User talk:Kilz/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This is Archive 2

Unfortunatly because the orignal Archive was growing to long I have decided to create Archive 2 of my talk page. The reason it has grown so long is because of Swiftfox. I have tried to get the Swiftfox discussions on the Swiftfox talk page. But user Widefox insists on discussing it on my talk page.

[edit] November 13, 2006

[edit] March 29, 2007

[edit] wild and incorrect accusation of Vandalism

Swiftfox I believe you have incorrectly labelled me a vandal. Please back up your allegation with evidence or retract it. Widefox 08:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    • You have removed requests for citations and tags from Swiftfox, I will be reverting the edit to replace them.Kilz 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the tag I created. And? Please read the vandalism guideline, and come back with a valid complaint! Widefox 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You have removed requests for citations I added. You have not added said citations. The citations are there because of the original research you added to the page long ago that is not backed up. Kilz 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You also originally removed a relevance tag that I had place on the page in the Speed section. 67.175.233.209 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Content dispute. No vandalism there. Repeated reverting is edit warring. I will not do that with you. Widefox 12:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: blocking

Hi Kilz, basically my advice to you would be to discuss the proposed changes on that article's talk page. If you show that you are using discussion then that lowers your chances of being blocked. But, yes, if you do revert you may be blocked. I recommend you write a brief statement on WP:ANI (with diffs) showing that User:hAl is edit warring again. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat 13:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He left the replaced edit in place. If he starts again I will post about it. I have learned that its better to avoid edit wars and that there are ways to stop pushy editors without duplicating their actions. Thanks for the advice and the link to the notice board. Kilz (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ill keep looking there while we work this out. Kilz (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Responded again. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Responded once more. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR report

I added information to your 3RR report to enhance it. I also added information about the number of reverts you had done during the same time period. In future, you can make better 3RR reports by providing the following information:

  • times in the UTC time zone, or at least mention what time zone you're using (I'm not sure whether this is needed or not, but it seems logical to me.)
  • A link to the version of the page reverted to, not just to a diff from that version.
  • For the 4th revert, evidence that it's a revert, since that can't be seen from the "version reverted to" that you'd provided, which doesn't apply to that diff. I went back through the page history and found where you'd added the quote.

Happy editing, --Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but Im sick of the fighting and backstabbing on some articles. Microsoft fanboys who break the rules constantly and nothing is done. Its stopped being fun a long time ago. My carpal tunnel pain is constant. I am taking a break. Kilz (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

eels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine." Widefox 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3 revert rule is 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. There is at minimum 48 hours between my first reverts. There is also the exception for vandalism. Which you have done to the page by blanking. I also do not see good faith when you remove requests for citation on what I consider original research. Add the citation or leave the requests in place. Kilz 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just replaced what you have blanked again. There is more than 24 hours between my last edits.Kilz 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
incorrect - please check your edit [1] . You did not replace a tag, you moved it! Widefox 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are the one who needs to check his history Prior to the edit you removed the tag in question, it is in the same place it is now. You moved it , I replaced it where it was originally..Kilz 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
incorrect again - I replaced the tag (admittedly to the wrong place due to it being a merge), and you correctly moved it to the original place. OK. Please note your continuation of unfounded accusations, argumentative and blatant attempts to call editing "vandalism", replacing "moving" and vice-versa. Your uncivil behaviour will is noted. Widefox 07:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
They asre not unfounded, at least in the latest version you changed a few words, not the claims though. This proves that you want unsupported claims of yours on the page. Kilz 11:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack

A personal attack was made on my page. This is a link to the diff

[edit] edit warring on Swiftfox

I will not engage in more edit warring with you on Swiftfox. Why do you feel the need to add tags? You also repeatedly changed a sentence to start with "But"? I have already fixed this grammatical error, clearly describing the problem. Your repeated reinsertion will remain now, and it is noted as yet another ongoing Kilz problem! Widefox 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it reads better the way I edited it. Kilz 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit warring is more of a problem than this bad grammar! Widefox 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is Loki144 your sockpuppet?

This account has been created and then went straight to Swiftfox to support your argument. This was at 5pm when you were most indignant. I ask you openly and fairly if this is your sockpuppet so it's on the record. The admins will check the IPs etc to confirm if I ask, so it's better to admit as a gentleman up front. Widefox 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who loki144 is, it is not me. My IP is static, there is no way I would even think of using a sockpuppet even if it was not. I also take offence that you would think I would use a sockpuppet and find that your accusation offensive. Kilz 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
and for the record - it is not a meatpuppet? Widefox 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As stated above "I have no idea who loki144 is," these accusations show a pattern. I remind you of WP:NPA. You seek to silence me and my views with an attack on my person. This is against Wikipedia policy.Kilz 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Loki144 is a Wikipedia:Single purpose account. (Kilz was a Wikipedia:Single purpose account until recently). I think it was OK to ask. You have answered and I take you at your word. Widefox 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 1, 2007

[edit] Suspected sock/meatpuppetry User:IDontBelieveYou, added to Loki144

A second Wikipedia:Single purpose account User:IDontBelieveYou (with an Ubuntu edit) is blatantly agreeing with you "I agree with you Kilz..." . Kilz - you were highly active on the Ubuntu forum. You do realise that canvassing support from fellow Ubuntu supporters breaks WP:MEATPUPPET -see WP:MEATPUPPET#Meatpuppets "Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support."

