User talk:Rebroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old stuff moved to User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2 --Rebroad 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 You recent edits, and your AN/I 2 Blocked for 24 hours 3 Mondegreen 4 Regarding Flunkybiscuits 5 WP:POINT - misinterpreation of the guideline 6 blocked for sockpuppetry 7 feeling surprisingly calm 8 don't worry 9 Cool Down, You've Crossed The Line 10 Regarding Flunkybisuits, i.e. me! 11 WP:POINT 12 Are you gone? 13 UAC screenshot 14 'Silk Road' or 'Silk Routes' 15 Sunni Islam

[edit] You recent edits, and your AN/I

I have looked over your comment, and the pages in question. I responded at AN/I, and would appreciate you looking in on things. I also notice that durign this process, you've elected to archive your entire talk. While it's your right to archive regularly, I would suggest that in the future, you NOT move entire conversations between you and an editor who you're bringing to AN/I. It looks like you're trying to hide something. As I said a couple hours ago on AN/I, it looks like she's right about things. please return to AN/I for more discussions. ThuranX 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the purpose of replacing them is so that during an ongoing problem, OTHER editors can see what the history of the dispute was, without digging through page's history, switching to the archive, then running through a long set of diffs, as you have made me, and no doubt, others do. What you did was NOT what my user talk note refers to. Look through my history. I've deleted recently, in fact, some hostile commentary from editors who can't AGF and work on a problem. My actual warnings and such are pretty much intact. My archives still hold such things, including my blocks. I remove stuff that goes like 'screw you, i'm smart and your wrong so go away and dont come here', not 3rr warning templates and such. Your removal of such obfuscates the situation. As I said above, doing such makes you look combative, resistant to being warned, and probably guilty of whatever the warning was about. Try to avoid it. ThuranX 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And since you thoroughly misunderstand the warning, I DO in fact mind your copying it. ThuranX 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by violating WP:CIVIL and making repeated WP:POINT violations by issuing out false vandalism warnings with the intention to make a point. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Jersey Devil 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT vote showing my support for this guideline.

To any reviewing administrator: I withdraw my claims of sockpuppetry per below, so if you decline his request for unblocking, please reset his block to the original reason and 24 hours minus time served. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request the reducing of Flunkybiscuits block to whatever Rebroad's block is determined to be. Flunkybiscuits first edit was to Cloud, and the edit Flunkybiscuit made was to wikify the term Nephology, which appears in the first paragraph. Flunkybiscuits then went to Nephology and made only minor formatting edits, which due to an edit conflict where I added more content/removed content where the new formatting was, the edits weren't kept anyway. There's no way at this point to determine definitely that this is in fact a sockpuppet, and the first edit on the account is on the 25th. Also, I've been encouraging/asking/begging Rebroad to add to the Nephology page, so I don't understand the need for a sockpuppet for that. Sockpuppets are allowed as long as they don't do any harm or avoid blocks, and since this isn't a definitive puppet, and hasn't done any harm, I'm requesting that the block be reduced to Rebroad's block time, in compliance with WP:AGF and WP:BITE. And wherever the policy page on puppets is. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow I got pwned there. Does no edit conflict appear if we each choose edit section instead of edit page? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Miss Mondegreen's logic, yet again, beggers belief. On one hand she refers to WP:BITE whilst at the same time suggesting a block on a new user purely because... well, I can't even work out what the justification is. This is becomming extremely tiresome, and is yet another assumption of bad faith. --Rebroad 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the times on the edits. I was suggesting that Flunkybiscuits block be reduced at a time when it was an indefinite block and the account considered a sockpuppet. Since the account was considered to be a sockpuppet at the time, I requested a reduced sentence for it since sockpuppets are allowed as long as they aren't used to negatively edit in various ways. (See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry ) I was confirming that the sockpuppet had not been editing negatively in any way, and if it was still considered a puppet, then it only needed to be blocked to prevent you from avoiding a block. I was not assuming bad faith, or biting new users, in fact, I was doing the opposite. I'm pleased to know that this user is not considered a sockpuppet, as I thought the evidence was shaky. Sockpuppets generally reveal themselves anyway, so I dislike harsh actions on maybes, becuase if it is just conincidence, and they do happen, it's a pretty bad way for a newbie to be treated. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Thank you for your reply. Please look at it from my point of view. Your suggestion effectively says that you consider there should be a block - i.e. you do not propose an unblock of Flunkybiscuits. This is what I mean by an assumption of bad faith - you are assuming that there is sock puppetry - why else would you not propose an unblock? Why propose keeping a new user blocked who has done nothing wrong? --Rebroad 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I would like to say thanks for at least pointing out the lack of evidence of sockpuppetry - (still don't understand why you proposed a reduction in time rather than an unblock. After all, it would be easy to re-block Flunkybiscuits if it was found I was using her account.) --Rebroad 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a reduced block isn't propsing blocking a user, or even keeping a user blocked. I'll explain.

