User talk:Jlambert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jlambert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Online creation

Thanks for expanding the stub-type stuff in the article, it's very much appreciated. --Atari2600tim 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (Tim/Timbo/cmdrkeen2/atari2600tim)

[edit] 3rr on Online creation

By my count, you have now got 5R on OC. There the defence of "I was reverting sockpuppets" requires good proof, which I don't think you have. You will be blocked (by me, if not by someone else) unless you promise here and now to stop. William M. Connolley 19:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

You just blocked the user, and a brand new anonymous user shows up to vandalize the page again. Now they've just reverted someone else who restored the page. *shrug* Jlambert 20:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the asnwer I was looking for, so you're blocked [1]. Now, please be good, promise to abide by WP:3RR, and I'll unblock you. William M. Connolley 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
I haven't done anything at all since you messaged me here.
Please read my original message to you carefully. William M. Connolley 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
Is this proof enough?
The new reverting user who claims "I am not Locke" and reverts the page with no discussion is in fact the user's webhosting site:
whois -h whois.internic.net 66.101.59.248 ...
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
   Server Name: GARY.MUGS.NET
   IP Address: 66.101.59.248

http://www.mugs.net/~locke/

OK, you're going to have to help me here. You have demonstrated that "Locke" is associated with "66.101.59.248", which rather suggests that 66.101.59.248 is not being truthful when asserting that they are not Locke. But... bearing in mind that I don't know this history of any of this, or who is associated with who, what does that prove? William M. Connolley 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
Okay the user you blocked because of the complaints from atari2600tim and Ehheh was 68.162.148.34. if you look at the talk page[2] you'll see they are one and the same as they've signed some of their replies. For example... Much of Armageddon's code was influenced through a collaboration between Morgenes of Aldara and I. OLC was first distributed to those folks as early as 1992. Thoric and Atari2600tim may be arguing that "online creation" was available as late as "1994" but the reality is that the code in Armageddon and in Aldara were both influenced by me, Locke. 68.162.148.34 13:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I will stop reverting, but this Eggster/68.162.148.34/66.101.59.248/Locke is the same person. See also [3]
Thanks. That's all I can say about it.

You're unblocked [4]; please be good! Now I'll examine your evidence. William M. Connolley 21:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

OK, I'm convinced. Thanks for providing that. *Please* bear in mind for the future that admins don't usually trawl through the talk page and aren't familiar with who-is-who - you have to help us. William M. Connolley 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Warning acknowledged.

[edit] Herbert "Locke" Gilliand's sock puppets



Lots of these. One on this page. Some on AfD voting pages. Lots of evidence on Talk pages where he signs himself as Locke in the text under any number of anon socks listed above.


[edit] Mediation

mediation request before my entry here.

[edit] Ridiculously paranoid treatment of mediator

Well, since you're a Sock Puppet of Thoric, that's no surprise to me. Eggster 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? how precisely am I a sock puppet of anybody? I dont think you know the meaning of sock puppet. A quick look at my Contributions will disprove any notion of me being a sock puppet. I'm just here to cool people down, and I have no official authority beyond that of any other wikipedia editor. I'm an ordinary Wikipedian, and as such I only seek to mediate, not to arbitrate.Firestorm 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're not a Sock Puppet of Thoric, then you might want to read up on disinformation strategy and ulterior motives. You're a poor mediator if you side with the other guy after 1 day of mediation. Why would your Contributions page prove anything? Thoric could be your Sock Puppet. Either way I think you're both related. Furthermore, I am convinced that you are either victim of or perpetuating thought control Eggster 01:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[5]

Well what the hell happened, mediator ran away?! Well I suppose I would too. I posted evidence here but no response.

[edit] Claiming ownership

  • Noone on the page is allowed to use the term 'online creation' in association with anything but NiMUD.

Sample of reversions of said term: [[6]] [[7]] These are tedious to lookup and count.

Unilaterally disrespects consensus

Example 1 - Four users on page in full agreement on first public release date. (Thoric, Atari2600Tim, Ehehe and me - one opposed, Locke (although many socks))

  1. 19:25, 17 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (rv We've proven it was released in 1993)
  2. 15:50, 17 February 2006 Thoric (rv - public release was in 1994)

Example 2 - Three users agree - Locke just reverts and puts level 4 Vandalism warning on other users pages.

  1. 12:08, 16 February 2006 Young Zaphod m (rv Unsubstantiated claims and vandalism by atari2600tim.)
  2. 09:03, 16 February 2006 63.239.116.148
  3. 22:02, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
  4. 19:10, 15 February 2006 Jlambert (edit that restores section moves and spelling errors fixed that were reverted - I also fully support Ehheh and AtariTim2600's edits.)
  5. 18:47, 15 February 2006 Ehheh (rv, supporting Atari's edits.)
  6. 18:23, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (→Armageddon Shop Room and Shop Creation Code)
  7. 18:23, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (→Armageddon Shop Room and Shop Creation Code)
  8. 18:22, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (→Armageddon OLC)
  9. 18:20, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (rv Customization)
  10. 17:32, 15 February 2006 Atari2600tim (see talk page; summary is too long)

Dozens and dozens of reverts.

