User talk:Grunt/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 * a note on the plant cells article you deleted 2 WFP Edits 3 VIP & templates 4 Article Licensing 5 Antifinnugor 6 Adminship 7 RFC pages on VfD 8 The taxman cometh 9 Request 10 Congrats 11 While you were away... 12 Wikimania 2005 banner translation? 13 Vandalism 14 Call for AMA election 15 Confirmation of Former Member Status 16 Anti-American 17 Alberuni ban 18 Antifinnugor 19 Darwin arbitration case 20 Injuction 21 Perpetuating stereotypes 22 Your sig - what character? 23 Possible Arbcom Violation 24 ArbCom - Robert the Bruce 25 OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling

[edit] * a note on the plant cells article you deleted

While you were right to delete it, what it says in your explination of its content is true: there are very few people working on wikipedia's plants section. Since there is so much lacking information in this section iv have mostly been there instead of my other (farely complete) intrest area, birds. How come' so many new articles are created on people, but very few users are very active in the soft sciences section (theres no article on respitory!!! [gasp]). at the moment our [wikipedia's] plants section leaves mutch to be desierd. On your talk page you mentioned how many edits you had done. I recently came to wikipedia and have avaraged about 1 page a day and .5 major edits a day for abot...eh 2 weeks. I was hoping that you might have suggestions for me to speed up my very slow progrees so i can get more things done here?

P.s. I wish i had been one year older so i could vote liberal in this american election, too

as you can see above, my normal typing skills leves much to be desierd (thats part of the reason im here-to improve it) i can promise that i dont make that many mistakes in my edits (even if it takes awile to get my words just right) Fledgeling 03:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI: This IP 128.187.0.164 is a public computer

[edit] WFP Edits

Why did you revert my WFP corrections?

I did not revert the changes; I was simply making use of the "page move" feature to ensure that the history of the page was kept in the rightful location. You may want to create an account to gain access to this future. -- Grunt   ҈  15:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Please be adovcate! Thanks. Chuck F 12:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VIP & templates

As tempting (templating?) as it is, don't try to use templates on WP:VIP -- they'll invariably run into the five-template-expansion restriction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I missed the subst: there as was intended; thanks for pointing that out :) -- Grunt   ҈  18:14, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Yeah, except "subst" doesn't work with parameters, unless they've fixed that bug without telling me... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Antifinnugor

Hi Grunt -- I don't know if I'm even supposed to address you here as long as the case is under consideration. But I would like to draw your attention to the belatedly added evidence here: afu's 'references' are not in fact backing up his edits, and they are not 'his' references, since they were provided by his critics for his education, and have long been accepted into the main article. regards, dab (ᛏ) 12:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Salve, Grunt!
Back in September I was a candidate for adminship, but I withdrew and since then, I've been working away and have now decided to try again, nominating myself. Though you voted to oppose at that time, you seemed receptive to a future candidacy and, therefore, I'd appreciate your vote on the new candidacy at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 19:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grunt, you know I wasn't doing this out of bad-faith. I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to do this. Only, how else do I discuss this issue with all other admins except message them all? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grunt, an explanation of my recent comments regarding that message. I was a bit steamed up about the whole block thing. I wasn't aware that messaging all admins was considered "spam" when it was an administrative question about VfD. You might like to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu. Cheers mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The taxman cometh

"One taxman I wouldn't mind paying. :P -- Grunt  ҈ 23:43, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)"

I trust payment is in the mail, else liens will be promptly filed against any and all assets you own. Only a donation to Wikipedia will be accepted in lieu of tax payment. Thank you for your consideration. - Taxman 14:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi, Neutrality and I are engaged in an edit war. He has also contributed to a request for arbitration (and RfC) against me. He has just blocked me.

Please note that the block occurred just after I had discovered a new RfAr against myself, and was starting to provide rebuttals to it.

I consider this an abuse of his adminship.

Could you look into this action, and consider whether un-blocking me is appropriate? CheeseDreams 23:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Grunt -- congratulations on your election to the AC. I am pleased to see the group who has been elected, and I have great confidence in your abilities. If I can ever be of any help, please let me know. Merry Christmas and best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congatulations Grunt! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey! Congrats. Glad you got in the ArbCom!--Zappaz 00:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations! I know you'll do well. I have filed a Friend-of-the-ArbCom briefing for you to read at your leisure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations. As you probably know from observing American politics, the narrowness of your margin of victory doesn't necessarily limit your activity while in office; you have the same authority as any other Arbitrator. The one consequence, however, is that you got last choice (in other words, none at all) with respect to how long of a term you will serve. The others having made their selections, you have been given a two-year term to conclude on 31 December 2006. Good luck with it! --Michael Snow 22:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm glad you made it. I want to wish you and your loved ones a Happy Holiday and may this New Year bring you happiness and lots of joy. Tony the Marine

[edit] While you were away...