First--I don't know much about IPs, etc, so I couldn't respond there. I could respond in re the edits and I did.

Second, I could keep this user from being labelled a sockpuppet and being indef blocked--I could take it up a level if I had to, because in this case, an indef block would be a violation of wiki policy. Assuming the worst, second accounts are still allowed and this was as clean a second account as you could get.

What I could say, I did. I commented on the edits. I said I thought the evidence was shaky. I said it made no sense for you to get a sockpuppet to edit Nephology, I wanted you to work on the article. I explained that the edits weren't negative in any way at all including sockpuppet ways. At the time, Flunkybiscuits has three edits. All wikification and formatting ones, none after your block. So, even if this was your account, you weren't using the account for a nefarious purpose or evading a block, so your block would have been reduced and both accounts would have only had the remainder of a 24hr block. While bad if Flunkybiscuits belonged to someone else, it's much less bad than an indef-block, and I've seen accounts I don't think were sockpuppets get indef blocked the first day of existence and that's that. I had no evidence other than edits to argue innocence, and I provided evidence about the edits--that was all I could do.

What it came down to, was I knew that I could help the user get rid of the indef block, whether or not that account was a sockpuppet. I had no idea whether or not the account was a sockpuppet, and even AGF, I had no idea if I could argue or prove innocence, or get an admin to agree to unblock pending proof of sockpuppetry.

Btw, since I'm beginning to acquire a history of defending sockpuppets because I think that certain admins and editors lose the AGF clause as soon as they hear the word sockpuppet, it would have been a stupid thing to do and it might have hurt more than it helped.

It would also be nice if you could look around you and appreciate the good things that people do do, and not always see the things that you think they could have or should have done better.

I do appreciate that you've made an effort at returning to dialogue btw. I've also spoken with Flunkybiscuits, and commented on her talk page, and everything seems to be ok there. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mondegreen

She was trolling on the AN page. See posts titled Runedchozo. If you can provide evidence post at WP:AN/I. Geo. Talk to me 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Flunkybiscuits

Can you explain why your friend (as you claim) started editing at Nephology as her second article -- an article that you are currently in an editing dispute over? The timing of your friend's appearance is highly suspicious in my mind. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually told her not to bother since I was going to raise it as a candidate for deletion, but she was determined to expand it, seemly siding with Miss Mondegreen! It's rather ironic that Miss Mondegreen then undid her edits, so I'm not quite sure who's side she's on now! As you can see Flunkybiscuits created her account before I was blocked, so it certainly wasn't an effort to bypass a block. Regards, --Rebroad 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I was rather frustrated by Miss Mondegreen's recent victimisation towards me, and obviously I shared these concerns with the person I live with (aka Flunkybiscuits). It's not too surprising that this was the catalyst to Flunkybiscuits finally biting the biscuit (no pun intended) and creating her own wikipedia account - to see what all the fuss is about! --Rebroad 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(she was already reading wikipedia, she just never had any desire to edit it before yesterday). --Rebroad 10:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your explanation regarding Flunkybiscuits and have now unblocked her. I'm just about to head home from university so unfortunately I won't be able to review your original block in depth for another 2 hours, but hopefully someone else will get to you before I get home. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT - misinterpreation of the guideline

Warnings are not pointless, blocks are not pointless. Does this mean all warnings and blocks should be banned as per WP:POINT? The warnings I gave for ignoring WP:AGP and WP:CIVIL of course are made to make a point - point being - "Don't continue doing it". Does WP:POINT effectively tie people's hands from issuing warnings? --Rebroad 11:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_fanatic - nice piece of advice... --Rebroad 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] feeling surprisingly calm

