User talk:Ian13/Archive8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Archive 8
Please do NOT edit this page, If you wish to reply to any message on here then please copy the whole conversation to my current talk page. Thanks! Ian¹³/t 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Good Faith
I just want to know why, in all the rants that Midgely has made and insults, you never inserted WP:AGF in the discussion. He was warned on his talk page (which he has since deleted) but nobody did to him what you just did to Gfwesq. If Midgely some kind of icon on Wiki? Or are admins just afraid to tangle with him? Either way, this one sided and selective insertion of tags is NOT good faith.MollyBloom 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- (the above message has since been edited by the poster, so my reply is to an old version) I am not selectively inserting things anywhere. Posting comments about people publically is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. I can't and don't however have time to warn everyone on Wikipedia. Think of police, not everyone gets caught, but that doesn't mean those that do should not be delt with. If you were to provide me with diffs, then I will take a look. Ian13/talk 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, then would you post the same comment where Midgely recommended banning me from editing all breast impant articles (if it is still there, which It may not be) or JFW's "VOTE" that I be censured for WP:Point? That is still there, where I moved it to the talk pages.
-
- Also, would you please be a little more cognizant of furture such actions by Midgely? The mediator removed some of what Midgely wrote, and recommended I take the case furhter to arbitration to prevent him from continuing accusations and incivility. I pointed out in my mediation complaint that I explained that administrators involved in this Rfd have not seen fit to stop the abuse.
Fair enough about examples. I believe what Midgely had initially written was removed, but I will have to check. I will show you Ian's comment.MollyBloom 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jgwlaw
I will try again. For some reason, what I had tried to post here didn't 'stick'. Hopefully this is sufficient to illustrate what I mean. No comment was made to any of these by an administrator.
In fact, in an interest of fairness, I request that you address each of these, on the page where they are posted, as you did for me.
1. Midgley's new 'vote' on the first page, that links to his really egregious statement accusing me of removing his vote (which you corrected but now he still links to) and launching a diatribe: My earlier vote was removed. here it is. It wasn't the first removal from this afd. It is too tedious to pick through the history to find who removed it and when and it is undoubtedly the case that they believed they were acting for the best. The vote? After a comment and observing and partly because of the processes here, it was Strong keep. Midgley 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please look at this because he links to his worst diatribe. This is on the front page. [1]
- "undoubtedly the case that they believed they were acting for the best" - looks in reasonably good faith to me. Ian13/talk 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Midgley's original "vote" on the RFD (which was never removed, but moved to the discussion page and is still there) and Strong keep partly becuase this is a clear attempt to subvert WP procedures and norms, partly because to delete one article in furtherance of an agenda would encourage further depredations, and partly because assertions that someone is not notable becuase they are not in the newspapers but in peer-reviewed journals should not be supported. I suggest that an RFC on MollyBoom's activities related to breast implants and now this afd should be called and that a ban on editing any article related to plastic surgery would be appropriate and improve the quality of the WP. Midgley 12:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC) [2]
- I think you have to understand he may have been annoyed that this was infact posted on a public forum... The call for a ban on editing was uncalled for, but I do think he is trying to do this for the good of Wikipedia, however it is something which would be better addressed at the RfC he calls for or ArbCom. Ian13/talk 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Midgley's doctor friend Jfw's 'vote' to 'censure' me that was on the front page. </br? JFW wrote: Censure Molly for using AFD to WP:POINT. JFW |  Argument ad hominum is no argument. Take it elsewhere. This is an Rfd, and not a lobby against an individual.MollyBloom 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) This was on the front page as part of the 'keep' vote, he added a 'Molly' vote. If this is not egregious, I don't know what is.
