User talk:Nfitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Nfitz, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Missing Episodes

Hi, I am a bit put out at your rejection of my Dr.Who missing episodes article. A lot of the information comes from members of the Restoration Team, who, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to feed me information that they later disputed. Whether this information is right or not, I leave to you to judge. The information comes from Steve Roberts (well known in fan circles as someone who uses people and then rejects them when they have fulfilled their usefullness to him - perhaps indicative of the exchange between himself and Ian Levine on the RT forum. In the early 1990s they were keen to pass bootleg tapes amongst themselves) and Peter Finklestone (someone who is still revered in fan circles even though he was struck off the medical register for filming a lady and a child on his lavatory and who broke a promise to me to provide restored video and audio dubs after I gave him Graham Strong's address - of course, I am conveniently air brushed out of the story at this point, maybe because the Restoration Team wanted the glory of finding "pristine audios" to themelves)

DrPaulLee 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

i read your comment on the GH avisualagency AfD page and saw that you have extensive experience on here. i am trying to contribute to the GH article but everyone on the discussion page keeps giving me the wrong advice. most insisted that i have to prove notability, then they said that it was wrong to list articles about the collective. i don't know who to believe as they all keep leading me astray. if you could please offer me any advice on how to make the article better or make any adjustments yourself i would sincerely appreciate it. even if it does get deleted, at least i will have known that i tried my hardest to make it the best i could given the limited time frame. thanks so much.

Inspectorpanther 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polls polls polls

Hey nfitz, thanks for the info. I apologize about the dates, I had thought they were actually released the day that CTV had them on air. I did not know they were from the day before. Thanks for the clarification. Snickerdo 03:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keyboard shortcuts

There's an answer to your question at the village pump. Cheers! — Catherine\talk 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1921 election

Per your suggestion at the 2006 election talk page, I've added a section explaining the majority/minority situation following the 1921 election. I hope this is what you were looking for. - Jord 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Hi there! Thanks for your note; understood. However, I think the TfD – without any prior discussion – is flawed for numerous reasons (which I've indicated at its TfD entry) and necessitated my actions. Mea culpa. In any event, here's a pickle: what now if we want to edit it? Anyhow, thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I'm going to update the template later. I'd have to disagree with you on one point, though: isn't it the result of ... depression? ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm; I'm unsure about that just yet. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. This may very well depend on the reliability of the source; if they don't withstand scrutiny and aren't sourced properly – and to me (during that period) that can only be true of information from Elections Canada – I think that should determine our actions. If the results are copied over from some blog elsewhere, they cannot be reasonably verified and might not belong. If they are from a media source (i.e., a Canadian one, like Canadian Press), they likely already conform to the media blackout, but this is uncertain. Would you include results about an imminent Canadian election from, say, CNN? In any event, all such information on the results page should be accompanied by source information or (as per Wp guidelines) it should be "edited mercilessly." Remember: anyone can post links to any website down below, regardless of their authority, and still maintain the integrity of the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If the polls are in doubt, perhaps showing the NDP sweeping Newfoundland, then perhaps deletion is appropriate. But in the polls area, we have normally left a poll in place for 24 hours or so, before the linking reference is available. I think we have to assume that the results are legit ... now it might be worth looking at who added them, and how long they have been around; and perhaps discussing it with then off-line. But I'm not comfortable with removing the results willy-nilly. Nfitz 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I hear you and understand. Remember: this is supposed to be a reputable article about quantifiable election results, not a blog or news report/service for everything including the kitchen sink. In opposition to polls (which we take time to scrutinise, edit, or nix), electoral results will likely be presented in an extremely short timeframe at first, raising issues about verifiability and legitimacy that may remain unaddressed; if so, IMO the results don't belong. What's more: we will have hours, if not days or even weeks, to solidify the article after the results are legitimately released and certified. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it and review as needed. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'd advise you to restore the template and not remove it as you just did. If anything, it should be placed the moment polls open in Atlantic Canada ... and they have, right? There's nothing in it that prevents usual editing by Wikipedians (as we have been), but it serves as a reminder to those who may flout our discussions and who think otherwise. Moreover, a consensus seems to support its inclusion and it is admittedly ad hoc already. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree, but it does not do any harm by including it now on – this – election day. It also serves to inform visitors that any unofficial information, in this article until 03:00 (and perhaps despite our efforts to the contrary), will change and may be circumspect. Perhaps this was Pc62's judgement call to merely get this perfunctory act out of the way? I reflected that in editing the poll article with said template (and still support its inclusion), but am exceedingly reluctant to restore it until later given your revert. We should also not set a precdent of endlessly reverting the template, as this would not bode well for the information contained therein ... particularly given the consensus so far at its TfD to keep it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand; yes: additional discussion should've occurred and such acts aren't ideal, but no harm has been done ... (yet?). Come the closing of polls in Atlantic Canada or thereabouts, though, the template should be placed indisputably.
And how do you think the template can be worded better? Remember: we've had days to address this and little time now, and it has been through the ringer already. If you have a suggestion about the wording, let me know on my talk page and I'll consider editing it. I'm reluctant to edit it more since a consensus currently supports its retention, and largely as is. It should not be edited once placed later and until after 03:00, and then it can be appropriately edited to reflect what you suggest regarding timing.
Also note that the "future election" template is now something of a misnomer – it's already underway! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I hear you. I'd actually push for doing so around 6 p.m. EST (a preliminary warning) ... and it's a nice round figure! But I defer. And despite your edit, I still feel that the "future template" is out of sync with the text below ... hence the propriety of the current template for this current election. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Great ... after 6, then. Enjoy your dinner! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I have a centring personality or effect? (ha!) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to add the template to the election article ... when I saw that you did! Thanks. I will also add it to the polling and results articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Done! By the way, I inaugurated the results article by adding the template to it; otherwise, it's naked! Perhaps someone can add an introductory paragraph, or even include information about release/poll times? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Can you review this, and edit if necessary? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EKOS polling

I get it now, one of the polls was the one they intended and the other one was their daily data. I didn't notice that the same had been done for other dates, the last doubley one was spread out. I don't know why we would want to include both really but ok, sorry about the confusion. Also, there must be a better way to divide up tables than an empty row. I didn't even realize that it was supposed to represent something, assuming that it was. It just looked wrong. Fratley 12:53 AM, 22 January 2006 (EST)

[edit] Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006

I've withdrawn the AFD nomination on the grounds that such articles have been created, apparently without incident, for previous years. When it was created, it appeared to be a POV fork to get around WP:NLT, but apparently putting the results on a different page is accepted editorial practice and I won't dispute that. I still maintain that including any legal threats on the page is improper. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PM designate

This is to try to head off all of those eager beavers who are trying to declare S. Harper PM before the GG gets the chance to. Martin is speaking now, and its pretty clear that he's conceding. So I'm jumping the gun by a few minutes. Better that than a few weeks. Ground Zero | t

[edit] So called "nonsense"

Not sure how the protection tag is "nonsense"; makes perfect sense to me. 69.109.117.211 07:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wimpy warnings?