[edit] Locke's state of mind

That's his words - you figure it out

Here he talks about himself in third person. At least since it was proven to be him I suppose this is evidence of bad faith:

Also, he's claiming he doesn't work on SMAUG, however, he definitely puts out SMAUG on a regular basis. If you read the last line out loud to yourself, you'll realize what his tactic really is: to blow smoke in the face of achievement, success, honor, and anything morally or ethically significant. I suppose my personal opinion is irrelevant here, but, like most German Americans, he's a censor and a fascist. I believe it was Locke who recounted the story of his German stepmother's suggestion to burn his copy of Dungeons and Dragons, which drove Locke into mudding in the first place. While I don't like generalizations, I must say it seems Thoric is doing the same thing virtually that Locke's stepmother was doing physically: damaging other's reputations and destroying valuable artwork. Eggster 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[[8]]

[edit] Warning for Behavior

I would like to remind you of a few Wikipedia policies, including WP:CIVIL, as these seem to be sorly lacking at the NiMUD article. That said, your willing, even eager, wish to accept an RfC on the behavior of those involved in the article speaks volumes for your intentions. I am satisfied that you aren't being malicious, and honestly want some tips and advice to help you out. With that said, here's one warning to get you on your way. -AKMask 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC against Young Zaphod

An RfC has been filed against Young Zaphod. See (and endorse) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod. --Karnesky 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. However: I think you should sign Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod#Users certifying the basis for this dispute, as you were one of the parties who tried and failed to correct his misbehavior. Please consider moving your sig to that section. --Karnesky 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey! That was done by request. 151.201.48.208 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey again, I don't think I put enough nonsense in my talk page post where I was making it easier for someone to do a RfC against me here, so if you could provoke an edit war with me and try to resolve it with me, while I ignore you, it'd be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your list of sock puppets

King queermo has appeared and in my judgement is fitting his pattern very closely, check out his edits and add it to your list if you want. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "MU*" from discussion of TinyMUD, TinyMUCK, TinyMUSH, etc...

The "MU*" abbreviation/acronym as the "umbrella term" for TinyMU*-platform games is in widespread use (you can call it lingo or jargon if you like) and ought to be documented on the page that covers MU*-platform games. I attempted to document it and someone (yourself?) evidently removed that documentation. I strongly recommend that "MU*" as the umbrella term is allowed as an addition to the page. It seems a little ludicrous to leave it out. (Auliya - July 5, 2006)

It's not left out as it is already in the TinyMud section..."Some use the term MU* to refer to TinyMUD, MUCK, MUSH, MUSE, MUX, and their kin; others simply allow the term MUD to apply universally". The problem with the other sections is that after defining the term as a referring to Tiny's, you then attempt to use MU* as a universal term. MU* is well known to have two meanings depending on who is using it, all muds or only muds from the tiny family. The page uses MUD as the universal term not MU*. Jlambert

[edit] Civility

Regarding this edit: [9].

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Nandesuka 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Greetings:

It has been brought to my attention that you have reverted the Online creation article 5 times in less than 24 hours. This is unacceptable, and a clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of our three-revert policy. Given that you have been blocked in the past for violating the same rule on the same article, I would be completely justified in blocking you again. However, I will instead take this opportunity to point you in the direction of WP:OWN, and respectfully ask that you reflect upon how that policy may be relevant to your feelings toward the Online creation article.

Please refrain from further reverts, and please attempt to meet your fellow editors in some sort of compromise on the appropriate talk page.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak
05:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Online creation

Edit warring is never a helpful way to end a dispute. You've been warned about it a number of times before and blocked twice for violating the 3RR. Between this and your egregious personal attack [10], I've had to block you for 24 hours. Please try to focus on discussing the content of an article and working it out on the talk page - this will help you avoid edit warring and attacking other editors in the future. Shell babelfish 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you blocked the other user involved for trading insults. I have NEVER been blocked for violating 3RR. Please review your records. I in fact did not violate 3RR either in this case nor was even close to approaching 3RR and neither was there any report filed. Jlambert 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your block log and the section just above this one paint a different picture. Shell babelfish 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Nandesuka

Please come and help our WP:RfC on User:Nandesuka for using bad faith and biasing the article Online_creation. I arrived several days ago after it was requested by User:Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III to try "one time to defend or request for unprotection on the article Talk:Online_creation" and I witnessed vandalism by this administrator, whose evidence on the talk page shows definite bad faith and breaking of the rules which this person has been chosen to enforce. This administrator also has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry without any real evidence. Herb is my friend and online penpal, and I hate to see people pick on him for no good reason. Corporate fudiciary 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior Warning

I think we both know. If you don't remember, it is your issue. 70.5.171.61 04:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)