User talk:207.190.198.130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 October 2007 2 Blocked 3 Oversampling 4 Enlightened self-interest edits 5 Civility

[edit] October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Kilogram, you will be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Kilogram, you will be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It's not hard to tell that you are very likely the same person as User:Greg L. It doesn't fool anyone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For an admin, you've made at least two quite presumptuous statements. The second is that it is obvious that I am "very likely" User:Greg L and that I am trying to fool people. In fact, you don't know what you are talking about. I won't spell out how disturbed I am about the quantity of wholesale changes made to Kilogram that Greg_L has made, but I have said so in the past but for reasons that I will keep to myself, I will remain anonymous IP. The first is the presumption that you are correct in your assessment that the pict in cannot be used under fair use criteria. It's U.S. Government, it can be used and it is directly related to the content of the article. In other words, even though I am greatly disturbed by the wholesale changes to the article that Greg L has made, I fully agree with him about the use of the picture that you are actively trying to delete from the project. You're wrong and he's right and from that you conclude that I am vandalizing the article and that I am the same person as Greg L. You truly have no idea of what you are talking about and the your confidence in yourself about the accuracy of both points is, frankly, immature. 207.190.198.130 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for repeatedly reinserting GFDL violating content without proper attribution to the original authors, after being warned not to, in conjunction with tendentious editing and reinserting of invalid fair-use images on Kilogram. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

there is quite a bit of evidence that you reinserted the content. See [1], [2], and [3]. The image is an improper fair use image that cannot be used on this page, and you are well aware of the reasons why this is the case. The image is NOT a U.S. government image, it is a copyrighted image by a private photographer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You said that I "repeatedly reinsert[ed] GFDL violating content" as the reason for the block, where did I do that? 207.190.198.130 01:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, you said ""You're making threats in your block statement already. There is no reason to unblock you. — Maxim" What are you talking about? What threat did I make to anyone??? 207.190.198.130 01:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this page should be protected.Dacheatcode 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Greg L writing. For the record, there have only been two anonymous edits to the Kilogram article and I made one of them: difference here, which I made on 16:15, 14 October 2007. And for the record, I happen to have been traveling and was in Leavenworth Washington for their Oktoberfest festival. As the new location gave me a unique I.P. address, and since I saw that Swatjester had placed a Twinkle on me, I decided to not log in when I reverted Swatjester’s edits. I thought his reasoning flawed (and still do). And at that time, Swatjester’s method of operation had lead me to believe he was a rogue editor, not an administrator. I also believed my edit comment that accompanied my reversion made it abundantly clear it was I who was behind it. I couldn’t possibly anticipate that less than 24 hours later, someone else would make the exact same reversion citing similar reasoning. As a matter of fact, this Whois I.P. trace on 68.116.23.6 comes back to Kennewick Charter Communications: the nearest big city to Leavenworth. I am G*d-damn sick of this dispute and there is now a substitute picture that will suffice. I can see that “207.190.198.130” is no fan of my work on the Kilogram article. Fair is fair though, and from what I can see, he is being unfairly treated for one single act of defiance.

Why do I think this is the case? I see in the Kilogram history that the second anonymous edit to the Kilogram article was made by “207.190.198.130” (difference and edit comment here), which was made on 08:05, 15 October 2007. Since a list of contributions to I.P. addresses can’t be tracked, I can’t tell if “207.190.198.130” made other edits that Swatjester referred to or Swatjester just got all worked up over something. However, it appears that over the course of three hours after having made one edit to the Kilogram article that was contrary to Swatjester’s desires, Swatjester posted four messages here on this page, the last of which resulted in “207.190.198.130” being blocked. I note that the block came 47 minutes after you liped off to him and doesn’t seem to correlate with any further edits. This is unfortunate because a simple I.P. trace would show that “207.190.198.130” traces to the other side of the country, to Massachusetts, and to a particular location that helps one understand why “207.190.198.130” might like to remain anonymous (a mistake in the long run, registering protects your identity better). It is doubly unfortunate because this dispute isn’t over a violation of a black & white issue; it’s over a grey area, where the issue is whether or not a photograph of an electronic kilogram pertains sufficiently enough to the subject of “kilogram” to merit the use of non-free content in the Kilogram article. Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on that subtlety. I haven’t looked at the rules, but I’m sure that official Wikipedia policy is to give a warning and wait for a repeat of the behavior. I can see that this is not the case in the Kilogram article but hold open the possibility that “207.190.198.130” made prohibited edits elsewhere during those three hours (I doubt it).

