creations" is to convey how destructive arbitrary, personalized deletions such a eere done to my article ARE. It was not a threat, it was communication.

[edit] Lucky 6.9 replies

And "bubbie" is not an insult nor is is demeaning. When I was growing up, my neighbor's Jewish grandmother used to call me that all the time. It's a Yiddish term of endearment. Antandrus said it best. We make mistakes; we correct the mistakes; life goes on. - Lucky 6.9 08:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes

The repeated deletion without warning of my in-progress article stub was destructive to the Wikipedia community spirit, and I'm glad that the perpetrator decided on further reflection to insert a warning of possible deletion instead. The deleter made mistakes; corrected the mistakes; life goes on. However, the demeaning tone used, and threats to blocking the contributor, live on. When will that mistake be corrected? I suggest an apology.

If I felt that an apology was warranted, I would quickly and cheerfully offer one. I maintained a tone of civility while you threatened action over this incredibly small issue. Your attitude in mocking my words is, quite frankly, less than cheerful and your actions those of someone with a rather large chip on their shoulder. That is what is truly destructive to community spirit. Removing contributions that don't meet minimum standards for inclusion is part of my volunteer duties. I stand by my decisions and my comments. You are certainly free to edit here and I will be glad to offer myself up for help should you need it. I don't hold grudges, but I don't tolerate abuse either. Please let it drop. - Lucky 6.9 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: The new version of the article is, in a word, outstanding. Too many articles that started out the way it did wind up being orphaned for months on end. Obviously, you really were planning on expanding the article and for that, I do apologize. My suggestion to avoid misunderstandings in the future with other administrators is to have your articles look like that right off the bat. Three good, solid sentences makes for a good stub and a good rule of thumb. - Lucky 6.9 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

Brainhell sez: Thanks for the apology and the praise.

No doubt there is a lot of link spam. But no doubt many contributors of good articles start small and then build the piece in layers. That's completely human and completely understandable. The better recourse would have been to insert that tag about possible deletion, rather than deleting within such a short period of time. I had just created the stub. I am new to Wiki and perceived that I was up against a vandal. Indeed I was. How much more disturbing to learn that the destroyer has some form of administrative rights.

I'm new here, and it's not a paying job, clearly. I'm not sure I want to learn the ropes of Wikipedia politics and egos, as the obvious value of Wikipedia is compelling enough, and the ugliness of personalities warped by power within a volunteer effort is unhealthy to that effort. The impulse to characterize someone who stands up for their contribution as "nasty" or "threatening" ... the see-what-I-mean response to a contributor not aware of the emotional satisfaction some may draw from arbitrary deletions, from deliberately provoked confrontations to assure themselves of their own power, is sad. All my foregoing comments no doubt cements some of you more firmly in your smugness and self-satisfaction. Regardless of the barnacles that cling to its hull, I assert that the Wiki concept is, fortunately, apparently more powerful than the base human dynamics it nurtures -- but does not ultimately tolerate.

i am asked to let it drop. I don't claim to be a Wiki expert, but I bet there is a complaint procedure. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? The article stub was summarily deleted three times, but after that, the vandal chose to insert an alert of possible deletion instead. This indicates to me that the proper procedure was not followed the first three times. What's the complaint procedure? My further complaint will be regarding the dynamic of portraying someone who stands up for themselves in a reasoned and civil way as having an attitude problem. That's probably the most corrosive thing to a volunteer effort.

That's it. You're taking a one-week time out from further editing. Next block will be permanent. - Lucky 6.9 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the e-mail. I hope this is now behind us and we can work together toward our common goal. - Lucky 6.9 08:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glitches

Just stopped by the blocked users page. Looks like you're still having problems logging on. I've unblocked the IP. - Lucky 6.9 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] test

test

[edit] Still blocked

Problem! Even though I was able to add a line to my user talk page, I got the block page again when I tried to create an aticle about Ten Speed Press. Can you unblock me?

Try it now.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

I was able to create the Ten Speed Press article, so I appear to be unblocked.

