User talk:Duk/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Fleet

Hello,

Several months ago, if not longer, I added a page called "Expansion Fleet". I saw in the deletion log a link to another URL, and wondering why my page was deleted, I checked out that URL... To my amazement, I discovered the text of "what the game is about" exactly copied from my website at http://www.expansionfleet.com/ ! I, rather than the other website, am the one who wrote that text, and while I'm not having a problem with others using the same text, I don't feel it's fair that my article should be deleted on charge of violating copyright when I'm the one who wrote it to begin with.

You can contact me about this at masterphoenix@skynet.be Thank you.

Hi Masterphoenix, I'm sorry your article Expansion Fleet was deleted. I can un-delete it if you give explicit GFDL permission for Wikipedia to use the text, and verify that you are the copyright owner (see my email for more details). --Duk 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO RfA

I appreciate your support on my RfA. Let me know if I can do anything for you! Happy editing!--MONGO 03:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Thanks for chipping in on dyk- I was away for part of the week. It'd be great if you keep helping out- there are enough suggestions to update the template a few times a day at the moment. Everything looks fine, two minor things- you need to update the date and time for the next update at the top of the suggestion page, and mgm (when he worked on the page) and I prefer to archive the template after it has appeared on the main page- that way any useful grammar edits or disambigs that happen while the template is on the main page are preserved in the archive.Thanks again. --nixie 01:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shari Lewis: oops!

I usually get my own images from PD sources. Missed that angle on this one. I'll seek a PD image, or let it go without one. SBTC (Sorry 'bout that, Chief!) Thanks for catching it. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

I just wanted to drop a line to say thanks for your support on my RfA. There were a lot of names I didn't recognise, yours amongst them, so I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks, Hiding talk 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Proby Thomas Cautley into Proby Cautley

I have merged Proby Thomas Cautley into Proby Cautley, as you suggested. Please check it out. Thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Hi, Duk. I just want to thank you very much for supporting my RfA, and to say also that I hope I'll make a good job of it. I'm supposed to be working on an assignment at the moment, and had been reducing my Wikipedia activity, so delayed thanking people, but I'm finding the new rollback button so easy to use that I'm just keeping Wikipedia open on my browser while working on other things, and I thought I'd like to thank at least a few of those who supported me while I'm here. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know archives (Recent additions)

Well... thank you for trying to maintain the page, unfortunately, you've made it worse for me in attempting to fix everything. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Recent additions

I am begging you to stop archiving the information of Template talk:Did you know, and place them into a holding cell. I plan to overwrite all the content in anything numbered with Wikipedia:Recent additions #. Further archiving and additions just keep preventing me from fully fixing the archives. Furthermore, it is apparent that the archive process has gone astray ever since the bot went offline. This means that there are missing items in the archive that I don't know about, and at 10 days running trying to check over the archives, I don't care anymore. Furthermore, to add to my frustration, people keep changing the archive making it difficult for me to finalize and process all the text in the format it should be. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your name mentioned on my talk page

Your name was mentioned on my talk page, but I moved the discussion to Winter Soldier Investigation. Travb 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark's RfA

G'day Duk,

thanks for your support on my RfA. I hereby pledge to use these new buttons for mostly good, and only occasionally evil. If you've any comments, questions, angry exclamations, etc. about my behaviour as an admin, please don't hesitate to let me know. Advice is always good, too. Thanks again, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Hey Duk, I can't believe the irony. TDC has a few sentences which he copied verbatium from an article that anon found. Sources Lets see how impartial you really are about copyright violations, and lets see TDC argue fair use now. I will sit back and laugh at the whole absurdity. Travb 23:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Travb, thanks for the note.

Are you talking about the first indented paragraph in the Sources section of the talk page? The one that starts out ..some of the most gruesome? If so I can't find it in the article. Has it been removed, or did I miss it? Let me know if it is still there.

If fair use is claimed then it has to be attributed and can't be passed off as a wikipedian's GFDL submission. --Duk 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The copyvio paragraphs containing the ..some of the most gruesome text have indeed been deleted, not because they were in violation, but because they were also non-factual. They are no longer an issue. 165.247.222.110 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You know the thing I like about you Duk, is that you are SMART--you play within the rules and cover your own ass. I respect that cunning. Nevermind about the copyright violation, I think it has been moved somewhere else--as you know, I don't agree with your copyright violation philosophy, and so lets just drop it. I have no problem with the sentence being in the article.

