User talk:Ernham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ernham, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Esprit15d 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 David Koresh 2 NPA 3 POV 4 Notice 5 Blocked 6 Michael Schumacher 7 Intelligence Quotient 8 Your personal attacks on Intelligence quotient 9 3RR rule report 10 Your reversal of personal attacks and uncivility at Intelligence quotient 11 Incivility 12 Tennis Masters Madrid 13 Jim Clark 14 Michael Schumacher 15 Michael Schumacher 16 Associated Press 17 User notice: temporary 3RR block 18 Regarding reversions[13] made on October 13, 2006 to Michael_Schumacher 19 Request for comment 20 Why I'm not the most friendly editor 21 Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part two 22 Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part three 23 Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part four 24 Hi there 25 Relax. 26 Your continuing misintended edits to the Juan Manuel Fangio article 26.1 Schumacher comments 27 User notice: temporary 3RR block 28 Regarding reversions[15] made on October 16, 2006 to 2006_Formula_One_season 29 Request for unblock 30 Re-blocked 31 Schumacher 32 British media 33 More personal attacks 34 F1 insiders etc 35 Men's tennis forums 36 1954 World Cup Final 37 "Vandalism" 38 Jerez 1997 in lead of Michael Schumacher 39 An Automated Message from HagermanBot 40 3RR Block 41 Damon hill 42 Damon Hill 43 Request for comment 44 Let's see if we can come to an understanding 45 RFPP 46 Blocked

[edit] David Koresh

As per the policy on verifiability:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

I have removed the unsourced and potentially libelous material regarding Kiri Jewell and her mother and grandmother. As we seem unable to reach agreement about what constitutes verifiability for the article, I have also requested WP:3 Devious Viper 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess Congressional records are not quite up to snuff when it comes to valid cite criteria, eh? Only podunk, no-name newspaper op-ed pieces, eh?Ernham 13:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Pls refrain form calling Ian a bigot. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Some kind of mod or something? He is a bigot, im afraid, as nothing else explains his hypocritical/lieing actions, behavior I just proved.

I am an administrator. And stop claiming bogus vandalism on the part of Bretonbanquet.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have my terminology wrong, I guess. Upon reading the interpretation used here, indeed I do. I'm not sure how to describe such behavior than, perhaps annoying or illogical. So, mister moderator, has there been any rulings made on the usage of words such as "best" and "greatest" on things such as sports stars, as it seems to be the crux of the recent issue involving some F-1 racing legends.Ernham 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I try and be as dry as possible. If you go to my userpage you can see I have written a lot of sport bios and they are all very dry. Mainly just a chronological account and some explanation of some statistics. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When I came across the section on schumacher, I actually thought it was fairly well done. But then I looked at some of the other legends of F-1 racing, and all of them had opening paragraphs that included a line similar to "considered by many the greatest driver blah, blah". So I added essentially that exact line to schumacher's first paragraph and was then attacked for it supposedly being "POV", yet these same people claim that the other legendary drivers, all of which are inferior to schumacher statistically, claims of "greatness" are NPOV! It's infuriating. Ernham 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no problem with removing similar meaningless claims from other articles. -- Ian Dalziel 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why the hell did you rever my changes to 2-3 of the people where I merely clipped out the sentence that made those claims. Then even on your reversion you claim that the claim made in the article was actually NPOV! How quickly you change your tune after I busted you for being so "editorially dishonest".Ernham 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made NO changes to your edits in those other articles. -- Ian Dalziel 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not the point, Ian. The point was you were reverting me for trying to remove the exact same claims on other F-1 drivers websites while you were doing the exact opposite on the Schumacher page.Ernham 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I'd just happened to see POV and so removed it and removed no content, but now you've reverted. "greatness" when applied to define a competitor of any sport tends to be subjective and debatable. On top of that, using superlative means the phrasing should bring it close to fact and backed by acceptance and evidence. Otherwise one is not doing justice to the article. From the discussion above, i gather that you're already in an edit war on this. Not planning to join in myself :-)

On this, yeah if you've seen POV in past drivers pages, the right thing to do is to remove it and not balance the situation by matching it for this is an encyclopedia rather than a set of tribute pages for f1 drivers :) In this regard i suppose replacing the sentence

By the numbers, he is the greatest, most successful Formula One driver ever

with

He is arguably the most successful Formula One driver ever.

would be more apt, as it'd be able to support the claim factually as well as highlight the magnitude of achievement.

You might not be entirely wrong when you argue

If you have the greatest record for just about everything, it makes you the greatest.

The problem however is the phrase greatest record. A more correct yet undiluted sentence would be

If you hold the record for just about everything, it makes you the most successful.

--Su30 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense. "successful" is just as subjective, with need to be qualified, as "great". Stefi Graf made only like 20 million dollars for her whole tennis carrer. Now modern tennis players make 20 million by the time they have only 5-6 grandslams under their belt. Now when you say successful tennis player, should the answer be the modern player that won far fewer games/granslams but actual won more money? Total circular logic with this since everything would need to be narrowly defined that articls would be nothing but minutia. Sorry. The British and South Americans will just ahve to sulk about the fact the greatest F-1 driver to date was German. That's the real issue here. Nothing but a bunch of jingoist nonsense.

You are mixing two different English words, with very different meanings: successful and great. Schumacher is the most successfull (verifiable fact), but that alone doesn't make him the greatest (unverifiable). What is verifiable is the perception of people about a person, that's why in Juan Manuel Fangio it reads considered by many to be the greatest racing driver in Formula One history; that is also a verifiable fact. Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

\

I've destroyed the argument with logic. You've whined at me with non-sequiturs. Come back with logic or go away. Successful and great are equally subjective and ambiguous.Ernham 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I trully don't follow you. You are the one saying that Schumacher is the best because he won the most championships and so on. This is not subjective, he won 7, the others less, he won more, he is more successful in winning F1 championships than any other driver. I really don't understand your logic nor what do you mean with "I've destroyed the argument with logic". Greatt, in the sence of being the best driver is subjective; you could ask yoursefl how yould Schumacher do with another car, how would have Fangio done in F1 had he born 40 years later, thus it is subjective. On the other hand people's perception can be sourced. Mariano(t/c) 10:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not explaining it again. It's very, very simple logic. You yourself just qualified successful in order to use it, you said "he is more successful***in winning***...." You understand now? We could go through and say he had the greatest amount of X, the greatest amount of Y, the greatest time in this, that, these and those. But that is the ridiculous minutia I was talking about. The reality is, he is in the #1 spot on almost every measurement that is used to judge performance in his sport. That is near universal greatnes, period. No one else has achieved such even in their own era. Schumacher has simply dominated the sport like no one ever has and probably never will. That's reality. I'm not dancing around the truth just to save the egos of some jingoist bigots, sorry.

Ernham, I dont want to delve into the pointless question of somebody being german/british. With the word meaning you've to see the context too.. atleast most people do. "successful" applied to a sportsperson is rather concrete. Your argument is based on your own (rather wrong) assumption of success being related with prize money.. Sporting success is measured in titles/wins. Fangio was the most successful until Schumacher passed him.. One say that there is no POV there, and mind you he might say that knowing the championships in 02, 04 can hardly count on merit even given the kind of peculiar sport f1 is.. But still he say that attribute to his sporting success.. If you dont take it, try saying michael was the most successful f1 driver and provide sufficient references.. You wont find ppl removing off those.. nyway without reason there is no collaboration.. and with the flaming i guess, an IP editor will be able to solve this better.. --Su30 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, The following comments from Marianocecowski explains better

You are mixing two different English words, with very different meanings: successful and great. Schumacher is the most successfull (verifiable fact), but that alone doesn't make him the greatest (unverifiable). What is verifiable is the perception of people about a person, that's why in Juan Manuel Fangio it reads considered by many to be the greatest racing driver in Formula One history; that is also a verifiable fact. Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

--Su30 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

There are rules against reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hours (see:WP:3RR). Violating such rules might lead to blocking. Also, please be civil in your edits and avoid personal attacks. Mariano(t/c) 10:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we need an admin/moderator to deal with this then. Limiting reversion just lets someone use multiple ISPs to revert all day long. A very poor choice of rules IMO.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Ian Dalziel 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I plan to. I don't have a lot of patience when it comes to dealing with people that will not debate/discuss rationally and logically. It is unlike me to resolve to ad hominem, but that s the ony place i could go for a reason that some people would be so dishonest and hypocritical in their attempts to defame and/or diminish someone else only to build up their own ego in some way, by proxy or through a fellowcountry man or whatnot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs).

Please, stop being agressive in your answers, using words such as dishonest and hypocritical can be considered a personal attack, specially when we are trying to be compehensive with you. Have you considered you might not be right if more than one user is trying to reason with you? Mariano(t/c) 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Statetments are not persons; de facto, they can never be "personally" attacked. I tire of these whiny exchanges. Good-bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs).

Reported on WP:AN/3RR. -- Ian Dalziel 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound like a little child. Why don't you switch back to your other IP(s) and revert my revert again? Unlike you, I'm not resolving dishonesty and foul play. You and your ilk are in the wrong, and I'm not going to put up with bigotry and intellectual dishonesty if I have any say in it.

I have never made any edits other than under my own User Id. If you are interested in intellectual honesty why won't you discuss your edits instead of resorting to personal abuse? -- Ian Dalziel 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ahhh, yes. I'm going to believe the guy who claims that calling Fangio and several other F-1 racing legends as "the greatest" is NPOV, but doing the same for Schumacher, the only guy that has been PROVEN to be the greatest driver, is somehow POV. Get your ridiculous shenanigans out of here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs).