... you were the centre of attention. GNAA attention. The little devils discovered they could create accounts with nonprintable characters in their username and it looks like you were vandalising. However, as you know, you weren't. I think we only blocked you from editing like, 3 or 4 times. You should be cool now though :-) Welcome back, innocent bystander! How does it feel to be collateral damage? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey dude, we have had an interesting night/day. Basically IRC came under attack by someone using "Grunt" as a nick (most memorable line-> "<Grunt> I R FROM CANADA STATES OF AMERICA"). And because no ops were around we tolerated it until someone from chanserv opted a few people (one of whom even opted me) and banned them. Unfortunetly we were not so successful on the wiki.

Anyway this user and his GNAA friends found a glitch in the new software and proceeded to first attack your page then a few others. If you'll note my contributions it will generally give you an outline of the attack. We either successfully blocked him/them or they wore themselves out.

Eitherway, I unprotected all my other protections except your user page because it was the real hot spot and you are able to unprotect if you want. Thanks :) Arminius 10:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2005 banner translation?

Hi, do you still need the translation for that Wikimania 2005 banner to Spanish? I can do it for you. I have Photoshop, but I can just give you the text if you prefer that. --Arca 23:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

If you have been vandalized 173 times, shouldn't that tell you something about your status among the wikipedia populace? --GNAA Staos 12:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Of course it should. It shows him that he's doing an excellent job at something, and that the people who desire to damage Wikipedia hope to hinder him. (The average, normal member of the Wikipedia populace does not want to damage Wikipedia, and does not vandalize). Keep up the good work, Grunt! -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• IHL. --GNAA Staos 00:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Well, there's two possible interpretations:
  1. Grunt has a positive effect on Wikipedia and those who seek to have a negative effect on Wikipedia attack him as he opposes them.
  2. Grunt has a negative effect on Wikipedia and those who seek to have a positive effect on Wikipedia attack him as he opposes them.
• Which of the two is the case is a hornet's nest that I don't intend to touch with a ten foot pole. --Rolloffle 06:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please start mediating? - Andre Engels 16:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call for AMA election

AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that now you are an Arbitrator, you should stand down from the AMA (see "Rules of the Association") jguk 19:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, based on how the AMA is set up, I've taken the liberty of removing you from the list, so feel free to ignore this discussion. --Michael Snow 23:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation of Former Member Status

You are listed on the AMA Members Statement pages, I will note that you were a member and are now no longer eligible to continue your membership while an arbitrator (but hope you come back after your term is completed). — © Alex756 20:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-American

May I again ask you to remove the references to you being "anti-American" from your userpage. To my mind they are not appropriate for any user, let alone an Arbitrator. Keeping them there, despite many users asking you to remove them, shows that you have an appalling lack of judgment (which presumably, is not the impression you wish to give). Believing that the comment is defensible only makes it worse.

I would add that I can see you are young, not yet at university. When you grow older and enter the workplace you will appreciate why negative comments such as these are frowned upon. Indeed, if I were to express those views, I would (quite rightly) be soon out of a job. Irrationally slating a whole nation of people is unacceptable in today's age. It has taken humanity thousands of years to get here. Let's keep it that way, jguk 19:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check out his posts and you will see that not only is he anti-american, he is very pro-Islam and uses an iron fist on anyone slightly critical on Islam.

• Thousands of years to get to GWB? Let's NOT keep it that way, plzkthx. --GNAA Staos 18:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know about that, Jguk .... I'm sure many people have personal opinions that they don't let interfere in their formal work. In fact for many positions its a necessity. Sometimes those who aren't running with the pack are the only ones who can see and say where the pack is going wrong. Did you notice how people both American and non-American are often happy to "irrationally slant a whole nation" when it suits them. "America" is a construct, a common agreement by individual human beings. To be against a construct is not to be against the individuals who create and maintain that construct, and to believe a construct has developed problematic flaws is in some ways parallel to believing that a building is no longer 100% safe. So I can see how there is a critical difference between being anti-American, and anti-Americans. It's the same as how one could have genuine concerns with the political actions of Israel and not be an anti-semite, or serious disapproval of the Chinese govt and yet not have bias in respect of Chinese people. FT2 03:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Grunt has not represented himself as "anti-American construct" or "anti-American government," he has portrayed himself as "anti-American" and made quite clear he means people, not concepts. His many attempts at explaining away his bigotry have only emphasized it. As jguk noted, Grunt is likely not yet at university; I was older than he when I was in the American South in an era when there were still signs for "colored cabins" and "no dogs or Jews allowed" signs on luncheonettes. Yet I knew admitted bigots who insisted that their bigotry would not affect their fair-mindedness or ability to deal with others. Just like Grunt: "Also please note that I have explicity stated here that I do not let bias get in the way of my editing." I don't like to attack him because he is young; many good Wikipedians are and I was myself quite active politically at his age. I attack his behavior in this regard because this attitude is a glaring indication of his immaturity; in his hubris he tells us, on his user page: "The basic fact is that I am strongly opposed to the current American administration and its policies and actions, and view a "typical American" to be one that blindly supports that administration (otherwise they would not legitimately be in power). It seems to me that most Americans with the skill and knowledge to edit Wikipedia do not fall into this category in that they are at least informed enough to understand why they support the current policy (if they happen to support it)." Well, there are more "typical Americans" since last November than when he originally wrote that. I submit Grunt has not the worldliness to make such a broad judgment. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alberuni ban