I mentioned your name in the [[1]] page, you can mention once again how you followed protocol in your actions (i.e. covered your ass)

Just so I am clear, but not that it matters: I still don't think you have a POV on this topic.Travb 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other copyvios

the following was moved here from Travb's page by an anon

Full info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duk#Copyright_violation

I'd appreciate an answer to my question. Again, has the text been removed already? Or is it still there (i can't seem to find it)?

If you come to my page complaining about a copyvio I will address it the same way I would for TDC, or any other editor. I'll go look for the copied text, look at the place it was copied from and then act accordingly. --Duk 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Suuuuuure you will. [2] 165.247.222.110 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(replying to anon) If you were a registered user I would have left you a note to list it at WP:CP, that's how copyvios get resolved and that's how I came to work on WSI. --Duk 21:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So instead of, "If you come to my page complaining about a copyvio I will address it the same way I would for TDC, or any other editor. I'll go look for the copied text, look at the place it was copied from and then act accordingly."

You really meant to say, "If you come to my page complaining about a copyvio I will address it the same way I would for TDC, or any other editor. I'll tell the person to go list it at WP:CP." Glad we're finally on the same page. Also, FYI I am registered. Just not logged in. And not being logged in has ZERO bearing on your ability to communicate with me if you are so inclined, as evidenced here. Perhaps you can find a more suitable excuse. Finally, as to your advice to list the violations at WP:CP, I have done so with little effect, and even tagged the article per your example. I don't have the admin tools you have to enforce the copyvio remedies, so the tag was removed. 165.247.214.235 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon, I think you misunderstand me; I was working WSI in the course of clearing the others section at WP:CP. If you go look at the history of that page you'll see that I spent four weeks working the section and was responsible for clearing a third of the listings there, including WSI. I did not start working on the page because Travb or TDC asked me.

If someone comes and complains about a page that I'm working on, that's one thing. But complaining about a copyvio on a page that wasn't even listed is a no-brainer, just tag the page and list it. Also, I generally ignore anons who intentionally insert copyright violations under a dynamic ip to avoid getting caught, unless they are unfairly maligning me. The fact that you are now doing this behind my back speaks volumes.--Duk 01:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I've misunderstood you. Perhaps you stated your intent inaccurately? How many ways can you interpret this: "If you come to my page complaining about a copyvio I will address it the same way I would for TDC, or any other editor. I'll go look for the copied text, look at the place it was copied from and then act accordingly." It appears clear enough to me. As for unfairly maligning you behind your back, you'll have to conjure up a more valid cry for sympathy. You and Travb were having a conversation here, and I joined it -- AND I directly addressed you with my comments. Go apply your imagined larceny elsewhere, please. And I agree, your suggestion is a "no-brainer" alright. For someone with a history of neo-con POV, and abuse of Admin powers, you sure don't make much of an effort to conceal your efforts. 165.247.214.235 02:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon, you really don't understand. If Travb or TDC asks for help on a copyvio I'm involved in, I'll jump. If an anon, who edits anonomouslty for the purpose of inserting copyright violations into Wikipedia, asks me to do something that s/he knows damn well how to do themselves, and is just pestering me, I'll ignore them. --Duk 05:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you wrote. If you would like to amend it to include "copyvio I'm involved in," that's fine, if that was what you really intended to write. Forgive me for understanding what you wrote, and not what you meant to write. Now may I ask you why you insist on "pestering me" with comments like,

• intentionally insert copyright violations under a dynamic ip to avoid getting caught
• edits anonomouslty for the purpose of inserting copyright violations