As I stated above : "I have no problem with removing similar meaningless claims from other articles". I think any statement that one driver is greater than another of a different era is pointless cruft. I do think "considered by many" is more acceptable than presenting it as a statement of fact, but I'd sooner see all the articles without any such assertion. Please quote any such "quote" from me? These accusations are not only deeply offensive, but you seem to be making them up as you go along. -- Ian Dalziel 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of the removals of 'greatest' (12:56 today) came from me (user:4u1e) not from Ian. I'm editing from someone else's terminal at present, so I can't log in (my password is stored elsewhere). My logic is the same as everyone else's - 'success' is measurable in concrete achievements (wins, points), 'greatness' includes 'influence' 'legacy', 'fame' and many other such nebulous concepts. Your observation that several other drivers' articles say that they are 'greatest' (Fangio, Senna are I guess the major candidates) rather undermines the argument that anyone can be declare unequivocally 'greatest'. Cheers. 4u1e

Can you succeed at being great at something? Indeed. Uh-oh. Major logic complication here. The problem results from the both being eaully ambiguous and dependant on being qualified to be completely understood and debated. In this case, we are looking at "the greatest driver". Using statistics and the standard measures by which greatness is gauged in F-1, it become rather elementary in mathematically proving who the greatest is. it's been done, at least twice now: BBC sports and christopher Hilton(well-known biographer of racing legends). The answer was the same for both: Schumacher. The reality is, though, you guys just don't like the answer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs).

Please sign your answers. You seam not to understand the difference between success and greatness; perhaps that's the root of the hole problem. Nobody denies that Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver, that is a fact. Saying that he is the greatest is subjective. Finally, saying that people consider a driver to be the best is not subjective if it can be sourced, in the best case with a general poll or equivalent. Mariano(t/c) 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What are "the standard measures by which greatness is gauged in F-1"? I don't believe there is any such thing - many consider Stirling Moss, who never won a championship, to be the greatest ever. -- Ian Dalziel 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know the standard measures by which drivers are gauged in F-1 racing, what the hell are you even doing editing F-1 related wikies?? Ridiculous. essentially no one thinks Stirling was the greatest ever, not even the biased as always English public. Even this BBC poll shows it(Schumacher first, Senna second, just like every poll I've ever seen on the matter): http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3168114.stm?display=1

Ernham 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Standard measures by which *greatness* is gauged? I don't think so. -- Ian Dalziel 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fastest laps, pole positions, passing ability, wind/rain driving ability, wins/placing, and many more. Michael Jordan is agreed by most to have been the greatest basketball player of his era, but he was not the best three point shorter, nor the best passer or shot blocker. But he was sitll the greatest. In the case of Schumacher, he dominates almost every stat there is. Period. The fans(polls) say Schumacher was/is the best and tbe statistics back them up. It doesn't get any more solid of a lock on being called the "greatest" than that. Now stop with your nonesense, all of you. Grow up. Ernham 14:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get the point. We are not trying to define who is the best pilot, that would be subjective. Yet it is undeniable that some people consider Fangio as the greatest, while others consider Senna, and some others Schumacher. Mariano(t/c) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for personal attacks and going over the 3 revert rule as well as general edit warring. When you return please discuss any proposed changes on the relevant talk pages in a calm and civil manner. Thank you. JoshuaZ 15:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no speaking in a civil manner with people that have no understanding of basic logic and proceed to repeatedly lie and be bigots. Nice to see you are so even handed, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ernham (talk • contribs).

[edit] Michael Schumacher

You cannot say Michael Schumacher is solely responsible for turning Ferrari around. I've provided a reference but it shouldn't be needed. I'm happy to say that Ferrari couldn't have done it without Schumacher but any reasonable person would admit that its rediculous to say that without Brawn's tactical brain and Byrne's design Schumacher could have been so successful. Just because its a Schumacher article doesn't mean you can't mention this important fact. Mark83 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "schumacher is often credited with turning ferrari around" does not at all insinuate that Schumacher was the sole reason for ferrari turning into a winning team. I'm sorry you have a problem with reality and do not understand English, logic, and/or reality. Please stop your vandalization of the Schumacher wiki.

Yes it does. Your personal attacks and the other conversations on your talk page speak volumes about your credibility. Mark83 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I make no personal attacks, only logically assumptions. And I won't tolerate the vanadlism of living persons. Ernham 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To prove my grasp of English, which you argued I don't understand - The above should read "logical assumptions" and "vandalism". "Most winning" is bad grammar and I cannot revert it due to the 3RR (I believe you're familiar with it)! What exactly is your objection to saying that as well as Schumacher being an excellent driver Ferrari's success was down to his team as well, particularly Brawn's pit wall strategy and the design of the car. As impressive a man as he is I don't think he has a degree in engineering. I did exactly what is expected of a good editor, I provided a statement, with a reference and you reverted to your own version simply out of intransigence. You will not find a single other editor who would describe my edits as vandalism. Mark83 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ahd introduced your "spin" on the matter before i fixed the ridiculous skeleton of a sub-section that was there previously, then perhaps I'd be less adversarial. But your attmpt currently seems to be little more than to water down Schuamcher's accomplishments, as opposed to any attempt to make the wiki better or what have you. In reality, the wiki is about schuamcher and the statement I said is true. Your statement about the others, especially about todt is also true, but it belongs in the wikis for each of those individuals. Again, this is michael schumacher's wiki. Your addition comes ever so close to the line of superfluity in a wiki that already goes to great lengths to diminsh Schuamcher's accomplishments. and yes, *I* describe your edits as vandalism because you have a record continuing to deface the wiki of a living person, being completely ignorant of the evolution of the article and merely in an attempt to defame schumacher through various means.(stop correcting your damn spelling mistakes so i can respond, too. Yes, I know you can't spell very well.) Ernham 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't correct a spelling mistake, I added another sentence to my comment. There is nothing wrong with my spelling. There is something wrong with you losing your temper and continuing personal attacks. Mark83 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

in any event, I'm done talking with you on my talk page. This should have been brought up on the Schumacher page. Present your arguemts there formally.Ernham 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "I actually don't mind this version, but "one of" needs to go" - then why did you waste both our time by arguing? Mark83 15:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Something called compromise. Get out of my talk page alreadyErnham 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you know the meaning of the word compromise. You stubbornly reverted for over two hours and it was only when a third party agreed with me that you suddenly "compromised". You went from describing my contribution as "close to the line of superfluity" to "I actually don't mind this version". Mark83 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Quotient

Fine, but you will see that what you count as my first revert is in fact an edit. And you have done just as many, so if I get my editing rights revoked for some time, so will you. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.--Ramdrake 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was partial reversion of material I wrote, which makes it a reversion. Ernham 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, there are a few things you seem to have some trouble grasping:

1)An edit that removes part of your addition and rephrases another part is *NOT* a revert, unless it brings the article back verbatim to some previous version (any version). It's just an edit.

2)An edit done in good faith, even in the midst of a revert war, is *NEVER* vandalism. It can be revert warring, but cannot be called vandalism, just because the edits undo one of your edits and you think it's wrong. I would suggest you make more efforts in assuming good faith

3)In your denunciation of my actions at WP:AN/3RR, the admin *did* ask you to supply diffs, as opposed to versions. After 10 days, you failed to supply the requested diffs, so the case was closed. It was not dereliction of duty on the part of the admin, but just your failure to respond which caused the case to fail to be even considered on its merits.

4)That's just a suggestion, but I think your attitude could gain in being less bellicose than it is now, or sooner or later, you might find yourself blocked from Wikipedia editing for longer and longer stretches. You have already garnered 3 block in just over a month; that's a considerable amount.

That being said, that's all I had as comments. Good day!--Ramdrake 13:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than my first block, the rest have been total bull, by an admin that shouldn't even be the admin at a messageboard let alone at wikipedia, where there is much more need to be free of bias. Almost everything you said is wrong. Obviously you never bothered to read what a reversion actually is. If i write " Peanuts are good food. Everyone should have a cup of peantus day" And you remove "peanuts are good food", leaving the other. You have reverted the material partially. It's still a reversion. This is a very simple logical deduction from the rule stating that the reversion does not have to be the same material. If it were the case as you suggest, there would be no need for that stipulation. Vandalism is vandalism. I know exactly what it is. And what the hell am I supposed to make of the garbage he spat out? Not diffs? Judging from his own talk page it seems as if he expects everyone to be an admin themselves to even deal with him on any level, lingo or otherwise. He never responded to me in any capacity whatsoever.Ernham 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your personal attacks on Intelligence quotient

Regarding your comments made on Intelligence quotient:[1] [2]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Ramdrake 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR rule report

Hi. The reason your edit to the 3RR rule page didn't appear was you added it to the "Copy-paste-edit this for a new report" section at the bottom of the page. I've tidied it up for you. Please calm down, I see you've got another warning for personal attacks and you've just said "sign your name or stay out of my talk" in an edit summary. There is no justification for that. You've been known to forget to add your signature, it's a simple mistake. Mark83 23:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was quite obvious the person who wrote was trying to sound like they had some kind of authority here at wikipedia. I don't take kindly to people trying to push me around. It wasn't signed to maintain some kind of msytery to it. Thanks, btw.Ernham 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1) It was signed all of 3 minutes after leaving the message and 2) you removed the warning after it was signed. So your explanation doesn't hold, as I will refrain from qualifying it any further. And to boot, the message was a standard boilerplate warning, not intended to impress anyone. Nobody here is trying to push you around, but they may be tempted to push back when you shove them - as you've done today.--Ramdrake 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy actually thinks me calling a bunch of op-ed sounding studies "trash" is a personal attack. Maybe i could see that if you wrote them all...heh. Just keep digging yourself deeper, Ramdrake Ernham 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Actually, calling those studies "trash" is merely uncivil. Calling my neuroscience Ph.D. a degree in BS is a personal attack.--Ramdrake 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I clarified immediately what that meant. Figured you wouldn't get the sarcasm. Then you claimed calling your trash "studies" trash was a personal attack. Oh, bother. There I go again.Ernham 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversal of personal attacks and uncivility at Intelligence quotient

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Ramdrake 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

I've blocked you for 3h for incivility William M. Connolley 07:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please state, for the record, specific instance of supposed "incivility". Further, you might want to respond to the 3RR complaint i filed against use Ramdrake, the one it seems you handled nearly as flippantly as this instance of "incivility".Ernham 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for what specific instance William M. Connolley blocked you, but below are a few instances. What aren't personal attacks are certainly uncivil.

