User talk:Carfiend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Kecak.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kecak.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll accusation

Howdy! You appear to have accused me of being a troll at the following link: Talk:Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_accusations I have requested a confirmation, please respond. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I need an actual "yes" or "no" from you on whether you're accusing me of being a troll. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NN

Just a minor point - have a look at the way that the average AfD discussion goes and see how often this (or any other non-policy) comes up and is followed. We're all about precedent here, unless there's a good reason to overturn it. BigHaz 12:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in the apollo article

Whether people know it or not, your input to this topic useful, and I would like to apologize for everyone who has been personally attacking you. The reason I'm going to your talk page now is to ask if there is a usenet group or anything similar on this subject you subscribe to. I'm really trying to get my hands on some credible sources. Or some keywords that would help me find people's websites via google. (I'm currently getting mostly geocities type sites, not too helpful.) i kan reed 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be a reason the only matches you find are geocities types. There simply aren't credible sources promoting the hoax theory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but some people go to outrageous lengths to demonstrate their theories and can do so quite adequately evne if the theory is less than stunning. And please chairboy, don't resort to inflamatory remarks. It never helps. i kan reed 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of an inflammatory remark I've made? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
How about "There simply aren't credible sources promoting the hoax theory"? Carfiend 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
With respect, I haven't seen one yet. Nothing inflammatory about that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"I haven't seen it", is different to "it doesn't exists". Carfiend 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If it exists, why haven't you presented it yet? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

What is so hard about this, I'm disputing the neutrality of the article. •Jim62sch• 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend: if you continue to remove the tag, you'll be reported for Vandalism. I'd suggest that you read WP:VAND to see why your actions are vandalism. I can't think of a more simple way to put this. Take special note of: "Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

From WP:NPOV see, "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." •Jim62sch• 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please respect the opinion of other editors on the POV of the article. That tag should stay until the issues are addressed. Numskll 15:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unkind statement

With regards to your comments on Talk:Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Please don't pointlessly attack numskll's grasp of logic. Please, try to remain civil, if you see a flaw in his logic, please, just point out, don't accuse him of ignorance. Sorry to have to warn you. i kan reed 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not pointless to point out that discussion depends on a basic grasp of logic. It has been pointed out many times, he continues to make the same basic logical errors. Carfiend 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then bring it up on his talk. I don't really agree with you here, and while everyone succums to logical fallacies(yourself included), I don't think it's in the interest of the discussion to attack who he is.
My personal advice, not stimming from any particular wikipolicy, is that you discuss the kind of mistake he is making in your eyes, on his talk page. I just think being civil enhances the quality of the discussion. i kan reed 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

In Apollo Landings Hoax Accusations, you added a {{fact}} to a statement regarding titling of conspiracy theorists. What there needs to be cited exactly, several things that are stated are explained further in the article in a clearer way, whereas some I feel are intuitively obvious(probably mistakenly) so could you please elaborate, (on my talk page if you're willing) about what isn't there. (if it's more than one thing that's fine too)

[edit] Your behavior on Moon Hoax Accusations

Please try to be reasonable and respect both wiki policies and the opinions of others Numskll 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo tags

I have arrived at the conclusion that I have no strong opinion on the POV tags. Wahkeenah 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summaries and ScienceApologist

Please don't accuse him of vandalism. Vandalism is specifically trying to damage the content of wikipedia. Regardless of POV pushing or not, calling a non-vandal a vandal is a violation of WP:NPA. Thanks. i kan reed 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When you repeatedly put false tags, without discussing it on the talk page, that's vandalism. Carfiend 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No really it's not. The tags you are refering to DO contain a needless ammount of POV, some might say ridiculous ammount, but it's not vandalism. If an edit war breaks out, keep in mind that other people watch this article and you can refrain, and allow a consensus removal of the tags. If problems persist after that, 3RR will be your friend, not your foe. (keep in mind that the exception to 3RR states "simple vandalism". this probably wont' help either. i kan reed 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
please read before commenting. He's talking about a fact dispute, not POV. Carfiend 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr?