Creating a cover story User:IDontBelieveYou just before commenting is a bit transparent, don't you think?! "Created page with 'Hi I love games. My favorite game is Diablo 2.'" Widefox 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have neither advertised, nor asked for any opinions. You are seeing something that isnt there. I do not know who Idontbelieveyou is. Just because someone agrees with me is not a sign that they are a puppet of some kind.Kilz 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this going to be a common practice now? That whenever someone agrees with me, or posts something you dont like, you accuse me of being a puppeteer? If so I will consider the next instance a personal attack. Kilz 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swiftfox Debian licencing

Please see Swiftfox talk page. I have asked you to provide a reference, and you remove that request unfulfilled. I tell you this on your talk page only to alert you that you cannot repeatedly remove a request for a reference. You are requested to provide a reference to backup your claim, and the wider allusion of licensing controversy, else it will be removed, as per verifiability. Widefox 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 4, 2007

[edit] Allegation of reverting

Please provide diffs of 2 reverts, or take your claim back. Widefox 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure Edit 1 is your first changes to the page. I added information. You reverted the Download section the first time. I made different changes a second time. You reverted the Download section a second time. So in effect the Download section was reverted by you twice.Kilz 19:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


not a revert [2]
not a revert [3]
not a revert [4]
not 1 revert. It seems you are mistaken! Widefox 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The first edit is where you added "** packaged for Debian installs" The second and third diff's are reverts of the "** packaged for Debian installs" line. If you change it again it will be a third revert. Kilz 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

not a single revert.
(see User Talk:Widefox where this thread is duplicated) Widefox 10:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
not a revert,your first edit [5]
reverts "** packaged for Debian installs" [6]
reverts "** packaged for Debian installs" [7]
Per the WP:3RR page "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." changing the "** packaged for Debian installs" line back twice imho is reverting the page in part. Kilz 11:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated claims of reverts

You did not provide a single revert diff. You personal attack on me is not welcome, and I tell you upfront that simple tricks and lies like this will be taken to an admin if repeated. Widefox 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I have proven it, you have reverted the "** packaged for Debian installs" line twice.Kilz 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am notifying an admin about your repeated unfounded allegation. (see User Talk:Widefox where this thread is duplicated). Widefox 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to go to any admin you want to. I have more than proven you reverted the page in part, thats all the WP:3RR requires to break the WP:3RR rule.Kilz 11:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing, edit warring Swiftfox

You are disruptive editing, edit warring Swiftfox, going against advice, removing properly quoted edits. Kilz - you have gone against the feedback you asked for at Wikipedia:Help_desk. They did not advise you that the reference breaks WP:VERIFY, or to remove, or that a non-English or commercial ref is incorrect Wikipedia:Help_desk#Commercial Non English references. In fact the opposite. Despite that, you go against their advice, repeatedly removing a properly referenced claim, edit warring, and disrupting, which is unacceptable. I will now take this to an admin, as example of unacceptable edit warring, along with your unfounded claims (vandalism, 3RR warning), and continued abuse of my talk page after repeated requests to stop. Widefox 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the comment you requested (on the swiftfox page, responce by SLi). The advice on helpdesk aslo suggesting not allowing the reference. The claim isnt referenced, we cant even see that there is in fact a benchmark, here is only a claim to sell a benchmark to us. Please take it to an admin, please. Kilz 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] facts in OOXML article

Link: http://nyteknik.se/art/52005 Sure it is Swedish but it does support the text. It states that FFII heard that MS would get 7 votes from new members and that the FFII had gathered a group of 8 organisations to join before the meeting

  • "Tillsamman med andra samlade vi då ihop åtta nya medlemmar till arbetsgruppen inom SIS. Tanken var att dessa skulle rösta nej och på så sätt neutralisera de sju ja-röstare som vi visste hade anslutit sig till gruppen, säger Jacob Hallén."
  • (My translation: With others we gathered eight new members to the WG within SIS. The idea was that these would vote no, and in this way neutralize the seven yes votes we knew had joined the group, says Jacob Hallén) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 08:26, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

At least 4 companies are IBM partner KnowIT, Module1, Sogeti and Strand are IBM partners and I think HP probalby is as well. There could be more though as not all have partnerships listed on their site. 69.73.191.92 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to support your claims on the article, not on my talk page. You need to add the references. Since you added the claims, you need to ad the references. Reading that page you have linked above. It dose not appear to back up all your claims.Kilz 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In case I wasnt clear. My talk page isnt the place for the references or the discussion about them. Please discuss this on the articles talk page and place the references on the article.Kilz 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your EAR

Hello,

Last week, you posted a request for editor assistance regarding the Office Open XML article. One of the suggestions involved opening a request for comment on the subject matter. Could you please provide a status update on the issue?

Feel free to reply on my talk page; better yet, update the request by responding there. Cheers, --Aarktica 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Very well. Based on your reply, I have marked the request as resolved. Good luck with your future editing activities. --Aarktica 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Swiftweasel

I have nominated Swiftweasel, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiftweasel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ViperSnake151 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of Three-Revert Rule

You are in violation of the Three-Revert Rule with your recent reverts of the Office Open XML page. In the past 24 hours, you have made 5 reverts to that page:

Thanks, 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are not all reverts, some are edits. Kilz (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz,
  • Revert 1 reverted my removal of the Heise reference.
  • Revert 2 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
  • Revert 3 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
  • Revert 4 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
  • Revert 5 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
WalterGR (talk | contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The first and last are edits. I removed the section with the first edit. I added a reference with the last. I did not remove anything. Kilz (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kilz,
3RR is not necessarily about removal. The policy states: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors."
In edit #1 you undid my action of removing the Heise reference. (FYI, I deleted that reference because it simply talked about a Wall Street Journal article. The WSJ article should have been cited instead. Thank you for later citing it.)
In edit #5 you, as you said, "removed the section." That section was added by another editor, and as such, you undid their action.
Regardless, 5 - 2 is still 3. WalterGR (talk | contribs) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Negitive, it isnt in the same place, the orignal reverence was second, I placed it first. It cant be a revert. You link still was in place. I was adding content. Kilz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ScarianCall me Pat 18:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)