That's a relief. I am truly sorry for all of this hassle. Welcome back. - Lucky 6.9 06:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Hey! I'm glad that you have decided that you want to help Wikipedia enough to become an admin. However, it is unfortunate that few people will vote for people that have not been active here for at least 3 months. I think it would tarnish your image if you nevertheless do not withdraw your RFA, which can hurt future RFAs. Perhaps you should see WP:GRFA for what you should do on Wikipedia to have a good chance of your RFA succeeding. Good luck, and I hope that you become an admin someday! Where (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Not withdrawing the RfA should rationally have no impact. So I'll leave it, thanks!  :-) Brainhell 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good luck then! Where (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Just wanted to say that, in the absence of any future conflicts with other editors, you'll have my support if you come back for RfA in a couple months. No shame in being quixotic :)

Adrian Lamo ·· 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian, but this particular dispute was a badge of honor, a case of my detecting and resisting poor administration. He removed the one-week block the next day. Any more 'conflicts' like that, and I'll be a saint! Brainhell 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Block

Why did the admin block you? What did she or he say that you did?

There is a procedure to request action against arbitrary admin action.

What did you do, or what were you said to have done, that resulted in the block? I will be glad to look into your case if you can give me more information. Robert McClenon 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

...the brainhell saga...

Thanks for your response. My goal is to learn how the process might work, so that I can consider my options.

As with any dispute, the characterization may differ depending on which party you talk to, but here is my summary: I created and article stub about an author, intending to expand it (as I later did). I uploaded the image of the author, and found that my article had been deleted. Thinking I was up against a trigger happy vandal, a user with an attitude, I recreated it, and added the comment on the talk page: "She's a published author, are you?" The article was deleted three times and three times I recreated it. I became aware that an admin was doing the deletions. I wrote comments about the unfairness of the deletion (complaint #1) and about the smug, clubby sense of taunting that emanated from the admin (complaint #2). I was called "bubbie." I asked what the complaint procedure was. The admin appealed to another:

Help! Need a bit of administrative advice. A new user, User:Brainhell, insists on posting what seems to be little more than link spam to an author's website. I'm trying to be helpful; guy is being nasty. Sure enough, the article is back...and there isn't any biographical info on this individual to expand it beyond what it is. I don't want to get in an edit war, but I really don't appreciate this guy accusing me of vandalism when I'm trying to help. Thanks.

The other admin advised me not to make "threats." This was in reference to article Talk page discussions (now unavailable due to the admin deletes). I replied:

Please don't threaten my contributions and wikipedia by labeling my statement a threat. That's dishonest. The point of saying "...perhaps there is a complaint mechanism for constraining your behavior that does not involve me deleting you, or your creations" is to convey how destructive arbitrary, personalized deletions such a eere done to my article ARE. It was not a threat, it was communication.

After the third recreation, the article, though substantially unchanged, had the the speedy delete tag added to it, rather than being deleted. This in my view would have been the better course in the first instance. A bit later, another admin came along and removed the speedy delete tag, saying that with four books, the author seemed worthy of note.

The deleting admin said:

And "bubbie" is not an insult nor is is demeaning. When I was growing up, my neighbor's Jewish grandmother used to call me that all the time. It's a Yiddish term of endearment. Antandrus said it best. We make mistakes; we correct the mistakes; life goes on.

I continued to comment on the shabby behavior and apparent motives of the deleting admin. I NOW know that commenting on the motivations of others is not accepted Wikipedia behavior. No one warned me of that, certainly not the admin, though I had told him I was new to Wiki.

In reply to his above comment, I said:

The repeated deletion without warning of my in-progress article stub was destructive to the Wikipedia community spirit, and I'm glad that the perpetrator decided on further reflection to insert a warning of possible deletion instead. The deleter made mistakes; corrected the mistakes; life goes on. However, the demeaning tone used, and threats to blocking the contributor, live on. When will that mistake be corrected? I suggest an apology.