It's not a 3rr violation to correct spelling errors in your vandalistic page moving spree. Carfiend 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, its the fact that you've reverted the page title three times. Numskll 18:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Correcting you spelling mistakes is not a 'revert' in the sense you mean it. Please stop edit warring and take your dispute to the talk page. Explain 'what' it is you have an issue with instead of blanket reverting. Carfiend 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a hypocrite AND a wiki-lawyer. Numskll 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that personal attack. It's not wanted. Neither is your edit warring. Carfiend 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well considering the number of personal attacks you've volleyed against me these past few weeks I'm surprised you even noticed, but I guess your double standards are very convenient in issues such as these. Numskll 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
point of clarification: The 3RR rule applies not just to actual reverts but to edits that have the effect of reverts. See your 30-some edits of the article today on that score. Numskll 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo dsibeleif talk page

You're really being unhelpful here. No one is using polls to Democracy your view out of the way. The polls in question are plainly there to serve the purpose of finding out what people think are good ideas and what they think are bad ideas. Secondly I'm going to have to stop using the talk page to debate this issue, it's very wasteful. Please, please, please concentrate on improving the informativeness of the article, and not making your point of view known. I must confess that it's aggravating that you reject on principle one of the few sections of the talk page not directly associated with arguing about truths and falsehoods wikipedia can never place due to verifibility. I'm trying not to be unkind about this, If I've failed in that regard, please inform me i kan reed 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you've failed on your spelling, for sure. Perhaps we can band together and buy you a spellchecker. Carfiend 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
if my username doesn't hint at it well, spelling is not my strongest point. I make mistakes. thanks, i kan reed 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first warning

I feel personally attacked with your comments about me never saying anything coherent. It was completly inappropriate. I understand if you feel angry or annoyed with me, but please refrain from attacking me personally. It does not help you, it does not help wikipedia and it is most unkind. Please stop. i kan reed 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, it was a comment on your contributions, which I consider to be inchoerent at best, not an attack on you. Carfiend 18:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't take it personally then. However, I wish to indicate that it was fundementally slanderous, due to the "ever" bit. I'll confess the need for clarification on things I say due to the kind of indirect linguistic style I employ, but there have been more than enough times when people have been able to understand my psychotic ramblings. Please, in the future, consider the implications of blanket statements can have. i kan reed 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to be more sensitive when commenting on your psychotic ramblings. Carfiend 18:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come back - you're needed!

I hope your break isn't related to the personal attacks you've been getting for standing up for the truth - if so, you might like to check out the results of the rfc against you - I've posted them below. Come back soon! Gravitor 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, the attacks are all they have left when it is obvious that the facts are not on their side. Carfiend 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I just read the talk page, and, to be honest, I think Carfiend has conducted themselves in a manner becoming a wikipeadian. Their edits may not be accepted by the majority, but, in the interests of articles purporting to be NPOV, I think he is entitled to have his contributions. Personally, I don't see anything which he has done which would warrant a rfc.--No Username 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to mee that many people get provocated by reading arguments saying the Apollo moon landings was a hoax, even if the arguments are presented in a NPOV form. Often people post views that are not logical, matter of factly, or polite. I appreciate Carfiend`s contribution on the page, think he is making it more NPOV. I think Carfiend is among those with an better behavior on this disputed talk page. It is human to "talk back" when faced with offense and lack of logic from people who disagree. If someone regularly on that talk page should get a rfc, Carfiend is certainly not on my "top 10 list". People should in general be more polite, tolerant and matter of factly on that spesific talk page. Carfiend has stepped over the line occationally, but is not the worst guy in the neighborhood. Axlalta 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. This RfC has failed to establish meaningful unilateral wrongdoing by Carfiend. Addhoc 13:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. This RfC is nonsense. It seems to have been started in order to get rid of someone who has a dissenting opinion. The things mentioned above aren't really very big. It's everyday conversation. --Maxl 14:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

In your edit summary you described what you were doing as "reverting vandalism". I encourage you to read WP:VAND, come back and apologise for your mistake, revert the change you made (which removed several well-intentioned edits I made), and then get on with improving the article. Thanks. --Guinnog 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [1]