Having looked at Miss Mondegreen's edits regarding Person and Nephology I can honestly say that she does seem well intentioned, and I would like to apologise that I got a bit hot under the collar during some of my discussion with her. My listing of things she said that made me feel like I was being attacked were in themselves not supposed to make Miss Mondegreen feel attacked in return. I understand it's difficult to say one is feeling attacked without the accused attacker feeling attacked by that having been said. --Rebroad 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's on First? It took me about fifteen tries to parse that last sentence. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] don't worry

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Regarding this, no need to worry - I personally think a 6 month ban is way out of the question as was surprised by the suggestion so just wanted to see why it was suggested given that I hadn't seen any evidence of it being warranted. I do think that you could be more careful to warn people without getting them annoyed to the point of being uncivil. It takes a lot to make me get as annoyed as I did recently following your initial warning to my talk page, and your method of re-posting the warnings following my deleting them was especially annoying. Given that the deletion of a warning from a user's talk page constitutes confirmation that they have received the warning (according to the policy I read recently) I do think it's unnecessary to keep re-issuing them after each deletion, especially when the user has explained their reasons for disagreeing with the warning. I also think you should be more careful not to issue uw-delete warnings when it's not clear content has been deleted, and especially don't jump in at a uw-delete3 or a uw-move3 when bad faith is not obvious, as it was not in my case. I do not propose to keep a close eye on you for fear of being accused of stalking you, but if I do see you issuing warnings assuming bad faith without good reason I reserve the right to let you or someone else have my opinion on the matter. --Rebroad 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think that you could be more careful to warn people without getting them annoyed to the point of being uncivil.

I don't believe I was uncivil, but I apologize if I was. You put me in a very difficult position. I warned you once, a good faith warning about several edits including Nephology. I knew you saw that, you responded to me. I later left you a no faith assumption warning about Nephology. You ignored that warning and then you ignored the bad faith warning I left. I was trying very hard to communicate with you, and obviously, warning you was probably not going to help, but you blatantly ignored a warning because you thought you know better, put the ball in my court in a very uncomfortable way. I wanted the article to improve, and having a revert war while trying to attract editors was detrimental, and I didn't know how to get through to you--I didn't know what more I could do or explain than I already had. I'd already linked you to half a dozen policies and guidelines and explained about consensus, and every time after I replied to comment you brought up something new and I felt like I was chasing my tail.

I was trying to both help you and the article, and you made both of those things very difficult. You didn't seem to believe that my warnings or anything were valid, but you didn't go to the helpdesk or request an rfc--you went with reverting. I couldn't call in anyone to enforce a warning until you did something blockable, and you didn't continue reverting, so you didn't do anything blockable in that sense, and I didn't want to rake you over the coals for violation of WP:CIVIL or anything else, because I thought escalating the situation would just make things worse. If I involved additional people it would be to deal with an situation that you were escalating and I didn't want that for you. My other problem was, once you started reverting the article again, the reverting, the series of comments, the vandalism to my talk page, all of that happened very quickly, and so I was very busy going from one edit to the other.

"Given that the deletion of a warning from a user's talk page constitutes confirmation that they have received the warning (according to the policy I read recently) I do think it's unnecessary to keep re-issuing them after each deletion..."

Yes, if a user deletes the warning, they obviously got it. (Could you link me to whatever policy you're referring to btw). But I don't know what that has to do with anything. First, remember that deleting warnings is sometimes considered vandalism. A talk page isn't just for communicating with a user, it's for communicating about a user. If every day, a user vandalises but removes the warnings--they could continue to get good faith warnings, instead of the warnings escalating and the user either changing their behavoir or facing blocks.

"I also think you should be more careful not to issue uw-delete warnings when it's not clear content has been deleted"

It's a removal of content warning. Redirecting a page and not putting the content on the page where the redirection points to is effectively removal of content. If you wanted the page to be a redirect, you needed to get consensus. Also, when you posted the merge tag on the nephology article, you didn't post it on the Cloud article. Merge tags need to be posted on both articles/sections that they apply to, the one that they are potentially leaving from and the one that they are potentially going to. This btw, is one way to avoid situations like the one that occured. Nephology didn't have people watching it, but Cloud did, and so by posting the tag on both articles, that gets users from both articles involved.