- Well, still not a diff, so I can't verify this... Also the lack of context makes this hard to interpret. Ian13/talk 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is my response: Since when is this a lobby for censuring Molly or lobbying against a person? This is an Rfd, not a personal attack forum. Or am I wrong? It seems that pages and pages of venom are spewed here without any intervention whatsoever by admins. Is this Wikopedia style? Please help me understand, because no legitimate organization would condone or allow this type of conduct.MollyBloom 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- (its an AfD infact) Seems a valid point, but 'fighting' back doesn't help. If someone attacks you (or what you believe to have been an attack), then it is usually best to leave it, and let someone unafflicated with you reply (ie, someone who you are not connected with, and is not a part of the discussion). We are also not an organisation, we are a community. Ian13/talk 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And he either inadvertantly or deliberately missed my entire point: It was not a personal attack (in what way did I attack you?) Instead, I wish you'd stop attacking every keep vote. Also, I'm voting as a Wikipedian here; admins have no special powers when voting on AFD and should not receive different treatment for this reason. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perfectly valid, I think. He doesn't believe it to be an attack... Labeling people as attacking you doesn't usually make their day. He also believes you are forcing everyone to your POV and that you shouldn't treat others differently because of what opinion they hold. Ian13/talk 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
So I tried to explain it, with great civility, which is more than I can say for this man:
Maybe you really didn't understand. I did not challenge or criticize your 'keep' vote. What I criticized was your "Molly" vote. That is inappropriate on the Rfd. If you have a problem with me, take it elsewhere. "Molly" censure is not a vote on the Rfd. Frankly, I no longer care what happ;ens to the article. I am sick of the senseless warring and insult hurling that has nothing to do wtih the Rfd. It continues unabated without anyone stopping it. I will delete any further personal attacks since me. THis is not professional, appropriate and if this is Wikopedian, then I want no part of it.MollyBloom 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) If anything, JFW, as an administrator, you would be more helpful if you would help establish civility here.MollyBloom 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC
- See, some may see that as incivil, in how you address how others treat you. I think you should keep away from this debate as I have said before, and so have others. Really. Ian13/talk 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will address anything which needs addressing, when I am able to address it. Please try not to make such demands. I still think you may be better off trying to contact one of the other 800 admins who have 'neglected' to do anything... Ian13/talk 19:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please also note my above comments are comments only. I still advise you try and get an external bosy to look over and assist you... I am also trying to comment from the oposite POV so I can try and highlight alternative views. Ian13/talk 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was pointing out that you found time to comment on both me and Gfwesq,but not on Midgely, ever, on the pages. This does look selective. Here is a new comment from Midgely, where he is now swearing. You asked for examples, I gave you examples. now you don;'t want them? Anyway, I do understand you are in finals....but please don't make any comments if you don't balance them. Thanks!
-
- I have filed a formal compaint against Midgely, and the mediator said that he thinks I should take it to arbitration, as Midgely doens't seem to be stopping this. Also, he deleted some of what Midgely wrote.MollyBloom 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
For th purpose of peace and quite let us agree that whatever it was that happened, before it my vote was here on this page where it could be counted, and after it happened my vote was nt here, not on this page, not where it could be counted. If it is a matter of enormous significance to anyone that this not be described as "deleted" then let us call it "accidently removed". And just above, is a note made by me saying so, and putting it back, and pointing to where it was originally added, and by the way, mentioning the tedium of picking through to find the no doubt benign explanation. Now close the damn thing and stop refactoring the past. Midgley 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) MollyBloom 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I hardly see that as swearing. And I think he is trying to raise that he thinks you are lingering and effectively trying to pick everything apart (and calling for action to be taken against him...). I advise you to move on, and try and comprimise with him, rather than prolong a dispute. Ian13/talk 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- damn is swearing, according to the dictionary. Ian, have you asked him to move on also? I am just asking, because I believe it is noteworthy to find out. Also, I gave you examples of where he threatened to ban etc etc etc. You asked for the examples, I provided them, and you ignored them.MollyBloom 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I will copy what I said before: "Well, still not a diff, so I can't verify this... Also the lack of context makes this hard to interpret." People are also usually only blocked for swearing if it is particulary obscene, or if it is directed at an editor (ie, to insult them). Ian13/talk 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Your comment on my mediation page
Actually, you did initially (and inadvertantly) move Midgley's vote/comment. Brainer, I believe, did it a second time. Here is your statement:
Note: Right, that diff shows it moved down, if you scrool down, you see it reappears, it seems that just a linebreak was added. Unfortunatly, this comment did manage to vanish when I moved a rather big chunk to the discussion page (since it wasn't all directly relevent), unfortunatly, I wrongly took that comment with it. [19] Ian13/talk 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ian, I don;t have anything against you. IN fact, I hope that you do study for your exams. I jsut hope you will take the comments I made in good faith, and try to be a little more balanced in your comments/admonitions. I actually do appreciate the help you provided me in creating the Rfd. MollyBloom 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have anything against you either, but it seems that my moving of stuff was not what lead to it being moved, but bainer's was. I noted this and gave a different diff. Please don't presume that I have anything against you. Ian13/talk 09:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hopefully, I have fixed this on the page now. Ian13/talk 09:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kind of. It would have been better to not defend Midgely. That was not warranted, in your correction of your mistake. The discussion and mediation is closed, for all practical purposes. Also, I hope you refrain from making comments on the GPatrick Maxwell page to me or to Gfwesq. You asked for examples (above) when I suggested that you were not being even-handed, I gave them to you, and you ignroed them. If you can't be even-handed, then please don't continue in this issue.MollyBloom 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hopefully, I have fixed this on the page now. Ian13/talk 09:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- For a final time: you have not provided diffs, and I cannot verify your claims. Ian13/talk 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- IF you read above, there are examples of exactly the same thing you cited me for. But you know Ian, I don't want to continue this. It's not worth it. I don't think you see or want to see, and at this point, I don't care. Good luck on your exams!MollyBloom 16:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- For a final time: you have not provided diffs, and I cannot verify your claims. Ian13/talk 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] User talk:NikoSilver/Signature shop#Ian13...