• [3] - "Satire" is not an acceptable excuse.
• [4]
• [5] (edit summary)
• [6] Directed at me: "stop correcting your damn spelling mistakes so i can respond, too. Yes, I know you can't spell very well.)"
• [7] Directed at me: "I'm sorry you have a problem with reality and do not understand English, logic, and/or reality."
• [8] (edit summary)
• [9] (edit summary)

Another issue; Removing other people's comments [10] and then criticising others for removing your comments [11] (even when they are acting according to Wikipedia policy. Mark83 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, I have a wiki stalker. hate schumacher and the truth that much, huh? I did not ask for your opinion. I was speaking with the adminstrator. Do not be so rude. also about your comment that I removed your comments here. That's not true. i responded to the first comment you left and then you added more to your comment while i was answering the first comment. somehow the one that got saved was my original responce to the comment before you added additional material, the little bit that no one would consider your actions vandalism or what not. And like I said, this does not belong on my talk page; it belongs on the respective page, particularly in that incident. Find a new hobby, too. Ernham 20:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack for the list! You asked the question, I was just trying to help out. As for "hating" Schumacher, you're confusing "hate" with the aim of NPOV. As for removing my comment due to an edit conflict - You're right, I did add that after the original comment. However when such a situaton arises the sofware draws it to your attention "someone has edited this page since..." You must have chosen not to save my comment. And me refuting the allegation of vandalism very much belonged on your talk page. Stop the personal attacks and I'll pay less attention. Regards. Mark83 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Masters Madrid

There is no need to place reference to where a tournament used to be held in Roger Federer's article. The Stuttgart refernce beleings in the Tennis Masters Madrid article, not in Roger Federer's!

No, it's rather important actually because of possible court differences for posterity.Ernham 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Clark

Hello. Just some friendly advice. I know that the edits by the socks are very annoying, but please don't stoop to their level by allowing them to bait you into making potentially innapropriate edit summaries. Thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya, just adding a bit of humor. Nothing else works with that guy, it seems.Ernham 03:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schumacher

Regarding this edit: Please do not call other editors vandals when they have not vandalized. This is considered a personal attack. If you continue to personally attack other editors, you will be blocked. Thank you.--§hanel 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He did in fact vandalize the page. He repeatedly clipped out huge sections of important information, giving no explanation for doing so Ernham 04:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schumacher

By your own edit summary you admit that the sentence suggests Schumacher is somehow responsible for the number of German drivers in F1. "It's a statement of fact that supports the position that Schumacher popularized the sport in Germany" While I agree 110% that Schumacher is responsible for the popularity of F1 in Germany, I don't agree with the suggestion that he is in some way responsible for the number of German drivers in F1. Might I draw your attention to the fact that you have removed the information three times. Also despite countless requests to stop personal attacks you have persisted and attacked me (here) and calling for another user to be banned constitutes a personal attack ([12]). Mark83 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you again. Do you actually think that there is no correlation between the popularity of a sport in a given country and the amount of participation of that sport that country partakes in? Of course they are correlated, and no sane person would debate such. And I didn't call for him to be banned, I said --I-- think he should be banned. I'm beginning to think you should be, too. Call the thought police. btw, Removing cited info and/or cites while giving no reason is in fact vandalism, pal. Ernham 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling me a vandal. Each of my edits had a detailed edit summary. I did not remove cited information - Schumacher's role in the number of other German drivers is not cited at present. And I note you accused me of violating the three revert rule in one of your edit summaries. In removed it once as a normal edit. You then removed it four times, me three. Mark83 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Did three. One was repairing your overt vandalism. Try reading cites in the future, preferably before you delete them. Oh, and wiki-stalking is rather rude. Ernham 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore the last sentence. Please stop calling me a vandal. Vandalism is defined as "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I object in the strongest possible terms to any suggestion that I have vandalised any page. Please consider withdrawing your many remarks (talk page and edit summaries) calling me a vandal. The cite was in the wrong place. It backs up the "fringe sport" sentence but does not back up the assertion that R. Schumacher and Heidfeld are in F1 because of Schumacher's success. You reverted four times and the issue has already been raised by another editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Mark83 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. You remove a cite and then say you thought the cite was for something else, yet you ask for the very cite for the "something else" later in the edit history. When the ruse is up, suddenly you are ignorant of everything you just did. Your edits and summaries, taken in context, clearly detail your only interest was in messing up the wikiErnham 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You have refused to withdraw the comments and continued to accuse me of vandalism and bad faith. You tell people in edit summaries to take their issues to talk pages and then abuse them. Therefore I see no reason for continuing the discussion. Mark83 12:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the talk page, as we had a little discussion on the whole popularity thing. For some odd reason you felt adamant enough to vandalize that portion of the wiki, yet not defend your position in the talk forum? Assuming your bumbling edits were indeed in "good faith", it doesn't quite square, does it? Your actions, and lack thereof, clearly demonstrate you have little desire to make that wiki any better, quite the contrary, it seems. Ernham 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Press

My apologies - you are correct, although I'm not sure AP is really the most authoritative source regarding the FIA's intentions. Please try and be polite when editing Wikipedia though - we're all (well, mostly all!) trying to improve the articles. Cheers. 4u1e.

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Request for comment

I've asked the Wikipedia community to comment on your edits, in particular what have been judged by several users to be personal attacks. You may want to respond to this RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ernham. Mark83 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I'm not the most friendly editor

You get what you give. After being repeatedly abused by biased adminstrators, I have little compunction to act any other way. Just to give an example of the wanton abuse, I will step by step demonstrate a recent event regarding Mark83. Sadly for wikipedia, this has been more the rule than the exception.

I had originally added new material to the Michael Schumacher wiki:

"Schumacher is credited with popularising Formula One in Germany, where it had little following and was generally considered a fringe sport. Today, not only is the sport itself much more popular in Germany, but three of the current top ten drivers in the drivers' championship are German: more than any other nationality."

a cite was included to an article that completely substantiated the the increase in general popularity in Germany. Then Mark83 changed it to this:

"Schumacher is credited with popularizing Formula One in Germany, where it had little following and was generally considered a fringe sport."

So he reverts most of what I wrote, which is one thing, but the main problem I had was that he didn't bother to read the cite he removed. The cite he removed substantiated at least partially the paragraph; the other part of the paragraph did not really require a cite as it's so easily verifiable. In short, he vandalized the wiki. As per the definition of wiki-vandalism:

. . .defined as changing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information . . .

It then becomes a bit of a revert war. I stopped at three, knowing at least one of my edits was a legitmate rectification of what was clearly vandalous behavior. Mark83, however, goes over the limit. Reverting a total of four times.

The admin dealing with the situation says this in the admin board dealing with the supposed 3RRV: "Definitely 3RR from E[rnham]; I don't see any vandalism. M[ark83] has 4 identical edits but its not clear the first is a rv. 24h for E[rnham]."

Note that I "definitely" violated the 3RR. Fixing 1-2 overt vanadlism attempts and reverting 2-3 times somehow constituted 4 reverts -- definitely. Uh, huh. He doesn't see any vandalism? Hmmm? Has he ever bothered to read the edit exchange, the wiki definition of vanadlism, or both? He sees "4 identical edits" which is another way of saying Mark83 violated 3RR, but he takes no action. Apparently he has never read the rules on what a reversion actually is. As I've stated before, it's a simple logical deduction that if the rule stipulates "the reversions in a 3RRV do not have to be of the same material" that a partial reversion is still a reversion nonetheless. I dare say there is a tremendous bias in dealing with me or there is an equally tremendous vacuum of knowledge of the rules that this admin has exhibited. And this is not the first time. Such scenarios have become the rule here for me, as opposed to the exception. Now you now why my tact is often in abeyance. It simply doesn't matter what I do here. It's a kangaroo court through and through, on almost every level I've seenErnham 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

revert 1/vandalism attempt1 by Mark83 revert 2/vandalism attempt 2. He gets funny here and demands the very cite he deletes revert 3 revert 4

[edit] Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part two

Not more than a few weeks ago, I had an incident with Ramdrake. I made a caveat-like paragraph regarding the arguments raised by Stephen J. Gould in Mismeasure of Man. Basically, modern science, by useage of the MRI, has completely debunked all of the arguments Gould had proposed in relation to the correlations between brain size and race, IQ and brain size, and thus IQ and race, along with citing several studies that throughly demonstrated it. Ramdrake deleted most of it, and rewrote a section of it. An edit war ensued. Ramdrake violates the 3RR. Then he has the temerity to revert my comments in the discussion section! FIVE times no less! Twice he clearly broke the 3RR (as a side note there should be some rules against editing other users' comments in the talk pages). The talk page was basically angry screeds written by Ramdrake, who seemed to have no interest in debating the contentious material actually involved in the edit war. No. Instead, he wanted to totally debate about all the various aspects in general regarding IQ-- race--brain size. He wanted to argue, basically, just argue. At one point he brags that he has PhD in a biological science(in neuroscience no less), right after saying that filling lead shot in a cranium will give you nearly as accurate a measurement of brain size as an MRI! A biologist with a PhD in Neuroscience claims this, despite the fact that the amount of cerebral-spinal fluid varies to a much greater degree than brain size does! A Neuroscientist would know that;in fact, he would die laughing to death after reading that comment. After that ridiculous comment, Ramdrake proceeds to provide a dozen or so cites. The cites are all related to those aforementioned general issues, but they are not at all related to the contentious matters in the edit war. Let me charcterize the actual studies: 100% were irrelevant, 50%-75% of them were actually op-ed pieces of zero worth even if they weren't already irrelevant. I stated that the cites were garbage and were written like op-ed pieces. I then sarcastically inferred how odd it was that someone with a degree in biological science would resolve to posting a bunch of op-ed pieces from social scientists when the matters being debated in the edit war were entirely in the domain of biological science. Again, he claims he has a PhD in Neuroscience. The comment I made was something like "yeah, right. You have a degree in BS and you continue to cite garbage op-ed pieces by social scientists? Uh huh." He claims it was a personal attack, and upon reading the first part, I thought it was related to my the phrase "degree in BS" comment, so I immediately corrected any possible misinterpretation and clearly stated what I meant in my sarcastic remark. He says that wasn't what he took offense to. No. He took offense to the fact that I called his irrelevant, op-ed, social scientist cites as "garbage". I report him for violating the 3RR, which he did twice. The result? I'm the one that gets my editing privileges suspended, on the grounds of supposed "incivility". The double violator of the 3RR goes scot free. This is the exact same admin that dealt with the above case in "Why I'm not the most friendly editor(part one above)".Ernham 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Diffs from the wiki violation of 3RR by Ramdrake: This is what I originally added, with cites elucidating the position semi-concurrently in talk Revert 1 :Ramdrake rewrites a portion and reverts the majority. revert 2 revert 3 revert 4