He:

If I felt that an apology was warranted, I would quickly and cheerfully offer one. I maintained a tone of civility while you threatened action over this incredibly small issue. Your attitude in mocking my words is, quite frankly, less than cheerful and your actions those of someone with a rather large chip on their shoulder. That is what is truly destructive to community spirit. Removing contributions that don't meet minimum standards for inclusion is part of my volunteer duties. I stand by my decisions and my comments. You are certainly free to edit here and I will be glad to offer myself up for help should you need it. I don't hold grudges, but I don't tolerate abuse either. Please let it drop.

The "rather large chip on their shoulder" was a comment about me as a person. "[Y]ou threatened action over this incredibly small issue" appears to refer to my request for information about how to file a complaint.

The next day, having been delayed by the controversy, I expanded the article (which no longer bore a speedy delete tag, due to the action of the third admin).

The deleting admin wrote:

PS: The new version of the article is, in a word, outstanding. Too many articles that started out the way it did wind up being orphaned for months on end. Obviously, you really were planning on expanding the article and for that, I do apologize. My suggestion to avoid misunderstandings in the future with other administrators is to have your articles look like that right off the bat. Three good, solid sentences makes for a good stub and a good rule of thumb.

I replied:

Brainhell sez: Thanks for the apology and the praise. No doubt there is a lot of link spam. But no doubt many contributors of good articles start small and then build the piece in layers. That's completely human and completely understandable. The better recourse would have been to insert that tag about possible deletion, rather than deleting within such a short period of time. I had just created the stub. I am new to Wiki and perceived that I was up against a vandal. Indeed I was. How much more disturbing to learn that the destroyer has some form of administrative rights. I'm new here, and it's not a paying job, clearly. I'm not sure I want to learn the ropes of Wikipedia politics and egos, as the obvious value of Wikipedia is compelling enough, and the ugliness of personalities warped by power within a volunteer effort is unhealthy to that effort. The impulse to characterize someone who stands up for their contribution as "nasty" or "threatening" ... the see-what-I-mean response to a contributor not aware of the emotional satisfaction some may draw from arbitrary deletions, from deliberately provoked confrontations to assure themselves of their own power, is sad. All my foregoing comments no doubt cements some of you more firmly in your smugness and self-satisfaction. Regardless of the barnacles that cling to its hull, I assert that the Wiki concept is, fortunately, apparently more powerful than the base human dynamics it nurtures -- but does not ultimately tolerate. i am asked to let it drop. I don't claim to be a Wiki expert, but I bet there is a complaint procedure. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? The article stub was summarily deleted three times, but after that, the vandal chose to insert an alert of possible deletion instead. This indicates to me that the proper procedure was not followed the first three times. What's the complaint procedure? My further complaint will be regarding the dynamic of portraying someone who stands up for themselves in a reasoned and civil way as having an attitude problem. That's probably the most corrosive thing to a volunteer effort.

He replied:

That's it. You're taking a one-week time out from further editing. Next block will be permanent.

The last sentence was in red. The block was real when I checked.

Note that at no time before the block was Wikipedia dispute culture mentioned, e.g. "It's considered bad form to comment on the motivations of others."

The block prevented me from editing talk pages, so I emailed two admins at random, seeking help. I also emailed the block admin:

I read up on the complaint process, and it seems that there is an arbitration process for dispute resolution. It says that asking for arbitration should be your last resort. Are you willing to explore other avenues before I resort to the last resort? I'd like you to remove the block and any record of the block.

The next morning when I got up I saw that he had emailed back:

I'll remove the block on the condition that you drop this petty argument once and for all. I have no dispute with you and this whole thing isn't worth the effort of either of us. I will assume good faith and unblock you right now. I can't remove the comments from the edit history, however. If you still have problems editing, please let me know. The system has an occasional hiccup that doesn't always recognize unblocking.

This is consistent with his suggestion in previous talk that I "let it drop". It appears to be unethical conduct, as he was using his power to suppress a complaint about his conduct. I had mentioned that I wanted to complain, and asked what the complaint process was. He was bargaining the conditional use of his power to unblock me for personal ends, not in pursuit of Wikipedia goals.

