User talk:Kmccoy/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Welcome to continue 2 Deletion of added external links 3 External links in talk 4 Rollback on Sesame Street Live 5 Archive edit 6 Per your request on Commons Re: Image:I 35W Bridge.svg 7 Reversion of edits 8 Merge proposal 9 OOOOH!!!!! A SHINEY STAR! 10 Removing User:Azz redirect 11 Sterling 12 For fixing my internet :) 13 Heydrich 14 IAR 15 Thank You... 16 RFA nomination offer 17 Meetup in Minneapolis

Welcome to continue

Since it involved myself, you're welcome to continue on my talk page. -- Fyslee 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of added external links

Hello,

How can a link to a directory directly related to a topic be inappropriate? Further comments on the discussion page of Studio Monitor.

Audioholic 17:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your comment on my talk page: Did you ever click on one of the four links I added? Should not the quality of an edit or addition count? Are you saying that one has to spend some months contributing to Wikipedia before he is allowed to add three highly relevant links and update another one? Do you really see enough reason to suspect me of being involved with that site from four links? If I know someone working for the publisher, am I involved? If I just think the site is very good and helpful, am I involved than? I really think that content quality should be the prime issue in Wikipedia. I ask you again to reconsider your reverts and would be happy to receive any comments from other editors. (This is also cross-posted to the relevant articles talk pages) Audioholic 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

External links in talk

First, I'm definitely an involved party, having removed Ilena's external link spamming from her sig many times. Ilena regularly and repeatedly makes attacks against Wikipedia editors on her site [1], and the problem has gotten so out of hand that she's been convinced to remove such links from her own user page. As she especially targets Fyslee with her attacks, I think he's more than justified asking for its removal. --Ronz 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena was just given a one-week block, in part because of including links to her site (see User_talk:Ilena#Off-wiki_pages). There's plenty of explanation of the issue for you there. I'm going to go ahead and remove it from Talk:Strategic lawsuit against public participation unless you have an objection. --Ronz 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with the alteration of people's text in talk pages. I also disagree with any blocks based on WP:POINT, which is just a catch-all for "don't do anything that other people don't like." But I will not revert the change. However, I strongly suggest that the removal of the text be accompanied by a message showing the removal (such as (personal attack removed ~~~~). This preserves the spirit of WP:TALK, which is to never change the meaning or intention of someone's words and still represent them as accurate. I also think you guys need to clear up your commentary -- I still have not seen any evidence that the links were part of her signature -- they were at the end of her text, but they weren't the same with every comment, which is how a signature would behave. kmccoy (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I've found that refactoring with such phrases as "personal attack removed" only escalate problems. Usually I just make a more detailed explanation in the edit summary. As for whether or not she considers it part of her signature, who knows? She doesnt appear to understand even the simplest guidelines and policies here, at least when it suits her interests not to. The point is that she uses her website to attack editors, and uses the links to her website as part of her attacks here. In either case, and certainly both, it has every right to be refactored. Doing so as a SIG violation has been in the past a way to avoid escalation of Ilena's hostility. Obviously, this time, it only spurred it further. Your response is perfectly resonable given Fylee's refactoring.

As for POINT, that's an interesting framing of the problem. It ignores the Ilena's hostility at best (at worst encourages it). WP:DE does not.

I'm unsure how to proceed at this point. I'd appreciate more of your thoughts, if you have the time. --Ronz 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I refactored it. If she didn't have a history of using as part of her attacks here on Wikipedia, I'd be much more likely to leave it be. Given that she became extremely hostile about a link to an article critical of her, which was removed, I certainly think she should be held to the same standards she demands of others. The situation should never have been allowed to get so far out of control. --Ronz 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollback on Sesame Street Live