Diffs from the talk page violation of 3RR by Ramdrake(noting the summaries is important here, as this involves the supposed personal attack.Read above text regarding this matter to understand why it was made. Lead shot, indeed): ramdrake's first reversion of my comment in the talk page revert 2 revert 3 revert 4

When I originally edited your addition to the article, that was because even though several scientists advance a relationship from race to brain size and brain size to IQ (nobody contests the claims have been made), several more have conducted studies that contradict those findings. Thus, they are a matter of dispute, and not incontrovertible fact as you seemed to present them. Second, as to my quoting psychologists and anthropologists to question the relationship, it's simply that the subject is usually called "race and intelligence". Field experts on race are usually anthropologists and geneticists, and experts on intelligence are usually psychologists and psychometricians, so their opinion is more than germane to the subject. Lastly, there is already an article in Wikipedia on Race and Intelligence and as far as I can tell, that was where the comments I removed from your addition belonged, as I think I made clear in my edit summary and I even tried to explain on the talk page. That you deciced to ignore the 12 sources I presented to you and chose to stick to the single viewpoint of the one article you quoted to me is your choice. I made an honest effort to try to explain the reasons for my viewpoint, ad instead of discussing calmly, you escalated this into a revert war, complete with uncivil remarks (where I come from, "BS" does not mean biological science, and yes we speak English). I would suggest that next time you disagree with someone, assume you're both working in good faith, sit down with them and discuss why your opinions differ. That is the basis of compromise-making.--Ramdrake 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt any kind of compromise with a person that claims filling a cranium(.7-.8 correlation) with lead shot will give you near as accurate measurement of brain size as an MRI(>.99999999999 correlation) out of one side of his mouth and then claim to be a neuroscientist out of the other side. I live on a lush planet called Earth. Come visit some day. Ernham 09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part three

When I first started poking around wikipedia with the intention of possibly registrring and becoming an editor, one of the first things that struck me was the Formula One pages. I had read the Michael Schumacher page, and while I thought it was fairly well done, after reading a handful of other notable Formula One drivers I noticed several interesting differences. All of them are not particularly germane for this, nor would detailing all of them be fruitful. I will, however, focus on one notable issue.

I counted over half a dozen different wikis of notable Formula one drivers that had some version of being called "the greatest driver" incorporated in their intro paragraphs. I thought it rather odd that Schumacher did not have a similar comment in his section. Why?

1.He's the only driver the official formula one website lists as being "the greatest" in any capacity.

2. In the biggest poll ever done on Formula one drivers, Schuamcher won by a landslide.

3. He owns almost every record in formula one.

4. BBC mathmematically proved he was the greatest using the standard measures of gauging greatness in formula one.

5. Similarly, an entire book was written mathematically proving, as much as one can with statistics, that no one else has a greater claim to being the "greatest" ever grand prix driver than Schumscher does.

Now, if any formula one driver has any claim whatsoever to the title of "greatest", then, it would be Schumacher. So this was the curiosity. Why was it that drivers, even drivers that had not won a single world drivers' championship their entire career(schumacher has won 7) were being labeled the greatest, yet Schumacher was not in any capacity given the same title?

As a test, I copy and pasted various versions of "the greatest" used in other formula one drivers wikis and put them in the schuamcher wiki. It was like dropping a hefty garbage bag full of blood into a swimming pool of starving sharks. I was repeatedly attacked, accused of this that and the other thing, repeatedly reverted and etc. So, I figured, using the same logic that over a half a dozen editors had used on me, I would go to all of the wikis where the exact same wording was being used to "talk up" other formula one drivers and remove it. It was like dropping TWO hefty garbage bags full of blood into a swimming pool of starving sharks! again I'm routinely attack and reverted. Here's the kicker: the very same editors that were reverting me for including "the greatest" in the schumacher wiki were the very same ones that were later reverting me for changing/removing the EXACT same claims made on other Formula one drivers' wikis! Complete hypocritical madness! I will recount the edits and history of just one of those users, without meaning to single him out specifically, but just to present what was stereotypical case of what half a dozen or so Formula One editors were doing at the time.

I might do a couple, actually, when I have a bit more time. Stopping here for now. As a side note, many of the users involved in the blatant hypocrisy can found above, in the fulminating orgy of my first several sections of this talk page.Ernham 15:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go on then - post some diffs to prove that I am a bigot and a liar? I'll be interested to see those. -- Ian Dalziel 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

wow, a request? So be it.Ernham 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My removal of one of the "greatest" comments on another formula one dirver's page

Ian Dalziel reverts it

but here he was, just hours earlier, reverting the Schumacher "greatest" entry I added

This was about as stereotypical as an example as there is, perhaps only missing even more spurious logic for their overt hypocrisy. About a half a dozen editors did exactly the same things detailed above, from discussion pages to edits/edit summaries to my own talk page. These are persons whom I must deal with on a daily basis when editing the Formula One pages. It seems that for many of them, jingoistic bigotry often supercedes what logical faculties they might have.Ernham 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection was to the expression "widely regarded" - to me, that implies a consensus which does not exist. I admit that "rvv" was excessive - I realise now that your edit was in good faith, if misguided, and I apologise for the "v". I have made no objection to subsequent, more moderate statements. I have said in several places that I consider arguments about "the greatest" to be a waste of energy - I have reverted your edits in other places only where you seemed to me to be damaging established articles simply out of spite because you have met disagreement. Most of the comments which you have removed were much less assertive than your original edits.

You have, as far as I can see, produced no evidence to support your allegations of "bigotry" and "lies". To be "jingoistic" about Fangio I think I would have to be Argentinian. I am not - nor am I English, for what it's worth. For pity's sake, calm down and enter into discussion. If someone disagrees with you, the response should be to argue - not to scream and stamp your feet! -- Ian Dalziel 19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

you are making a poor showing if this is some attempt to save face. i mean, the edits are right there, Ian. And just above on this page you can see I showed you http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3168114.stm?display=1 . How's that for "widely regarded"? How different is "widely" from "many" which is the only real difference with the fangio you reverted back in? Additionally, if your issue was with the use of "widely", Your edit summary is very interesting that you attached to the your reverion of the "greatest" comment i placed on the schuamcher wiki. Remember what you said? Go look. Maybe you need another memory jogger, eh? You said a bit more than "RVV" How about, "(and also, he is widely regarded as not...[being the greatest]). In short, I just can't rationalize your blatant hypocrisy short of those other possibilities.

"he is widely regarded as not" is exactly the same point - that there is disagreement. Is there any chance of your discussing ANYTHING without resorting to personal attacks? -- Ian Dalziel 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

/yawn. The "personal attack" canard again, eh? I guess that was to be expected, given your position, or lack thereof.Ernham 05:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me, with or without yawning, how the subject under dicussion can be a canard? -- Ian Dalziel 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part four

Back to schumacher issues again. In this case, a notable(notable for being unable to write a sentence about schuamcher without using libel/slander) British editor continues to add back libelous material regarding a controversial race incident. This is at least the second incident he has done so. Last time he tried to bully his libelous claims through via some other stooge that was apparently key in getting the Damon Hill wiki the status of "featured article". As a matter of fact, for almsot 3 days I fought to get to the libelous crap off the Damon Hill page. For a page that is currently considered a featured article, it was an astonishing thing for an article that had no less than half a dozen libelous claims regarding Michael Schuamcher. He half heartedly try to support a fraction of them with a single, ridiculous op-ed piece barfed out by the always-accurate British press, and only presented this opinion piece after I started getting rid of the libelous statements. The amount of libel was just ridiculous. Essentially this entire chunk of edit history was me trying to remove libelous statements regarding Michael Schuamcher. Seb Patrick was the stooge i was referring to. Note their gratuitous happy gland-handing each other in their talks.

(cur) (last) 08:15, 6 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 11:10, 5 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,)

(cur) (last) 11:03, 5 October 2006 Seb Patrick (Talk | contribs) (Reverted removal of referenced statement. Please discuss on talk page before engaging in edit-warring reverts and accusations of slander.)

(cur) (last) 09:28, 5 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (RV slander. op-ed piece is not a valid source.)

(cur) (last) 06:28, 5 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) m (Revert - It doesn't matter if it's "slander", it's still referenced, unlike your statement. As I said before, I want solid evidence that the FIA did this report!)

(cur) (last) 02:11, 5 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (rv slander)

(cur) (last) 06:36, 4 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Reverted Back to Damage. See Talk Page Before You Even Bother Reverting)

(cur) (last) 19:43, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams - Taking a corner wide means you went to the outside on a corner and ended up off the track. it's very common race terminology. Why you do not know it is puzzling)

(cur) (last) 19:03, 2 October 2006 Ian Dalziel (Talk | contribs) (The track is the black bit. He ran over a green bit.)

(cur) (last) 18:15, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (http://www.sportinglife.com/fanzine/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1/06/09/28/AUTO_Column.html ruling on the icnident, FIA said there was no prove his car was damaged not he drove intentionally into)

(cur) (last) 18:08, 2 October 2006 Mark83 (Talk | contribs) (Restore damage report. Note: This is correctly referenced. If someone disputes it please state there was no damage AND PROVIDE A SUITABLE REF)

(cur) (last) 17:50, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams)

(cur) (last) 17:48, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams - I don't care what the slanderous english op-ed pieces. According to the official F-1 report it was unknown if any damage occured to his vehicle.)

(cur) (last) 08:30, 2 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Revert - Plus added cite from BBC for the damaged car bit.)

(cur) (last) 07:57, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (That's definitely not what i recall. Sure, he was catching him after he went off the road, but not before. gonna need a valid cite, given this involves reputations of two live persons.)

(cur) (last) 07:13, 2 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Revert but removed seriously...Come On - Everyone knows that if you hit the barrier as fast as Schumacher did it's gotta cause SOME damage. Plus, Hill WAS catching Schumacher.)