Also in my inbox that morning was this email from him:

I've unblocked your account and that of an IP that was blocked as well. Please let me know if you're still having trouble editing. I'm not one to hold a grudge and I am glad to work with you and to put this behind us. I also promise not to delete your contributions as it's clear you plan on expanding them, which I had no way of knowing before.

There were some problems with the unblock attempt, but by that night, it worked, and I created a new article.

I have five grounds to request the deleting admin's administrative powers be revoked:

1. Repeated vandalism:

There is a procedure on what to do if the article is perceived to be an advertisement or other spam: "List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)."

Notice that it doesn't say "Delete three times."

There is a process for speedy deletion too. It says: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it."

I took the multiple-saves approach. The article was deleted within two minutes of creation.

2. Taunting new Wikipedians, while personalizing the dispute: e.g. "bubbie," and "...your actions those of someone with a rather large chip on their shoulder."

3. Failure to attempt to educate about Wikipedia cultural rules to prevent flames during disputes (no personal statements allowed).

4. Failure to respond to my request for information about the complaint process.

5. Imposing an improper block due to personalized anger.

6. Bargaining the use of administrative powers (the unblock) for purposes of self-protection.

Thanks for listening. Yes, I know that it's a volunteer effort, and no one gets paid (or fired). But perhaps because it is voluntary, and because Wiki is defining a new paradigm that will shape the future, I feel that it is important not to carry forward retrogressive dynamics.

Brainhell 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I'm sorry to let you know that I removed your RfA as incapable of promotion. Early removal is an opportunity for the candidate to assess his or her RfA, read the comments of the community, and so better prepare for a future nomination to adminship. Good luck to you then! -- Cecropia 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Assistance

Please sign your posts to talk pages. This is done by putting four tildes after them, as ~~~~ .

I see that User:Lucky 6.9 has taken acknowledged excessive stress and has taken a break. It would appear that he realizes that he lost his temper. I have posted a message to his talk page asking him to re-read a few Wikipedia policies.

If you really want me to go ahead and request to have him de-adminned, there is a procedure, and I can help you do that. I think that would be a mistake on our part that would be comparable to his mistake in losing his temper. Please reply to me on my talk page (not my user page). Please let me know what you want to do. Robert McClenon 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply?.

Thanks Robert. I signed my comment with four tildes, at least the one that appeared on my own page. I apologize if I posted it elsewhere in the wrong space, or without a signature. I see that Lucky 6.9's user page now says only "Vacation time..." and displays a stress meter. His user talk page says "Wikistress is building. I, therefore, have left the building for a brief time." I see no acknowledgment that he realizes that he lost his temper. This is your inference. But even were that true, and despite his apology to me, and his promise not to delete my posts (without addressing what he'll do to the posts of others), he has shown himself temperamentally unsuited to administrate. It's quite likely to happen again. I respect your view that "I think that would be a mistake on our part that would be comparable to his mistake in losing his temper." However, I disagree. This administrator is a hazard to the Wikipedia community and I request that you go ahead and request to have him de-adminned, according to the procedure. I will do my best to post this to your talk page and not your user page. Brainhell 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

...brainhell received this email from Lucky 6.9:

Thank you so much for the continued attack. I thought we were over our misunderstanding. I see I was wrong. I'm saving you the trouble of pursuing this matter any further. 20,000 edits and six featured articles...and one guy comes along and completely ruins the experience. Have fun since I am quitting Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, I think the user should be de-adminned. Whether Lucky 6.9 chooses to continue be involved is up to him. I would welcome him, as long as he's no longer an admin.

