User talk:Ikanreed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
first archive Febuary 13, 2007

Contents

[edit] response from 21kev

I got the message - please do not remove warnings. The warning I removed was 7 months old. Are they supposed to stay on my page forever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 21kev (talk • contribs).

[edit] response from 142.110.227.163

So the sandbox can be used like this right? link removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.110.227.163 (talk)

[edit] Armenian blogs page proposed for deletion

Hi, I have done changes and am still working on my page - the Armenian blogs to make it comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. I hope you that will change your mind about proposing the page for deletion. I'm ready to discuss any further changes - if you think they would be necessary. Sincerely Artur Papyan 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusing your adminship?

You defended an accusation of abusing your admin powers by stating that you unblocked a user when they agreed to set their user page to match your perspective on an edit war on it. While your other statements were valid, that particular course of action was totally inappropriate, especially considering you were warring over an undecided policy. In the future please try not to use your sysop abilities in disputes you personally are engaged in. i kan reed 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. With that statement, I was not addressing the block's appropriateness. I was addressing the user's claim that my intention was to stop him from participating in a discussion. Again, I perceived (and continue to perceive) this incident as the reversion of disruptive guideline violations, not as a "content dispute." I would never block an editor with whom I believed I was involved in a content dispute. —David Levy 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Surena

Dear Ikanreed - I was advised by Essjay to place the tag in the those pages, since I have changed my Username. ParthianShot 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for kind assistance in deleting the pages. Regards ParthianShot 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False 3RR warning

It's my Talk page, and I have the right to remove anything which is not a legitimate and necessary warning. Do not make warnings which are neither ungrounded in policy nor which you are capable of carrying out. Report me to WP:AN/3RR and see how far it gets you. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Calton, you are incorrect - the warning was a legitimate and necessary warning brought on by your harassment and incivility towards this project. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not the case Absolutely wrong. Again, I invite you go to WP:AN/3RR and find out, because I really don't have the time to go dig up the numerous references, and if you want to be educated, you'll have to do it on your own dime. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Long quote, followed by a complete misreading. Clue 1: the quote is about article Talk pages, not user Talk pages Clue 2: "edit" =/= delete, on one's own User Talk page.
Presumptuous lectures: bad; presumptuous lectures based on a complete misreading of a subject: worse. Once again, I invite you go to WP:AN/3RR and be educated. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I Strongly suggest you review WP:CIVIL Calton. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meddling

If I've offended you in any way, I'm sorry. This isn't about proving you wrong, getting you blocked, or anything of the sort. I have no intention of going to a noticeboard until I've fully attempted to resolve the issue by discussing the issue with the other editors involved.

You've persistently inserted yourself -- unasked -- on something you don't understand on behalf of one side, justifying it with policy you don't understand and citing parts of it you clearly haven't even read: why would I be offended?

Since policy seems to be an inappropriate path for discussion here...

A pretty good euphemism for "I was wrong, so let's not talk about this". You DO realize that your understanding of policy was, shall we say, deeply flawed, right?

Could you please tell me on my talk page, why it was necessary to revert Mr. Ray Lopez's edits to your talk page?

Immaterial, and really, none of your business, but easy enough to find out: go here and here. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you refer to the Administrator's Noticeboard - Calton apparently has me confused with "Ruy Lopez" vice "Ray Lopez." Mr. Ray Lopez 08:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page
Yes, MAINSPACE and WIKIPEDIASPACE, not USERSPACE. Did you bother to even skim the page? It's "article" this and "article" that all over it. Note the clause in your quote: "to its associated article or project page." Or are you suggesting that we were discussing edits to my user page?
It was quite close to being libelous to accuse me of having false motivations in this matter.
No, it's pointing out that you're so obviously wrong that making a deliberate attempt to avoid acknowledging it is the best explanation for your sudden change of subject when your error has been pointed out to you. If you're sincere in your misunderstanding, go to WP:AN/3RR and get educated.
Note: this is not intended as a legal threat, just a note that you went out of line in what you were accusing me of)
If you don't intend to imply legal threats, don't use the language of legal threats.
I did not "side" with anyone or anything.
Yes you did: you restored his edits to my Talk page on his behalf -- which I note that you just did AGAIN. You've left several messages on my Talk page and one (1) on his: VERY balanced of you.
Your links don't seem to tell me much of anything about why you reverted those particular edits.
So you didn't bother reading the first link, either. Pity. But your unwillingness to do your homework is not my problem. To repeat, none of your business. If you want to find out, go crazy, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
However informing users of policy regarding their actions still seems necessary to me.
Only if true. Pestering someone over a transparently wrong misreading of policy -- even after being corrected -- isn't. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither of us are really interested in an argument...
...which is why you're continuing it, of course.
...but please drop the "I'm right, and you're wrong" attitude. Not everything is about "winning".'
Considering that I'm actually right and you're actually wrong -- objectively -- then your eagerness to move off a reality-based argument is understandable but unilateral on your part: this whole thing is complete -- and persistent -- misreading of policy and your willingness to pester someone over your complete misreading of polcy, so yeah, it's relevant. You kept holding it up as a justification, and now that I've corrected you, suddenly it's irrelevant. OF course.
...I would like to indicate that you are engaging in wikilawerying(essay not policy)...
Speaking of borderline libellous: no, I'm talking about long-standing practice and enforced policy. Since you refuse to educate yourself or test the courage of your convictions at 3RR violation reporting page -- as I've suggested three times now -- you need to read here, here, here, here, and here. The last should be a really big clue: Wikipedia does NOT have esclating templates for warning people over removing talk page warnings (as they do for spam, personal attacks, etc.) and in fact ones that were created this purpose were explicitly DELETED. Why do you think that is?
...and I merely request that you reconsider your course of actions towards this user "Mr Ray Lopez"
No, but then I don't have to: he's a self-winding watch who's been indefinitely blocked once already -- which you'd know about if you'd read User talk:Theresa knott as I pointed you to. His path over the cliff is pretty inevitable, and I won't have to push. --Calton | Talk 09:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
...Aaand, speak of the devil... --Calton | Talk 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Templates vs Personalised Templates