Hi! You rolled me back on Sesame Street Live. I thought I was reverting the same fairly meaningless edits that this user inserts from time to time. I'm going to go back and make the edits without using rollback. I don't really see how one random date and location from a multi-year tour of a show is meaningful in this article. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. kmccoy (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, those were the first date and locations of the first production for each show, where the tour started off. -- Zanimum 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is incorrect. The tours start off in the late summer/early fall, and I've never known one to start at the Fox in Detroit. Many of them are built and rehearsed (sometimes with a dress rehearsal for invited public), and on the first year of its rotation, usually open in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, I think. There's a multi-year cycle that the tours go through, with small alterations from year to year. kmccoy (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. -- Zanimum 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive edit

Hey,

Was this you? kmccoy (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a Bell Canada Sympatico internet connection, and I haven't been with them for more than a year now, so I presume not. I can't remember really. -- Zanimum 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your request on Commons Re: Image:I 35W Bridge.svg

Hi,

Could you please clarify the copyright on Image:I 35W Bridge.svg? Who is that telephone company? Did they release it under the GFDL/CC licenses? I don't get it.

Thanks! Kmccoy (talk) (en) (en:talk) 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same. --NE2 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link. :) Kmccoy (talk) (en) (en:talk) 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My name is Paul Robinson. The telephone company listed is 'Robinson Telephone Company of the National Capital Area'. So, perhaps now, you can guess where the name came from. It is incorporated in Virginia (corporations are cheaper than LLCs). I am in charge of the company (it's now a non-stock corporation, which means it has no 'owners', however I happen to be both General Manager AND the only member of the Board of Directors). I release all my maps under the company name (for legal and technical reasons). So it is reasonable for me to say it is my own work, since I am the person who created the map even though it is owned by the company, e.g. in a form of 'work for hire' if you will. If you notice on the image, there is a logo that specifically says it was released under both licenses (which is why I put it there). Rfc1394 09:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

That is cool, I noticed once I had rolled back his edit to the page in the mainspace that he had also made a page in talk space and generally speaking, I find when an anonymous user does both, I rarely have to roll back just the one. To maintain the edit on the talk page seems fair to me. Bobo. 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OOOOH!!!!! A SHINEY STAR!

		The Original Barnstar
		For being the most helpful user on the IRC, nice job and thanks for helping me... repeatedly :) Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing User:Azz redirect

Yep, that's absolutely fine -- if someone else wants the name they're welcome to it. Thanks for letting me know! Adam Sampson 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sterling

Thanks re the self-promotion at Thomas_Sterling_(computing). I have a rough time with that syndrome, but wrote a paragraph about it at the talk page there. The worst place where I have this problem is Blue_Collar_Computing; their PR department turned it into an adversisement almost immediately (I think we both were reacting to a local newspaper article about them). Editors I can talk to, negotiate with, but partisans like that only come here to promote their cause, so I feel unable to get through to them. Pete St.John 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at my talk. Yeah, they (Blue Collar) had cut down their effusiveness so as to get rid of the "advertisement" tag, which I had been a bit stubborn about. I don't so much mind that it's self-promotional as long as it's tagged that way. So I had managed to jog them a tiny bit, but the new version was still not wikipedic. Thanks tons for helping. I think of them as neighbors, and would like to visit sometime. Pete St.John 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For fixing my internet :)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Majorly, award Kmccoy the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for helping fix my internet problem. Cheers! :) Majorly (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Heydrich

Okay, so it's from 4.07 to 4.41 of the non-abridged version, and User:Rotoscope provided a transcript and translation at his userpage/Temp. DS 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IAR

Hi!

When I want to insult you, I'll be far more clear about it. Until then, lighten up. My edit wasn't even directed at you. Also, I see you're one of those folks who likes to randomly link to WP:POINT. Was that supposed to mean something, or were you just disrupting your edit summary to make a point?