(cur) (last) 06:37, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (lies and speculation. Deja vues)

(cur) (last) 06:32, 2 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Revert - See the unusual Toe angle of Schumacher's rear tire. Also the star in the corner says it all)

(cur) (last) 02:34, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams - lies and speculation, not a good combination.)

---

That was the old incident(s), which was at the Damon Hill wiki. Now for the new incident, which was at the 2006 Formula One season wiki: Skully Collins again tries to insert and reinsert clearly libelous comments. I continue to revert him stating that the policy is such material must be immediately removed. I even go as far as to going into the talk page and saying what you can or cannot say. He does not cease until his revert limit is up. Then he calls over what appears to be another stooge to fight his edit war of attempted libel.

The claim was that Schumacher specifically stated he made an error/mistake regarding a --highly-- controversial racing incident in Monaco.

The supposed cite his this to say:

Q: A tense and breathtaking qualifying session, and you are on pole, but what happened to you in that incident at Rascasse?

Michael Schumacher: I locked up the front and went wide. I wasn’t sure what was going on after this because of the positioning of the cars and so on, so I was not aware and in the end, I checked with the guys what the situation was, where did we end up, because I didn’t expect to be sitting here right now in this position and they said P1, so I was glad considering what had happened.

Unfortunatley for Skully and his libelous ilk, there are nigh infinite amounts of events that could have unfolded to have caused him to lock up his brakes and go wide on that hair pin corner in monaco while never making an error/mistake. As a matter of fact, in the VERY NEXT question on that cite page he states he was having technical problems with his transmission. Are they linked? I sure the hell don't know; skully sure the hell don't know. Completely POV and completely conjectural interpreation of what he said. Here are a couple samples of the revert exchanges(they were all essentially the same, only the summaries varying a bit):

stereotypical revert exchange 1

stereotypical revert exchange 2

Keep in mind the following( Note: I only put this section here in "part four" because every person seems to keep suggesting I do certain things when in fact 95% of the time I TRIED TO DO THOSE EXACT THINGS. It doesn't matter because they know they can get any with anything they want because good ol' William M. Connolley is "on(?) duty"):

• I told them what they could include for it not to be libel/slander indiscussion page.
• I made it very clear what they were trying to force through was libelous/slanderous material of a very, very controversial incident.(people get fined millions of dollars for things like this and entire reputations ruined in Formula One)
• The main user in question Skully Collins has a history of libelous statements of this very same living person (michael schumacher).
• I explicitly followed wikipedia's rules, of which I will now present a large chunk of what it actually says about wiki-libel regarding such materials:

---

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

   I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

   Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. 

---

I ended up banned for 48 hours because I would not allow the libelous statement to be posted. When the wiki was edited without the slander/libel, however, I did not touch the wiki further. William M. Connolley is again, of course, the very admin that did this, claiming I'm using the wiki rules to enforce my POV. Hey,pal, I'm ENFORCING Jim Wales POV. You know who he is, eh? You might consider TRYING it some time. I'm sure he will be happy to know you are banning me for removing blatant libel against one of the richest people on the planet that could crush this site with litigation with just his weekend chump change. And even if that was the case "I'm using the rules to support my POV", which it is not, perhaps I should be like you and and enforce my point of view by NOT following wiki rules? Admin Luna Santin also refused my request to be unblocked. I have since requested another unblocking. Mango has also refused to lift the block, alleging that the cite in fact states that schuamcher did in fact say "he made an error".(dear mango, don't ever get a job as a lawyer.)Ernham 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I read your spiel at WP:AN and was wondering if you could provide diffs of said disputes. If you can, and if what you say is true, you could open an RFC against those who broke the 3RR rule and then blocked you. --172.198.40.82 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What are diffs, exactly? Ernham 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Differences, or diffs for short, show the change of a page between two edits. For instance, this diff shows me posting my message on your talk page. In order to do it, you simply click "history", then pick the two versions you'd like to compare by clicking the little buttons, then copying and pasting the URL you get. If you put it in brackets, you get [14], and if you put it in brackets, add a space, and type a word, you get this. --172.198.40.82 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ahh, I see. Yes, that should be a rather easy, though requiring a bit of time, feat.Ernham 08:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's extremely time consuming. However, if you were to gather all the diffs needed, compile them in a report, and make it as articulate as your spiel on the AN, you could bring to attention these admins who abuse their power. If what you say is true, they could be de-sysopped and possibly blocked. --172.198.40.82 08:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, for now i will place them in their respective "why I am not such a friendly editor" sections above, both of which are more thorough explanations of those events i talked about on the admin board.Ernham 08:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

De nada. --172.198.40.82 08:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relax.

Dude, you are incivil to people. Staying calm will get you a lot further on Wikipedia. Remember, people don't usually bother to check your contribs, so they judge you based on the edits they can see, usually to a single page. Keep your temper under control. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 09:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have(at least) two more entire chapters of "why i'm not a very friendly editor", and I've only been here a month. I think I've been amazingly civil given the circumstances, less than half of which you are aware of, if that. Ernham 09:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Simply, do not edit war, do not attack others. If you continue in this manner you will be blocked from editing. —Centrx→talk • 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, I may well not be aware of everything you have gone through, but being carelessly rude to people, as mentioned to you repeatedly, will simply get you blocked. You wrote "I think I've been amazingly civil given the circumstances". No. Civility is a constant. You are not allowed on Wikipedia, or indeed in real life for that matter, to be unpleasant to people because you're feeling hard done by. It's not on. And if you don't learn that, any genuine grievances you have will simply be ignored. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 18:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, please explain your six consecutive edits on my talkpage, accusing me of slandering you, opening an "administrator" against you, and attempting to smear you. Whose edits were reverts and vandalism? Mine? My first edit was to copyedit Anna of Kashin! Please justify what you said or it's coming down. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 07:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any comments toward you, actually. They were all directed at Mark83, who seems to invent reality as he goes.Ernham 07:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind not attacking other editors on my talkpage then? Please, heed my warnings about incivility. You may not like Mark83, but it is your duty as a Wikipedian to remain respectful to him. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 07:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There were no attacks, sorry, only factual accounting of events. Please stop saying I'm invicil, as that's a personal attackErnham 07:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is only a personal attack if you are not actually being incivil. But you are. And I think you've both grasped that and chosen to ignore it, so I'm going to stop replying here anymore. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So incivility is indeed all just a matter of "POV"? heh. Ernham 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is matter of contravening WP:CIVIL. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So, let's see here. "incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." So did you personally target me? Yes. Check! You could have 1) not said anything, which would have not created "greater conflict and stress". 2) stated something without an acusatory tone. Like "hey, you know if you do this or that, these other things might/might not happen" which would have not createda "greater atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."Instead, though, you opted for 3) point your crooked self-righteous finger at me and bark "incivility!!!" Well, I believe you have satisfied all the proper criteria for being incivil yourself, so you know where to point that finger nextErnham 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So you admit you are being incivil then? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I was making the point that it's all POV. Funny, thatErnham 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your continuing misintended edits to the Juan Manuel Fangio article

[edit] Schumacher comments

Ideally the relevant schumacher comment to this article is

Fangio is on a level much higher than I see myself

As i'd said previously, it is just that you dont like the statement. There is no quoting out of context as you are trying to claim. Otherwise, pls answer why the quoted bbc article's title is Schumi: Fangio was greater than me ?? (Kindly answer the question instead of making statements)

But wikipedia looks to strive hard for reaching a consensus. The same reason i was willing to compromise on the quote to include the statement containing the term personality

Fangio is on a level much higher than I see myself. ... You can't take a personality like Fangio and compare him with what has happened today. There is not even the slightest comparison.

even though it makes the quote too long and that the second part is not really relevant. However to retain it as you've quoted is certainly not the way. Not only is the comments you provided in brackets entirely your own claim, but it is far from an accepted way of quoting.

One can compromise, but only what can be compromised. Inspite of your lack of cooperation to resolve, I still feel that is the way to pursue, as seeking third party intervention, would mean a massive task since IMO it will require reviewing a large number of your distoring edits to multiple articles - Juan Manuel Fangio and Michael Schumacher that I know, and possibly others.. --Su30 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove them or include the context of which they were given.I can randomly clip out chunks of quotes and claim all sorts of nonsense. Schuamcher was not asked about how he compared himself "in general" or as "a driver" to Fangio. The way I have it is very clear as to context of the question. Ernham 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls see my previous question and the comment in brackets(quoted below)

Otherwise, pls answer why the quoted bbc article's title is Schumi: Fangio was greater than me ?? (Kindly answer the question instead of making statements)

One can see that as I feared(from prev experience with you) you've evaded from directly answering the question. This is one reason why you've consumed a lot of time for several editors. Request you again to answer to the point, my question.--Su30 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought my statement clearly answered your question. The BBC has that for a title because shumacher DID say that; however, he didn't --just-- say that, and he said it in a certain context. He did not walk out to the press and say " Well, I beat fangios record, but I see him as greater than me." He was talking about the personality of Fangio, how Fangio was in the sport on personal level. And then he adds a further stipulation "that you cannot compare him and fangio".Ernham 07:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

Nice. Try reading wikipedia's own god damn rules for once. "controversial material that is uncited or poorly cited regarding living persons must IMMEDIATELY BE REMOVED. And such removal does not count towards the 3RR. After this, I'll be emailing every admin I can find. You leave me no choice. You and your blatant disregard for the very rules you were appointed to enforce are a disgrace to wikipedia.Ernham 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking more and more like "rotten to the core". I'd love to see the look on yout faces if schumacher sued wikipedia for allowing slander/libel of him here. See how long you people remain admins then. Your name will included in the emails, by the way.Ernham 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unblock

If it was slander, yes you would be justified in exceeding 3 reverts (I think it would fall under "Reverting potentially libellous material"). However neither the cited fact that Alonso was about to go quicker or the difference between "simply made an error" and "insisted he was innocent" is slander. However I'm not going to get involved in saying yes or no to your unblock due to recent events. Mark83 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted any instance of slanderous material. They can continue to try to resubmit all they wish. The claim was that schumacher specically stated " he made an error". When the wiki was finally "edited" without adding the bit about him saying that he made a mistake, I did not further edit /revert/etc. it whatsoever.(One of the changes made was highly speculative and I made a section in the discussion/talk page about it, but i did not further revert after they ceased with the slander/libel). The supposed cite they supplied had nothing at all similar to the supposed claim of an error or mistake. You cannot put words in his mouth, only reiterate what he specfically stated in synonymous terms. In a billion dollar sport like formula one, presenting such materials as "admissions of guilt/error" as "true" statements is highly libelous/slanderous, as you VERY WELL KNOW!Ernham 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand. I agree with you, nowhere does it say in the given reference "I made an error". However Schumacher's first words are "I locked up the front and went wide." i.e. in other words he made a mistake. I agree it would have been better to leave it as a quote and not a paraphrase, but I don't think it's slander.