We've been over this several times. The content you've brought into question was not originally added to those articles by me. I thought I was quite cooperative in assisting in the removal of content you specified as in violation (unlike some other editors that would rather drag you through a lengthy argument about what constitutes copyvio versus Fair Use, etc.). Any copyvio material that reappeared in the articles after they were re-written did so because you didn't initially cite it as being in violation. It was discovered later. So please quit accusing me of intentionally inserting and/or re-inserting copyvio material when I have done no such thing. You are just trying to push my buttons. And everyone knows you can't "avoid getting caught" by using a dynamic IP, nor do you need to "edit anonomouslty for the purpose of inserting copyright violations." You can do that perfectly well while logged in, as TDC has demonstrated. I refrain from logging in when editing controversial articles to avoid wikistalkers, pure and simple, and for no other reason. I hope that finally clears up any misunderstandings. 165.247.214.235 10:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the material was added by you. This has been clearly documented. TDC 19:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

TDC, what you've documented is edits made by various Earthlink and Mindspring IPs, including some by me and some not by me, nothing more. Perhaps Kelly can reiterate that for you in clearer terms. As I've stated before, I don't intentionally submit copyright protected content. Just think for a moment -- had I been the original contributor, it would be no big deal for me to pull a TDC and claim, "I was still new and didn't know any better." Since the content has already been removed or rewritten, problem solved, and we can move on. (Am I correct, Duk, that all known violations to date have been addressed? Or are there still outstanding issues?) So there is no reason for me to lie. But if you two want to carry on with the pestering accusations, please yourselves. 165.247.214.230 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I correct, Duk, that all known violations to date have been addressed?. Unfortunately no, there are still copyright problems with the page, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Duk. --Duk 23:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Duk, can you revisit the page to see if problems still exist? I've examined the "Dewey Canyon Revealed" section, and am satisfied that no copied content (except exact quotes, which is expected) remains in the article, nor does content that can be mistaken as "derivative" exist in the article. However, I need your approval before I take this issue off my "to do list." I've recently made minor modifications to that section to clarify an issue with TDC, but all copyvio matters seem to have already been addressed through a series of previous edits. I'd rather not let this problem fester any longer than necessary. Also, at the link you provided above, you state: "This is just one of many examples." Could I impose upon you to briefly indicate any remaining examples, so that I can address them? It would be greatly appreciated. I hope your holidays have been enjoyable. 165.247.214.71 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered in the new section below --Duk 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You can obfuscate this issue all you like, but the evidence is rather overwhelming. An anon IP has been contributing large amounts of material to VVAW related articles since July of 2004. The anon IP all comes from the same Earthlink/Mindspring (they are one in the same) local proxy server located in Oakland Ca, not just the main national server. All contributions from the anon behave in a similar manner, contribute similar material, and have similar discussion styles. They all come from a dial up user, meaning this is not a public portal found at a library or school, as these institutions no longer use dial up connections. Your denial is rather transparent when one looks at the evidence as a whole. TDC 23:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

...as these institutions no longer use dial up connections. Help me out and inform the administrators of this. As for the rest of your babble, see above: "But if you two want to carry on with the pestering accusations, please yourselves." 165.247.214.71 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then, why not simply provide us the name of the institution you are using? I am sure that can be easily verified. TDC 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your CheckUser request

I'm not sure what you're asking for me to do with that request. Can you be more specific? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electroslag welding

For fantastic diagrams on gas tungsten arc welding and electroslag welding, I give Duk this Graphic Designer's Barnstar. Great work! --Spangineer 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a great image you added to electroslag welding. I know they take awhile to draw up, but do you accept image requests for other welding methods? =). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that sometimes, the guide tube is non-consumable (and note; just one m). "Electrode guide tube" might be better. I don't have good image editing software on this computer, but unless you beat me to it I'll fix it soon in one of my university's computer labs. And incidentally, all I know about welding is what I read about it as well—my actual welding experience totals to less than a few hours, but my time spent reading welding textbooks and writing welding articles is dozens of times higher than that =). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! Now once I finish writing the article, I can nominate it for FAC. The only suggestions I can make are related to a couple of the captions—I'd replace "Shield gas" with "Shielding gas", and "Electrode, Tungston (non-consumable)" with "Tungsten electrode (nonconsumable)" or "Nonconsumable tungsten electrode" (note the e in Tungsten). And sorry about my inconsistency in the use of non-consumable vs. nonconsumable—my sources seem to suggest that no dash is better, despite my earlier message. Thanks so much! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] malo's RfA

