User talk:Pschemp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1: Sep 2004 – Feb 2006
/Archive 2: Feb 2006 - Mar 2006
/Archive 3: Mar 2006 - Apr 2006
/Archive 4: Apr 2006 - Jun 2006
/Archive 5: Jun 2006 - Jul 2006
/Archive 6: Jul 2006 - Aug 2006
/Archive 7: Aug 2006 - Sep 2006
/Archive 8: Sep 2006 - Nov 2006
/Archive 9: Nov 2006 - Jan 2007

Note:

I think interpersonal communication works best when messages are aggregated on individual users' talk pages rather than split, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Also, I get confused easily. :)

if the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.

if you start a thread here, Please watch it, as I will most likely respond here.

Essjay RFC

Hi! Could you point me to the edits where you feel I'm displaying bloodlust? That's not how I'm feeling, and I'm not sure where you'd get that notion from what I've said. Thanks, William Pietri 08:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that RFC needs to stay open after Jimbo already commented is. pschemp | talk 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain my reasons, and believe bloodlust is no part of my motivation. You're naturally welcome to your own opinions, but I'd remind you to assume good faith and try to stay civil. If I can clarify things further for you, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, William Pietri 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see now what the issue is. I was edit conflicted when I posted that comment. It wasn't directed at you, or a response to your words. It was directed at everyone. pschemp | talk 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I resent the repeated implication that the only possible way someone could disagree with you is bloodlust. I again ask you to demonstrate that you are following core policies WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. And even if you don't do it out of politeness, I'd suggest that continued polarizing statements in a discussion are not the best way to get a discussion to end. Thanks, William Pietri 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for continuing an RFC as nasty as that is bloodlust. pschemp | talk 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't wave AGF and CIVIL in people's faces. Nothing good ever comes of it. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to take alternative suggestions for calming discussions down, although perhaps my talk page is a better place to discuss it. Thanks, William Pietri 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And it seems I was justified, as certain people continued (and continue to rant on Jimbo's talk page even now) to insist that the rfc remain open, even after Essjay quit. There is plenty of evidence that they were out for blood. I'm well aware of our core polices. I appreciate your comments, but you aren't telling anything I already know. pschemp | talk 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's progress. I'm wasn't saying that nobody was out for blood, only that to impugn the motives of everybody who disagreed with you was unnecessary and harmful. I know you were aware of the core policies; my goal wasn't to give you new information. It seemed to me that in being upset about how a friend was being treated, you were not following them to the degree you were expecting of people on other sides of the issue. I felt that was inflaming the situation. Maybe you missed it in all the chaos, but most of the people I was asking to calm down were the ones upset at Essjay, so this isn't anything personal. Thanks, William Pietri 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My block

Hi, I've realized that I was blocked for one month by you for "disruptive incivility".

I've simply done an error. As I've explained in my unblock request (already accepted by another admin), I didn't mean to say "without any value" but that "their value cannot be judged", something like priceless and countless. My previous behavior here on wikipedia has been without any problems.

I don't think that even if I meant that (the "without any value"), a single fact can lead to a block. I've always been polite here.

I also have to say that probably, I you had investigate just a little on me before giving me that block, you would had came to this, where I said that I think that Essjay should not resign from ArbCom, Checkuser and so on. That, combined with what Ben Aveling said on my talk page and a bit of AGF, probably would had lead to another decision.

I think that, when you'll give another block, you should be more careful.

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Do you mind if I re-add the corrected version of the barnstar, alog with a brief explanation on the issue, to Essjay's talk page? Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Essjay

I was just reading Essjay's history and saw your comment. I certainly didn't mean it in the negative manner it was received (AGF, please) and don't mind that the thread was removed. I honestly think the suggestion would be a good idea - a few steps in the moccasins that I among others have unfortunately been compelled to walk. Most of the people who actually face that situation are in no position to discuss it. Yes, the idea is shocking and disturbing - far more so is the reality. I'll withdraw the message, but please don't shoot the messenger. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not being sarcastic

I am not being sarcastic. WAS 4.250 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