I added Template:Test before your Template:Test2 largely because it's a gentler introduction to Wikipedia. That IP started editing Wikipedia today. Their editing may be misguided, but there is no reason to WP:BITE if they're just messing around on a couple of pages where they will be quickly reverted. Incidentally, please remember to use subst: when adding the test tags; it is easier on the server not to have to load the template with each page view. Thanks for asking. Jkelly 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a judgement call. I just gave HerrPatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) a Template:Bv tag for replacing an image of the Moon with that of a swastika. Everyone has their own standard for when to stop WP:AGF and protect the project or when to suggest the sandbox as a place to experiment. Jkelly 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classifying Organisms Speedy

Howdy, I wanted to drop you a line about the Classifying Organisms speedy. I was concerned that the article was only nonsensical given the title, not generally patent nonsense. Thus had the author indended to write about "Taxonomic Preferences of Lewis and Clark" but chose a poor title, I would not want immediately to delete it. I don't know what the author intends (hence the note about it to their talk page). It was also recently pointed out to me that ordinary nonsense is not speediable, only patent nonsense, so this would probably have to go through an AfD if it is to be deleted. That at least is my understanding. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or reply below this message. --Hansnesse 02:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As you note, yes, there is something strange going on. The author has a history of copyvios, so your point is certainly a good one. It does sound like a high school level textbook. Thanks for the note. --Hansnesse 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

Thank you for placing the template on my user talk page. I have no idea what my personal attack was though. Perhaps you could tell me? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Telling someone to "get real" may be harsh, but it is neither an insult nor a personal attack. I must therefore inform you that I will consider your message not sent. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Telling someone to get real is nowhere near an insult. If I had insulted you, I would have used terms like moron, idiot, loser, asshole, buttwipe etc. But I have not used those terms, I do not intend to use them, and I don't even see a reason to use them, because you are none of them. With "I will consider your message not sent", I meant the following: I have read your messages, I have thought about them, but I see nothing that comes even close to a personal attack, so I will ignore what you have said and I will not change my behaviour. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it doesn't elevate the level of the discussion, but sometimes it's necessary. Like in this case. And if you can't take it, then I suggest you grow some skin (or is that a personal attack as well?). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Aecis does have a very low standard of discussion... Just read below: Rajab 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I created tempalte Template:Muhammad cartoons and placed it in two article already. Remove the "see also" or "main article" and replace it with this template.

that's amazing - we have a huge discussion on how to avoid insulting readers by showing the cartoons (e.g. putting a warning before showing them etc.) & now you come up with a way to show them on each & every article Rajab 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC). And you don't even sign your name....
We were not having a discussion on that, you (plural) were talking to us about that. That does not constitute a dialogue towards avoiding offense. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
that's interesting - you don't consider Muslims as equal on wikipedia? Of course *we* (wikipedians) had a discussion about that. Just have a look at the 9 archives Rajab 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expos

[edit] Re: Expos

Because "Montréal" is the correct way to put it. WikiFanatic 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What about their logo? (I'm fine with reverting it; I'm not trying to encroach on your territory) WikiFanatic 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Álex Rodríguez? That uses accents and it should be Alex Rodriguez since that's what we call him, no? WikiFanatic 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Wiki

I noticed you were active on many sports pages. My friends and are I starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is com ArmchairGM. We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh01 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal-Ouest

I have the tentation to put the train station Montréal-Ouest in the city of Montreal. Because, if i look on the web site of the AMT, we can find that the adress of the station is on the avenue Harley and this avenue is in Montreal because in Montreal-Ouest, this street is name Broughton. Thank you.

[edit] Montreal East

Sorry for the delay. I think the best guide to which name is more common is the local media, who use "Montreal East" exclusively as far as I can tell. Google probably isn't a good reference, because it will be skewed by addresses that use the Canada Post default (French in Quebec, English in the rest of the country). Farquard 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the common name that are in use by the english population of Montréal-Est is in french.

[edit] Sports wiki link

I removed the link to the sports wiki from your talk page because the editor(s) who placed the notice had placed similar notices on at least three hundred other talk pages; they were engaged in an inappropriate advertising campaign. If you found the notice useful, you're welcome to retain it on your talk page.

Please try not to jump to accusing other editors of vandalism without discussing the matter first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While I really don't think the matter is worth arguing over, you did accuse me of vandalism in your edit summary: Revert vandalism by TenOfAllTrades. Just try to keep in mind that other people can and do read the edit summaries that you leave behind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, it's really not worth arguing over. There was a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about the editors' behaviour; several admins concurred that the postings were inappropriate. In general, such bulk postings are removed as a matter of course. Where an editor had replied on his own talk page to the messages, I did make an effort to preserve a link to the information for that editor.
While we generally are concerned more about the spirit of our rules than their letter, the part of Wikipedia:Vandalism you'll want to refer to is Spam, listed second on the list of types of vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* The thing is, the removal of spam is mandated by the vandalism policy—see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism, which instructs "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it."
The addition of the linkspam to hundreds of pages was the act of vandalism that I was undoing. Even though it appeared on user talk pages, it doesn't get a free pass. You can see why it would be a Bad Thing to permit editors to spam talk pages with impunity. If you were following the discussion on WP:AN/I, then you were also aware that there was general agreement that the spamming was inappropriate, and there was no objection to reverting it as vandalism.
With respect to the blocks I placed, you'll note that they were indefinite, which is not the same as infinite. It was reasonable to have the blocks last until the website in question went on the spam blacklist, and the editors in question understood what was inappropriate about their behaviour. The accounts had been used solely for spamming; there wasn't a plausible argument to be made that valuable edits were being lost. Since I didn't know how long it would take until those conditions would be fulfilled, I placed an indefinite block and monitored the situation.
I released the blocks that I placed as soon as the two conditions I listed above were met. You'll note that I indicated I would do this in my postings to WP:AN/I on the subject. I've even provided Awrigh01 and Roblesko with instructions on how they might promote their site without running into further trouble here.
I'm trying to keep linkspam out of the encyclopedia, I'm trying to keep things running smoothly here, I've bent over backward to give these guys a chance to try to contribute without doing harm, and all of my actions have been in line with both the letter (important to wikilawyers) and the spirit (actually important) of policy. And yer still bustin' my chops. Whaddya want from me? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. There are two substantive differences between delivering admail to your doorstep and spamming on Wikipedia. For one, the resources being used to deliver the spam on Wikipedia are those of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's as if the guy delivering admail made you pay for the paper, ink, printing, and delivery. (While we often let our contributing editors plug their own personal projects in moderation and in their own user space, there's at least a sort of quid pro quo—a modest amount of promotion is permitted in exchange for their valuable contributions to the project.) These guys were promoting their website using Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth, and (apparently) giving nothing back to the community.