You don't know if that was an error or not. What if his brakes suddenly got too touchy? What if the vehicle had a minor malfunction causing him to do so? Hell, what if he did it intentionally? what was the question actually asked? No context was even given to the response. The point is: if he didn't say it, you don't know it. You can specualte all day, but you cannot put words in his mouth, period.Ernham 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Did you make this point clearly though during the reverts? Oh and the question in the post-quali press conference was "Q: A tense and breathtaking qualifying session, and you are on pole, but what happened to you in that incident at Rascasse?" Mark83 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the context was given in the cite but not in the wiki. Did you notice that the question is "what happened to you", not "what did you do"?Ernham 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In any event, you don't even have to know much about Formula One to know there is a nigh infinite amount of events that could have occurred to cause him to take a corner wide and/or lock the car up through no error of his own. Hell, his power steering could have been going out, causing him to take the corner wide and when he realized he still wasn't going to make the corner have to lock up the breaks to prevent from smaching into the wall. It's completely slander to say he said he made an error/mistake. Kangaroo madnessErnham 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there was a compromise which could have been reached. The current revision says "Although Schumacher insisted that he had simply locked up at the corner,[5] a stewards' inquiry stated, "We are left with no alternative but to conclude that the driver deliberately stopped his car on the circuit." is not in the least slanderous. Instead of reverting (which included removing other important info including the fact that Alonso was set to beat Schumacher's best time and not just what you called slander) you should have taken a time out and discussed the genuine concern you had about the other editor's phrasing of admission vs. maintaining innocence. But that's just my opinion. Mark83 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I personally know schumacher said was that he was completely "innocent of any wrong doing" and that "people should know better". Those are the only things I know he personally said, because I watched him say them (on TV, of course). Compromise could have been reached, sure, but as I stated, my only issue and why I was reverting was the obvious slander occurring. They knew full well all they needed to do was remove the claim he said he made an error. As soon as someone made that same edit without adding the slanderous bit, did I not stop reverting? It's that very instant that I went to the talk page to discuss obvious speculation that also went through with that edit that I did not revert. I didn't revert the sepculating, did I, even though I could of? This is just a little power game here. It will come down to whether or not the admin staff here are all corrupt to the core or just a bad apple is stinking up the bunch with his power tripping.Ernham 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this request standing, but please note that continued reposting of {{unblock}} may eventually result in your talk page being temporarily protected from editing. Luna Santin 02:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So be it. However,I see no rules stating you are limited to one, or any number for that matter, "unblock". Then again, since when are rules important around here? Ernham 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Such matters are chiefly covered in the protection policy and are pretty standard protocol for unblock abuse -- though I should clarify that I don't consider this unblock abuse. Admins are generally supposed to excercise their discretion in disruptive issues, and many editors are of the opinion that rules are descriptive more than prescriptive. Hope that clears that up. Under normal circumstances I'd have just responded to your unblock request, but since I did so for your last one, I can only assume you weren't happy with my response. ;) The comment was really more directed towards making note of the prior request (which is somewhat buried), while letting you know about the possibility of protection, though I'll admit it was a blunt way to do so. Luna Santin 04:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins are generally supposed to excercise their discretion in disruptive issues, and many editors are of the opinion that rules are descriptive more than prescriptive. I suppose the most power hungry among them would feel so. With hope, your qualification choice of "generally" is exaggerated. Might as well call this place Pravdapedia.Ernham 05:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your cite there might actually lead to a valid, logical argument, an incredible surprise to me. Hmmmm. As it says, "...if rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Let's put this through its paces: would allowing a user the ability to continuously revert someone else, in an overt attempt to force their POV into a wiki, be conducive to improving Wikipedia? Nah. Failed. Would allowing a user to repeteadly vandalize a wiki while banning those trying to fix that very same vandalism be conducive to improving Wikipedia? Nah. Failure there as well. Would allowing libelous comments to remain on wikis improve wikipedia? Nah. Hmm. Well, no luck so far. Oh, but wait, all those precious moments William Con.(how apropos) wasted while harassing me could have been spent REALLY screwing up wikipedia elsewhere. We have a winner! Then again, "maintaining" wikipedia sorta blows it all out of the water, though, logically, assuming maintaining means keeping it a bigoted, despot-filled "Pravdapedia" Ernham 05:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone actually agreed with you so far that any of your edits for "slander and libel" are in fact slander and libel? Every time you claim to be editing for slander and libel, an administrator or editor says that they do not see the statements as being inherently or blantantly slanderous, if at all. When you attempted to edit the Damon Hill article, did anyone else agree with your changes on the basis of slander? ESPECIALLY given that it was a featured article and various people with a grasp of slander and libel would have been reading over it? Or are you the only one that seems to know what you're doing when it comes to slander and libel? I'd say no.

Why? You seem to have no problem making outrageous, grandeous claims with no factual basis about Wikipedia and Wikipedia's administrators. Beyond the fact that your actions are downright childish, they are quite frankly hypocritical. If you want people to write in a civil, factual, unassuming manner regarding the articles you seem to watch over, then I'd suggest you treat them in a civil, factual, and unassuming manner when it comes editing their work.

You've been told various times to discuss things with people and to reach compromise. You failed. Your discussion regarding 2006 Formula One season only showed up nearly 2 hours after your 3RR of the article. You had ample opportunity to take it to the talk page after your very first revision. Instead you threatened to continue to edit the article the way you saw fit. You simply don't want to listen to people's suggestions that you need to compromise on these things. You have no one to blame but yourself for being under the watchful eye of certain administrators, simply because you are a habitual rule breaker.

There's no way I can sympathize with that in the least. The359 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rife with libel, the fact that wiki was a FA was indeed shocking. He had claimed not only that it was a "fact" schumacher's car was damaged, but that schumacher himself knew it was damaged at the time. That's probably why wales sounds semi-pissed off in that little bit about libel and why he actually took the time to comment personally, in caps no less. He's quite adamant and nothing less than crystal clear, so I'm sure he would have no reservations in labeling both this and the previous comments in the david hill article libel. It's all uncited, or if cited purely conjecture. It clearly states what is to be done with such material. Deletion. Libeling Schuamcher on such a huge media outlet that this is? You know how much he could sue for? He makes like 40 million in endorsements alone in a year. Ernham 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were crystal clear, everyone (or at least someone) would agree with you. Again, I've seen no one so far who has. The simple fact that MANY people agreed that the article was correct and fine on its own should tell you that you may need to reinterpret Jimbo Wales' words, especially when you assume to know how he'd react to the articles you have reverted multiple times, let alone YOUR actions taken to revert them. The simple fact that administrators, who I believe would have a slightly better grasp of what Jimbo Wales wants, have repeatedly told you that you are doing things wrong, should be the clearest sign of all that you're not doing things properly. I don't know how more crystal clear it could be.... The359 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You expect far too much. Most of the admins I've seen don't even know exactly what a reversion is. I was actually impressed that Faruson guy knew. First one of maybe five admins that I've seen that actually did. Heh. Most of these folks look like they don't know what the hell they are doing. Who would want to put their neck out on a chopping block for me, anyway, by agreeing? Hell, I have an admin that seems to have not the slightestof compuction that routinely attacks me via is powers. and now it looks like he spit right in the face of Wales's own dictum. that takes either some big balls or some small brains. Ernham 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You know more about Wikipedia's rules regarding revisions then the Wikipedia administrators in charge of checking on 3RR? I think not. You were just told by an administrator who you appear to not have any run-in with before that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WP:BLP, and yet you argue with them. All of this can be summed up quite simply: You can't admit that your interpretation is wrong. You want to sit here and tell administrators what their own reversion rules mean, you want to sit here and tell administrators what Jimbo Wales himself wants done with Wikipedia, you want to sit here and accuse administrators of purposely going after you simply because they are enforcing the rules in a manner that you don't agree with. And then you want to sit here and insult them, insult Wikipedia, and be flat out childish. You attempt to argue logic, yet you can't even see the logic that MULTIPLE administrators, as well as multiple non-administrators, all agree that you are doing wrong. If you think that someone agrees with you in regards to not only your actions in editing what you believe to be slander and libel, but also in your dealing with the administration here, then I suggest you find me a single soul that thinks you aren't doing anything wrong. The359 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You know more about Wikipedia's rules regarding revisions then the Wikipedia administrators in charge of checking on 3RR?

• well, I'm really not sure what admins that I've observed are "adminstrators specifically in charge of checking 3RR". So I can only substantiate empirically that, assuming my observations of the admins I've seen are representative of the general admin staff, a full 80% of them "know less".

I think not. You were just told by an administrator who you appear to not have any run-in with before that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WP:BLP, and yet you argue with them.

• Actually, it has nothing specifically to do with "WP:BLP"; it has to do with something tangent to it, however, that of wiki libel. The fact they continue to talk about WP:BLP demonstrates their incompotence of the matters actually being dealt with. The only reason they continue to go on with that is because I copy and pasted a chunk from the WP:BLP and put it in my edit summaries. I only did that because I had already made a concise version of the wording, which I used in previous exchanges with this specific liblous user, skully collins, to good effect I might add. This unblock request has been here an inordinate amount of time, and for good reason. No one wants to touch this with a ten foot pole. They know I was in the right, and they also know if they lift the block, they are placing themselves in adversarial position with at least 2 other admins. No one else has denied the unblock, either, because they know that this is ridiculous and they are smart enough not to flagrantly go against the very words of Jim Wales himself.

You want to sit here and tell administrators what their own reversion rules mean....