Hi, Pschemp. Your user page says, "Featured article I wrote: History of erotic depictions." Although you are to be commended for being the primary brains and elbow grease behind that article, didn't many people help write it? If so, perhaps they deserve a little credit too. I was thinking it would be more accurate to say "Feature article I created." Sincerely, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history before the FAC if you'd like to make such inappropriate comments. I wrote that article almost completely by myself and contributed 99% of the original text. I've never stopped anyone else from taking credit for their part, and in fact thanked the others who made contributions at the time. I will not be taking your suggestion as it is extremely rude and you obviously don't have all your facts straight. I wrote that as much as anything can be written on Wikipedia. I put 3 months into writing its text and researching and citing it. Others copyedited and made suggestions and format tweaks and such, but the fact is, I wrote it and the edit history shows that. Please refrain from leaving messages on my talk page in the future if they are going to be like this one. pschemp | talk 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant no rudeness; in fact I praised you for the excellent article. It's just that perusing the History of erotic depictions article, I recognized in the text a few of my own phrases I had added to the pornography before it was split off into the article in question; from this, I naturally assumed that there were vestiges of sentences that many others had written as well. Pardon me for assuming a degree of collaboration that apparently did not exist, and for rankling you in general.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you looked through the edit history, you would see that what survived of the original couple of paragraphs split off in the final article is very little, and even less in its original wording (And I created the article with history that I had already added to). I'd be surprised if more than 4 words in a row of that part still exist. Additional to writing and re-writing, I sourced everything and what couldn't be sourced was thrown out. (Which was quite a bit of the original paste-in.) There was not collaboration on it at all (other than one good copyeditor/suggestor who worked with me the whole time). In fact, that's how many good featured articles get written these days. Too much collaboration leads to chaos. In fact, I looked at the history of your username and found that you only ever edited the history of pornography section once, therefore making your claim of recognizing phrases somewhat suspect. pschemp | talk 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence I saw ("Nude human beings with exaggerated sexual characteristics are depicted in some Paleolithic paintings and artifacts (e.g. Venus figurines)") went untouched from the old article to the new one, and it's quite a bit longer than 4 words. You created and shaped the article, but you appear to be exaggerating to make that point. I too would take great pride if I built such an article, but something about your claim makes me uncomfortable, especially when I see phrases others wrote retained in the current text.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Go away. That sentence exists because it was one of the few things that was actually sourced. There are a total of 3 full sentences in the whole article in their original form from previous authors. My claim to writing (which includes rewriting) is not exaggerated. Make sure you note that dump of text I used to start the article already had material added by me previously, as I had started to rewrite that section when it was part of the pornography article. I never made the claim that absolutely everything in there was an original creation. We do use GFDL. I did however *write* that article. It didn't exist before I came along. pschemp | talk 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

She wrote that article in the sense that it was nothing when she started editing it, and it was everything when she left. It's not reasonable to expect other people to not have copyedited the article, since that is unavoidable, and it is part of wiki courtesy to copyedit other people's articles without asking. In essence, it is very unkind to dispute that she has written the article. I suggest you let this matter rest, TFMWNCB. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A warning

Hello. I'm just popping by briefly to make sure that you are following the core policies WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. These stand for "Civility" and "Assume Good Faith", and are integral to the running of the encyclopedia. As an admin, it is fundamental that you follow them to the letter. All eight of them. Please remember this message in times of strife. Thank you and kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Celestianpower I am confiscating your Spiderman costume forthwith under Regulation 605, article 47, subsection 25d, you may have it back after breaktime, if you behave.--Alf ^melmac 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear you may have overlooked WP:AGF. Please review that policy before proceeding with further sanctions. Thank you, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG He's fooled us and is climbing Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman instead, somebody stop him, will someone please think of the children?.--Alf ^melmac 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such discussion is helpful to your cause. I have not acted out of line with core policies during this debate and implore that you reconsider your request. Please know that I mean no offence to you, for we all have differing opinions, per WP:CON; I just want a conclusion to this dire issue. Thank you, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

Yes, I remembered :) — Moe 23:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That actually made me smile. pschemp | talk 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks now to you pschemp -- Drini 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad, in times like these on Wikipedia we frequently forget to, glad I remembered this random day. :) — Moe 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) — Moe 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are awesome. Although that big fish scared me into the mud a bit; luckily I found a nice juicy Ottoia to chomp on ;) Opabinia regalis 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fishy! Unfortunately, I can only communicate via a complex series of squeaks, moofs, and user warning templates, so... {{uw-randomlove1}}! :p Awesome, thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the fish thing :) -- Where 22:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you run this again? I love the idea! Crested Penguin 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That was funny message

This one's greener, like a good sockpuppet should be!... Thanks a lot Pschemp! Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the note. Happy softball BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesomeness. My physics needs me back now though :( --Ali K 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Essjay#POLL. Hopefully nothing comes of the statement of intention there, but I apologize if anything I said steered things in that direction. Newyorkbrad 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect he will follow through though. What an insane waste of wiki time. pschemp | talk 05:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't go anywhere. People understand that enough is enough. Newyorkbrad 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh!