The second difference is that the guy delivering admail to your door doesn't affect search engines. By creating many links to an external site from the high-traffic, high-impact Wikipedia, a website owner can inflate his ranking on the major search engines and drive extra traffic to his site. This is the reason why the links were removed from (most of) the user pages where they appeared; hundreds of links from Wikipedia could serve to manipulate search engine results.

While I suspect that the editors in question here meant no harm and simply failed to think through all the possible consequences of their actions, it is the usual practice to remove the links to discourage other, less ethical individuals from trying to take advantage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CITY-TV and Template:Superstations

if you wish to delete, you can.... User:Raccoon Fox Talk 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hey Nfitz,

Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg is about to be deleted, can you please add where you got the photo from? Thanks -- Jeff3000 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the PD tag is almost enough; I think all they now need is where it originally came from; did you get it from a particular website? did you scan it from a book? Just write that information over the current nosource tag, and I think it should be enough. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John A. MacDonald image

It appears that your bot, is prepaing to delete Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg because there is no source information? I would appreciate it, if you would follow normal practice, and have left me a message at that time, rather than simply tagging the image, where few would notice it.

I must confess I'm not clear, nor have I found information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented, and I will gladly do so? Nfitz 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as unsourced by Jkelly. If OrphanBot had done the tagging, you would have been notified as soon as it tagged the image. As is, the bot saw Jeff3000's comment, and figured that you had already been notified.
Generally, an image needs information on who created it, when it was created, when it was published, and who holds the copyright. Images older than 100 years are not "clearly out of copyright": for older works, the term of copyright starts when the image is published, rather than when it was created. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm is a good overview of when images pass into the public domain in the United States. --Carnildo 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I notified the most recent uploader here. I note that the image remains improperly sourced; there is nothing at the URL given about this image. Jkelly 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you are under the misapprehension that images over 120 years old are automatically out of copyright, and complained about the sourcing requirements for such images, without anybody actually telling you why images over 120 years old often are still in copyright. I have found plenty of images that old which I wanted to upload to Wikipedia that turned out to be copyright when I investigated further. So age alone is not the determining factor. By including information like who the photographer was and where the photograph was taken, you make it clear which copyright jurisdiction applies. That is helpful for one thing. Sometimes, depending upon the jurisdiction, you may need to find a source for the actual publication of the image. This is the critical complicating factor - depending on jurisdiction, in many places the countdown starts at publication, not creation. For example, if you are claiming that an image is PD in the United States by virtue of being pre-1923, you actually require first publication to be in the United States before 1923. Now, older photographs weren't usually published. The technology generally wasn't there - newspapers couldn't include early photographs, and the photographic postcard didn't really emerge until later. There were some limited instances of publications from catalogues but as a rule, old photographs weren't usually published until much later than their creation date. Most just stayed in private hands, unpublished. Plenty remain unpublished; others have found their way onto the internet or into books of "Old Placeville in Photographs" which include many first publications of very old photographs, as late as the 1990s or 2000s. Even the "70 years after creator's death" rule often doesn't apply - in the 19th century, many photographs were taken by very young professional photographers, sometimes in their teens, who died much later. I am aware of several 1890 photographs, for instance, that will not come out of copyright for another 15 years. However, if the photographer can be confirmed and it turns out they died long enough ago, then that's great! So, all the additional information about where and when a picture was taken and published are highly relevant to copyright status - very many photographs from 120+ years ago will not be public domain. I hope you find this helpful - not trying to lecture you, but I think you deserve an answer and it doesn't look like you were going to get one :-) TheGrappler 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NAM

Please reconsider your opinion at the proposal to delete this redirect. I am the essay's creator and principal contributor. Its editors all agree that WP:MASTODONS is a better shortcut. This deletion request is not part of any broader effort to delete acronym shortcuts from essays in general: it is a specific request pertaining to one essay only and has full support from the people who are active at the page. Durova 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vrba edits

Thanks for your note. I checked when I saw you'd cleaned out some vandalism, but somehow both of our edits stuck. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial advice

Consider this stuff, some of which I learned the hard way - some of us (half the people in lot of RFDs there) have worked a long time on Microsoft and related articles. I was the one who personally got it up to featured status, which took many, many weeks; nearly a whole year. Meanwhile you are coming in, persistantly claiming you know what it is best for them. It is fine to make suggestions, but wikilawyering around and claiming each of us has some sort of axe or POV to grind, especially which clear evidence of knowing NOTHING of the history of the pages, is not cool. In the future, please ask questions, read the history of the pages and talkpages/afds, and try to work towards a COMPROMISE with other editors; otherwise you'll just drive them away, and then you'll have no one left to help you out... RN 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"And I'm not the one who started the wikilawyering " - well, that is too bad that you have chosen that path... RN 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not the only person using this pc... I didn't vandalize Mariah Carey article. Sorry.201.43.19.123 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.R. 2795, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 → Patent Reform Act of 2005

Thanks a lot for your note on my talk page! --Edcolins 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: changes to Eris and Dysnomia

Some of your changes had to be reverted since they were contrary to the WP:MOS for disambiguation pages. I've left a full explanation at Talk:Eris. Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winter tyre

Sorry I did not reply to your comment, It appeared that you had corrected my mistake (of which I fully acknowledge as my error) and there seemed little point in replying as the issue had been resolved. Sorry I added the db-context - it was premature. Senordingdong 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: your comment

I'll look into this later when I have more time. One question, there seem to be quite a lot of opposes on the talk page. Doesn't look much like consensus. -- Steel 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming
Here we go. Ongoing discussion, no clear consensus yet. -- Steel 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

If your tirade of nonsense continues an administrator may block you. HP 50g 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore that. It seems as if the guy that posted on Admin Board, is the real problem. I jumped to conclusions. HP 50g 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tildes

Thanks! just tell me about the tildes.. dont get it =/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netomx (talk • contribs) .

[edit] In reply to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help requested

I was going to reply to your comment at WP:AN/I, but it's not really necessary to put it there.