Duk, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conde McCullough

I can't figure out what happened to the page history for Conde McCullough. I wrote the article in 2004, but the first edit on the history is yours at 21:23, August 4, 2005 with some mention of a copyright violation. As I wrote everything with very little outside help, I can't image where the copyright issue was. Please explain, there is nothing on the talk page regarding this matter. Cacophony 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Duk

Anon's recent question from Other Copyvios section above;

Duk, can you revisit the page to see if problems still exist? I've examined the "Dewey Canyon Revealed" section, and am satisfied that no copied content (except exact quotes, which is expected) remains in the article, nor does content that can be mistaken as "derivative" exist in the article. However, I need your approval before I take this issue off my "to do list." I've recently made minor modifications to that section to clarify an issue with TDC, but all copyvio matters seem to have already been addressed through a series of previous edits. I'd rather not let this problem fester any longer than necessary. Also, at the link you provided above, you state: "This is just one of many examples." Could I impose upon you to briefly indicate any remaining examples, so that I can address them? It would be greatly appreciated. I hope your holidays have been enjoyable. 165.247.214.71 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon, thanks for the holiday greeting, same to you.

About the Dewey Canyon Revealed section, I don't think any copied text remains. But, as explained in the evidence section above, it doesn't matter. The section started as a straight cut and paste copyright violation, and the current writing was derived from the copied text. Since copyrights extend to derivative works, the current section was still a problem the last time I looked at it.

P.S. I have no intentions of looking at the latest edits, see below. --Duk 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's instructions for handling copyright violations is to revert the article to a non-copyvio version, or to delete the text in question, not to edit it until it is no longer the same. This copyright violation was never properly resolved the second time it showed up and remains a problem.

As far as my involvement in the article, I'm done. I'm sick of being vilified and called names by other administrators and long time editors who are idiots, who don't bother to read and understand Wikipedia's instructions for clearing copyright violations, who are too lazy to look at the Fucking diffs for themselves, and who believe whatever their sychophants tell them, instead of doing the work of reading the evidence and thinking for themselves. --Duk 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia instructions to revert to a pre-vio version, or delete the text in question, and while I may view it as a formality rather than a necessity, I made sure to completely delete that section prior to inserting my rewrites anyway. Just trying to cover all the bases, so to speak.

I can appreciate the frustration you feel at the name calling and unjust accusations, and I'd like to apologize for my part in that. I was expressing my own frustration at being accused of making edits a year and a half ago (because I shared an ISP provider and similar POV with earlier editors), or intentionally inserting copyvio content into articles. I retaliated by returning equally baseless accusations that you were abusing your admin powers to remove content and whole articles that didn't fit your POV. Of course I didn't believe that, but I was in tit-for-tat mode, and that was wrong of me. I've seen the extensive work you've done on cleaning up copyvios, and it speaks for itself. 165.247.214.16 13:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I made sure to completely delete that section prior to inserting my rewrites anyway. Just trying to cover all the bases, so to speak.

Ummm, no you didn’t. [3]

Ummm, yes I did. [4] 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You changed or added a few words here and there, there is not substantial difference between what you started with and what you finished with. And I apologize if your pleas that all the copyvio have been removed, because you have made statements every time this issue is raised.

You are correct about my modifications being minor. In fact, I described them above by saying, "I've recently made minor modifications to that section..." I am glad that we are in agreement. Your apology is accepted. 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You claimed it was fixed on October 14, 2004 [5], it wasn’t.

You claimed they did not exist on February 5, 2005 [6] but they did.

Wrongo, TDC. Accuracy not so EZ? You've provided links to discussions between "Rob" and "Sewilco," not me. And you can save your prattling on about "Same ISP!!!" etc., because it is getting old. It's not likely you'll be arguing with "Rob" through these systems again unless he returns as a TA, so get used to it. I did find Rob's old talk notes extremely helpful several times recently, like when you started inserting what you thought was damning information from that political stooge Pitkin. Good times. After early next year, you can wave goodbye to us also and start breaking in a new set of wiki-editors, some of whom will no doubt butt heads with your "efforts" here as I and others have. 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

And then again on August 9, 2005, you claimed all the copyvio material was removed [7], but once again it wasn’t.