"especially when the user has explained their reasons for disagreeing with the warning'

You can't just explain your reasons and that's that. Explaining your reasons for disagreeing doesn't change anything. Your move and redirect had been undone by an admin, and when you choose to redo the redirect, I undid it again and warned you. You were going against consensus, and you can't use the fact that you tagged the article and made the change (initially) when no one was watching as previous consensus. If you thought that I was wrong, and that Arthur was wrong, then you try discussion. If you thought I was interpreting policy wrong or that policy fell on your side, and that discussion wasn't going anywhere, you could have asked for mediation or dispute resolution or an Rfc. If you thought the warning was improper you could have gone to the help desk--you had a lot of options, but contuing to ignore warnings was not one of them. If there is a revert war, and both sides explain their reasons for disagreeing, that doesn't mean that a revert war is acceptable. The last version with consensus stays until the dispute can be worked out and new consensus can be found.

"don't jump in at a uw-delete3 or a uw-move3 when bad faith is not obvious, as it was not in my case."

I didn't. You received a good faith warning that covered Nephology, a no faith assumption warning specific to Nephology, and then a bad faith and then a bad faith block impending. Btw, the only template warnings you received from me were uw-delete3 and uw-delete4--I never left you a uw-move anything. The good faith warning was non-template, the no faith assumption was non-template. Your edits themselves might not be in bad faith, I didn't think they were, but ignoring warnings is considered bad faith. You were warned twice before getting a bad faith warning. The bad faith warning was because you ignored those warnings. If you look at the template warnings, even if you start warning someone with a good faith warning, if a user continues to do whatever it is, you move up to the next level. I can't get inside the brain of someone who's editing. There are certain things that are automatically considered certain types of edits, but other than that, it's an assumption of why the person made an edit. But past the first warning, where you assume you know why they edited something, it's not only an assumption of why they made the edit, but an assumption in terms of the warning. Did they realize that they were doing what they had been warned against and do it anyway? They may have done it because they thought they were right, but that's not an excuse. We try to avoid edit wars and all sorts of behavoirs that are precipitated by people thinking that they are right, and that's all that matters. It does not matter if I was wrong--sometimes, the majority will be incorrect. Maybe, this article should be a redirect--maybe it will be at one point. What matters, is you ignored concensus, little though it may have been, you ignored wiki-policy right and left, and when there was disagreement, you chose to argue through reverting, rather than go through proper channels.

"I do not propose to keep a close eye on you for fear of being accused of stalking you, but if I do see you issuing warnings assuming bad faith without good reason I reserve the right to let you or someone else have my opinion on the matter."

You went up the ladder in terms of warnings--good faith, no faith, bad faith, bad faith. There's no where lower to start, there's no much less to assume, there's no greater threshold to give. I've never issued a bad faith warning without reason--when I do patrol for recent changes, I check contribs etc, before warning users. You can check my contributions and if you look closely, you'll notice that there are not a lot of cases where users get a level three warning without a level two. When the user has only vandal edits and calls another editor a poopy pants, I assume that that might have been in bad faith. But it actually takes something like that to get a bad faith warning without having gotten a good faith warning before. Let me repeat for you one last time--I still believe that your edits were in good faith--ignoring warnings, whether you thought they were legitimate or not is not in good faith. There are a myriad of places you can go to ask someone to weigh in--I've listed several. And if you don't know where to go, you can always go to the help desk or post the question on your talk page followed by {{help}} and if the helpdesk can't answer your question or isn't the place to go, they'll point you in the right direction.

In re the proposal

In re the proposal--I'm not worried about it. I posted a follow-up at ANI because I had two concerns really. On your end I'm concerned that you either randomly happened upon it and pursued it, or that you were looking for information on me. While I do believe that it's something you could stumble on--I'm not one of those people that automatically thinks any new user that finds ANI is suspect, it troubles me--probably to some extent, because I didn't know about it myself. On his end, I'm concerned that my criticism of the administrators and editors involved in the case got that kind of response, especially from someone I've had no involvment with and who wasn't involved in the case at all. There were a lot of angry people involved, and most of the comments are mud flinging from various dubious sources. There was very little civility, and I didn't get involved in the side debates. I made very few comments, and I thought, or hoped that I was fairly civil and impartial. That out of all of that I was for some reason the person who was went after in such a way is a bit troubling. I don't know why that proposal was made--I haven't, to this day actually even had any interaction with the user who made the proposal so the whole thing is very strange to me. Btw, at ANI, I linked to all of the RunedChozo discussions, so you can see the entire thing start to finish and my role in it, and if you can glean anything, feel free to let me know what you think. I'm mystified by it myself. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Down, You've Crossed The Line

First off, please stop replying to me on my talk page. For the most part, anywhere I edit, I watch. So if I comment on your talk page, reply to me there. If you comment on my talk page--I'll reply to you there.