You've been stating that Alberuni is banned for 12 months, based on the ArbCom ruling. However, isn't he banned for 13 months, 1 month for 3RR violations, and a further 12 months for "numerous personal attacks"? Jayjg | (Talk) 04:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Arbcom is limited to a maximum one year ban relating to any one case. -- Grunt   ҈  04:17, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

[edit] Antifinnugor

Hi Grunt -- I don't know if I'm even supposed to address you here as long as the case is under consideration. But I would like to draw your attention to the belatedly added evidence here: afu's 'references' are not in fact backing up his edits, and they are not 'his' references, since they were provided by his critics for his education, and have long been accepted into the main article. regards, dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to my Arbitration request that relates to you. Ollieplatt 13:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin arbitration case

I'm not quite sure why I was named as a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute. I merely reverted some edits that were (in my view) clearly against the consensus on the talk page, just as I do tens of times a day in the course of RC patrolling. Has whoever filed this case explicitly filed against me? Otherwise I'm not sure why I'm listed as a party in this RfAr, and would prefer not to be. RfAr is not about content disputes after all. --fvw* 03:47, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

There was a list cited in the evidence in Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln on which you were listed. The other disputants in this case may or may not file further evidence against you; if they do not, you can probably safely stay away from the case. -- Grunt   ҈  04:01, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Grunt, being mentioned in a list on a talk page doesn't make anyone a disputant. Similarly, being named in a list of people who support or oppose specific content (the list appears on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin/Lincoln_dispute) doesn't make one a party to the arbitration case, which relates to Vfp15's behaviour, not the content in question. Being called a "disputant" in this is appropriate only to those who brought or endorsed a complaint. - Nunh-huh 04:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Injuction

Dear Steven

I note your chronic abuse of power in organizing an injunction against me.

I have the following questions relating to the injunction:

1. Have others been similarly injuncted before?
2. Did the presence of outside websites about you and Ron Melenchuk influence your decision?
3. In what circumstances do you believe you ought to resign from ArbCom?
4. Do you believe a high school student is capable of making decisions of the kind expected of you? Do you believe a high school student is able to maintain the confidence of others?

Ollieplatt 02:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I answer accordingly:

1) Yes, although not in my tenure as arbitrator. I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy for an example.

2) No.

3) I would resign if the community reached a general decision to remove me in the context of an Arbitration Committee election. As it stands, that is not likely to happen. It has already been established that I have amongst the highest levels of support in the community of those willing to be arbitrators; otherwise I would not be an arbitrator.

4) Yes; merely communicate with any of the higher level officials of Wikipedia (including Jimbo Wales himself, if you must) to demonstrate the level of trust that is generally noted of me within the community.

I hope this answers the questions you have posed to me here. -- Grunt   ҈  02:13, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

He certainly has my confidence, although that probably doesn't mean a whole lot to a lot of people. RickK 05:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetuating stereotypes

I completely understand your position in regard to the current American administration, as well as your views on its policies and actions. However, your comments (and reasoning) behind using the term "typical American" appears to be in error as you seem to be committing the fallacy of faulty generalization. Additionally, the Wikipedia example (and exception) you provide illustrates the fallacy of overwhelming exception. Americans are a diverse people, evenly split on many of the policies facing their nation. The "typical American", as you describe it, is a stereotype, just as a "typical Canadian" would be in this case. Using the term "anti-American" as you do is merely a form of discriminatory rhetoric and is not helpful in any way. Personally, I feel that you have it on your page to get a rise out of people, or provoke debate. While that may or may not be the case, the statement on your user page reflects poorly on any interest in neutrality you might wish to portray, and illustrates a logical flaw you may wish to correct. Discriminating against a single person because of their actions or beliefs is one thing, but generalizing about 293 million people is quite another. I think you will discover the type of blind patriot you describe as a "typical American" in every country, as the phenomenon of groupthink (or similar descriptions) is not unique to any one nation but is a particular trait observed in human behavior. --Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig - what character?