All I can say is please take a short break to clear your head and then rethink the matter. I understand where you're coming from, it's not that I agree or disagree with you. You're deeply involved in a disagreement with this editor, and I think you're seeing this in a different light than those of us who aren't involved with the AfD/RfD/whatever disagreements. I'm no admin, and not that great an editor either, I'm just trying to put it in perspective. If you still feel strongly about it tomorrow, pursue it, however consider that letting it drop may be the best course of action for all involved (read: the best for you and RN). It's just advice, take it with a grain of salt, my only agenda here is to see you both back to constructive tasks in the near future. BigNate37(T) 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RN/ANI reply

Hi,

As it happens, I have been around long enough to remember vaguely the circumstances involving the first two of those three blocks, and they were controversial and disputed -- process vs. WP:IAR question there, very old, very tricky. In any case, that was ages ago. My objection is not meant to impugn you, only to insist that RN is generally trusted, and that warning him would rightly require exceptional circumstances. Even in disagreements, we don't warn respected editors unless their behavior is egregious. This may be a "double standard," but it's a fair double standard, common in everyday life: experienced and respected folks are treated differently than newbies because they've earned respect. (By the same token, newbies are treated with more patience, because we expect they'll make mistakes.) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pewlosels

Thanks you for your comment. Because the user in question was unblocked a couple of days ago, I consider the matter closed & have no further interest in discussing it at this time. -- llywrch 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stern removed for his remarks

About Stern being removed for his remarks: of course, this seems obvious, but we should be wary of the obvious. I have read that he was removed with stations denying it had anything to do with the remarks. It may sound fishy, but if it's what's officially said, it can't be bypassed (it can be noted that it was doubted). I would like your sources for saying it was overtly the reason, which is that the section implies now. Also, I respect your attemps to do what in your own opinion is correct and I thank you for it. I hope we find some common ground. --Liberlogos 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, would you please point out any problem you find with the Ray Conlogue quote translation at Quebec bashing#Quotes? I will underline that the quote comes from an interview from La Presse published in French, so this is not a "double" translation (English to French to English). I wish to listen. --Liberlogos 00:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have any firm references for Stern; just my own recollections; should likely be rephrased ... though I still don't see the need for Stern; he's completely oblivious to Canadian politics, and he'll shoot off his mouth on any subject - that's what a shock jock does. His words aren't proof of anything, except that he's a shock jock.
  • As for Conologue, as in English journalist, I assume that his quote was in English. If not, then fine ... though I've never heard of the guy, and I don't see why his comments would have any relevence to a discussion.
  • You've returned the phrase I removed "Quebec is a North American society ..."; the words you use are fine in themselves; but no one would use that structure ... it just doesn't parse. It needs to be written in standard English. There are many, many, examples of this; virtually every sentance is riddled with odd constructs that bend the meaning ... such as "Past radio personality ..." What does that mean? Former radio personality maybe? Nfitz 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Stern: I see the point that the presence is the... less non-debatable of the present examples, but the thing still happened and was deemed anti-Quebec by a substantial number of people. The article stresses heavily ("allegedly" is used each time the expression "Quebec bashing" is mentioned, quotation marks are used, etc.); in other words, it's about things (in the media) that happened and were deemed anti-Quebec by a substantial number of people. How is Stern's thing opposite to the nature of the article then?
  • Ray Conlogue: The article was in French, so I am speaking of the original language of publication, and he speaks French, and drawing from his own words, I believe it would be his type to speak the local majority language in the given land or the language of the journalist that welcomes his opinion, by respect. Conlogue was referenced twice on the deletion debate and I have referenced him on the article and he's cited in The Black Book of English Canada (Conlogue did the English translation). He is a former Quebec correspondent and former cultural correspondent for The Globe and Mail.
  • "Quebec is a North American society ...": Let's change the words for a moment for "Virginia is an American society". Correct. Then what makes it wrong in your example? "North American" being two words? The similar construction "South American country" get word for word, as an expression, dictionary entries here, here, here and here.
  • I changed "past" to "former" to be sure. But golly, I heard that numerous times, and Google searches for such things as "Past President" appear to confirm this (9,990,000 hits, and they're not all "in the 'past, President' John Smith..."). If you have other examples, bring them up. --Liberlogos 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:André Pratte

"For a clear-eyed vision of Quebec" is the official name for "Pour un Québec lucide" (see here on the official website) and on Wikipedia, we use official English names when available. But *why* wouldn't "separatists" sign a document titled in English?? And must I remind people that not only so-called "separatists" signed the manifesto, and that it went against the left-wing opinions of the majority of "separatists"? And why do you use that biased term "separatists"? --Liberlogos 10:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. There's no reason why "separatists" would not sign a document with an English title also. Also, notorious anti-"separatist" federalists signed the manifesto; yes, they were "exactly" federalists. This is the first time I've seen Pour un Québec lucide specifically associated to "separatists". Please do not use the "separatist" word. "Separatist, word of rupture used in English, only while grinding one's teeth and to put an end to any discussion." - René Lévesque, 1968 (René Lévesque: Mot à mot, Éditions Stantké, p.314) --Liberlogos 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

The passed motion to move dwarf planets to Name (dwarf planet) is currently being finalised at the Talk: 1 Ceres page. As you participated in the original debate, it would help if you could now add your vote there. The Enlightened 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

I don't disagree that there wasn't consensus to move. But there was also consensus in the discussion to keep the vote open to Monday October 16th! Nfitz 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but in general if it seems that a consensus is reached after 5 days then the debate is closed unless it is very close. In this case, discussion was really slowing down, and it didn't seem like the majority vote was going to be altered in any way with any new votes, nor was anyone going to change their vote, so closing the discussion was also functioning to save the time of the editors arguing. —Mets501 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigile.net

I asked the initiator to sum up what's going on. She informed me that there were links to vigile that don't show permission was given. Someone brought up Canadian law. The papers are American, under the International Copyright Convention, that does not matter. I informed her of this and closed the case. If you can prove that permission has been shown, let me know and I will re-open the case. Geo. 01:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain better, the case was still in the initial stages. If there had been something to mediate, I would be contacting everyone listed as a party. My decision was more of a rejection, so why bother people. Apologies if I did not explain well enough. Geo. 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario nom

I misread something, and have now changed my vote. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 and Glock 19

Nfitz, thanks for your work on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles, making sure that the Virginia Tech massacre gets mentioned there. Mention of VT definitely belongs in those articles. Astruc 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 dispute

An article which you have edited, Talk:Walther P22#Request for Comment: Walther P22 – is involved in a dispute requiring inputs from editors to develop a consensus for editors to follow on whether or not mention of the Virginia Tech Massacre should be mentioned in the firearm article, or if mention in the VT Massacre article of the firearms used, with a link back to the Walther P22 article, is adequate. Thank you. Yaf 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 disputes continues

Hello. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Griot 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ca-on-wd.gif

Hello, Nfitz. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ca-on-wd.gif) was found at the following location: User talk:Nfitz. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator Abuse

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 70.51.138.88 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Spartaz Humbug! 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello - who is dealing with this? You can't block an entire institution simply because a 10-year old wrote over 2 pages ... Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Actually, this was an autoblock because you are using the same ip. Its not something any admin has any control over and since we don't have access to users' ips we can't predict who an autoblock might affect. Spartaz Humbug! 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Beach School

May I assume that Victor64 (talk · contribs) is known to you, since you appear to share a common interest in The Beach School? While he was blocked with more dispatch than usual, the action was within normal practice and the administrator's discretion. The user was even welcomed and provided to blank the linked WP:Five pillars with this edit [1]. Nobody is entitled to a particular number of strikes before blocking, and "This is retarded" is not an experiment. No apologies are due to Victor64, but we regret that the school's IP was autoblocked due to his abuse of editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

~ Yes, the user is known to me. I was sitting on an adjacent computer, and observing, and counselling him. He is 12-year old boy, has never seen Wikipedia before, made 2 edits to an article to fix earlier damage. And then decided to test what he was being told, that if he wrote something that wasn't true - it wouldn't stay there long - by editing a couple of articles. After he received a warning, he then proceeded to make further fixes made from the IP without being logged in (he had inadvertently logged out. He was working on a further fix and discovered he had been blocked - so I tried to make the fix for him, and discovered that the entire school had been locked out. His edits do not fit the Wikipedia definition of vandalism; it fits under the description of What vandalism is not - tests by experimenting users. The guidelines note that "Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive."