Apologies for replying on your talk page. Did not realise you didn't like this. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should really try and cool down.

I was perfectly calm when I wrote my reply to you, not an "angry mastadon" at all. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to discuss any conflicts you've had with me, but you really need to cool off if you're going to. Some parts of the recent comment you left me were fine. You're right, I misread the civil line, and I did forgot that I started my first warning with a template.

I'm still waiting for a retraction of the warning and an apology though. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But you also continually accuseed me of bad faith half while calling me a hypocrite, and calling an admin a meatpuppet of mine because I asked him to undo a move of yours Nephology (to be deleted) → Nephology (really controversial), and because I asked him to weigh in at ANI, because I knew he'd been following some of the discussion on your talk page and some of the discussion on mine. Btw, I just asked him to undo the move and delete Nephology (to be deleted), he undid the redirect.

Again you misquote me. I did not call you a hypocrite, I said some of your comments were hypocritical. There is a big difference. Also, I already withdrew the comment regarding meatpuppets before you replied, neither did I state I considered you had any. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely crossing the line. You linked to the portion of the sockpuppet page that covers meatpuppets, so I'm assuming that you've read the page, and if you have and are actually accusing Arthur Rubin of being a meatpuppet--I'm incredulous.

No. I wasn't, although upon realising inferrences to that effect could be made, I removed the comment. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking me. Stop attacking other people. I am not sure you even realize you are doing it. If you think that all or any of my warnings were incorrect, ask the helpdesk for an opinion on them, ask an admin to weigh in, I'll even go to dispute resolution about them. But, do not attack me about them again. Do not accuse me of bad faith or of ignoring wiki-policy. Multiple admins have seen them and I haven't received any warnings or comments so they couldn't have been as henious as you thought, but if you still think that they are in fact that wrong, then prove it, and by that I mean with consensus, because it is clear that you can read wiki-policy etc. a million different ways. Don't keep coming to me with new reasons why or new proof as to why I was wrong--stop attacking me. Either let it go, permanently, or bring in other people, the way you tried to do at ANI. You didn't get the result you wanted there, which should speak to the warnings being proper, but as you won't stop, go to dispute resolution, go somewhere, just stop attacking me.

I am not attacking you by pointing out where you are violating wikipedia policies. I disagree that I "read wiki-policy a million different ways". --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You warned me about an edit that involved me and another user that we we're communicating on. I reverted her edit because there was an edit conflict--her edit had been formatting, mine was adding new material and I tried to integrate her edit as much as possible, but I couldn't do it to the full extent, so I left her a note apologizing, and saying to feel free to change the formatting or do whatever if I missed incorporating any of her edits. The user e-mailed me about wikifying I'd missed, since she was blocked because of you and I added it instantly. Flunkybiscuits, a new user who had one hell of welcoming with the block and accusations has managed to be incredibly graceful and assume good faith and be of incredible cheer. She who had already had her edits reverted, and been blocked, assumed the best and was polite and of good cheer while still pushing for what she wanted in the article. On the other hand, you were condescending and uncivil and assumed the worst instead of having good faith and you had nothing to do with the situation. I left a clear message for any editor who was there, and you could have read it and seen that I wasn't doing anything bad and that I was purposefully extending a hand to a newbie and making sure that there weren't any problems with the edit conflict. A new editor saw this and your couldn't.

You left her previously wikified text in the article unwikified. There was no excuse not to keep it wikified. There was certainly no need to "integrate her edits" as you suppose. Why can't you accept that you were wrong, and stop being defensive to the point of bending the truth. At least you eventually apologised to Flunkybiscuits, which is certainly a promising sign. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How was I condescending or uncivil? It appears that any comment I have about your behaviour, you at some point use it again to describe me, but without any apparent justification. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop looking through my edits looking for me to do something wrong. If you have to look for a formatting revert in an edit conflict that I leave a note for apologizing and asking people to fix in case I missed intergrating everything, then you're looking for me to do something wrong and that's the worse assumption of bad faith that there is. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments to you so far have been purely with regards to my experience of you, I'm sure that if I were to look at your contribution history I could find repeated examples of the same sort of thing. As you yourself did this with my edits when you first encountered me, this comment of yours above is another example of a hypocritical one. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being more concise than usual though. It is appreciated. --Rebroad 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

STOP!

