User talk:Duck of Luke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ANI notification

You have been accused of editing on behalf of what many consider a malicious website: WP:ANI#Duke o Puke and Wikipedia Review. While creating an article about a flashlight isn't necessarily a problem, the implication that you are "in bed with" them is quite serious. —Random832 19:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I've blocked you for proxy-editing on behalf of banned user Daniel Brandt. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's review here. I created an article about a flashlight. A Wikipedia administrator then banned me because he thought my user name, "Duke of Puke", was offensive. I asked him if his reason for banning me had something to do with the flashlight article, and he said no. I changed my user name just to make him happy and avoid trouble, and I was unbanned.

Now, hours later, I'm banned without warning, and the article I created is deleted, completely outside of any process that is described in Wikipedia's rules and regulations, and against the wishes of a majority of Wikipedians who voted to keep the article. I'm also accused of stalking Jimbo because I copied information from a New York Times article into Wikipedia.

As far as "proxy editing" for Daniel Brandt, yes I was told about the Wikipedia Review thread by the Emperor and I was amused to see that the cool flashlight my friend recently bought is the same one Jimbo owns. If it's that interesting to us and has two NYT articles about it I thought it would be a good article for Wikipedia. I don't know everything about Brandt and I'd bet I don't agree with everything he says, but to be honest I don't really care where ideas come from if they lead to articles that make Wikipedia better.

One last thing. If any one of you administrators had simply said, "Change your name and stay away from the flashlight article", I would have obeyed. It seems to me that blocking should be a last resort, not the first thing to try. Duck of Luke (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for you to be unblocked on AN/I, but given the way things are going... I'm sorry I couldn't be of better assistance. Take care, Ripberger (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I noticed but couldn't reply. The worst part about being blocked is you have no opportunity to speak for yourself except on your own talk page. Kind of makes it difficult to work things out. Duck of Luke (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to be honest, I don't know how long I have here, either. I started this account in early 2007 to fix bad grammar and whatnot, but I've decided over the past few weeks to take a more active role in the project. Sadly, one of the first persons to have an active conversation with me has now been banned. Now, you're banned. Also, someone made an unfair speculation about me on a blog that I'm a former administrator raising heck. I never would have thought just doing the right thing by helping someone change their name would cause a series of tragic events. To think that my contributions have helped drive a project that allows such blatant incivility and maltreatment of people! I was warned, but I guess I had to see this kind of terrible spectacle myself before realizing that these kind of things happen in frequency. I can't even believe if Giano is elected to ArbCom, he can stop all these kind of things. I work on other projects and I guess I may be taking my work elsewhere if things get too hot for me here. Again, sorry that things didn't go smoothly for you. Ripberger (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. Though in my experience I'm guessing you might not notice it getting too hot. You'll just wake up one day and be blocked, and the reason given won't have anything to do with the real reason.
Perhaps the powers that be are mounting a campaign to root out and ban everyone who voted for Giano. If it wasn't because of my name or the flashlight article it would have been something else. I bet it won't be long until they come for the rest of the Giano voters. Duck of Luke (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unblocked

You've been unblocked. Being blocked for creating a clearly legitimate article is unacceptable by any means. As long as you don't post by proxy for Daniel Brandt again, I see no reason for you to be blocked. If you do it in the future, I'll be the first to reblock you. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm going to drop the whole business for now and move on. I want nothing to do with the flashlight article anymore. By the way, thank you for serving in Iraq. Duck of Luke (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you happen to know where my M3 is, I'd greatly appreciate it. :P ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank goodness! Ripberger (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL violation

I've been told that the reason the SureFire M6 Guardian article was deleted was because I was the primary author, and that I contributed this content in bad faith.

I think we can all then agree that I was the creator and primary contributor to the article. We can argue about faith later.

Now the administrators of Wikipedia have deleted it, and then recreated it with essentially the same content.

The problem is, now you have robbed me of my attribution right under the GFDL that you and I agreed to when I made the contribution.

See the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, specifically,

4.B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

Please let this talk page serve as notice that I specifically do *not* release Wikipedia from the requirement to list me as an author of the SureFire M6 Guardian document. Duck of Luke (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The new content does not appear to have been derived from your version, but why not just request a history undeletion at deletion review? You're being needlessly confrontational. —Random832 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I was banned while I wrote that, so couldn't take it to that page or any other. Anyway, I'm willing to let it drop for now, although I still think I'm right. Enough is enough. Duck of Luke (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WW II

Thanks for your support... still, life goes on !--Flying tiger (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)