Brainhell 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert,

Thanks for your assistance to date with my complaint against Lucky 6.9. I realize that we're all volunteers, and I am impressed both by Wikipedia and the culture. I respect that you feel it would not be wise for me to request that Lucky 6.9 be stripped o administrative rights, but I would like to go ahead, for the reasons stated on my talk page, and yours. I haven't heard from you since then. (I realize that we're all volunteers). Would you like to continue to assist me, or should this issue be passed to another user? Recent developments are that on 2/12/06, Lucky 6.9 put me on indefinite block. He left this explanation on my talk page (which you can see in the history):

"That comment on your user page regarding hobbies, cars and political leanings on other user pages did it for me. I refuse to be taunted by you any further. You are off this site for good. I tried to help you; you chose to rub my nose in my error and have continued to do so. The Wikimedia Foundation is aware of the situation. If you have any further questions, talk to them. - Lucky 6.9 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)"

While blocked, I sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org, asking for help. The matter was looked into and this morning (2/13/06) I got the email:

"I have reviewed this situation and determined that the block appears to have been unjustified. I have removed the block. While I think you could have handled yourself better than you did, I did not see anything in your conduct that merited a block at all, let alone the blocks you received.

Yours sincerely, Kelly Martin"

When I attempted to go to Lucky 6.9's user page, the system said that there is no such page. I would like to proceed with steps to ensure that if this individual ever does reappear in Wikipedia, that he no longer have administrative powers. I realize that the people who make the decision may not agree with me. I can accept the outcome, but I would like to proceed. I hope you are available to process the issue. Brainhell 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:2658766 8286186901 o.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2658766 8286186901 o.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's promotional and I belive that I specified that, however, the image doesn't add anything to the page and so I think it would be fine to delete it. Brainhell 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainhell unblocked

I have unblocked Brainhell (talk • contribs), upon request received via info-en. A review of the circumstances of the block, conducted by myself and Antandrus could find no reason for Lucky6.9's original accusations of personal attack, and the response by Lucky6.9, including three blocks of Brainhell appears to me to have been disproportionate, if not wholly unjustified. The parties are being notified. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped. This is a remarkable organization, run as it is by volunteers. And very interesting. In point of fact (as far as I am aware), I was only blocked twice, not three times. Brainhell 16:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems there was a 60 second block in between with the intention of unblocking all IP addresses involved upon expiration. You can see it in the log here. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Rune. Yeah, that seems like a block he used in an effort to unblock me after his first block. Brainhell 02:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aggression

Hey Brainhell, the most recent issue of Neuroscience and biobehavioural reviews is devoted to the topic of aggression. A couple of the articles are highly relevant to Aggression. I don't have time to work on that article, but I can send you some of the papers if you want to read up on recent researc on the topic. Just send me an e-mail to respond to and I'll send you a coupe of pdfs. Cheers Pete.Hurd 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for casualties

Hello, can you please add the source from where u were able to add the 500,000 and 400,000 figure mentioned in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Tx Idleguy 09:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that. Brainhell 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Extremely sorry. :( Idleguy 07:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Brainhell 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

A request for comment has been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lucky 6.9. Robert McClenon 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Conquest

Hi Brainhell, I saw that you are the main contributor to the Strategic Conquest article. I know this ingenious game from my childhood time, and may I ask you if you still have a copy of it? Regards, --Keimzelle 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a copy. I think you can still buy it from Delta Tao.[1] Brainhell 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And the 3.0 version, which does appeal me more? --Keimzelle 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope they have that too. Or try eBay. I like the artillary and helicopter units in 4.0 because they help clear out those annoying fleets. But 3.0 has a better look and feel. Brainhell 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not even think of buying 4.0, the icons for the various units just look bad. I downloaded 2.055, it is like 3.0 and it runs smoothly (except that the sound isn't working...). I love the old icons which really remember me of a command headquarter... and I learned to use computers when StratCon was new. Does 4.0 have a really improved AI? Or are the different difficulty levels (e.g. fewer neutral cities on the home island) enough challenging? Sorry for the annoying question ;-) --Keimzelle 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of the RFC talk page

Hi, Brainhell. A short while ago I posted a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lucky 6.9 for deleting the page, and only minutes later, another admin did delete it. I don't know if you had any chance to read my proposal, which was basically an open letter to you, so I paste it below:

"The RFC page was properly deleted for not being properly certified within 48 hours, so why is this attack page, its talk page, still up? Especially as it's being abused by Brainhell for harrassment and escalation, not dispute resolution. Brainhell, one of the many things you blame Lucky 6.9 for is that he failed to prevent you from flaming him (sic): he should have divined in advance that you were going to post insults, and warned you that Wikipedia has a policy against them. From that argument I conclude that some experienced user had better elucidate to you what RFCs are for. Here it is: the purpose of WP:RFC is not punishment or revenge. RFCs are supposed to resolve, not escalate, disputes. They're not a forum for the person who brings them to express their implacableness. They're requests for comment from the community: an RFC brought by you says essentially "Please tell me what you think", not "Listen to what I think". If you're so uninterested in what anybody other than you thinks as it seems, you shouldn't waste their time by requesting their comments. I propose deleting this page shortly unless people on WP:ANI, where I have posted a request for review, are against it." Bishonen | ノート 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Being new to Wikipedia, I asked the RFA people for info on how to request that Lucky 6.9 be de-adminned. Robert McClenon stepped up, and he filed the RfC. I didn't know what an RfC was, or how it works. I now learn from you that it may not be the proper process to request the Lucky 6.9 be de-adminned. If you know how to do that, please let me know. Brainhell 16:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, for you to ask for community input was proper (even though I would have thought you got enough informal advice to let the matter drop even before the RFC). But your next step should have been to listen to what the community said, i. e. you should have discontinued your vendetta. To ignore the advice of lots of experienced users (including Robert, incidentally) — that was improper procedure on your part. The proper thing in a new place would be for you to show a little respect for the community and its culture and the way things are done here. Instead you have demanded that Wikipedia adjust to your ideas, refusing to unbend from your own notions in the slightest. That's improper. Please don't bother to try to engage me in your usual one-way argument about why you're right and everybody else is wrong. I've already seen it repeated many times, and, having also seen how uninterested you are in two-way communication on the subject, I'm not disposed to offer you any more useless dialogue unless you bring a whole new attitude to the table. Bishonen | ノート 18:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments, Bishonen. What is the proper procedure to request that Lucky 6.9 be de-adminned, and not permitted to exercise admin powers in the future? Brainhell 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. Bishonen | ノート 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
The short version is that you can't. No one can. We cannot ask that someone suffer X sanction or Y sanction. You can state your dispute and seek community input. If the community is not with you, that stops the process. To continue to prosecute it beyond that point brings you up for possible sanction. You can attempt another call for community comment if new causes arise, but not for the same old ones. Sanctions are never a matter for administrators or regular users to stipulate, unless there are very specific violations of procedure that endanger the project, and those are, again, not picked and chosen: they are proscribed. All one can do is ask the appointed (not elected) body that does sanction users and administrators to consider the matter, and it will not consider the matter before an attempt at resolution has been made. Geogre 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the process info Geogre. Brainhell 17:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Hi Brainhell, e-mail for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see your email yet. Brainhell 17:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just resent it to whatever e-mail address you're using for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. You sent it earlier and I got that too. I emailed a Wikipedian once about an article and that person said that Wikipedia communications should best be handled on talk pages, since it creates a record. I see the value in that approach. Brainhell 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't really about Wikipedia, but about a person and human relationships, and it's therefore not suitable for publication, which is why I e-mailed you. I'd really appreciate it if you'd consider discussing it with me that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Dale Scott

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. Rhobite 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On January 8 2006 you copied Peter Dale Scott's biography from his own webpage, [1]. Sorry if my first message wasn't specific enough. Please make sure that your future contributions are your original work. Rhobite 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligence, this statement is demonstrably false: "On January 8 2006 you copied Peter Dale Scott's biography from his own webpage." I would appreciate it if you would undo the changes you made that made the article completely unavailable. Brainhell 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have provided proof on Talk:Peter Dale Scott that you copied his web page into a Wikipedia article. I'm curious to see how you will demonstrate that I am wrong. Rhobite 16:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I commented to the article talk page regarding how different they are. Can you suggest what can be done to restore the now-missing article such that you're unlikely to block it again? I'm hoping for an outcome positive to possible readers. Brainhell 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is free to write a new, non-infringing version at Peter Dale Scott/Temp; the version of the article which you copied from Scott's bio will be deleted, and the new article will replace it. Rhobite 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to contribute? Since the last one was no infringing, I'm at a loss to know how to fix it. Show me, if you can. Just pick one paragraph, and I'll do my best to emulate. Brainhell