...is waiting for your instructions. Kindly throw in your preferable colour or other details too! :NikoSilver: 12:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Done (I think) :-) :NikoSilver: 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- More...:NikoSilver: 13:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revolutionary Socialism
ALright thanks, ill try rewriting it if it doesnt get deleted soon.--Zhukov 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wasnt aware that you couldnt delete your own material, thats what iwas trying to do by blanking it, i wont do it again. Simple mistake. Zhukov 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
It's not me, but user :NikoSilver: continuously insisting on vandalism on talk page of Kemal Atatürk. His last comment can be considered as a repeated vandalism in several cases, taken from Wikipedia official policy:
[edit] Vandalism
- Attention-seeking vandalism
- Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc.
- Here, calling the leader of Turks and one of the most significant figures in the world history as a murderer based on biased and falsified information is not a comment but is a direct insult to me and to any Turkish citizen.
- Vandalism
- Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
- The last comment of NikoSilver on the talk page is more than reducing the quality of the encyclopedia with irrelevancy, it is an offense as stated above.
[edit] Personal Attacks
- Personal Attack
- Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content.
- Considering the place of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the hearts of the Turks, any attack made to him or his work can as well be considered a personal attack to any Turkish citizen (not relevant but likely attacking one's religious beliefs). It is also clear that the comment has no relevant factual content as well as being completely irrelevant with the subject topic of discussion (moving the article) therefore written in an anti-Turkish POV.
[edit] What is not Vandalism
- Inaccurate and biased material
- Edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person (in this case comment on the biography of a living person) may not be vandalism, but instead an effort by the subject of the article to remove inaccurate or biased material.
- My edit was an attempt to remove an inaccurate and biased as well as irrelevant material in order not to divert the discussion from its original context. It is clearly offensive therefore more will add to those unfortunate li(n)es either by supporting or opposing, making the situation even worse.
- Changing people's comments
- Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack.
- As stated above, since the quote by NikoSilver can be considered a personal attack, removing that comment from the talk page is certainly can not be considered as vandalism.
- Reverting vandalism.
-
- In accordance with the Wikipedia policy it is not considered vandalism to revert edits that are made in the description of vandalism itself. These reverts of vandalism are also exempt from three-revert rule
According to the statements above I will again use my right to remove this personal attack (or insult or offensive, whatever you'd call) directed upon me and upon all Turkish people, in addition to my good-faith of preventing the discussion to divert from its intended purpose. Apart from that I kindly request decisive measures to be taken against user :NikoSilver: about Personal Attacks and Vandalism in direction of the official Wikipedia policy.
Best regards -- Kertenkel ebek (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: Just because I found your name inspiring, I suddenly came up with a simple signature for you. Feel free to (or not to) use any of your preference: «][ //\\ ][\][¹³»T OR «[] //\\ []\[]¹³»T -- Kertenkel ebek (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I was contacting regarding your removal of his/her comments, since removing user comments is not the best way forward on talk page disucssion, and it is better to try and address the issue and even provide sources so you can work together in improving the article. If you have concerns over how they are commenting on the issue, or if they are making personal attacks, I ask that you try and contact the user and come to a personal agreement. Thank you also for the sig suggestions, however I will probably pas on them for now since I try and use 'real' characters rather than nice looking ANSII to help screen readers and make it easily readable, however I value your efforts. :) Ian¹³/t 09:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- As a side note, I think the user in question was acting in good faith, and generally guidelines on content (especially for talk pages) is interpretted liberally to help good faith users work together to address issues. I also see personally offencive as offencive to a specific person, and not as part of a belief or support of someone else - however if there is a lack in NPOV in an article, that obviosuly has to be addressed. I think the thing about biographies is aimed more at the article itself, since talk pages are not a part of the encyclopedia itself, but a means to improve it. WP:RPA is not very supported, and as it says itself, "Whenever you refactor, do not destroy the context of a conversation". I hope this helps. If an edit was made in good faith as I believe was intended, then it generally is not considered vandalism. Ian¹³/t 09:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Failing to address the issue itself and deleting comments by other users signifies complete inability to respond convincingly. I had all the good will in the world, but I think my patience is failing me with the irrational reactions of Kentenkelebek. I reserve my right to free expression and request mediation and assistance for my comment to stay in the talk. I think that edit-warring about a well-intended comment is a much better example than Foustanella for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Now to the issue at hand:
- Massacre happened in Smyrna during his leadership
- This massacre is described also as part of the Pontian Greek Genocide
- There are many more examples for that period
- Nowdays "massacres" and "genocides" are not so often, but see Serbia/Bosnia etc. and see Milosevic
- At that time there was an international shitstorm that partially justified such actions since they were more common.