Repeated reverting without comment is vandalism. Thanks, Carfiend 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You replied too quickly to have read the policy which you show no sign of being acqainted with. I made two edits to the article today, neither of which was a reversion, and both of which were explained in edit summaries. Even if I had done what you wrongly accuse me of here it would still not be vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I am serious, I want you to read the policy, then come back and apologise. --Guinnog 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I've read the policy, and your edits - one was removing the npov notice, which I applaud, and the other was, I agree, not vandalism. My edit focussed on the usual suspects, who seem intent on carrying out edit wars. Give me a few minutes, and I will integrate your second edit. Carfiend 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Guinnog 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
OK - I had a detailed look at this - unfortunately you've mixed a lot of controversial edits and reverts in with some sensible ones. Unfortunately it's hard to deal with this when you won't discuss controversial issues on the talk page. I suggest that you make edits in relatively small clumps, perhaps editing a seciton at a time instead of making massive mixed edits that you know will be controversial. Carfiend 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss any issues, controversial or not, on the talk page. The edits I've made seem to me to be in conformance with our policies on verifiability and neutral point of view, which are non-negotiable though. I wonder what you think of my latest copyedit being repeatedly reverted by Numskll in spite of having been raised in talk? Incidentally, I'm taking your apology for labelling me a vandal as read. --Guinnog 11:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We have agreed to discuss the article in talk before editing it. Can you go along with that too? --Guinnog 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, because users have not shown good faith in discussing edits. I reverted to your edit. Carfiend 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, and thank you for that, but it has already been reverted. We are at a stage, sadly, whre we have to thrash out each change in talk before implementing it, silly as that seems. I am convinced that this is the only way forwards, though I wish it were otherwise. Can you please help? --Guinnog 19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the solution is to report Wahkeenah's vandalism and refusal to meaningfully discuss his reverting. Carfiend 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, and I warned you before about jumping to calling people vandals. Let's discuss it on the talk page, please, before making more changes. --Guinnog 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And I believe I explained to you that reverting without explanation IS vandalism. Carfiend 19:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You did, and as I explained (and pointed you to the policy), you were (and are) wrong. Please read the policy (it's at WP:VAND, and please discuss your changes in talk. --Guinnog 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you are wrong, erroneously tagging and adding misinformation are vandalism. I have recieved no feedback about what is wrong with my edits, which I have explained in the edit summary. Continuing to revert without comment is disruption on Wahkeenah's part. Carfiend 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confused. Here is the policy summary (my emphasis):

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.

Further down it explicitly states that adding or removing tags is not regarded as vandalism, even if you don't agree with it. I don't agree with it too, and was quite hurt when my carefully thought out edits were reverted twice; once by you. Never mind. We are here to improve the article; it looks like the only way we are going to do that is to discuss each change in talk first.
Finally, after just coming back from a block, I don't think you should be lecturing anybody about wiki policy. Nor should you be making personal attacks on other editors (as you just did to Wahkeenah); not unless you are looking to get blocked again. --Guinnog 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, you can Wikilawyer all you like. I was blocked for restoring Wahkeenah's repeated reverting, which he refused to explain on the talk page. He is still refusing to explain why he keeps reverting. If you want to quibble about whether that's vandalism, do it someonewhere else, it's certainly not a good faith effort to improve the article. It's his relentless refusal to allow anything but his POV on the page. Carfiend 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking another editor nicely not to make personal attacks isn't wikilawyering. Neither is explaining a policy that they have demonstrated their ignorance of. I don't want to quibble about anything, I want to make the article better. And you? --Guinnog 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have consistently tried to improve the article. My question remains unanswered - what parts of my edits that Washkeenah continues to revert without comment does he object to, and why? He refuses to answer, making dialogue impossible. Carfiend 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We are all trying to improve the article. Dialogue is far more possible when you assume good faith in others. Stop focussing on whatever bad feelings you may have for various users here, and start helping, by constructive debate, to achieve consensus, please. --Guinnog 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Peace, Bro. Good props on the effort to get the revert monkeys to the discussion page. Carfiend 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 3RR breach