I'm still waiting for a retraction of the warning and an apology though.

STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP. Why are you waiting for that? What on earth makes you think you are going to get it? I told you to please leave me alone about the stupid warnings. If you think that they are incorrect, take me somewhere over them. You already took me to ANI, and people didn't agree with you. I think the warnings were perfectly valid. If concensus overrides me, and says, it went against policy or whatver--fine. But it hasn't, and you aren't going to get a retraction or apology because you disagree with me/consensus/reading of policy. Please leave me alone about it.

After I posted the comment, I went to check out the numerous edits you were making to my talk page, most of them marked minor when most were not. You removed the meatpuppet thing because it was a "potentially weak point". At the time I wrote and posted this, that was the last thing I read. You didn't state that I had any? You said meatpuppets don't count toward consensus and linked to two diffs of discussions between me and Arthur. Was I Arthur's meatpuppet then? A meatpuppet by the wiki page you linked to is someone's. You can't accuse someone of meatpuppetry and not have someone to go with them. In that scenario you retracted, who was the meatpuppet and who was the puppeteer?

Why do you insist on talking about something that I already withdrew before your even replied?! --Rebroad 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I said, "you can read wiki-policy etc. a million different ways"-you not meaning you personally but you being a collectively you, as in wiki-policy can be read a million different ways. I never said you did read policy a million different ways.

How am I supposed to know your "you"s are collective yous? I am not telepathic. --Rebroad 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In re Flunkybiscuits. I'm explaining this only once. I already left multiple comments that you were somehow incapable of reading. After this, I expect you to leave me alone.

You are certainly not explaining this "only once", although I'd rather you did. --Rebroad 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Flunkybiscuits made minor formatting edits to Nephology. I made major content edits to Nephology at almost the same time. When I posted, Flunkybiscuits had just edited, so there was an edit conflict. The only changes I saw were two spacing changes--I couldn't keep them exactly obviously, because the content had a complete overhaul. So I did the best I could and posted the following comment on the talk page:

"In re the edit conflict--I didn't keep your formatting because I'd kinda just replaced the text--but I do think the spacing you wanted is there Flunkybiscits--if not, please fix it."

Flunkybiscuits emailed me while affected by your block about the wikified text.

I hadn't noticed the wikified text and instantly rewikified it and commented on Flunkybiscuits talk page,

"I redid the edit of yours I accidently undid--I'm sorry I hadn't seen that, I thought it was all formatting (though I suppose wikifying is formatting)..."

You saw my edit summary, which means you know that I didn't "eventually" apologize, I did in my edit summary, and which means that you know I had to integrate the edits. You also know that I apologized on the talk page, which means that I didn't see the wikification.

You apologised for making changes to spacing as part of the edit comment, and then some time later apologised for undoing the wikification on flunkybiscuits talk page. I don't understand why you needed to even continue talking regarding this point, since we appear to be in agreement. --Rebroad 13:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How were you condescending and uncivil? Let's look at this comment:

"Why can't you accept that you were wrong, and stop being defensive to the point of bending the truth. At least you eventually apologised to Flunkybiscuits, which is certainly a promising sign. "

You can't see how that's condescending and uncivil and how you're attacking me? You warned me when I apologized in an edit summary for an edit conflict, and then instantly went to the talk page and left a comment there, and when the user was blocked and couldn't restore part of the edit, restored the rest of the edit as soon as I was made aware? And yet you're attacking me for every possible thing imaginable.

Please stick to the facts. I am certainly not "attacking you for every possible thing imaginable". And yes, I cannot see how asking you to accept when you are wrong is uncivil. I suppose you think my asking you for an apology is also uncivil do you? --Rebroad 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And btw, for someone who was going after me for my improper use of quotation marks to stress words, and asked me only to use them for actual quotations, I can't remember calling you an "angry mastadon".