- Ataturk is argued did not support such actions. Even so, failing to prevent them, however, is to my opinion his responsibility.
- The Turks deny any massacre/genocide as they do with the Armenian Genocide
- Well, I am just not convinced -end of story.
:NikoSilver: 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Userpage header
Greetings! I happened across your userpage, and thought your header was exceedingly well made. I am wondering if you'd mind me using the code as a basis for one of my own (change a few things here and there to fit my needs, but keep the overall design). Credit to be placed in the code perhaps? Thanks in advance. — Huntster «Talk • Contribs • Email» 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roman Catholics
(Removed a comment attacking my (suspected) religion, and claiming my involvment in a variety of things. I remove only defamatory comments to protect myself. Ian¹³/t 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)) Cicero Dog 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Umm... Ian¹³/t 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Being Civil to others and No Personal Attacks spring to mind here. TheJC TalkContributions 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- (Yes, I went to their talk page, and it seems they have been blocked for 48 hours - twice - regarding this edit. Ian¹³/t 20:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
- Didn't see the second one till now, it's always nice when admins agree on a block though :) Any idea Ian what triggered this? Petros471 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- (Yes, I went to their talk page, and it seems they have been blocked for 48 hours - twice - regarding this edit. Ian¹³/t 20:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Signpost updated for June 26th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good luck
Hello. I am just posting to say good luck to you in the upcoming Esperanza elections, and I shall enjoy campaigning against you - you are a worthy opponent, as it were! All the best, and may the best man/woman/thing win! Kingfisherswift 16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:JediMasterHunter
JediMasterHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - in case you haven't noticed you have a block conflict that will need sorting out with the other blocking admin. Cheers, Petros471 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and thanks for commenting on my ANI post. They usually get ignored (which is probably a good thing, means my blocks aren't too controversial :-) Petros471 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Recommend readding indef. block tag to user page, blanking out other content (as it contains a link to the blog he's been spamming about). - CobaltBlueTony 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jedi Order
- Thanks for your diligence! - CobaltBlueTony 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your Message on my UserTalk page
- Regarding your recent edits [3], plese do not expose personal information on Wikipedia. Please ensure you are familar with Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Civility, and do not attempt to expose information with editors don't want exposed. On Wikipedia, everyone as the right to have a 'secret' identify, and they do not need to prove who they are, nor do people need to be qualified as you implied here: [4]. Happy editing. Ian¹³/t 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ian, Thank you for your recent message posted on my Talk Page. I have noted what you say, although I do not find the situation satisfactory. I shall not comment on all the issues that your message raise since these will hopefully be raised in the course of the Arbitration that user RandomCritic has requested.
However, I would like to hear your views, in light of your message to me, on the following selection of recent comments made by user [[RandomCritic]. I am sorry I have to quote all these verbatim, but I am not sure how to make short-cut links to them.