I don't know how to explain this any clearer. If you write your own original words, there is no copyright issue. If you copy, paraphrase, or alter text you found somewhere else, it is copyright infringement. Alterations, rearrangements, and partial copies still count as copyright infringement. Rhobite 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The subject's page now says "(This page, and my Curriculum Vitae, are not copyrighted. They are available for legitimate public use or reproduction, though not for private gain.)" I think this may resolve the concern about copyright. Please let me know. Regarding Rhobite's concern about bias, no one is suggesting we take Scott's page verbatim (with the use of the word "I" for example); we can simply revert back to the edit prior to his block of the article. Agreed? Brainhell 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite commented to the article talk page rather than reply to my comment on his user talk page: "It's a little self-contradictory: If the page isn't copyrighted, then he has no right to prevent people from using the contents for private gain. I would err on the side of caution and assume that the new license is still not GFDL-compatible, since the GFDL does allow commercial use. Why don't we just write our own biography of this guy? Are we so work-averse that we need to take five paragraphs from his official bio? Rhobite 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)"

I said: Thanks for your input, Rhobite. My article on the subject was original, the Jan. 10 version you blocked. Your concern was "copyright." Though I disagreed with your opinion, I respected your concern. The subject's page now says it's available for "public use or reproduction." Thus your concern is moot. In the interest of readers who might want to know about the subject, I'll revert your changes tomorrow or soon. Brainhell 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Within four minutes, Rhobite replied: "Your version was copied directly from Scott's website.. clearly you do not understand copyright or copyright licenses such as the GFDL. If he is only licensing the page for noncommercial use, then it is not compatible with Wikipedia. Please do not re-add it. Repeatedly adding copyrighted text to Wikipedia will get you blocked from editing sooner or later. Rhobite 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"

I would hope, under the circumstances, that you would not continue blocking this content. Rather than have one of the fabled "edit wars," I suggest that you take this issue to whatever arbitration process is available. I believe that the onus is on you to commence that process, since I intend to restore the content and you apparently believe it should not be restored. I checked your user page and it does not appear to state whether you are an admin; I don't know if you have the Wiki-authority continue blocking this content despite our disagreement. Perhaps more opinions are needed. Brainhell 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "blocking" any content, although it would be best for you to leave the copyvio notice until someone else deletes the page and replaces it with Peter Dale Scott/Temp. I will report you to other administrators if you continue to add copyrighted text to articles. You seem to think this is some sort of grey area; it's not. Wikipedia respects other people's copyrights. Also, you don't have to post messages on my talk page, I have this article on my watchlist. Rhobite 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite, are you an admin? The Jan. 10 version you are blocking does not contain copyrighted material. Please report me to administrators now. I hope they can help resolve this. Tomorrow I will revert the article. Brainhell 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Rhobite, are you an admin? The Jan. 10 version you are blocking does not contain copyrighted material. Please report me to administrators now. I hope they can help resolve this. Tomorrow I will revert the article. Brainhell 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am an admin (not that that matters). I am frustrated because I can't explain this to you in any simpler terms. You copied five paragraphs from Scott's homepage. That was a copyright violation. Can you explain, in specific terms, how it was OK for you to copy his homepage? Rhobite 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it does matter, because in my mind, at least, it gives you Wiki-authority. I wonder why you did not inform me when I first raised the issue. The Jan. 10 version you blocked was SUBSTANTIALLY different from Scott's page, in non-trivial ways. The issue is whether a reasonable person, now, would think there is a copyright violation in the version you blocked. The subject of the piece opened up his page to reproduction, so even if your mistaken statement that the article was a copy of his page were true, yor point would be moot. Yet still you persist. You did not say anything in response to my request that you open mediation on this issue, nor in my request that you report me to other admins. I want this content available to readers. Your silence on the issue of mediation is unhelpful, and leaves open the possibility that it is hoped that I will revert the article, leading to a 3rr and a user block for me. Please take action to demonstrate that this is not the case. This content is not copyrighted and is consistent with Wikipedia standards. I therefore intend to restore the version you blocked unless I receive notice from you, by midnight server time, on my talk page, regarding an external review process you have initiated. Brainhell 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I created an RfC here: [2].