Could you tell me what the character in your sig is supposed to be? I can only see a blank box, so apparently one of my Unicode ranges is using a too limited font. If you could tell me the exact range (e.g. Greek extended or whatever) I'd really appreciate it. Jordi·✆ 15:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's Cyrillic character 0x488, which in the font I use is a circle of dots. -- Grunt   ҈  17:55, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Thanks! Jordi·✆ 18:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those whose browsers interpret the character correctly, it looks like this - Nunh-huh 00:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...that's interesting, odd, and certainly not what it's supposed to look like. I might have to work on this a bit :) -- Grunt   ҈  00:28, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Arbcom Violation

As I understand it, User:CheeseDreams is prohibited from editing Christianity-related articles for 1 year (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams#Final_decision). Recently, I merged the content of Osiris-Dionysus into Life-death-rebirth deity. CheeseDreams restored the Osiris-Dionysus article.

In said article, the word 'Jesus' occurs 5 times, 'Christ' 4 times, 'Christianity' and 'Jewish Messiah' once each. This in a three-paragraph article. To my mind this is Christianity-related, and in violation of the arbcom decision. Any idea who I go to about this? Thanks, Bacchiad 01:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Curious, Bacchiad themselves asked me to edit the article, which is about Greek and hellenic gods, as well as those of Egypt, Syria, and Babylon. Seems like a deliberate attempt at a trap by a sockpuppet of one of the people filing the RfC against me. I wonder who you really are, Bacchiad? CheeseDreams 23:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With respect, please keep accusations such as these off of my talk page unless they're directed at me. If you're looking to complain to someone about an arbcom violation, try the admin noticeboard. Also please put these comments at the _bottom_ of my talk page. -- Grunt   ҈  00:06, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom - Robert the Bruce

Hi Grunt. I'm watching this page with interest, and would like to comment. Unfortunately, the discussion page seems to redirect to the old discussion page at present. I would imagine that we should have a new discussion page for comments on the current RfA. Please could you fix? - Jakew 16:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Fixed. -- Grunt   ҈  20:50, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Hi Grunt, Your contribution history seems to be truncated and so I am unable to view the history. I notice that you invited Jaijg to lead evidence in my AC matter. Why? And who else did you inform/invite and why? This is in the interests of transparency you understand. Please post reply into the appropriate place on the AC pages. Thank you. - Robert the Bruce 04:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I invited Jayjg to lead evidence in the arbcom case because he was one of the individuals bringing up the case or at least indicating support for the position listed thereof. -- Grunt   ҈  04:55, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

• Can you provide me with the when and where as I have no recall that he ever did. Are there any others whom you invited? Thanks. - Robert the Bruce 05:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Exploding Boy and Tony Sidaway were also notified due to their case-related comments here (note that Jwrosenzweig's comment is merely a statement about the status of mediation and not related directly to the case). -- Grunt   ҈  15:03, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

  • And why may I ask was JakeW not informed? He to is and has been central to "case related" comment. I ask you in the light of the irregualrities around the acceptance and launch of this AC matter that you consider witdrawing from the procedings. - Robert the Bruce 16:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    If by JakeW you mean Jwrosenzweig, then he was not informed because he is not a party to the dispute. Otherwise, said JakeW was not involved in the initial statement of complaint and was therefore not named to be notified that the case was opening. I do not feel the need to refrain from participation in this case as per Jwrosenzweig's comment that the mediation committee is not ready to accept cases (which was the reason the original request was rejected - mediation was to be attempted). -- Grunt   ҈  00:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

    • Robert probably means me, Grunt. I objected to the original RfC, and possibly the RfA, though my memory isn't clear on that. - Jakew 00:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

      Your name does appear on the old RfAr, but only to mention that a mediation attempt was in progress. -- Grunt   ҈  00:13, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

      • Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, I don't think you should have informed me, but I would have appreciated it. - Jakew 00:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I gave support for some of Tony Sidaway's comments. Regarding the case as a whole, I haven't been involved in the on-going shenanigans, though I note that this is a battle between activists on both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OneGuy in violation of arbitration ruling

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. OneGuy is violating the part of the ruling against him by continuing to make personal attacks against me. Please see Talk:Islamophobia. This is a quote from OneGuy "Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really this stupid?" Can you please let him know that rules apply to him too? 168.209.97.34 13:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)