(Removed lots of quotes. Ian¹³/t 11:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC))
-
- I pity whatever poor person you have me confused with when you start sending her (or him) hatemail. You really don't have it together, Hodge. I recommend a vacation. RandomCritic 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The above remarks are defamatory, both in WikiWorld and in the real world. Do not construe the following as a legal threat since it is not, but you must know as well as I do that in the real world the gravity of my comments and those immediately above from user RandonCritic are of a totally different order. Do I not have a right to expect this reality to be reflected in the actions of Wikipedia administrators ? Apparently not: I find not a single word of reprimand posted on user RandomCritic's UserPage. You are the second administrator to post to my Talk Page without any corresponding comments on the User Page of user RandomCritic. Does this seem equitable to you ? If you and other administrators do think so, then obviously I need to disassociate myself from Wikipedia as soon as possible.--Stephen Hodge 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was contacting you regarding your indication of where personal information can be found. This is considered harrasment on Wikipedia, and if you were to continue, you could be blocked. Regardless of what others may say or do - do not try and force users to reveal, nor post, personal information. Ian¹³/t 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hallo Ian. I would like to express my support for Stephen Hodge, who, I feel, is being unfairly treated on Wikipedia at present. I don't believe he was trying in any malicious way at all to display personal information about RandomCritic, he was simply arguing that it is useful to know a person's academic background if that person is seriously attacking the work of another contributor. That is far from harrassment. Also, I think Stephen himself has every right to feel aggrieved that his impartiality as a scholar has been questioned and, worse, that he be urged to take a vacation. That type of statement has rather unpleasant undertones - even though it may well have been made without a full realisation of its implications. So I think that Stephen Hodge deserves an apology at the very least. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No matter what the situation, there is no need on Wikipedia to demand or inform people of personal information. If he has problems with a user - then he should try and resolve it with them or take it to RfC or mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Harassment (mainly the section on Personal information). I was solely warning the user that he was begining to break Wikipedia policy. I will not give an appology for warning a user that they are bordering breaking a policy (or infact for anything - I work with people to resolve things). Ian¹³/t 08:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ian, Having read your several messages to me, and additionally that to user TonyMPNS, I can only assume that you have been unable to read the relevent material attentively. Perhaps you are too busy to read everything, so perhaps it would be better not to comment until you have do so. At present your comments merely show bias and fail to take seriously the defamatory comments made to me by the use RandomCritic.
You say "I was contacting you regarding your indication of where personal information can be found". But's that's the whole problem: no personal information or means of contact can be found about user RandomCritic on the cartoon website I mentioned. It was a joke. The website is obviously used by children or young teenagers, neither of which I believe user RandomCritic to be. At no stage did I think this cartoon website had any connection with user RandomCritic and he/she/it has also confirmed that there is no connection.
You say in your reply to user TonyMPNS that "there is no need on Wikipedia to demand or inform people of personal information". But I have done neither of these things.
Has the meaning of the word "demand" been redefined in WikiWorld ? According to OED, the relevent definitions of demand are: "an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right; ask for [s.th.] insistently and urgently, as of right (e.g he demanded to know)". How do any of my comments fit this definition ?
Looking the history of this claim, I made the following comment to user RandomCritic:
-
- But when I look at your user page, I am confronted with a big blank. Stephen Hodge 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a statement of fact, not "an insistent and peremptory request" and
-
- I also notice that you conveniently side-step the question of your own Pali qualifications. Please enlighten us, once and for all. Did you do a couple of semesters at university or did you teach your self ? No harm in either, but it would be nice to know. [.....] I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Stephen Hodge 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This comprises one comment, one polite request, then one question which polite and courteous and not "an insistent and peremptory request", and then one comment. So where are the "demands" ??
As for the supposed harassment, we can look at the Wikipedia page Types of Harassment -- Posting of Personal Information. According to this above section on Wikipedia policy, personal information is defined as the following items: legal name: neither posted nor known to me; home or workplace address: neither posted nor known to me; telephone number: neither posted nor known to me; email address: neither posted nor known to me; other contact information: neither posted nor known to me.
So in what way have I posted personal information ?
As I outlined in my statement on the RfAR page, it seems to me that it is likely that user RandomCritic has fabricated this complaint from very flimsy material in an attempt to defame me and in the hope of having my editing rights curtailed because he/he/it was worsted in a rather rancorous POV debate, wanting me to be out of the way so he/she/it can impose their POV.