Also the user, despite having half of his edits as constructive, was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, when this was clearly not the case.

I really have avoid the politics of Wikipedia for awhile, but it appears to me that some administrators are not following the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline. Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest he use the unblock template to request an unblock. We get astounding amounts of long-term vandalism from school IP's. A sincere request is likely to be granted. Philippe is a respected administrator who hardly fits the description of "rogue admin", and is entirely reasonable when approached politely. Acroterion (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'll suggest that to him - not being the blocked party, I haven't seen that template. (the user in question was last seen running across the school shouting "I got the entire school blocked from Wikipedia :)",. Seems that when you tell a 12-year old, if they delete an article, someone will restore it within a couple of minutes only leads to them trying to test that ... oh, I wasn't thinking of Philippe, who just fufilled the request, (though perhaps should have reviewed the details), I was thinking of Equazcion, who issued an inappropriate final warning, and then trumped up the block request. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You better have a read at WP:BEANS before you have a pandemic on your hands..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
He'll need to add the {{unblock|your reason here}} at the bottom of the page, with a short, sincere explanation in the "your reason here" part. Equazcion really wasn't out of line: blanking and inserting "This is retarded" on a major policy page seen by many new users and linked to the welcome he just received is a significantly bad thing and calls for a strong warning: it may have been a bit harsh, but ignoring an obvious warning and repeating the edit was the real issue. I appreciate your faith in our error-correction, but I would suggest that all editing, experimental or not, should be constructive, and I would never suggest the insertion of obvious nonsense in any case, monitored or not, certainly not as a teaching tool (as Igor observes, don't tell a kid to put beans up his nose!). As you can see by this example, it's too easy to misunderstand. That's why we have a sandbox, and you can always use the "Show preview" button to see how an edit looks on a page without saving it. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a teacher is not an easy task for you and for us as well. How do you teach constructively. How do you take emotions and feeling into consideration. How do you teach kids about the adult world. Many chalenges for all of us. We also do not know who is behind the magic screen editing the pages. We at times can jump to conclusions, without malintent. I think Wikipedia imitates the real world community, but much faster and more intence. Try your best at you endaviour. Igor Berger (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nfitz, thank you for coming to me on my talk page with this question. I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you. On initial inspection, that particular user showed no signs of wanting to become a productive member of the community - only of disruption. While I am a solid proponent of hospitality towards newbies, WP:BITE implies something in return: it implies that the newcomer also demonstrate some intention of taking the mission of the encyclopedia seriously. This user did not demonstrate that. Users caught in an autoblock can petition to have the autoblock lifted and I will look positively upon such a petition. In fact, (and I'll leave a message to this effect on Victor64's user talk) page: if Victor should apologize for his actions and assure me that he will not engage again in similar actions, I'll personally unblock him. - Philippe | Talk 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re my message on User:Tadan5's talk page

Sorry about that, I must have got distracted after I posted the message on Tadan5's talk page. I'll be more careful in future. --JoeTalkWork 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions

I noted a discussion relating to the above at ANI here. After a review I found the block sound, and the language in the summary appropriate. My full reasoning is at the above link. I fail to understand your rationale for contesting either, nor arguing the requirement of an undertaking to cease disruption as a pre-requisite for unblocking - especially since the blockee has made no visible attempt to engage in discussion. Also, I would comment that I find the text of this unacceptable, and I am concerned that a long standing editor would accuse another of lies. I consider this a personal attack and am giving you an official first warning for violation of the policy. Please moderate your terminology in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the comments in the section a couple of places above. Notwithstanding, I still find your actions inappropriate. Replacing swathes of content with "This is retarded" is beyond a test, and was properly treated as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack? What on earth are you talking about? User:Philippe noted that the Victor64 account is a vandalism-only account. As less than half of the edits made by this user were vandalism, then by definition this wasn't a vandalism-only account. User:Philippe was made aware of this, but didn't retract what he said. He is lying, and knowingly. How is me simply observing the reality of the situation a personal attack? Surely if anyone is making a personal attack, it is User:Philippe Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nfitz you clearly know Victor64 in real life and your loyalty to a friend is commendable but please forgive me for being blunt. Blocking Victor64 was towards the harsh end of spectrum but will within accepted norms for handling vandalism. The amount of heat your campaign is generating is not justified and your actions are now dangerously bordering on harrassing Phillippe. You don't like the decision. We know but now you need to move on. If Victor64 wants to seek an unblock and agree to behave I'm sure they will be unblocked but until that happens this subject should be dropped. I'm sorry but you can't carry on with this. Please stop now. Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was vandalism, but this doesn't give User:Philippe the right to lie. There were appropriate actions he could have taken, and inappropriate actions. He made the choice of taking inappropriate actions, and when his actions were pointed out to be inappropriate, rather than moderate what he had done, he chose to stand by it. His actions were out of line, and all I am doing is pointing this out. That isn't harrassment. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You were specifically warned not to accuse another editor of "lying", but you have continued to do so. You seem unconcerned that you violate Wikipedia's codes of No Personal Attacks and Civility. You have therefore been blocked for 24 hours - please note that the ip autoblock has been disabled in this instance - for disrupting the encyclopedia. You have been advised that both the actions of your student and your own comments are inappropriate; and although you may disagree - and are entitled to record your views in polite terms - this is the consideration of some administrators here. We do not tell you how to educate your charges, and we must insist that we be allowed to police our rules to our own standards.

I would further comment that two instances of reverting minor vandalism does not equal out two instances of replacing large quantities of text on hight traffic pages with "This is retarded". It was not proportional, and the overall effect to the community was one of Vandalism Only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This block doesn't seem to make sense. I haven't made personal attacks or been uncivil with User:Phillipe. I believe he has lied, and I have documented his lie. Documenting the lie on WP:ANI doesn't constitute a personal attack! What a process - shoot the witness! Can someone please lift this block."