I was quoting wikipedia policy, the quotes were not there to stress words. --Rebroad 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking me. Stop stalking me. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of attacking you. I am merely responding to your continued comments on my talk page, as has been the case since you first started the practice on the 17th March. Regarding your accusations of stalking, I hardly think discussing the conduct of an editor on wikipedia is grounds for this. If it is, you have stalked many many people on here. --Rebroad 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider my observations of you to be valid or not, they are how I experience you, and they are also quite similar to how I have seen other users experience you. It may benefit you if you could take this on board, and adjust your conduct accordingly. --Rebroad 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the background of the dispute the two of you seem to be happening, but can I suggest that it might be best for the two of you to disengage and stop interacting for awhile. Would this be possible and productive? Newyorkbrad 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad and I never needed to be in contact past when I left him a warning on his talk page. I have been consiously avoiding escalation and trying very hard to keep my cool while being insulted and attacked, and then attacked again for misquoting the insult or attack. This is not something I am pursuing, but Rebroad wants a retraction of a legitimate talk page warning--he went to ANI to get it, and all that came out of that was that he was blocked, but he still wants a retraction and a warning. He's gone to the helpdesk about me three times, he's gone to some etiquette page about me, and he's following my edits and warning me and harrassing me and thinks he needs to keep an eye on me.

If he could just keep from harassing me and stalking me at this point, that would be lovely. I've been saying for days that I would go to dispute resolution if he would just stop. I still will. But if he didn't like the result as he didn't at ANI, he couldn't continue to attack and stalk me afterwards. I understand that he doesn't feel that he's attacking me and doesn't feel he's stalking me, but he is and it really needs to stop. I don't know what more I can do--I've really run out of patience here. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You could do exactly what User:Newyorkbrad is suggesting, and stop responding to me, but you obviously like the attention, or "strokes" as the Transactional Analysis article calls them. My questions at the help desk were prompted by your actions, but they certainly ARE NOT ABOUT YOU, so please don't flatter yourself by attributing more attention to youself then is already being given in abundance. Just please take on board my comments I left on your talk page, and I'm sure this will be the end of the matter. --Rebroad 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Flunkybisuits, i.e. me!

I would really appreciate it if I was left out of this argument. Whatever issues I have or have not with other editors, I am more than capable of resolving them myself. I do not like feeling like Piggy in the Middle (see the bit near the end about other uses...). Thank you! --Flunkybiscuits 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

I've added another comment to your question on the help desk. WP:POINT is only blockable if it is disruptive. You can't discuss articles without making a point. That's how a discussion works. It's blockable when making that point disrupts the project. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you gone?

Does that mean I wasted the time I took to search for an answer to your question on the ref desk? If so, grrrrrr. Anyways, here it is. And in light of your recent talkpage activity, I think the latter part of my contribution is particularly relevant. Best wishes. Anchoress 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UAC screenshot

(replying to message on my talk page) — I switched to the non-Aero version for two reasons:

1. I do not know how to take screenshots of the Aero shadowing and retain the proper transparency effect.
2. The non-Aero dialog is slightly more consistent than the Aero one because the glassy effects on the dialog change when you move the window around.

If you know how to take screenshots in Windows Vista and retain the transparency of the shadowing, then please tell me how. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Silk Road' or 'Silk Routes'

Sorry, I am not meaning to be picky - but, in spite of its popularity, "Silk Road" is probably not as accurate as the increasingly-popular "Silk Routes." This is because there were many interconnected routes, only a few sections of which were really formed "roads." More typically, they were, at best, rough tracks made by previous caravans - sometimes merely indicated by the trail of the bones of dead pack animals along the way. People, in my experience don't seem to have any trouble recognising that 'Silk Routes' relates to the 'Silk Road' they have heard of earlier. I, like many others writers in recent years, have used 'Silk Routes' throughout my own books. Please let me know if you feel strongly that we should be using "Silk Road". If not, either you can change them back or, if you wish, I will do so. Many thanks, John Hill 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note this morning on my Talk Page. Yes, I think it would be preferable to head the article "Silk Routes" rather than "Silk Road" and use a redirect as you suggest - will try to do it soon. Cheers, John Hill 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni Islam

Hello. I noticed your edit requiring a citation for the fact that Sunni Muslims are by far the largest denomination in Islam. This is proven later on in the article by multiple references, and it is such a well know fact across the world I have never heard anyone even dispute it, let alone dispute that Sunni Muslims are at least 80% of all Muslims.

Kindest Regards Aaliyah Stevens 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)