I noticed that you advised Mr Ray Lopez to use standard templates instead of personalised ones for Carlton. This has been discussed a number of times on AN and AN/I - I'm sorry I can't find the diffs but they have dissappeared into the archives but a strong consensus appeared in both places that using standard templates on established users was agressive and inflamatory and that personalised warnings were always better in such cases. Regards --Spartaz 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Explicitly stated in the comic

regarding your comment: Yes, I see your point and agree. I will delete the line altogether. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Note

I have noticed you are having considerable problems with User:Calton. If you would like, you may add some of his rude and incivil comments to the WP:RfC page up against him here. If more people voice their opinion and more people know, it is more likely that the powers-that-be will make Calton change his tune. If you wish to stay out of it, that is perfectly OK as well. Have a Good Weekend....SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

He treated me as an atagonist [sic] after I noted on his talk page that his reversions were inappropriate.

You WERE an antagonist through your enabling of a troll, my reversions were completely appropriate, and your "notes" were vexatious and flatly wrong.

He treated me as if I was out to get him.

No. I treated you as someone who aggressively failed to understand what was pointed out to him, and spent his time back-peddling furiously. I treated you as someone enabling a troll without the least understanding of what was going on.

I wanted to avoid administrative action in this area.

There was no admin action that would have taken place -- the troll you were enabling already "reported" me at WP:AN, and hey presto he got banned immediately. I even called your bluff and invited you -- 3 times -- to report me to WP:AN/3RR so you could find out for yourself, but I notice you avoided that, too. And the numerous links your inattention finally forced me to dig up seemed to have escaped you.

I would have prefered getting through to him by communicating what my concerns were.

There being nothing to get through WITH -- and you know it -- a fool's errand. And congratulations on signing up with another: your cosigners include one editor under suspension (though perhaps its expired now), another at ArbCom due to extreme Wikilawyering, and one whom I've nominated for a community ban (currently leaning toward yes, but not unambiguously). Not good company. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not replying on your talk page, as is my standard, because further communication will not accomplish anything. I endorsed the RfC and I'm moving on to deal with other editing concerns. I would again asser that some of the statements here are quite possibly libelous as the are ascribing motivations to me unreasonably. I went to the RfC because I was asked, and I have tried to the best of my abilities to communicate civily, and have nothing more than my already stated views on the matter to give. Your disagreement is totally noted. i kan reed 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Apologizes

I apologize for Calton taking his anger out on you with your signing of the RfC. If I knew he was going to react that way, I would not have told you the link. Hopefully though, us signing the RfC though, will do some good and all this yelling will not be for not. Again, my apologizes. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] respose to delete order

have made some changes hope they help

[edit] Hi

XGC has more sockpuppet accounts, such as I'm Michael. I believe his repeated vandalism towards the Dane, Wisconsin article in each account is good evidence of his sockpuppetry. I already reported him to WP:AIV. --Nevhood 21:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

Just want to let you know, it seems to me that the article on Patrick R. Westerkamp was written by Westerkamp himself, just check the history. I believe this violates the independence section of WP:Notability. --Nevhood 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I just did. What do you think? Should the article be deleted? --Nevhood 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Good plan. --Nevhood 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your reversion of Order of the Stick

The editor vandalized a few pages that I was watching (See Moreno Valley, California), so I just checked his contributions and started reverting. Brien Clark 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haley's alignment

Ooops. However, you're not totally correct either. What she actually says is "I'm Chaotic Good! Ish!" That's a little different from "Chaotic Good-ish", in my admittedly entirely pedantic interpretation. The latter, to me, would still leave a degree of doubt regarding her alignment, whereas what she actually says, to me, anyway, comes across as a definitive statement as to her alignment, followed by an acknowledgement that, due to her roguish nature, she may not exactly be the poster child for the Chaotic Good society. --Tailkinker 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Americanization

You might want to take a look at WP:OWN again sometime. There's no good reason to care either way what spelling the article uses. i kan reed 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but check WP:MOS: it's not usually kosher to change an article's nationalisation. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your third-opinion help with User talk:Requestion#Please reconsider. The response was what I expected. I'm going to wait a beat or two while saying nothing, give that editor every opportunity to reconsider, then take it to the next level, where your independent look should be helpful. Thanks. Noroton 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved from user: page

Hi , OK ,thanks for the advice I will add [citation needed] instead- to the Gordon Brown article that is Kennys 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(put on user: page and moved here by Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Speedy on Mismedia

I removed the {{db-nocontext}} link that I added since the page was updated and felt it fit no speedy category so I move it to a AfD 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing the signature for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helmsb (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] March 2007

Hello, Ikanreed! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in The Colbert Report. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured after posting this message that you probably knew to warn vandals. The template I posted here wasn't entirely appropriate. Just a suggestion, if you want an easy way to warn vandals and revert, you might consider getting WP:TWINKLE; it's a great tool. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/k/a/User_talk%7EIkanreed_19c3.html"