Finally, you replied to userTonyMPNS that "I will not give an appology (sic) for warning a user ..". That user will reply if he wants, but it should be obvious with attentive reading that he was not suggesting that you apologize to me. It is the user RandomCritic who needs to apologize. But, you say that "I work with people to resolve things". I see no evidence of that, since you have not addressed in anyway this issues I raised in my initial answer to you. I have therefore posted a request for assistance on the main Administrator's page.--Stephen Hodge 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Right - I see no need to continue this here then. (Where have you posted?) Ian¹³/t 16:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Re: "But's that's the whole problem: no personal information or means of contact can be found about user RandomCritic on the cartoon website I mentioned. It was a joke." Right. To me it seemed of a slightly threatening nature, and under the circumstances of which you were communicating, it could have easily been viewed differently, but it seems I may have misinterpretted your comments. I still however am a little concerned with [5] ("Please enlighten us, once and for all. Did you do a couple of semesters at university or did you teach your self ? No harm in either, but it would be nice to know." and "it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this" - this repitation and forcefulness in my view constitutes a demand). Also, with regards to personal information [6]: ("I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find") is harrasment in my view. Please also note that me contacting you over comments does not mean I endorse any comments which may have been aimed at you. Ian¹³/t 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ian, Thank you for your reply. Of your three points, your understanding of the situation in the first quote is correct -- if one looks at the actual website concerned, it's obvious that it was not meant seriously. As for your second point, you have to read my comment in light of the selection of quotes I sent you in my first message to you. This RandomCritic character had been relentlessly attacking somebody else's knowledge, as though he/she/it were an expert -- he/she/it was implicitly claiming expert knowledge to push a POV. Under those circumstances, it was more in the way of a rhetorical question, which I had no expectation that this RandomCritic would actually answer -- although, in my opinion, it would not have hurt him/her/it to give some indication. I do not understand this as a demand, but an expression of my opinion. As for your third point, my allusion to a "real name" also much been seen in light of the cartoon website -- there is a drawing of a Japanese cartoon character whose name is Enjeru (= Angel) - this implication in my message at that time was that user RandomCritic always sees himself/herself/itself as right -- "on the side of the angels". That cannot therefore be construed as harassment. What all this has taught me is that some Wikipedia users are not very sophisicated and don't have a sense of humour. Sad really. Finally, you say "Please also note that me contacting you over comments does not mean I endorse any comments which may have been aimed at you". I had not thought that you did. I merely find it strange that nobody has made any comments about the more obviously egregious statements made by the user in question -- my main consolation is that nobody who knows or has had dealings with me in the real world would give the slightest credence to this RandomCritic insinuations that I would send or have ever sent hate mail to anybody. I assume that such insinuations are more an indication of that person's character. It just shows him/her/it in a very bad light. Anyway, we can leave matters there as I am growing very tired of the whole business. I have got better things to do with my time and I am sure you do too.--Stephen Hodge 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. Just as a note to try and assist you, I advise you all to try and cite all sources you use, then hopefully no conflicts will arrise - and then hopefully noone will mis-interpret what-were-meant-to-be funny statements. Ian¹³/t 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Batman2005
He decided to hold onto Wikipedia:User_page as his defense. Fortunately he missed the part on the page that states: Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere Which means WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL applies to his userpage.
I've given him a long list of things on his user page that violates those policies, and I've indicated to him that it should be cleaned up as per those policies. He's going to remove at least one personal attack. The full list is in the discussion towards the end if that helps you at all. --Crossmr 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well I've made every reasonable effort to explain the policy to him and explain why the content is inappropriate on his userpage, but he feels its not uncivil and we should just ignore it. I'm fairly certain that is not the intent of WP:CIVIL, but I'm going to let it sit 24 hours and have a look at the situation with a fresh perspective. --Crossmr 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Cool, ya'll started teaming up on me! Batman2005 02:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] returned from my retirement because of you all
Hey man. I just wanted to tell you that I have returned due to your’s and others kind messages and emails. I missed this encyclopedia, and I have missed you as well. I really appreciate all that you have done for me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 06:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reichstag image
Please respond to talk here. Thank you. Netscott 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have reponded as well. Please see the new wikilink re "derivative work" in the talk area above. Thanks. Netscott 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Might you be referring to yourself here? With your attack on this image I'm inclined to think so. Netscott 10:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Retracted question and statement in the spirit of assuming good faith. Netscott 12:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)- Right. So I am a troll? Ian¹³/t 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've not demonstrated good faith in your commentary on the MfD... You've now made two errors surrounding this image. You've blanked it when clearly the image is a derivative work and you've submitted the image for {{db-copyvio}} despite the fact that the image had been uploaded more than 48 hours ago. Please do proper research and utilize the tools corresponding to your research to have this image removed. Netscott 11:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- And you are not assuming good faith now. Stating something is a troll magnet does not make the person who states it a troll (!) "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material." (not that I am in the US) - it is solely a merge of two copyrighted images. And yes, I shouldn't have speedy tagged. (Am I the first admin troll btw?) Ian¹³/t 11:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- And just so you know - making errors does not make someone