• The rules are not "their own". Well, they are, but not exclusively their own. The rules are technically "everyone's" in the "wiki-society". And like in a real society, the members mutually expect each other to follow such rules/laws to a reasonable degree.

...you want to sit here and tell administrators what Jimbo Wales himself wants done with Wikipedia,

• I need not have to. Jim Wales has specifically said what he wanted done himself regarding such matters, saving me the time.

you want to sit here and accuse administrators of purposely going after you simply because they are enforcing the rules in a manner that you don't agree with.

• The enforcement of rules by admin Billy "Con" is overtly biased and entrirely arbitrary. And after this most recent fiasco, I have serious reservations as to whether or not he will retain admin status. I can only guess he is feverishly working to appear "helpful" to wikipedia otherwise. Quality over quantity when dealing with humans, Billy, always. I guess I agree with you here, then, because I definitely disagree with the aforementioned behavior from an admin.Ernham 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hmm. Well, I guess we have another admin that wants to throw his hat into the ring. Good luck, man. You know if I was from some kind of PR company that works with Michael schumacher and you banned me for correcting libelous claims on this medium that you could very well be sued for massive damages, killing wikipedia? What the hell is wrong with you people?Ernham 05:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-blocked

I have re-blocked you for 3 days starting from now, due to your persistent personal attacks and legal threats while blocked (see WP:NPA and WP:NLT). Because of the nature of the abuse and your refusal to stop it, I will protect your user talk page until your block expires.--Konst.able^(Talk) 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, btw. Another chapter in the book, I guess. Not sure where *I* specifically threatened anyone with legal action, but your strange interpretation of reality are all that apparently matter.Ernham 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schumacher

OK. Can we discuss this on the talk page? Thanks. --4u1e 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean 94 Austrial Grand Prix? Sure. There isn't much to talk about, however.Ernham 20:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British media

Hi.I would really appreciate it if you could add specific stories and publications as examples. Over the weekend of his retirement there were many many complimentary stories in the British press. I think you mistake inclusion of his "indiscretions" as anti-Schumacher bias. Any full analysis of his career must at least mention it. You refer in particular to 1994 - it is not a suprise that tabloid newspapers went for Schumacher's jugular after this, that's what they do. However since you have included this I think it's your duty to point out that there are other sections of the British media that are balanced. It is unfair to pick out the worst examples of the British media and then apply the same label to the whole lot. Mark83 21:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You will have to take up your concerns of the "broad brush" with siffy sports and the Canadian media. LOL. I didn't write those articles, my friend. Ernham 21:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More personal attacks

After your many, many warnings do you not understand that "RVV again you vandalize and are unable to read a cite. The poll is on the same page as that article.Learn to read, for the fourth time" is a personal attack?

1. That was not vandalism, it was removing a totally unscientific poll (as admitted by the BBC).
2. It is not up to others to go searching for information, it should be fully referenced in the cite. The only way the poll result is visible is to actually vote and I was looking at the article CONTENT for the 10,000 voter poll. It is up to the person creating the citation to be clear where the information came from.

You could have reverted the information by saying "The poll is on the same page as that article", you should not comment on users but content. The allegation of vandalism and the "Learn to read" comment are totally extraneous, blatant personal attacks and are disruptive. Mark83 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All polls are unscientific. All you do is vandalize that wiki 24-7 and I'm tired of it and the admins not doing anything about it. You pulled this exact same nonsense in the past with removing cited works in vandal-like attacks on the wiki, then later claiming it is all an accident because you refuse to read the damn cites you delete.Ernham 00:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This poll is totally unscientific and unacceptable as a source - I could spend the night voting and voting to manipulate the result. Formal surveys cannot be manipulated in this way. And I know you've convinced yourself that I am a vandal, however numerous editors and admins have reviewed your complaints and have come to the correct conclusion. I have nothing to hide. I tell you what, open a Request for comment on me if you're so convinced and let's see what response you get. hinj

Mark83 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, how can you spend the whole night voting? I suppose you could if you wanted to use a ton of proxy IPs(you would run out rather quickly and it would be very time consuming), but you would assume there would be as many disengeuous persons out there for all involved in a given poll, since you have no evidence to assume otherwise, and the differences dissapears. All anonymous polls are similar. They aren't perfect represenations of public opinion, but are indicative of it. That's what a poll is...Ernham 00:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain further. Many, many polls are quite scientific, because the surveyors take the pain to gather a sample which is both significant and representative of the population in general. The poll you're referring to, while probably significant (10,00 answers is significant) is very likely not to be representative as it is embedded in an article that promotes the merits of Schumacher's achievements and compares them to those of other "greats" in the F1 sport, thus making it likely there are significantly more Schumacher fans in the respondant sample than there is in the actual population. Not trying to lecture you, justr trying my best to fully explain my train of thought. These, please believe me, are not personal attacks. These are things that if you disagree with them, you should rightfully take to the talk page and we will be glad to answer them.--Ramdrake 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it should have been taken to the talk page first instead overtly vandalizing the wiki claiming a "bogus" cite and then try tore-vandalize on the claim that "polls are unscientific". What a shock? Same old nonsense.Ernham 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I was vandalising the page (presumably from a position of anti-Schumacher bias) I would have removed the FIA poll also. However that is a scientific poll and it is a welcome addition to the article. If you read Ramdrake's comment above you would realise that due to the nature of the article its attached to there are going to already be proportionately more pro-Schumacher readers, and hence the poll is going to be skewed. Your excuse for breaking the 3RR in the past of claiming to be reverting vandalism has not yet worked and I doubt it will this time. Mark83 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can click on the link to the poll and judge to what degree the material may or may not be biased and the poll itself caries the caveat that "results are indicative but may not reflect public opinion" or something to that effect. I say the people could be biased AGAINST schuamcher because the article itself is against the "greatness" of schumacher as well as it being from a British media outlet. It goes both ways. It's a poll, it's not supposed to be perfect; they are by default imperfect. Nonetheless, the results of the poll are the results of the poll. Just because you don't like the results does not give you the right to vandalize the wiki, like you have tried to do in the past. Ernham 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have NEVER vandalised ANY article. You seem so sure that I have, so go ahead with my RFC suggestion. Get my "vandalism" stopped. Mark83 00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have better things to do then get into petty spats with you and Ramdrake with your constant abuse of wiki rules.Ernham 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be more convincing if you hadn't spent hours (literally many many hours) editing this page to explaing to people why the rules and those who try to uphold them are so stupid (I'm paraphrasing). Mark83 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Those are not for you or Ramdrake. Those are for people that actually give a damn about wikipedia and care about abuse of power and biased admins and a variety of other factors. You and Ramdrake don't give one iota about the various wikis you seem to delight and messing with. All you care about is your agendas, not truth or facts, and you will abuse the wiki rules as much as possible for those ends. And I'll take a stand, again and again. Someone has to. Ernham 01:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

so the supposed arguments that have lead to the attempted deleting of legitimate information is that "polls are unscientific". Well, that means no polls could ever go on a wiki. They are all unscientific, no matter if they are randomly sampled or not because you can never sample the entire population. that fails the common sense test. The claims that the poll could be biased; bias occurs in all polls. Even including something as the first item on a list will have an influence on the poll. That's part of many reasons why polls are NOT exact replications of public opinion but merelt indicative. This same warning of the a polls "only indicative" nature is clealry stated on the cited poll so no one is "confused" about that issue, even though that's common sense regarding public polls anyway. The other claim is being an online poll anyone can vote any number of times, which is simply not true because a unique IP is required for every vote, making "stacking" the voting near impossible. And in anonymous polls where "stacking" can occur, it's assumed that all selections on the given poll have the same chance of getting a "stacked" reponse and that they cancel each other out, but nonetheless do descrease the reliability even further. The reality is people want the poll censored becaused they don't like the results of it. Period. Ernham 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "all polls are unscientific"; you saif they were all unscientific. What I said was that a good proportion of polls are painstakingly engineered so they are representative. That's not hard to do. And if you knew anything about statistics, youd'd know you don't need to poll more than a small portion of the target audience to get a poll that's actually very representative. These kinds of polling and statistical methods are used in most elections to determine a winner for a particular seat when only a fraction of the electorate's vote has been processed, and you know what? It's accurate the overwhelming majority of the time (just figure out how many judicial recounting you've heard of in elections in your country). Polls, if they are representative, are a good approximation of public opinion, most of the time (well constructed poll will indicate they are representtive within x%, y% of the time; less well constructed polls, or ad hoc polls such as the one we're speaking of, do NOT have this information, and that's how we can tell they're not representative, unless there's a disclaimer saying they're merely indicative, which the poll under discussion also had). So as far as I can tell, you (unfortunately) don't have even a stub of a leg to stand on. I'd advise you to quit while you're still not that far behind.--Ramdrake 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All polls are indeed unscientific because they do not follow the scientific method. Heh. Apparently you aren't quite aware of what all that means, and i don't have time to teach you. The best polls are indeed as represenative as possible, but they can never be truly representative because the entire population cannot be sampled. That's how it works. I'm sorry if you don't like that but that's the reality we have to deal with when it comes to polling public opinion on some matter. If you happen to have a more valid poll that used a "representtive sample" that was given randomly, then feel free to post that one instead.Ernham 01:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please go take a look at Opinion_poll before uttering again that all polls are unscientific because they do not follow the scientific method. That is utterly false, so, since I don't think you're a liar, the only option left is that you don't know what you're talking about. And of course, even the best polls will have a margin of error and an interval of confidence (that's what statistics is about), but the kind of poll you want included does not even have a representative sample (or any representativity which can be proven).--Ramdrake 12:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from attacking other editors; if you do so while blocked, as I see you have done in the past, your block will once again be lengthened. --§hanel 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. It is interesting that were several 3RR complaints ahead of this one yet this one was dealt with with such celerity that I'm amazed, though not surprised, at your efficiency. Heh. As long as I am able, I won't let people ruin something that's such a great idea as wikipedia, admins or not. Sleep well, "Shanel". Ernham 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You said you have better things to do than open an RFC on me. Well since you're so convinced I'm a vandal either go get a second opinion through an RFC or whatever other avenue you can or else stop calling me a vandal. Mark83 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F1 insiders etc

