User talk:68.236.36.160

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cooper University Hospital matter

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cooper University Hospital, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Somno (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong regarding my edit of Cooper University Hospital. I simply reverted what a known wiki-vandal reverted. The post in question was approved so long as a cite was provided. The citation was in fact provided and the source was impecable (MSNBC). Just so you know, the purpose of the change and citation was to show that Cooper University Hospital is in an extremely dangerous area (they actually have metal detectors at all entrances to the hospital due to gang related activities).

Please check out all of your facts the next time you make an accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.36.160 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. They may be a known wiki-vandal, I don't know either way, but what you cited just says Camden is a dangerous place. Again, probably true, I don't know either way. However, I don't see what that has to do with the hospital? Can you find a reference to say that the hospital is in a dangerous area (a reference that mentions the hospital) and has metal detectors? That would be a better reference for your fact, and is more related to the article. You might also like to refer to WP:CIVIL and try not to be so defensive when people make suggestions. I don't owe you an apology, as demanded in your edit summary, for reverting your change in good faith - that's what Wikipedia is about (and I'm not the only person who's reverted it). Somno (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, forgot to say - some people have dynamic IP addresses. If an IP address has vandalised in the past, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the same person vandalising again two weeks later - it might be a different person making good faith edits. In that case, calling them a "known wiki-vandal" and calling their changes vandalism is a bit harsh. Of course, if the IP address is static, this doesn't apply, but vandals can become constructive contributors to the project. Just give people more of a chance. Somno (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong, plain and simple. And, quite frankly, you are acting like a pig-headed brat. Therefore, you opinions are worthless. You are now dismissed; don't let the door hit you on your ass/head (sorry, but it's impossible to tell the difference).
Lovely. I sure hope you stay around more to contribute to the project. Along with WP:CIVIL, you also might like to refer to WP:NPA. Somno (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, you are DISMISSED. In addition to being a pig-headed brat, you are also an illiterate oaf.
You can delete my messages from your Talk page, no worries. Same as I can delete yours. The only time it gets controversial IMO is if someone's deleting warning messages to avoid being blocked, which doesn't apply in this case. I find it ironic that I've been "dismissed" by you, but you're still watching my talk page. Move on and do something useful with your time. Somno (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we both better keep a formal record of this. Quite frankly, I just don't trust liars. You are the kind of individual who, when time passes and the evidence is no longer around, will make furhter false accusations in an attempt to ruin someone's reputation. The controversy exists due to you. All you had to do was apologize. Instead you acted like a pig-headed brat. You made the bed, now sleep in it.
I work for Cooper University Hospital and can attest to the fact that the hospital does NOT have "metal detectors at the doors due to gang activity." Please stop vandalizing our hospital's page, as it is not what WikiPedia is here for. If you have actual information about the hospital to contribute, I appreciate any additions you'd like to make. However, four-year-old crime statistics about the city of Camden are irrelevant. Why not post up murder statistics from Philadelphia for Penn, Jeff and Temple while you're at it? Andygradel (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Re: User:Somno matter

You may find advantage in discussing the edit, not the editor, and taking that discussion to the talk page of the article. Regards, cygnis insignis 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as baseball umpires say, "I calls 'em as I sees 'em".
I said you may find advantage - it would depend on your intention. The consensus of opinion is that improvements to the document are made by 'assuming good faith' and not making personal attacks. If you believe there is a problem with the editor, you should seek a third opinion, I think your approach tends to create disruption. cygnis insignis 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and concern. However, I don't believe that my comments should be made on the talk page of the article because this issue is regarding the conduct of Somno. He reverted a contribution I made to the article on Cooper University Hospital and implied that my contribution was vandalism. I explained why it wasn't and asked him to apolgize to me. He refused to apologize and the whole issue mushroomed to where it is now. A simple apology from him to me on my talk page and on his talk page would end this issue. For wahtever reason, he refuses to do so. In my opinion, this is representative of what some say is the biggest problem with Wikipedia: Editors who treat their position like they were God. I'm sorry, but unless I got a legitimate apology from Somno, I won't let this rest. (By the way, if I receive a legitimate apology from him, then I will "return the favor" and issue him an apology.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.36.160 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 January 2008
Also, by the way, this is why I am insisting that until the matter is resolved, that the entire transcript of this matter be kept on Somno's talk page. The proof of my position is within the transcript. If Somno is simply allowed to remove this proof, then he can eventually spin this problem in his direction and advantage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.36.160 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 31 January 2008
Thanks for the reply, User:68.236.36.160, and for assuming good faith in my comments. I am merely an uninvolved editor attempting to help two others. If your contested edit is still important, then I am happy to discuss that with you, that is why we are here. If you do not receive an apology, you may choose to approach one of the many forums which deal with personal attacks. I would not recommend that you do, but the starting point may be WP:WQA. I would recommend that you attempt to gain satisfaction from editing - not editors. If you need any assistance with that, let me know. Cheers, cygnis insignis 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My edit has been dealt with in that Somno has not tried to revert it again. My problem isn't with the edit, it's with Somno. Wikipedia is a great tool; however, as I said before, the one major problem with it are certain editors (like Somno) who act like they are God. Somno has a right to edit, but when an editor makes an accusation which turns out to be wrong, then he should apologize. Somno did make an accusation; he was proved to be wrong. He also refuses to apologize. Instead, he attempted to hide the whole issue by deleting the comments from his talk page. I can't and won't let this go unless he apologizes to me. It's very simple; if Somno can't see it, then he is being a pig-headed oaf.
Please seek a solution. I am warning you not to make personal attacks. Take it to a forum for attention a review, or let it go. cygnis insignis 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been seeking a solution. It's called an apology. I have every right to ask for one from Somno. In fact, I demand it.