a troll. Ian¹³/t 11:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've not demonstrated good faith in your commentary on the MfD... You've now made two errors surrounding this image. You've blanked it when clearly the image is a derivative work and you've submitted the image for {{db-copyvio}} despite the fact that the image had been uploaded more than 48 hours ago. Please do proper research and utilize the tools corresponding to your research to have this image removed. Netscott 11:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Btw: WP:NPA ("Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.") Ian¹³/t 11:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- And just so you know- saying something is a "troll magnet" does not mean the creator is a troll, nor that anyone/everyone who views or edits (or supports) the article is a troll. It just means that in my view it is an unnessary addition to the encyclopedia which is more likely to cause problems than it is to solve any. Ian¹³/t 11:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes I'm fully aware of that policy. I've made no such statement. Even you asked me to say state as much, "Right. So I am a troll?". Why did you make that "troll" statement? There's been no history of trolling surrounding the Riechstag "policy". The question as to whether or not the image is substantially different enough to warrant copyright status as a "new work" is a bit subjective is it not? As such for you to be operating as though it wasn't is a bit puzzling. Netscott 11:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Even you asked me to say state as much" - that would be because I try and WP:AGF. The image only contains the content of 2 copyrighted images - both without any form of implied copyleft licencing - and besides scaling of 'spiderman' it contains no original content. For my "troll magnet" comment - see the paragraph above yours - and it is alot shorter to write - and (I thought) it was understnadable as to what I was implying. And: "Might you be referring to yourself (link where I state only "troll magnet")? With your attack on this image I'm inclined to think so." - I think even you would say that could easily be interpretted as implying I am a troll (what did you mean it to say btw?). Ian¹³/t 11:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I'm fully aware of that policy. I've made no such statement. Even you asked me to say state as much, "Right. So I am a troll?". Why did you make that "troll" statement? There's been no history of trolling surrounding the Riechstag "policy". The question as to whether or not the image is substantially different enough to warrant copyright status as a "new work" is a bit subjective is it not? As such for you to be operating as though it wasn't is a bit puzzling. Netscott 11:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- And just so you know- saying something is a "troll magnet" does not mean the creator is a troll, nor that anyone/everyone who views or edits (or supports) the article is a troll. It just means that in my view it is an unnessary addition to the encyclopedia which is more likely to cause problems than it is to solve any. Ian¹³/t 11:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please re-join the discussion here. Netscott 11:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that according to User:AYArktos your copyright tags were added erroneously. Netscott 11:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- In trying to follow your logic about the image not being substantially different, can you honestly say that the BBC or culturageneral.net would have no difficulty (from a visual standpoint, not legally) in swapping out their original works that this image was derived from for this new image? Netscott 12:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to return to assuming good faith, I retract my previous question regarding your "troll" statement. With your "strong delete" vote and the number of errors you made in trying to have the image censured it might be obvious why one would question your motives for having that image deleted. Netscott 12:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- And for that matter - it is not for us to assume that they do want us to use their copyrighted images, nor for us to make works from it, nor for us to claim that we have the rights to release under GFDL. Ian¹³/t 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- In trying to follow your logic about the image not being substantially different, can you honestly say that the BBC or culturageneral.net would have no difficulty (from a visual standpoint, not legally) in swapping out their original works that this image was derived from for this new image? Netscott 12:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that according to User:AYArktos your copyright tags were added erroneously. Netscott 11:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding your clarification to the MfD. On that page it was not at all clear to whom you were referring to previously. Thanks again. Netscott 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just copied my statement on the matter from above. :P Ian¹³/t 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, which is why I specified "On that page". :P back at you. Netscott 13:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You should know that I found your "troll" comment extremely disagreeable. Please honestly answer me this question. From whence did such logic on your part spring? Netscott 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly are you talking about? I will not for a fourth time explain how my comments were meant to be interpretted - and as of yet you are the only user to have concerns with them. However - repeatedly addressing the same concern on an unreleated board (an article and images on it are not the same thing) in an attempt to discredit my views (against WP:NPA). Ian¹³/t 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- On what basis did you utilize that logic??? There is no history of trolling on that page. Based upon that fact, what inclines you to think that it would be a "troll magnet"? Netscott 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It makes people think that making pages like that is commonplace in the Wikipedia, especially with respect to the wide talk page posting of the image and associated text and link on a variety of usertalk pages. [7] [8] [9] [10], although personally I can't see why it is of such interest to you. Ian¹³/t 15:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- On what basis did you utilize that logic??? There is no history of trolling on that page. Based upon that fact, what inclines you to think that it would be a "troll magnet"? Netscott 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly are you talking about? I will not for a fourth time explain how my comments were meant to be interpretted - and as of yet you are the only user to have concerns with them. However - repeatedly addressing the same concern on an unreleated board (an article and images on it are not the same thing) in an attempt to discredit my views (against WP:NPA). Ian¹³/t 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- You should know that I found your "troll" comment extremely disagreeable. Please honestly answer me this question. From whence did such logic