[edit] Meglomaniac admins

I read your statement on Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance page. You were treated terribly by that admin. There seems to be no checks-and-balances on admins who overstep their authority. There are some here who seem to be in love with blocking people, and then further penalizing them if they disagree. I had a dust-up last night with a quite new admin. Some of these people seem more interested in flexing their blocking powers than following Wiki rules. I reverted a page that was vandalized but I was blocked without warning by an admin for doing so. Some of these admins seem very attracted to the little clique of petty power and Wikipedia seems to be suffering for it. If you look at their user contributions page, they only seem to be blocking people and not actually editing or contributing to articles. If anyone disagrees with them, they're rudely told their "uncivil" and then blocked.

Thanks for standing up for your rights. Often that's the unpopular thing to do, but when you're right, you're right.Jeff Fenstermacher 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. It's a real problem. Brainhell 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a problem. Please keep in mind though that not all admins are bad. Further, it is all to easy to make a fundamental attribution error and attribute malice to an action of an admin who is acting in compliance with another policy. It is all too often the case that Wikipedia policy disagrees with itself. --Durin 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE : Roger boas

Ah, I tag it for cleanup because firstly the source text is larger than the content itself, which shouldn't be the case (it should be briefly cited instead). Secondly, it's not wikified. If you need assistance on doing this though, feel free to let me know and I'll help you out later. (Gotta turn in to bed now :P) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I believe that I fixed it. You can remove the clean-up tag if you want. Brainhell 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've further cleaned up the article, and removed the tag. Hopefully the improved version will satisfy you, too! :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 07:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] phantom talk?

Odd, the system said there were new comments on my talk page, and indeed the page said "This page was last modified 14:32, 13 June 2006." But I could not find the comment, even when searching for the strings "June" or "14:32." Wikipedia error, or vandal admin? Dunno. Brainhell 17:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the page history. It was this edit. --TheParanoidOne 18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, PO. I shoulda thoughta that. Brainhell 16:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OLAS - Organization of Latin American Students

Hello :-) Some text that you have added to the OLAS - Organization of Latin American Students article appears to violate the Wikipedia Copyright Policy. If you would like to re-write the article and/or properly source it (to bring things into swing with policy) please follow the instructions on the copyvio box, and if you have any questions or need any help, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my desk. Peace! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Hello! Please explain how anything I myelf did to OLAS - Organization of Latin American Students is a copyright violation. AFAICT, all I did was restructure it and fix some spelling. But good hunting though! Brainhell 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I thought I saw from the page's history, some of the copyrighted content appeared to come from additions that you made along with the article's creator; however, if you simply restructured it, the history page could have fooled me and those "additions" could have merely been text that was moved around. :-) Sorry about that! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ((Conversation on my page moved to User:The Thadman/Copyright issues))

NP, Thad. I simply restructured it. I think you merely saw text that was moved around. Just BTW, I think the OLAS page comes pretty close to a worthless vanity page. Brainhell 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Pal-lift.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pal-lift.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: multistage rocket

I removed your edit, FWIW staging doesn't usually reduce aerodynamic drag; it's not the purpose of it at all. In practice rockets rarely stage until they're outside the atmosphere anyway, otherwise there's a severe risk that the stages will collide due to aerodynamic forces during separation.WolfKeeper 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/a/User_talk%7EBrainhell_d931.html"