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it meant that you deliberately performed a disruptive edit for the sake of making a point (albeit a jocular one). I'm sure that you didn't intend to insult anyone, but such levity in the face of cooperation from numerous users (some with practically opposite ideas of what the page should look like) to reach an acceptable compromise is disrespectful. (That goes for this reversion as well.) Edits like those (and your request that I "lighten up") say that you don't take our efforts seriously and treat the situation as a joke. —David Levy 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How is my edit any more disruptive than any others? Seems to me to be just another example of the use of claiming WP:POINT violations to degrade other editors in disagreements. I see nothing good that ever comes from WP:POINT. Edits like yours say that you feel that it's okay for you to insult other editors because you're participating in "compromise". It also indicates to me that you really don't get WP:IAR. But that seems to be a common problem among the editors there. Anyway, your talk page takes too long to load on my dialup connection, so I won't be able to respond very quickly to any further comment. Please don't feel insulted if I take a while to respond. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Your edits were disruptive because you reverted to an old version that you knew lacked consensus ("in blatant disregard of others' opinions") and then did so again to prove that another user's edit summary was incorrect (which it was, of course). Then when I complained, you told me to "lighten up" (further reinforcing my perception that this is a joke to you).

2. I certainly don't seek to degrade or insult you, and I've already told you that I don't ascribe your edits to such a motive. Nonetheless, I'm disheartened by your refusal to take our efforts seriously.

3. I don't believe that my (or anyone else's) attempt at compromise justifies acting with impunity. My objection pertains strictly to the fact that your edit was intentionally unproductive and performed to make light of a very frustrating situation.

4. What about WP:IAR do you believe that I "don't get"?

5. I do need to archive my talk page. Feel free to reply here. —David Levy 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Reverting to a version which I know "lacks consensus" (we'll just ignore the fact that the concept of consensus on Wikipedia anymore is a joke) is not disruptive, any more than your reverting my edit to something which you know lacks consensus. And again with your gratuitous linking to WP:POINT. The joke is that you are so completely bogged down in your seriousness that you don't get the big picture.

2. You didn't seek to degrade or insult me, I didn't seek to insult or degrade you, yet you were the one throwing the term about. If you don't mean insult, then don't use the word. What you seemingly don't understand is that your use of negative terms drags the discussion into negativity. You also do this by linking to a policy which is often used as an excuse for punitive action in disagreements.

3. My edits are not intentionally unproductive. You've shown a clear inability to understand my intentions, so don't fool yourself into thinking you've figured them out now.

4. The entire concept.

5. My poor modem was making whimpering sounds in the other room. kmccoy (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The version to which I reverted is backed by the closest thing to consensus that we've been able to achieve recently (and arguably rough consensus). More to the point, it's a serious attempt to arrive at full-fledged consensus. Your reversion was performed as a joke.

2. I've plainly stated that I'm not accusing you of intentionally insulting anyone. I'm merely informing you that your lack of consideration was insulting nonetheless.

What "punitive action"? I'm merely linking to a guideline (not policy) that I believe you violated. You've responded by accusing me of mudslinging instead of actually explaining how I'm wrong.

3. You explicitly acknowledged that your previous reversion was performed "in blatant disregard of others' opinions."

4. Examples?

5. Sorry about that. —David Levy 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...

Thanks Kmccoy for making sense out of all that :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination offer

Hello. I've given the matter thought between and during some unpleasant or just time-intensive IRL events. I could use at least some of the tools and, apparently, it's not mandatory to be a tool of the establishment. I accept. One request, though: if possible, please start the process three or four weeks from now (no need for warning in advance) rather than right away. I was recently put on ADHD medication for a brief period sans diagnosis, to determine if I have the condition. Turns out the answer is no, and that that was one psychotropic drug that didn't agree with me. Who knew? I'd like to get some distance from that. Besides, there are quite a few things to deal with right now: an enthustiastic vandal fighter who's broken civility towards them 40 times during the last month in edit summaries alone, a polite and well-mannered accountant who mass-nominates RPG articles and keeps asking opposers if they're workers in the industry, a newcomer with his own set of standards for webcomic notability (stopped on his own, though), a competent contributor who considers AfD the first step in referencing...

...you know how, in the first Dungeons & Dragons, when your character had been around for a very long time and done most things there is to do, it could attempt ascension into a deity and all of a sudden there would be all these new challenges designed to test your character and moral fiber?

Don't know why I thought of that. --Kizor 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetup in Minneapolis

---

---