on your part spring? Netscott 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, which is why I specified "On that page". :P back at you. Netscott 13:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just copied my statement on the matter from above. :P Ian¹³/t 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest you visit Wikipedia:What is a troll before you again flagrantly utilize that term as what you've shown here does not correspond to it. Netscott 15:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- You know, I don't need to be addressed as such. You have not WP:AGF many times, first calling me a troll, then breaking WP:NPA by using my afficitations to discredit my views on multiple pages, and now attempting to check my every edit. I think it is best that discussion ends here and we go our own ways before a greater conflict is created. Ian¹³/t 15:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- And from my explaination, I have used the right term. I quote from the page you cited: "trolls [...] disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia". I think (in my own view which I am entitled to) that that page will lead to this sort of behaviour. I have tried to clarify and clarify, but it seems you still choose to use it to attempt to discredit my points on an entirely seperate copyvio discussion, and I therefore feel that continually trying to work with you is getting nowhere, because for some reason you are not willing. Ian¹³/t 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even if I had misused the term, I quote from WP:AGF: "You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold". Happy editing. Ian¹³/t 15:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- How convienient that in your quoting from that page you should happen to leave out (in the form of [...]) some of the most key parts of that page, "deliberate and intentional attempts". You are correct there's nothing more to discuss here.. it's clear what the situation is. Netscott 15:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- In my view it would be an intentional attempt, but apparently I am not worthy of the assumption of good faith. Ian¹³/t 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see, that's why you added the qualifier, "Even if I had misused the term". I never acted like your utilization was deliberate which is why I sent you to the "What is a troll" page to correct you. I'll get back to assuming good faith now... take it easy. Netscott 15:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- How convienient that in your quoting from that page you should happen to leave out (in the form of [...]) some of the most key parts of that page, "deliberate and intentional attempts". You are correct there's nothing more to discuss here.. it's clear what the situation is. Netscott 15:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even if I had misused the term, I quote from WP:AGF: "You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold". Happy editing. Ian¹³/t 15:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fidel Castro and Teemu Ruskeepä
User:Teemu Ruskeepää has ignored many, many requests that he cease promoting an extremely unpopular "talk page restructuring" on various Cuba related pages, notably Fidel Castro. Despite warnings from myself, other users and admins that his behaviour is potentially disruptive and may lead to a block, he has continued unabashed, adding confusing lengthy polls to each talkpage addition. He is materially obstructing much needed work on the page, which is a view held by all, and I believe the patience of the many has just worn out. May I suggest an editing embargo on Teemu, or even an exploding cigar?--Zleitzen 09:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 3rd.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
[edit] Downend Comprehensive School
Perhaps the bit about the new head teacher should be put back in. That does not seem to be vandalism, even if it was put in by a vandal. Unless you think it is not true.Dolive21 11:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. why did you not put a message on the talk page of the vandal.Dolive21 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it since that event has gone - and it would be more appropriate to list who really is the head teacher. And I forgot to warn - warning doesn't seem to be my thing. ;) Ian¹³/t 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] and another Poll...
Hi. There's a debate about how much "X-ian" one must be in order to be considered "X-American" (or X-Yian for that matter) and be categorized as such. The poll is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Kindly weigh in! :NikoSilver: 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 10th
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 28 | 10 July 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please help on Astronomy
Posted by →LzyGenius 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.
[edit] AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
Davodd 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää
User Teemu Ruskeepää, who is insisting on a system of reordering on the talk page of Fidel Castro, has been placing polls beneath each talk page discussion. He was also asked to cease this behaviour as it was becoming increasingly disruptive. Many, many attempts have been made to pursuade this user against his actions by other users and admins, taking up valuable time which should be spent elsewhere. Threats of blocking have had little effect. After a small period away, he has continued to add unwanted polls, I removed them as my patience has ran dry I'm afraid. I have a feeling he's about to place more polls and/or kick up a big stink about this. Could you please watch the page - and - although I don't like to say this, ban this user in some fashion. Because no other option has worked, even a clear rfc denouncing his actions signed by a number of users. --Zleitzen 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Although I don't generally act on requests, I planned to review this about now - so I guess I will. Ian¹³/t 08:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since the editor seems to have been inactive for a week or two, I have given a 'final' warning, and if it continues, the user will probably be blocked by myself or someone else. Ian¹³/t 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian. My concern was that Teemu popped up yet again yesterday, after a break, despite numerous prior warnings. Meaning yet more work on our part sorting this out. The whole process of dealing with this one user has been extremely time consuming and unproductive. --Zleitzen 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since the editor seems to have been inactive for a week or two, I have given a 'final' warning, and if it continues, the user will probably be blocked by myself or someone else. Ian¹³/t 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for July 17th
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award
Ian13, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.
Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advocacy request
Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Ryorye (talk) on Chaguanas. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(NEW)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