I almost missed spread-the-funny-and-slightly-random-love day! How could I?! — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:) but you didn't. pschemp | talk 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fish! ;) --Fang Aili ^talk 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! :D --Joanne B 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf crayons his face like a black and white minstrel, grabs a cane and imitates Al Jolson doing "Sonny Boy" a la The Singing Fool followed by a quick burst of "Swanee" a la Rhapsody in Blue, he then bows and exits stage left. One can surmise he is happy with his fish.

Yeah, thanks! I'm glad some of the wikilove hasn't died :). Kindest regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

Back at ya! How you doing anyway stranger? This whole Essjay things sucks, I've emailed him to let him know he has my support. Hope all is well :) Glen 06:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing Administrators.

Why are administrators vanishing? I first find out that Sarah Ewart is leaving for the moment, something happened to Essjay (I don't understand the situation), and HighInBC, upset over Essjay, has also gone. Is this a coincidence? Acalamari 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaving. I've just been on a break and had my account renamed. Sarah 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Phaedriel

Thanks. And thanks for the fish on my talk page too, heh. – Chacor 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pschemp, Just to clarify. Did Phaedriel ask you to change her page? There was another editor who changed it a few months back. It just seems like editors should change their own pages or admins should explain these changes. I know this seems like a personally matter so feel free to email me if you prefer. Anyways --Tom 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ps. I also see that you removed the history page without explaination. Is this standard policy? This seems very odd. Thanks --Tom 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is when matters of privacy are at stake. I owe you no explanation. pschemp | talk 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That nice. Sounds like an excuse too me. Anyways, carry on. --Tom 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

rfc

There is an RfC on the administrator that protected Essjay's RfC.[1] --CyclePat 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple issues I would like to resolve with you, prior to opposing the deletion of the RfC on your conduct. Is it possible for you to read throught the deleted RfC proposal on your conduct and to please send me your response prior to going any further? Thank you! --CyclePat 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nssdfdsfds

Per your comments on Wikipedia talk:Username policy, you may also want to take a look at the current entries for two of his accounts on WP:RFCN. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION

Hi, I'm Abbopa, or you can call me Rodini. I just have a little question for you. Is it possible to delete accounts? Abbopa 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense; Pschemp, look at this. Acalamari 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: history of ...

belated thanks

A happy finny day to you too! :-) [3] That was a remarkably cheerful day - people were even thanking me for deleting their vanity pages and letting them know about our policies on notability. Wow. FreplySpang 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another RJII sockpuppet

Sorry to bother you again... In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) was created around a week following your block of User:All Male Action and User:Improper Bostonian on January 31. [4] For the past month the account has clearly followed RJII's editing pattern and style, guarding the same set of articles. After a month, the lack of enforcement of the ban by other administrators has been frustrating. So if you can take another look at the situation, it will be much appreciated. Regards. 172 | Talk 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilove

SunStar Net has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As for the thread about WikiLove, well, what a day for you to have a load of it on - my birthday!! Regarding my RFA, if you didn't want to support me that was OK, but now I've explained my user history on my userpage in case anyone asks about it....

Anyway, hope you're OK! --sunstar net^talk 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

So, what's it gonna be? Is scientific POV privileged or not? I don't care, just as long, as it's decided. Fossa_?! 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I won't violate 3RR, do you have an argument, one way or the other? BTW: You're at 2RR as well at the moment. Fossa_?! 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow the rules here Fossa. pschemp | talk 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing and that's why I don't revert your bullshit. Shows that this thing just won't work. BTW: If the scientific POV shouldn't be privileged, why don't you put that into the policy. I'm at 2RR both ways, you could still follow up on my initial edit. Fossa_?! 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Please lay off on David over at Samsara's talk page. Samsara's comment was rude, GetAgrippa over-reacted...it doesn't matter who was wrong or right, what matters is that a snide comment may cost us a good editor. It's beside the point whether you think Samsara's actions were right or not, or whether GA's reaction was proportionate or not... it's outcomes that matter. David is well within his rights to be upset, and even though you think it wrong for him to blame Samsara (which is a perfectly vaid opinion), it doesn't help matters for the two of you to get into a fight. Guettarda 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. When someone accuses another of hypocrisy and then engages in it themselves, I will not "lay off." The juvenile attempt at a guilt trip is entirely unacceptable from supposed "adults." pschemp | talk 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the best possible outcome? That you "win" a pointless fight, and we have two more good editors who will stay mad at each other for the rest of time. There are more important things than being right. I know, I'm a hypocrite for saying that, given some of my past behaviour. But walking away from a fight is sometimes the most "adult" thing to do. Guettarda 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice I haven't commented there any more since you posted this message? I'm not actually mad at David D. I just happen to think that answering a perceived snide comment with snide comments isn't very constructive and was pointing that out. If that makes him mad at me, oh well. pschemp | talk 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not mad :) Seriously. David D. (Talk) 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of you. (I took too long thinking about how to phrase this message, so I didn't see David's post until after posted here). Glad you both aren't mad - it looked pretty heated. Guettarda 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pschemp