Decline reason: "After reviewing the relevant discussions, the problem appears to have been already solved well before you were blocked. Philippe agreed to unblock Victor, conditional upon his apologizing and agreeing to do no further vandalism. Victor learned a valuable lesson, that vandalism on Wikipedia results in blocking. The whole situation is resolved, and it's up to Victor whether he wants to accept the offered unblock or not; I don't see what you hope to achieve by continuing to attack Philippe. In any case, it's only a 24-hour cooling-off block, not an indef, and a reasonable block considering your inexplicable pursuit of a satisfactorily resolved situation and attacks on an admin making an appropriate block. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I don't see how I can not be involved. I observed Victor's actions, and I saw him receive a permanent block from Wikipedia after only a few minutes without without any warnings. This was a newcomer who had never seen Wikipedia in his life. Furthermore, Phillipe documented that this user was only doing vandalism, which was clearly not true. How can I not be involved? Surely it is the responsibility of any member of the community to report such injustice. However that is not relevent to my own blocking today. My own block today is apparently because I noted that Phillipe lied While I disagree that that this is a personal attack (I merely believe that this was me documenting what had happened). My block appears to be because I continued to do so? Hang on, my only communication with Phillipe since the WIP:ANI process started, was a perfectly civil comment on his page, that made no reference to his, or anyone else's actions. My only reference to the incident itself, was on the WIP:ANI discussion (and of course, in this very note on my talk page, questioning the warning for a personal attack). I can't be blocked from Wikipedia for simply taking part in a discussion on WIP:ANI that Phillipe himself started. I've documented the evidence quite clearly. Phillipe clearly said the Victor account was being only used for vandalism - this is 100% not true. Please lift my block - I have no intention of having any further debate on this on Phillipe's talk page. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "accusing an adminsitrator, who is a trusted editor in good standing, of "lying" is a personal attack and shall not be tolerated. Please wait out this block, and when it expires, I highly suggest you make no attempt to have further contact with this administrator. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I haven't made any further attempts to contact that administrator. That is not what this is about. I didn't accuse the administrator of lying. I documented the lie. The administrator did lie - therefore documenting the lie is not a personal attack. This is clearly beyond WP:ANI and needs to go to mediation and/or arbirtration. As I am currently mostly out-of-town and won't have much access until at least March 25th, I will file a request for mediation at that time. In the meantime, I have been blocked merely for noting on WP:ANI that Philippe is not telling the truth. Surely WP:ANI is the place to discuss this. And I note that User:Philippe noted today that "100% of the recent changes had been vandalism" - however a review of Special:Contributions/Victor64 shows that this is not true. Using what was shown there, only 50% of recent changes were vandalism, and with the information I provided above at User_talk:Nfitz#The_Beach_School only 33% of recent changes were vandalism. Philippe is clearly overstating his case, and that is not right. I am merely pointing this out on the appropriate forum WP:ANI - after having tried to understand his position without avail on his talk page. I am highly concerned that an apparently respected editor would continue to make false statements, and that one is blocked for pointing this out, in the appropriate forum. Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "This is pointless Wikilawyering. Victor made 4 edits, and two of his edits where he said "This is retarded". If Victor wishes to defend himself, he can use the unblock template himself. Based on these edits, any admin would have been justified in blocking Victor. It is not YOUR job to try to make a court case out of Phillpe's block. It was a good block, and Victor does not need you to defend him. Stop wasting our time... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Wherever or not that block was a good block or not is not relevent; that block will be dealt with through dispute resolution, or arbitration. The question here is my block - this was not addressed. I was blocked for documenting Philippe's misleading statements; nothing more, nothing less; that isn't right. Furthermore, it was noted above, that my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. - how can I be given a "cooling-off block" when such blocks are should not be used?"

Decline reason: "See previous admins' reasons. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

The reviewer was in error, it was not a cooling down block. It was a 24 hour block for violation of WP:NPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me; I was indeed wrong to call it a 'cooling off block' rather than a preventative block, which is what it was. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet my talk page got frozen because I asked about the 'cooling off block'. And I'm still clueless how anyone thinks I violated WP:NPA. I simply documented the facts. If someone doesn't tell the truth, how can I NOT point it out? Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Friendly advice: It's over. Let it go. The problem is solved, and there's nothing to gain by pursuing it further. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it over? I have no idea why I was blocked. I need to go through a process to sort that out, as either the party who blocked me will continue to wrong others; or if I was wrong I will continue to do the same thing that caused the block. I'm also concerned how an Admin can go to WP:ANI and write things that are untrue about the incident without any censure. I also note that according to the dispute resolution procedure, that I don't proceed to dispute resolution or arbirtration until after the block is lifted - which is now. Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have no idea why you were blocked, and yet independant observers confirmed that it was correctly applied with an appropriate tariff then you should perhaps consider that you are in error in your understanding of some basic WP policies. I would draw your attention specifically to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, and to the last two examples in the first section. To term anothers statements as lies and them thus to be liars is a clear breach of that policy. I warned you, again specifically, that the terminology used was inappropriate. I suggested that you were permitted to make your points civilly. However, you chose to argue your understanding of "truth" and the freedom of speech - notwithstanding that this is a private website and that you were being informed of the rules governing conduct here.

When you, in your incorrect understanding of how things are around here, not only repeated the unsavoury language but attempted to justify how you were correct, the community wrong, and that deference should be made to your viewpoint I enacted a 1 day block. The reason was so that the effect of your disruption would be diminished. Instead of reviewing your actions, or apologising in the interests of future understanding, you continued to pursue your campaign of attempting to have the community accommodate your viewpoint - contrary to principles and practice. Thus your unblock requests were denied.

As well as WP:CIVIL, I think you should also study WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette before pursuing any remedies you think you are due. I think you will find that the codes of conduct expected here are higher than found in most of society. It is because WP is such a large community of such disparity that it can be easy to forget that the individual behind a different screen name may not share your views as to what is appropriate, or not. If everyone tries to be civil then the chance of offending someone is lessened. Obviously, sometimes incivility happens and admins - experienced editors who are familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and who are tasked in allowing the community to function in builing the encyclopedia - will take action. Under the circumstances I was that admin. I gave you the warning, specified the problem, commented how you might redirect your assertions, and when you failed to heed the advice enacted a short block to stop the continuing policy violations.