Administrators should be advised that they

1. should clearly identify that they are an administrator who rightfully posses the powers to block users, and
2. that their reasoning should be clear, rational, measured, mature, should adhere to Wikipedia rules of conduct (such as “assuming good faith,” “not engaging in personal attacks,” and “sticking to the crux of the dispute), and
3. should stop equating and labeling the reverting of their edits as “vandalism.”

That last point addresses a situation where some administrators come across as if the force and righteousness of “Truth, Justice, and The American Way™©®” has gone to their heads and they equate reversion of their edits as “contempt of cop” (it’s time to bust some defiant hippie skull now). When any other two regular contributors have a conflict, it’s called an “editing or reversion war.” When a regular contributor disagrees with an administrator, the “vandalism” paintbrush is whipped out too quickly as a justification to block someone; particularly when there is a debatable grey area. And doubly especially when administrators don’t even identify themselves as one and don’t behave at all like one. The “you heard my threats and felt my billy club on your head so who might I be?”–technique doesn’t go far in my book. Administrators should also be patient. Waiting an extra few days and first going to a Fair-use review isn’t going to hurt anything; we’re not trying to extract critical intelligence out of a top Al Qaeda operative to save lives here. I think administrators should suggest reviews on their own, rather than having a frustrated contributor have to discover that venue themselves. What started all this out on the wrong foot was the fact that Swatjester simply removed the photograph from the Kilogram article and left only an edit summary saying “bad fair use image”. Orphanbot alerted me that the photograph was scheduled for deletion because of it. I’m sorry, but many reasonable editors would assume those were the actions of a rogue editor, not an administrator.

Lastly, to “207.190.198.130”: In response to your post on my talk page, I did e-mail Jimbo after incorrectly thinking my post on his talk page had been deleted (it was a database catch-up thing I think). I rather unwisely publicly declared so here on the talk page of the person I (incorrectly) thought responsible for the deletion. I don’t think it proper to comment on what may or may not have transpired after that. However, I deeply regret that so much stink has come over so little sh*t. Wikipedia has been an enjoyable hobby for me and I did not have fun over than damned photograph. The whole experience has highlighted several areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from some changes. Greg L (my talk) 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I see here on the Kilogram talk page that Swatjester still thinks that “207.190.198.130” is User:Greg L. Well, how about a little common sense and detective work? Posts from “207.190.198.130” are elsewhere on that very same talk page on this“C-12” topic and on this “FG-5 accuracy” topic. I argued against “207.190.198.130” in both. Who in their right mind would think I would start arguing with myself fourteen days before this latest incident?!?  Would it be because I wanted to pre-establish a contrived alibi in case I ever had to resort to using my secret alias that had been cultivated via carefully crafted, fake arguments with myself? Further, “207.190.198.130” made a couple of contributions to the Kilogram article, one of which (edit changes and edit summaries here and here) I thought was unsupportable so an edit war occurred (here, here, here, and here). Do you think someone could possibly advance a plausible hypothesis that I would engage in an edit war with myself (and debate myself while doing so) in preparation for using a hidden sock puppet at some point in the future? Industrial-strength preposterous. Greg L (my talk) 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Swatjester is an admin who has let the power that comes with the responsibility go to his head. I have run into these abusive-bully admins before who think they never make mistakes in judgement and, when challenged, block the challenger for "disruptive edits" or some other convenient lie. They also ignore the results of checkuser when it comes back with no connection between their suspected sock-puppets. This is one reason I am now anonymous IP. I ain't telling anyone who I used to be and I've been here (and a productive technical editor) since 2004. 207.190.198.130 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I didn’t want to say so because it’s so non-politically correct. It reminds me of the psychology experiment in the 60s wherein they had college students play the role of jailers and inmates. The inmates were in jail cells and for some number of hours per day, were prisoners of the “jailers.” Even though it was role playing, the power trip went to the jailer’s heads and they abused the “prisoners.” I believe the role of a Wikipedia administrator is really only suitable for certain personality types. Those that are unsuitable can slowly learn the proper behvior with time and pain. However, like the real personality of a drunk when they’ve had too much to drink, their real nature lurks beneath; it’s just better suppressed. Greg L (my talk) 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oversampling

Just wondering if you could explain to me the following in the oversampling article.