Can you please specify which country-username "fanned the flames" (here). There is an ongoing discussion for this issue with some concerned users and some feel the country-username prohibition case is definitely worth re-opening. Thanks. Niko Silver 11:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I have no more comments. You are obsessed with this because User:Macedonia didn't get blocked. Give it up, move on. The names that are blocked will remain blocked, and we deal with other cases as they arise. You've been obsessing about this for months now, and its unhealthy. pschemp | talk 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, glad I noticed this. Thanks for the tip. Niko Silver 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Ilikeballs88"!!??

What's wrong with that username!? I found that you've blocked that user because of his/her/its name. But I think there's nothing wrong with this name. The "ball" doesn't always refer to testes!! Please cleanse your mind for a while, the "balls" may refer to basketball, football (Soccer + American football), tennis ball... Maybe that user was saying that he/she/it likes those things... --Edmundkh 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Our username policy says, "potentially offensive." I was already offended. pschemp | talk 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But anyway, maybe YOU are the only one offended. I've explained why there's nothing wrong with that username, so, sorry to say this, your thinking is so dirty. Wash it!!--Edmundkh 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it offense as well, please actually contribute to the encyclopedia instead of just nit-picking administrative decisions. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Knit-picking the admins doesn't mean that I never contribute!! Read my contributions to see what I've done. --Edmundkh 11:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my username from consideration at WP:RFCN

I did not nominate myself just to make a point. I nominated myself to generate discussion on a nebulous area of username policy. I do want to know whether or not my name is a violation, and I think it's worthy of discussion. Deranged bulbasaur 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated this request as it does not appear to be a POINT violation. As the name says, the page is a request for comments on user names. It is not just for blocking people. This appears to be a good faith request by a user for comments on the appropriateness of their user name. Can you tell me what is disruptive about listing at RFCN? —dgies^t_c 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hysteria? No

I went through the edit history of some (but not all) of the discussions around credential verification, and did not see any of yours that I would classify as joining the general hysteria that some have been pushing forward. The entire discussion has been marred and brought down by people who were commenting in apparently complete lack of knowledge of what I had proposed, imaginging for themselves a mandatory system which would violate privacy rights, give PhDs a free pass to editing, force people to do bad things, etc.

There are some interesting and valid concerns raised, and I think they are worth addressing in a rational way, but I also think that they are not hard to address at all.

The fundamental issue for me is that our trust has been broken, and there are a lot of good people -- honest PhDs who are rightfully proud of their achievements -- who are now treated as suspect because of the actions of one person. And that suspicion of them sadly extends with the general public to suspicion of us.

The basic idea here is very simple: be honest, be transparent. If you don't want to claim to be something, then don't. If you do, then please let us be sure that we can verify it. In most of the cases I have checked so far (but a comprehensive study needs to be done), verifying PhDs is quite easy. It's a simple step that can increase our trust in each other, our respect for each other, and our credibility with the people we serve: our readers.

No one is proposing, and I mean that quite comprehensively, as I have see NO ONE proposing, that PhDs should be given a free pass in editing. That's the Citizendium / Larry Sanger approach that we quite properly reject as being epistemologically bankrupt. What's true is true, what's good writing is good writing, and what's verifiable is verifiable. I see really overwhelming support for it, and this is no surprise: the entire premis e of Wikipedia has been strongly influenced by my NPOV concept which has been here from the beginning, and it doesn't allow for fallacious arguments like that to carry any weight.

So, what are some other reasonable objections against what has actually been proposed? Well, one is that people might fake credentials and then we can be hoaxed again. Well, sure I suppose it is possible, but at least we will have tried. Some have suggested it will be worse for us if we try and fail than if we don't try at all, but I don't follow the logic. We can say: a hurricane might eventually knock down even the strongest building, so we might as well just live in the open under trees. But that makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

My bet is that most users with a PhD do not mention it on there user page. For those that do, it is no harm for them to prove it or remove it. Either way is easy. Either way it does not effect the editing. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

pschemp, I encourage you to offer this up as one of the alternatives. Maybe even no accompanying essay needed. Perhaps just moving the discussion quoted to its own page and linking to it could be sufficient. Nothing like it is currently "on the table" and I think it is the obvious answer. Others may disagree but it would be a shame for it to be missed entirely. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Film

Hello Pschemp, you might like to review the deletion history and recent creation of this redirect. Cheers. (→Netscott) 23:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/s/c/User_talk%7EPschemp_0325.html"