I really hope that you take the time to read the linked policies, consider my comments, and see how your insistence in behaving in a manner inconsistent with the ethos of Wikipedia lead to the actions taken. I am surprised that someone who has edited for as long as you are not more familiar with how things are, but I am willing to answer any questions you may have regarding the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read these policies. And as far as I can tell, I have followed them. All my communication was perfectly civil. You say that the policy says I can't point out when people tell lies. But I don't see that in the policy. The only thing the policy says is that one must not tell lies. This is pretty black and white. Phillipe clearly, knowingly and with repitition, made a statement of fact that was not true. The English-language word for such a thing is a lie. Comment that someone is lying is no more being uncivil, than noting that a bus is late. It is merely a statement of fact. Saying someone is a dirty liar, a cheating liar, etc., in uncivil. There is nothing in anything I wrote that is not civil, and didn't meet. The policy says nothing about identifying lies. And I never called anyone a liar - I said they were lying - that is two completely different things.
The root problem here, is that we have an Admin who did a lie. By your read of the documents, I'm just not allowed to point this out. That makes no sense at all, and therefore can not be the correct interpretation. It's not like I was running around Wikipedia trashing him, left, right and centre. I followed the dispute procedures, slowly and civily. First I discussed it politely with him on his talk page, to try and resolve. Then, I was preparing to go to WP:ANI. For some reason he went there first, so I followed, and simply made my case. However as the whole root of the case, was a lie he made, I had to point it out. What else is one to do? Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I note that you were absent between 12 - 19 March, while I was on wikibreak over the Easter holidays. Even if I were inclined (see follows) there was little opportunity for communication. That said, I have no interest in further attempting to explain how Wikipedia works; I have told you how you acted inappropriately (and how the original block was appropriate) and you appear determined not to concede that your values or understandings are subrogated on this website to the rules that have been created here. You are unprepared to consider that your misunderstandings of how the rules are applied and explained by individual volunteers do not constitute "lies" and that the very term lie is one that is severely frowned upon within this community. You appear incapable of understanding these simple comments, and continue to use this insulting terminology in further comments. It does you and any point you are attempting to make no favours when you act as if the site hosts and those who try and police have no jurisdiction over your actions.
  • By all means take this to WP:ANI (the Arbitration Committee tend to require that some form of dispute resolution is attempted before they will consider taking a case) if you wish. I doubt that you will get any better a response than when appealing your block, since you do not seem to want to understand the rules, policies and guidelines that govern this place - and through which all your complaints have been appropriately dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
After I was blocked, and my talk page was locked, I used the contact e-mail to challenge the block. The response I got from an admin that, was Personally, I don't think the block against you was valid either, and it's rather depressing to see how many admins refused your unblock request. I would have unblocked you early, but I guess it took more than 24 hours to dig deep enough into this to figure out what happened. So as far as I can conclude, I didn't act inappropriately. Also I'm not sure your post above is civil itself. I request you reread it and apply to yourself, the standards you ask others to follow. While I might well take your post today to ANI, for uncivility, I've been lead to believe that the next step in itself in your erroneous block of me is dispute resolution - before leading to arbitration - though I would accept an apology and simply ending this. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz

I note that you archived the discussion about this with the edit summary "archiving per WP:DENY". Can you explain what that means? I don't see anything about archiving in WP:DENY. And WP:DENY is about vandalism - as no one has ever accused me of vandalism in my 4 years here, then I'm not what you are implying? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm just looking for an explanation of your thoughts here. I'm just not understanding. Obviously I'm not a troll - any suggestion that someone who has been editing here for 4 years is a troll simply because they agree with other Admins, rather than you, would be most uncivil. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You have already received my thoughts, per the above. I have no intention of re-iterating them. I shall continue to archive further comments by you to my talkpage, but will in future make no other summary other than that I am archiving. Please use any other venue available to you if you wish to pursue this matter, but I have said all I care to to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay - though I think I'm required to have a dialogue with you before proceeding to other venues. However, the system confuses me. As an Admin, perhaps you can tell me what the process I should follow when an Administrator blocks someone without cause, and then then implies they are a vandal and a troll without any evidence when they try to figure out why they were blocked? Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your protection of my talk page

I believe your protection of my talk page was inappropriate. As it turned out, the one question that I was asking it was noted above, that my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. - how can I be given a "cooling-off block" when such blocks are should not be used? was correct, and the admin who made that note admitted his error.

I'm not sure why you didn't point out his error, but instead ignored my question, and shut down my ability to communicate. This isn't correct, and I ask that not take part in this type of process, unless you are going to do it properly or seriously. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not ignore your question, rather I determined that the three admins who already declined to reverse your block were correct and protected your talk page as warned by the unblock template. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious to as how you determined the block was correct, as at the time you reviewed it, the justification for the block was my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that such blocks should not be used? Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heading off Wikidrama

Since I know nobody here, and happened upon this wikidrama at ANI, rather than allow this all to go on, how about some outside comment? First of all, Nfitz from his userpage and history is a long time contributor (Nov. 2005) and not a troll, sock, vandal, or anything else bad. He's the kind of person we want, minus his/her indulgence regarding bratty behavior from his kids at his school (I’m going to use masculine for convenience, since there's a lot of roadrage here). From his comments, he appears to be a teacher at the Canadian School called The Beach School, which appears in the Wiki named. Nfitz has been in trouble for his students' IP edits before. Okay, he should doubly know better than to let it happen. I don't care if they are 10 or 12.

In the latest round, Nfitz did something that really needed a reading of WP:BEANS (as has been commented) and made a suggestion which caused a student to vandalize mainspace pages to see how long the revert would take. However, that student, user:Victor64, started out by actually repairing two previous vandalisms to The Beach School doubtless made by some other experimenting student there (or else himself under a sock name). Had the students kept using this particular article as their own sandbox, probably nobody would have noticed. But then Victor64's next two edits were vandalisms to a policy article and a general article (within a few minutes) and that earned him an indef block (one faster than I usually see for vandals, BTW), by user:Philippe for being a "vandal only" account.

Okay, so Nfitz complains to the blocking admin, user:Philippe, who behaves correctly in agreeing to remove the block if the user will apologize. Well and good. Except I'm not sure he quite knows the user is 12. But Nfitz calls him on the technicality of this being a "vandal only" account. This was technically incorrect, as the history of the account shows [2].

Okay, so now it gets weird and WP:LAME. Possibly the subtext is a teacher protecting a student from BITE abuse, and admins trying to protect the WP from vandalism (although, as I say, I wish they were this quick on the trigger for the average school-vandal). For some odd reason, user:Philippe absolutely will not acknowledge the technical error, as this is clearly a school experimentation account which is both committing and fixing vandalism experimentally, even though, as everyone admits, it makes no difference in the decision (as the user certainly had committed enough vandalism to earn an indef block if not apologizing and mending his ways).

So Philippe pointedly ignores Nfitz's point, which is bound to cause anger, merely commenting that he and Nfitz are not going to see "eye to eye" on what a "vandalism only account" is [3]. And indeed the term "vandalism only" is not defined anywhere on WP, although actually WP:BLOCK policy does support indef blocks on accounts used "primarily" for vandalism. What "primarily" means is not defined. Is it numbers of edits? Do large deletions count more than small fixes? LessHeard does a bit of Wikilawyering here and claims that the "overall effect" of the account was "Vandal Only" even if it wasn't literally that. As though the term still had some residual meaning! Nobody seems to realize that it does not, and isn't even used anymore in policy.