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

- Glen 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My changes have been discussed. It's hard not to fall foul of 3RR when you are up against a determined revert-monkey. Carfiend 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other user IDs

Hi there. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under other user IDs? If so, in the interest of disclosure, could you tell us what those IDs are? I assume you hold yourself to the same standards you hold the other users/subjects here to, so I look forward to your honest response. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you my honest response. Your issues with Wikipedia NPOV policies will not be solved by witch hunts against people who don't share your POV. If you are to become a productive contributor here, you must reconcile yourself to the NPOV policy. As for my history, I have no other IDs, nor have I ever had. I will not respond to any more harrassment from you or others who have issues with NPOV policy. The RFC against me garnered NO support outside from the POV crusaders on the page. Carfiend 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Can you please stop the sarcasm and nippy comments on the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations talk page? It really isn't helping, and I am not going to let you jeopardise the (so far tiny) improvements we have made and are making to the article. From now on, I want you to restrict yourself entirely to helpful and constructive comments, aimed at improving the article, and absolutely no more adverse remarks against Wahkeenah (like your use of "revert monkeys" just above, for example). I am totally serious about improving this article; you should be too. If you have nothing helpful to say, say nothing. --Guinnog 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Guinnog, I appreciate your call to civility, and yes, I will try to restrain my anger and frustration at Wahkeenah and others repeated reverting without comment, and refusal to discuss their changes, and insistance on their point of view at all costs. However, there has to be some give and take. I feel that I am one of the most restrained users on those pages (and the recent rfc against me confirmed that that is the external view also). Carfiend 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk to you both) "

They have exactly the same right to define the word as they choose as anyone else does. No modern dictionary maintains the position that they are repositories of 'correct' meaning, they document actual usage. The USSR definition is every bit as valid as the US one, and the article should reflect that. After you're done on this page, you can go and tell Michael Jackson what 'bad' really means. Carfiend 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah

"

Can you respond to this, or should I? Appeals to Wahkeenah for rational responses are met only with avoidance and abuse. This is the kind of behavior that leads to labels like 'revert monkey'. As an effort of good faith, I'd like to ask you to step in, because your response is more likely to be restrained, but my patience is running thin with this disruptive user. Carfiend 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As you are the disruptive and abusive one, who takes those criticisms and repeats them back to us, I probably should have posted a parrot instead. Wahkeenah 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And, by the way, what have you got against squirrels? Wahkeenah 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied to both talk pages) Guys, please. Carfield, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my efforts here. I have no idea what you mean about USA vs USSR. Can you exaplin your point please? Wahkeenah, Carfield, I know you are both decent people. But we need to eliminate this rancour; I really want this article to get better, I've been contributing to it for a while on and off, and I want to take it forward. Can you both please try to focus on improving the article? That's all I am interested in, not you too slagging each other off. Please. --Guinnog 00:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to User talk:Wahkeenah

Your edit to User talk:Wahkeenah was not helpful. Instead of continuing to escalate the dispute and provoke this user, please leave him alone and return to making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I should not feed him. Carfiend 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be stirring things up here with [2]. I see no evidence that Wahkeenah is revert warring; those were minor changes in wording, with no reverts that I could see. Please don't. --Guinnog 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He is clearly revert warring without using the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&diff=75971166&oldid=75970846, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&diff=75970135&oldid=75970045, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_space_exploration_milestones%2C_1957-1969&action=history, for example. Asking him to use the talk page is not 'stirring it up', in none of those edits did he even make a meaningful edit summary, let alone discuss repeated questions on the talk page. Carfiend 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to behave like this you risk being blocked yourself. --Guinnog 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which part of my behavior are you talking about? Please be specific. Do you mean asking Wahkeenah to use the talk page and stop revert warring? Carfiend 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I see only one revert from him. I thought your repeated insertion of your complaint (Apparently it was not enough, since you continue to revert war without using the talk page. Your disruptive behavior will get you blocked again if you don't start to show some good faith) to him was unnecessary and not conducive to good working relations. You think that he should not have removed your message; but you should not have placed it there three times either. I warned you just before I would have to have asked for you to be blocked for 3rr. If you think he is revert-warring, you should make very sure that you aren't doing it yourself.
More importantly, you could use your energy more productively in trying to improve the actual article, rather than these kind of unproductive interactions with other editors.
Please don't inaccurately throw around terms like "vandalism" and "revert-warring". They add heat without light to the discussion and there are better ways we can improve the article. --Guinnog 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your bahavior on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax

This comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AApollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=75999982&oldid=75999450 is nothing like productive, seems designed only to provoke and doesn't relate to the topic or conversation. Please stop using the talk page as your trollish playground. Numskll 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"It's a ridiculous idea. You can't abandon NPOV policy in favor of Wahkeenah's Point of View. Carfiend 05:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)" - no, it's fair, and represents the situation perfectly. Your accusations of 'troll' to anyone who is interested in NPOV are offensive and unhelpful. Carfiend 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Except it had no relation to what Wahkeenah said, which by the way, was simply agreeing with another editor. Please don't be pointlessly disruptive. Numskll 16:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:AGF

Carfiend. Please review the the policiy referenced above with respect to this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AApollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=76086847&oldid=76075733 Please don't continue to be needlessly disruptive.

Who are you? What makes you think that I was being disruptive or not assuming good faith? My comment is factual, and an attempt to forstall disruptive edits by another user. Carfiend 23:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dismembering the article, and hiding the evidence is dishonest and unhelpful." I've bolded the violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA Please don't be disruptive. Numskll 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

While I don't appreciate your sarcasm [3] at all, I apologise for missing your messages of a couple of days ago about Wahkeenah. Beyond referring you to Wikipedia policies which you say you have read, and assuring you that there are at least two other admins beside me watching this, I can only urge that you show a good example and behave well yourself. --Guinnog 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - although I must admit that I was hoping for some advise in dealing with a user who openly admits that he does not intend to use the talk page, and does things deliberately to bait other users. Carfiend 16:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the advice I gave you was both well-intentioned and I think effective. Stop responding personally to other individual users, and always follow policies like AGF yourself. If there is a specific thing he has done that you want me to look at, by all means post a diff and I will look at it. But I am fed up with the unproductive bickering on this article and wouls like all editoes involved to get on with improving the article as far as possible. It's what we're here for. I hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help for a revert-war-er

I can't think of a better way to say it, and I hate to bother you, but I see that you have had to deal with the user Wahkeenah before. Now he's into deleting wholesale sections of the article Lowe's. Only after repeated efforts to get Talk page comments did he start there, but he has continued to remove sections, most recently the vast bulk of the entire article. I have tried to be firm and bold, understanding and cooperative, sharing and gracious, but none of these approaches have worked. Each time I fix his damage, I make an attempt to make the article better, rewording what I believe to be his objection, working to improve the article and pleading with him to help with the article. Instead, he arbitrarily re-deletes entire sections, no matter whether the concern he had professed earlier had been addressed or not. He has provided no constructive comments or insight for this article and seems solely focused on its destruction. Would you possibly be able to look into it and, if he is in the wrong, do whatever it is admins do in those situations and, if I am overreacting or if he is correct in his bulk deletions, let me know. I'm tired of him and his revert-warring. I'm at least trying to improve the article, he is very blatently not. Any help or advice you could provide would be very appreciated. VigilancePrime 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

This is just to let you know that there is a merge proposal being considered at Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Given that you participated in the AfD debate about this article, you might be interested in leaving your opinion concerning this merge on the talk page. Lunokhod 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: There are discussions on the independant evidence talk page that address the edits/preferred version you and Carfiend have advocating

Join in. We're all working on the article. I'm trying to make wikipedia better. Let's figure out a way to work through our differences in opinions. Endlessly reverting to a prefered without discussion version helpful. you might glance at the talk page. Numskll 21:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Cease your personal attacks. Read WP:NPA[4]Numskll 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Still more: Change all the words, and the punctuation, and it isn't trolling! He trolled, he was caught, let's move on. Carfiend 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/User_talk%7ECarfiend_9980.html"