Ernham, would you mind discussing this on the Michael Schumacher talk page before removing it again? We started a discussion on it about a week ago. You haven't responded to the points raised there, or objected to my statement of the 30th Oct that I was going to reinstate the phrase. Thanks. --4u1e 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only removed the weasel words that are being used. "many formula one insiders" is completely weasel, and you know that Ernham 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be if it weren't a direct quote from a cited source. I've amended your version to give the direct quote so we're absolutely clear. Hopefully that's a compromise we can both live with! :) Cheers. --4u1e 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Including a direct quote doesn't make it any less weasel. The author in question is a nobody in F1. Why does he not cite some examples of people? Ernham 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Alan Henry has been reporting on F1 for 30 years. He's written upwards of 20 books on the topic and been a regular correspondent for, amongst others, The Guardian and Autocar. His view in itself is worthy of consideration. I imagine he does not cite examples because he was writing a book, not a wikipedia article - although he and his publishers will of course have been careful to avoid making libellous claims. I suggest that he also did not cite sources because saying that 'many people in F1 thought Schumacher was to blame' is not a particularly controversial view - for an example just listen to Jonathan Palmer's commentary on some of the Youtube clips - there's no doubt at all in his mind that Schumacher was completely to blame.--4u1e 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men's tennis forums

Hey, are you the same Ernham who posts on the men's tennis forum site?? I noticed you've made a few tennis edits here so I was just wondering.Bremen 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1954 World Cup Final

Can you please explain why did you remove the paragraph about doping allegations without explainig why? I wrote my motivation in the talk page. Wht not read it before making changes? Asendoh 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

You've been warned before about personal attacks. Referring to my edits as vandalism is a personal attack; I strongly suggest you not do so. It's also incorrect; please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand why. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting valid encylopedic content with little/no explanation is "simple vandalism". Ernham 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But you called me a vandal after this edit, which I explained quite clearly as "Nothing in that reference supports this assertion". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure what I was thinking that day. May have been reverting someone else "over you" or something and referred to them. Ernham 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerez 1997 in lead of Michael Schumacher

Hi Ernham. Long time no talk, hope you're well. You've removed the para on championship deciding collisions from the lead of Michael Schumacher again. Its original inclusion in the lead was discussed on the talk page and it was debated again after the last time you removed it. The consensus was to keep it. I'd be grateful if you could join the discussion at Schumacher's talk page. Cheers. 4u1e 09:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Block

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

Nishkid64 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

what 3RRV? Explain immediately.Ernham 06:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Block seems to have been made in error. User_talk:Nishkid64#User:Ernham suggests other editors agree. No recent 3rr violation has been made on Michael Schumacher Request handled by: ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I'm glad there are at least some admins here with any compunction whatsoever to fulfill their roles as such. This is not the first time I've been adminstatively attacked on bogus 3RR(and other) claims. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be the last, as admins such as you seem to be a distinct minority.Ernham 08:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an endorsement of your conduct. I'm very close to blocking you for incivility. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you had to deal with the crap I deal with just try to get an honest NPOV verions of things, you'd be incivil too, especially when admins seem more biased than editors. Lik this case. All an accident? Heh. Ok. Ya.Ernham 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, the next time you falsely refer to an editor as a vandal or an edit as vandalism, you will be blocked for personal attacks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, jpgordon = Jsmith? Pretty confusing here. I refer to vandalism as exactly it states(or stated) in the wikipedia definition, one of which is the deletion of valid encyclopedic content.Ernham 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me on this. The next time you call someone a vandal and I disagree, you will be blocked, immediately. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the incorrect 3RR block. It appears that I must have misinterpreted the rewording of a section as a revert, and I had considered that justification for the 3RR block. I don't have a personal vendetta against (frankly, I don't even know you), but after seeing your previous edits, I made a generalization that may or may not be wrong. Admins do make mistakes from time to time, and I assure you that mine was a mistake, and nothing more. Nishkid64 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damon hill

Since you seem to feel so strongly against it being a FA maybe you'd like to contribute to it's FAR.Buc 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damon Hill

Hi Ernham. A genuine question regarding your recent edits to Damon Hill. Do you regard the use of the term 'the German driver' to be point of view? I ask because you removed it with your last edit, although I can see that it wasn't the main aim of the changes. It's a phrasing I use every now and again (not for German drivers only, I hasten to add!), purely for variety. I think I've seen you remove similar wording a few times, so while I can see nothing POV about it, I'm interested to know whether it appears that way to someone else. 4u1e 16:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No. That had nothing to do with the changes I made to the Hill Wiki. I just write it how I think it sounds best/most efficient; rarely is "the German" superior to "Schumacher", however. I made several changes with that edit, most of which fell under the category of "pov". Ernham 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I know that wasn't the main point of those edits, but am reassured that use of the approach, where the driver's name already appears too often in a short paragraph, causes no offence. Cheers. 4u1e 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are generally written with a robotic prose such as that. Rarely do they ever rename a proper noun. Though it may be more "boring", it's easier to read the material for comprehension, easier to find data with the search feature, and in the case of Schumacher even saves bandwidth/storage space. Always keep in mind it's a dictionary and not a novel.Ernham 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's neither a dictionary or a novel, and that the appropriate approach lies somewhere in between. I hadn't thought about the savings in space though! :D 4u1e 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, encylopedias are written in the same prose dictionaries are, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. For me, the biggest issue is information retrieval, the main function of an ecyclopdia. Consider for a moment I went to the Hill wiki and wanted to find information on something related to Schumacher that Hill had been involved in. If I search for Schumacher, I might miss information that was tagged with "the german". Whatever the case may be, my eyes have to do the all the checking instead of the browser's search feature.Ernham 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is where we get into the details of when I would use 'the German driver' as a substitute - as a rough rule of thumb, the first time I mention the guy in a section of the article, I would use his name. If I find I'm using the name again in each of the next three sentences, I would probably substitute one of those with something else, 'the German driver', the seven-time world champion' etc. So your search for 'Schumacher' would bring you to the first mention and you would presumably keep reading until the para stops referring to him. If there's a gap before the next appearance of the driver, I would again use his name, so a search would find him. Interesting point though, I don't know if I'd clarified to myself why I would do it like that. 4u1e 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I've asked the Wikipedia community to comment on the issue of Kiri Jewell's testimony being qualified with unsourced allegations. You may want to respond to this RFC at Talk:David_Koresh#Request_for_Comment:Kiri_Jewell_testimony Devious Viper 13:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's see if we can come to an understanding

Hi Ernham. I'm writing here because I'm sick of all the bickering on the Wittgenstein talk page. I saw your last edit/deletion, and I've adjusted the page in the most strictly factual way that I can. If you don't want to call Wittgenstein Jewish or even half-Jewish, on account of a non-maternal "inheritance" of Jewishness, then so be it. I don't have a political agenda, and I really couldn't care less about Kimberly Cornish or her ideas regarding any relationship that Wittgenstein may or may not have had with Hitler when they were both seven years old. Frankly, I find it unlikely, to say the least, that Hitler's anti-semitism was all down to his interaction with one rich kid in grammar school. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Jewishness, or the idea thereof, played a role in Wittgenstein's thinking about himself at various times in his life--as did Catholicism, Protestantism of at least the Kierkegaardian variety, and, for that matter, his sexuality (another can of worms which, when opened, tends to bring out the worst in some people). Have a look at the new edit, and click on the link if you want. You'll find that nowhere is it said that Wittgenstein is half-Jewish (which seemed to be the major problem for you), but it does make clear what is in the end a matter of public knowledge: That his father was born Jewish (in the "strict" sense, i.e., he was Jewish both maternally and paternally) and converted to Protestantism, and that his mother was half-Jewish (in the "weak" sense that you have been taking issue with, i.e., on her father's side) and half-Catholic. That's it. Nothing controversial or bizarre about it, and nothing, in my opinion, that will warrant a knee-jerk reversion of the variety that you threatened in your last editing comment. In the two years since I started contributing to this website, I've never been involved in an editing war, and I don't intend to break that streak now. That kind of nonsense is nothing but a waste of time and energy. But judging from the comments on this talk page of yours, I'd say you're well aware of that. Buck Mulligan 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFPP

I'm disappointed with you. I would figure that someone with a lot of experience on Wikipedia would know that fully protecting pages is never intended to be an endorsement of a version of the page. Regardless of who requests it, I will just protect, and not get involved in the actual dispute.

Go to the talk page, and discuss with the user. I'm not going to change your version or anyone's version just because they want it that way. Nishkid64 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And just to let you know, I have no clue what the article is really about, so my decision was just based on the fact that I wanted to clear the backlog at WP:RFPP. Nothing more, nothing less. Nishkid64 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that supposedly being the case. However, the system is too easy to abuse, like many things on wikipedia. This is one situation, however, that could be easily prevented.Ernham 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what article the dispute was on, or what the content was about. By the way, you could have prevented this dispute by discussing with the user instead of reverting. Nishkid64 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for the following comments:

• If this does not get deleted, I'd probably consider creating a "Ashkenazi Incestousness" wiki, and we will see if the same people use the same arguments for keeping it. We will use all sorts of fun stuff, like propensity for genetic defects, inbreeding customs, and niffty annecdotal things like Einstein marrying his cousin. Then we can all watch what a crock wikipedia is. [16]
• He states why most studies have been flawed. He is an expert; you are a nobody. Who should we believe? [17]
• And by having it sourced along with the material, you can often invoke vandalism status to the reversions. Sometimes it seems to be the only why to save wiki's from POV pushing bigots [18]

You are an experienced editor, and be familiar with the policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The length of this block is 72 hours, based on your previous blocks for incivility and personal attacks. Khoikhoi 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You block me for no reason whatsoever, other than I stand for the truth. Enjoy your "uber" internet powers.Ernham 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• And when you get back, if you falsely accuse anyone of vandalism or commit any more personal attacks again, the block will be for a month. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I think your repeated bullying with threats is creating a negative environment, hence a personal attack. Maybe you should block yourself for a bit, you know, to cool off. Ernham 04:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you were warned. This is unacceptable. See you in a month.

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go power trip on someone else. I'm not impressed. I've made no personal attack, and you are abusing your powers. Ernham 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)