It sure looks removed to me. Oh, and was that me? Or an evil henchman? 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

And then on September 26, 2005 [8] you claimed none existed, and then you went so far as to question Duk’s motivations for his actions.

Apparently here you have mistakenly provided the wrong link. Try again? What you linked was discussion about a minor mis-quote Duk made, a minor oversight of like 1 or two words which he corrected and immediately apologized for, and we moved on. And we've gone over the "question his motivations" bit above (see: my reasons why, and my apology). Get with the scene here, TDC, you seem to be lagging several posts behind on everything lately. 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if your credibility has sunk to such a low level, but you made your bed, now you get to sleep in it. TDC 21:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, your apology is accepted. 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Duk -

I won't be clogging up your talk page further. I won't be offended one bit if you delete any of the above at your whim. TDC can look for it in the edit histories for all I care, and I won't be responding to him further here. The apologies as well as the best holiday wishes are sincere. Cheers, 165.247.219.222 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solifugae edit added to BJAODN

I've added [9] to BJAODN. Good work in spotting that vandalism! Andjam 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wishes

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socks (cat)

I'm glad you at least thought it was humorous. --malber 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for info Duk

Thanks for info Duk about being unblocked.Travb 22:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Duk, what copyright bot do you use?

Is it python wikipediabot?. If so, would you care to tell me how the h@$% to install it on windows? I have another wikipage--unrelated to all of this, which I am trying to upload 1500 pics. Happy New Years. Travb 05:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Duk for the info. I knew I would eventually be blocked for my unruly behavior, which you saw personally yourself. I feel bad about accusing you of being a partisan hack, like others at WSI. I was wrong, as I have admitted before. My wikipage is not up yet, but here is one example that I have seen:

• http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page.

Happy New Year Travb 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadell's RfB

Sorry about reverting over your comment on the page! Good to see you put it back on there! That shifty vandal(s)! -- MicahMN | μ 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My bureaucrat nomination

Thank you for your kind words on my nomination for bureaucrat. I'm disappointed with the results, but heartened by the support I received by so many fine Wikipedians. You're "one of the good-uns", as they say. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandsaw page - Resaw

Hi Duk. Thanks for fixing up my stuff up on the resaw page. For some reason I read your "eigth inch" as "eighth inch", which I changed to 1/8". Something was telling me it was wrong but it was too early in the morning for the logic circuits to kick in. Are you a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Woodworking? It's flagging a bit lately so all help is welcome. Cheers. SilentC 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from rogerd

[edit] Re: User:69.172.251.162

Thanks for dealing with the issue. I'll leave you a message if he does it again. VegaDark 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt revert and re-blocking. VegaDark 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni Cardinal Cavestri

Yeah looks like the original page was deleted. However, your temporary subpage doesn't seem to exist as well. But whatsowever, I'd think it'd always be better to rewrite an article and getting out of some copyright stuff that way instead of deleting the article. --Maxl 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Comment

I realize this is not your favorite topic to deal with, but your input is relevant to the outcome of the RfArb.

Namely, the anon continues to state that with regard to the Winter Soldier Investigation article you have certified it as copyvio clean [10] [11]. DTC 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Or more accurately, this anon continues to state that known copyvio issues have been addressed, as we've been working to clear up the copyios for several months now. I can't state with certainty that it is "copyvio clean," as we've both discovered new questionable material after we thought it was all cleared out. I can say that all known issues have been addressed thus far. I hope there are no additional violations lurking in the text, and I hope you would point them out if you knew of any. It would be great to finally lay that issue to rest. But TDC is right, perhaps a word from you on the Arb page would help move things along. 165.247.214.107 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved. [12] DTC 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Duk. I see you've dropped a note here and offered to participate. Would you mind giving a brief statement on the points I put forth in the links provided by TDC above (and also copied to here)? Primarily, your current understanding of the copyvio situation with the WSI article. The most appropriate place for the statement would be on the evidence page, I believe. Thanks again, 165.247.202.248 09:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi anon, I responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision, since that is where the conversation was moved, but didn't comment on the article's current copyvio situation since I don't know what it is.