Next, (did I mention WP:LAME?) because Philippe will not acknowledge the literal meaning of "vandal only", even though using the phrase himself, Nfitz says he lies. Then user:LessHeard vanU comes in and helps nothing by blocking Nfitz for 24 hours for "disruption", later changing his reason as violation of WP:NPA for calling an admin a liar. When Nfitz complains about this, 3 other admins refuse to unblock, but none of them has anything very useful to say about the situation and how it's progressing.

At one point, an appropriately-named admin called user:Stifle locks down Nfitz' TALK page, a move which seems about as likely to help as the "cooldown blocks" which are prohibited in BLOCK policy. Despite this, another passing administrator actually thinks this IS a cooldown block, and yet does nothing. The quality of the peer review by admins here, is frankly depressing.

By now, both Philippe and LessHeard have refused to engage in further discussion with Nfitz, which only makes him more angry. LessHeard gives his reason, somewhat weirdly, as WP:DENY, which is an essay about dealing with vandals by not talking to them(!) The problem: Nfitz is a long-contributing editor, and is neither newbie nor troll, and not by any stretch of imagination ever a vandal. None of the opinions in WP:DENY remotely apply to him, and he's senior enough to know it, and to know that the use of it implies that he actually is a vandal. So now he's even more angry. And properly (albeit cleverly) insulted. That's one way to get away with violating CIVIL, I suppose.

So my opinion, for what it's worth: Basically: you all should be red-faced for letting this get this far.

User:Nfitz, you remind me of those mothers in public meetings or films who let their children scream. Or kick adults in public places. If you supervise your charges like this while teaching them to cross streets, I'll bet the dear little boys have plenty of tire-tracks on them. This is really your fault for failing to supervise and I've yet to hear you admit it. All the while wanting other people to admit their petty own mistakes, and assuming they are "liars" when they won't. FYI, there's quite a difference between lying and refusing to acknowledge error. As you should well know from your own behavior!

User:Philippe, FYI, there is no such thing as a Vandal Only account, and you got trapped in having to defend your terminology of something that isn't even a legality here. It would have been to your best interest to read the BLOCK policy again (since you're so hot on the trigger) and spend some time explaining it to Mr. Teacher here. Instead, you just shut down and refused to admit you might need to do some reading. So you kept the war ball rolling, here, when you had a chance to stop it. Your standard of indef-blocking newbie users falls well outside two-sigma limits of past policy here on WP. You intend to be a pioneer in blockology, maybe? And your statement "100% of recent changes have been vandalism"?? That's a classic. You mean 100% of the last TWO edits?? "A truth that's told with bad intent/ Beats all the lies you can invent" (Pope). This is really NOT the way to show the world what it means to be an administrator. You were doing very well, until you flubbed it.

User:LessHeard vanU, you absolutely did NOTHING to help this situation, and only made it worse with a punitive block of an respected long term editor who had a gripe which needed some explaining by somebody who actually knew what they were talking about. And yes, it was punitive. Your use of the language confirms this: "If you have no idea why you were blocked, and yet independant observers confirmed that it was correctly applied with an appropriate tariff then you should perhaps consider that you are in error in your understanding of some basic WP policies." TARIFF is punishment language. You're not an assessor nor tax collector. If you want to place retributive blocks on people, I would suggest you don't discuss your thinking in public. Lastly, your use of and reference to the essay WP:DENY, which is about vandals and no more than somebody's personal opinion, at that, is completely bizarre. What were you thinking?

User:Stifle, you really didn't help anything by closing off discussion and gagging the respected editor. You made things worse. If this is your idea of helpfulness, I personally think you should stifle yourself.

As for the rest of you admins who took a look at this block case and did little to help: you might as well not have bothered. Next time, consider not bothering. A community of people who don't spend the time to become informed shouldn't count as a "community" at all. What good is such a community?

The only administrator who didn't come out of this with egg on his/her face was Igor Berger, who probably posted the most useful and wise comments. A shame he didn't comment more. I don't know him, but he sounds like somebody to know.

I think that all of you (except Igor) should apologize to everybody else for wasting everybody else's time with petty blocks and gags and indulgent coddling of 12 year-olds (who are old enough to know better), and not spending any time on a case of escalating war which didn't really need to build.

And if you are tempted to ask me to buzz off, I'll just do exactly that. Serve you right. In that case, keep right on doing what you were doing. And have a pleasant day. SBHarris 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TFC

This is a friendly warning: The edit you made is risking reigniting an edit war. Essentially, this is the breakdown of the debate (if you can call it that, more like a screaming match):

1. 75% (several polls have been conducted) do not believe "Redcoats" to be a nickname because it is not used by the majority of fans nor the media. 25% like the nickname.
2. The majority says that the minority is trying to force the nickname on everyone and is selfish for not accepting the majority rule. The minority believe that 25% is still a significant minority.
3. Because of these two viewpoints which were thoroughly discussed/argued/yelled about on the various forums, it sparked an edit war which had to be stopped by a page protection. We've come to a compromise that "Redcoats" should be left out of the title box (because it is not used as extensively as "Reds" or "TFC") but that it should mentioned that "Redcoats" has been accepted by some in the body of the article.
4. Although I disagree with using "Redcoats" as you do (and I do think it is an arrogant minority trying to force this artifical sounding name on everyone), Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in that it should reflect the subject as much as possible. To avoid sparking another edit war, I'd like to ask you a favour: can you yourself revert the edit you made? This is not meant to be bossy or insulting, it's just that if you do it (as opposed to someone else), it avoids the appearance that each side is arrogantly trying to impose its opinion by overwriting the previous edit. We've reached a consensus, but only after ugly debates and we're hoping to avoid a repeat. I hope you understand what I'm getting at, and I know this was a good faith edit. Lucky Strike (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke

---

Yes, I was the one who requested the page protection because of the issue and I probably should have mentioned that the discussion was done on a separate forums, which of course you wouldn't have known, but that's my mistake, I should have mentioned it. As for referencing, you've got a point, it's not but neither are the other two (Reds and TFC) so nobody bothered with it. Further, "Redcoats" references the team as opposed to any group of fans of Toronto FC, thus its placement. Finally, the "Redcoats" nickname didn't just come out of nowhere in the last ten days but was often discussed during the off-season, as early as January, if I recall correctly. Again, this was done on the forums so those who don't read them wouldn't know this. Like I said earlier, I am opposed to the "Redcoats" because it's pretty artificial being shoved in our faces by a select few so I won't be upset if it's not reinstated. Anyway, the point of my contacting you was not to discredit your work, just a heads-up that it's a touchy situation. Hope this clears up some of your concerns. Lucky Strike (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Lckystrke