"This gives the anti-aliasing filter a transition band of 600 Hz ( (fs-B) - B = (800Hz-100Hz) - 100Hz = 600 Hz) instead of 0 Hz if the sampling frequency was virtually 200 Hz."

I believe this to be incorrect and I may be wrong but just wanted to clarify.

--86.41.117.120 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If 100 Hz is the original signal bandwidth, the anti-aliasing or anti-imaging low-pass filters need to have gain of somewhere around 1 (or 0 dB) from DC to 100 Hz (actually, if you look at the bilateral spectrum from -100 Hz to +100 Hz). And they need to have a gain of somewhere around 0 (or -inf dB) from 700 Hz up to 900 Hz. So the transition band, which is what you get between the passband (ending at 100 Hz) and the stopband (starting at 700 Hz) is 700-100 Hz in width. The frequency components between 400 Hz and 700 Hz (which, I believe, you felt needed to be filtered out) will get aliased to between 400 Hz and 100 Hz, which still does not corrupt your original signal below 100 Hz. There is no need to kill the frequency components in that region with the anti-aliasing filter (for A/D) or the anti-imaging filter (for the D/A). 207.190.198.130 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, any aliasing which occurs in the 100-400Hz range won't matter. Thanks for the clarification. --193.1.100.3 (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enlightened self-interest edits

While I can appreciate work done to find references, etc., this shouldn't be the most important consideration for inclusion. The references you mention and definitions you use mostly come from the concept's current popularity within the business sector. One was an obscure reference to a marketing blurb from Golin-Harris, marketing its own services for corporate citizenship; the other from a Starbucks chairman (nonetheless, they were not removed from the article as your concerns implied). These allusions (and the article as previously written) would be closer to rational self-interest rather than enlightened self-interest. You may want to compare with the Dalai Lama's view of the concept (fourth paragraph from the bottom).

You also did a complete undo without consideration of additional material and clarifications unrelated to your concerns. While my edits did alter somewhat the meaning given in the article, it was done with the wiki NPOV guidelines in mind and put several contrasting and clarifying examples near the start of the article where such disambiguation is most useful. Did you consider these?

The style of the opening paragraphs, in general, also do not conform well to the wiki lead section guidelines.

[edit] Civility

You would be advised to traverse with more care when you edit the Fine-tuned Universe article. Making changes against consensus is highly frowned upon and a sign of disruption. Instead of attacking Hrafn, it would be much more beneficial if you tried to work with him on the article. Also, I would urge you to get an account since IP edits on these articles are always looked at with a touch of suspicion, due to the long history of trolling on all Evolution/CS/ID articles. Baegis (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is undoing a change that Hrafn put in long ago against any consensus. I know the deal: there is a politically-correct POV in these articles that are conceivably related to ID (I dunno what you mean by "CS"). At one time, this political correctness did not infect the FTU or AP articles. The AP article still looks pretty good, User:Highlander did some good work on it. But the FTU article has been attacked by the ID haters because of their bias against ID. FTU, in and of itself, is about physics and cosmology. The reasons or causes or explanations of FTU gets into philosophy where religious types and anti-religious types engage in debate, but for the latter side to attack the physics of FTU (because if FTU is not real or needs no explanation, then the IDers have lost another leg supporting their POV which is something the anti-IDers like) is simply injecting POV into the article to support their way of thinking. It is contrary to the project's 2^nd pillar. Hrafn is clearly using the article to inject his POV, he isn't supporting it with citations, and nobody (but me) is trying to stop him from doing so.

Hrafn again did not support his justification for inserting his POV into the article in the talk page (I will go there now and point it out), he inserts that biased statement with no citations (now is misusing a citation that does not speak to the specific issue) and no one (other than me) seems to care. Is that the Wikipedia Way?

Because of this abuse (and a long history of it), there are very good reasons for remaining anonymous. 207.190.198.130 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]