[edit] An update on the User:Somno matter

I found the following on a Wiki complaint page from Somno:

Thank you Doug, it's reassuring to know that I am not at fault. When I first removed their attacks from my talk page, I didn't even consider that the user would have it on their watchlist, since they'd "dismissed" me twice - I figured they'd moved on! Strangely, this has all happened because I took the time to explain to the user why I had reverted one edit that they'd made (which the 2 other editors who'd also reverted the same edit hadn't done) - somehow this has made me the subject of 85% of the user's edits on Wikipedia. Crazy! I wish they had this enthusiasm for improving articles, not just attacking people. I will ignore any further communication from this user. Unfortunately they've now started complaining to another editor about me, after they gave the user a welcome message and a polite note to "comment on the edit, not the editor". I hope they also leave that user alone soon. Then it won't need to go any further.
Thanks for the note about how to sign posts on behalf of a user that hasn't signed; that's going to make messages clearer in the future if I'm communicating with another person who doesn't sign, and I didn't know about that before.
I appreciate you reviewing the case. Mostly, thanks for taking the time to "listen" (technically it's not listening, but you know what I mean!). It's very disheartening to be a polite editor who assumes good faith, yet receive nasty messages every time I login. I have received similar messages before after reverting vandalism, but those users have moved on to other things (or been blocked for vandalism) shortly afterwards. Anyway, thanks again! Somno (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to repond to this here. Somno is again spinning and not telling the truth. Everything written above by Somno is a lie. Please review what I have taken great pains to preserve on both my user page as well as Somno's user page. Somno made a mistake by reverting an edit that I made and accusing me of vandalism. When proved wrong, he refused to apologize to me.

All that Somno has to do is issue me a formal apology without any conditions. I will then let this matter rest. Wikipedia is a great tool; however, editors like Somno ruin it for the rest of us.

[edit] Enough

Be so kind as to disengage from Somno, or at least stop insulting him/her. This dispute has escalated to the point where the talk page noise is distracting other editors, some of whom are being dragged in. It is wasting our time, and generally creating a drag on our encyclopedia-building efforts. Hesperian 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? All that Somno needs to do is apologize. Rather than stand by a fellow editor, why don't you look at the facts and then advise Somno to do what is right and apologize? This is an interesting question and it deserves an answer. If you are not willing to do this, then I respectfully request that you mind your own business.

I am very curious as to why you think Somno owes you an apology. On review of this and other pages, I see the following potentially offensive comments:

Somno to you:

  1. "at least one of your recent edits... did not appear to be constructive"

you to Somno:

  1. "you are acting like a pig-headed brat"
  2. "you opinions are worthless"
  3. "don't let the door hit you on your ass/head (sorry, but it's impossible to tell the difference)."
  4. "In addition to being a pig-headed brat, you are also an illiterate oaf."
  5. "I just don't trust liars. You are the kind of individual who, when time passes and the evidence is no longer around, will make furhter false accusations in an attempt to ruin someone's reputation."
  6. "certain editors (like Somno) who act like they are God."
  7. Somno is again spinning and not telling the truth. Everything written above by Somno is a lie.

Also, I see you have stated repeatedly that Somno accused you of vandalism, but I can't see any indication that this has actually happened. All I could find was this diff, where you falsely accused 66.173.161.10 of vandalism.

Surely you can see from the above why it rather looks like the problem is you, not Somno. But perhaps I have misunderstood the situation. Feel free to enlighten me.

Hesperian 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Restoring erased comment). Hesperian 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Somno (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Somno (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and harassment of other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Hdt83 Chat 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Somno (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Somno (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked long term

[vandalised edit removed]

What I actually said was "As this account is being used only for harassment, it has been blocked for a month. Hesperian 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)". Since you continue to disrupt, I'll be protecting this page now. Have a nice day. Hesperian 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)