As far as removing copyvios from the article; I did it once, I did it right, and I'm not going to do it again. What I know is that afterwards, a bunch were re-added. I haven't been following the article very much since. --Duk 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Duk. Remember that anger you felt when everyone was piling bullshit on you and making baseless accusations about you? I'm feeling a bit of the same right now. I can already see this is going to get messier before it gets better. I'm moving this to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision... 165.247.202.116 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you're the one stalking this article and inserting copyright violations for going on two years now (I know I know, you insist you're the good anon, falsely accused. And the bad anon is someone else). Also, until now I thought you were serious; but I'm starting to wonder if you're really just a simple troll; pretending not to see the links given in evidence, giving me the runaround and having a good time at my expense. --Duk 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I see the links you have provided. (Many of which link to now-deleted versions, btw.) I know we're both looking at the same thing, so that isn't the problem. I think the big sticking point here is "intent." My intent is to see the article stabilized as a factual, balanced, neutral and copyvio-free document. I doubt it would ever be "Featured Article" material because of low subject-matter interest, but I'd like to see it have the quality of a featured article anyway. Please tell me how I can possibly meet that goal by "intentionally" inserting copyvio material. That is preposterous. It is illogical. It is counter-productive. Hundreds or thousands of people visit Wikipedia every day, so it stands to reason that copied or plagerized material is eventually going to be spotted and yanked. So how does that serve my purpose to insert copied text when it takes very little effort to read the text, digest it, and formulate my own way of presenting it in non-copyvio form? Your constant accusations just make no sense at all. Now you know my intent, so what what is with this made-up intent you keep trying to apply to me? You keep painting me as a grade-school kid trying to see which articles I can corrupt and destroy by sneakily inserting copyvio content, like a ticking timebomb, when no one is looking. Give me a break. I'm a responsible, educated, married, working homeowner that is probably older than you.

Damnit, Duk... you wonder if I'm just a troll? I wonder the same thing about you! Good work with the "puppy eye" comment, by the way. I'm embarrassed that I took the bait, and responded in kind. I see that you didn't respond to my outline of what really happened with the copyvios. There are no good times here, Duk, in fact this is really draining on me. It's not like we can sit down over a beer and hash this out, but I'm actually tempted to do the next best thing... do you think a phone call would accomplish anything? It would be faster, and at least hopefully show that you are dealing with a human being and not a troll. Neither of us wants copyvios in the article. Neither of us likes being dragged through this Arb process. Neither of us likes being misrepresented or unjustly accused. We shouldn't be at odds like this. How about you suggest something? 165.247.212.88 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A phone call?!? Wow, the desperation is getting deep. Ten Dead Chickens 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, problems like the WSI RFA are solved by discussion and evidence in an open form, where a group of people eventually come to some kind of shared perception of reality. How can I maintain an assumption of good faith on your part when you do the opposite; refuse to participate in the RFA and start up personal conversations with the arbitrators on the side regarding the outcome of the case? I'll think on the phone call for a while--Duk 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"How can I maintain an assumption of good faith on your part when you do the opposite; refuse to participate in the RFA and start up personal conversations with the arbitrators on the side regarding the outcome of the case?"

I always assume good faith, until my assumptions are absolutely proven wrong. I've never refused to participate in the RFA. See this, please. As for personal conversations, I disagree with the characterization of them as "bad faith," they were not, but now that I think about it, you could certainly make a case they they were improper or outside of procedure. For that I apologize, and future Arb-related discussions will be kept on the Arb pages. I'll find a suitable place to apologize to the Arbitrators as well. And if I may make a suggestion: Please don't let TDC egg you on. 165.247.212.88 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A ton of evidence against you, not a single word in reply. No evidence of your own, no explanation, nada, zilch, nothing. You and TDC were the topic of the whole RFA. I specifically tried to avoid the RFA because my role was ancillary, I still ended up contributing more than you.

Please don't bother me any more unless there is something constructive to be gained. --Duk 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Words of Advice

Be warned when tangling with Rob the anon, he will drag you in circles for weeks and hold up the entire arbitration process. With all the incriminating evidence against Rob, I doubt the arbiters wont be able to see past his lies and his latest attempt to stall this process. Ten Dead Chickens 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. But the arbcom case is almost done so I can't give up now, gotta answer everything, even if the anon is trolling me. --Duk 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)