User talk:TenOfAllTrades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives

Contents

[edit] Note

This editor is having a problem understanding civility. I mean literally. Even though he has been warned by a number of other editors[1], and blocked by you, he continues with uncivil remarks[2] I think he just doesn't get it. I left a warning on his page about 1 hour ago, and he followed with this[3] and this[4]. I think this editor might benefit from some assistance, perhaps from editors he trusts. The homeopathy page has been contentious at times but nonetheless and otherwise, civil. Anthon01 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explain please

Just what do you mean by "If you decide to take this on-wiki - which I strongly, strongly discourage you from doing - the ensuing mess is on your head." please? DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on mine now. Taking full responsibility (like that means anything). Sorry Ten, Duncan and everyone who gets to deal with this now. Was fed up. One of the reasons I'd suck as an administrator, I guess. Bad temperament. Wish I could take it back. Was angry. Can't take it back now. :-( Considering a refdesk break. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusions

Thank you, I managed to find some info, but you have resolved this completely for me. -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's the usual?

What's the usual approach to the RFC?

They threw the whole kitchen sink by listing all those items. Because of that, each and every one has to be addressed.

To create a less confrontational approach, I shortened the RFC so that my response could be simply a few words. Is this bizarre? The intent was that I kept many things of the original RFC in an attempt to reach common ground.

A RFC is not an everyday event. Is the expected response merely a confession, even to items that I think should not be included in the RFC?

Should an RFC be an attempt to harmony and co-existance? Or should one take a position and not yield? The shortened RFC is a first attempt at compromise and harmony. Archtransit (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thats not personal blog

Hi Ten, I was not aware that adding links from a single site will make you think thats a personal blog? Theoriginof is basically an information site with original content thats why I added the link here. :) I hope you will undo the delete.

[edit] Re: That's enough

You must feel like a schoolyard monitor sometimes. I'm still feeling out the dimensions of the civility thing. Tit for tat, the norm in the world outside Wikipedia, is a habit that's hard to break. I am feeling rather cranky today, to be sure, so I'll try to re-establish the lag I usually put in my "save page" procedure that allows me to not post when I realize it's better not to. I receive your remonstrance as deserved and I will factor it into my developing understanding of the Wikipedia mode of being. That said, I still think he was being argumentative, unfair, and petulant (whining), and was only posting on the talk page to grind his axe (trollishness). My evidence is the way he came back. And I don't make a distinction between anons, registereds, and admins. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're always right, and it's starting to piss me off. Listen—the pillars of Wikipedia are theoretically sound, and it's high time humankind gave them a fair chance to work. We should bend over backwards to accomodate annoying people, because we're all annoying. Golden rule, other cheek, first stone, the full monty. I'm excited to be part of what I consider to be a monumental experiment in world communication. I'm trying to do it right, but I am by nature a mordant, sarcastic prick. I'm funny, though. A lot of your really nice people aren't funny. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Forget it. Ignore me. There's nothing important going on, and I'm not hitting on all eight cylinders right now. Let me wind up my comments on this matter by saying thanks for keeping your eye on the ball. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violation

I still think it's an egregious BLP violation, it doesn't matter where it's located, if there are no reliable sources, all of this shows up in Google. But you are right that I should have given a better edit summary, I generally do in those cases, but I just forgot in that case. Corvus cornixtalk 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What makes you think you can "take" any cruft from Wikia?

Sorry, but once some of that info is gone into the Wikia hosted black hole, it never again returns to the universe for commercial use by anybody else. Hawking was wrong. SBHarris 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My comment

If it reads like an attack to you, then that's how you read it. I read it as the only way to state my dissatisfaction with Carcharoth's 'get the fuck out' attitude, without getting blocked by him for using compliments for an editor I respected. I'd like to state support for Shankbone, but as I stated there, that's not permissible anymore. I recommend further that you please take notice, i'm not the only one chafing under Carcharoth's new policy. ThuranX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack. Carcharoth said above my post that complimenting a user makes you biased. So I can't compliment, thus, can't show support. As far as 'history', I just find his general attitude towards users who have been here a while, or do a lot of good work to be antagonistic at best, and flat out hate at worst. he's trying to get betacommand banned, and he's encouraging David to leave. Both are great contributors who do a lot to bring the project UP. I don't see you confronting Filll about his agreement with my assessment of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
it's right there where he says that offering praise to any one editor insults all other editors. Thus, it shows preferential treatment to one editor, aka bias. Thus, a problem. I'm really tired ofjumping through hoops for you. Carcharoth made it clear not to compliment David Shankbone, so I'm not. I'm abiding by an admin's instructions. If you want to block me for that, go ahead, I know Carcharoth will if you don't. ThuranX (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't call me "son". I'm even less likely to take you seriously when you start patronizing me, especially since I'm probably older than you. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You seem to want to block that user, thepokeratlas. If you do, I will certainly not unblock. Go ahead, do it. I won't un-do it. I have already explained why I unblocked. You have not said why this user is different and why he should be blocked despite the generic discussion. Is it that the user is American or pro-gambling? Or you don't like any name with the word "poker" in it? Please explain. Archtransit (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have misunderstood me. I am not accusing you of being anti-American or anti-gambling. If you re-read the above comment, I am asking you why should User:thepokeratlas should be blocked. Based on your misunderstanding and subsequent comments, I assume that the fact that the user is possibly American or is possibly pro-gambling has no bearing and is not a reason that you think should explain his block. I also assume that unrelated facts are not important, such as the user name has 13 characters.
So what is the reason? Because it's a corporate name? If so, that issue was raised in AN. Is a corporate name sufficient reason for automatic blocking? Policy says no but some may feel it is yes. If so, policy could be changed. Concern should be then directed at policy change, not at me.
People have said that I don't get it. Therefore, please explain why User:thepokeratlas should be blocked. Answering this type of question could help resolve the situation. Thank you! Again, please do not misunderstand and think that I am accusing you of being anti-American or anti-gambling. Archtransit (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For being a voice of sanity and reason. There is a damn good reason I want my talk page semiprotected - I'm subject to vicious off-wiki harassment which has resulted in IP vandalism crap. Every time I unprotect it as a test, it starts up again. I meant what I said - if I'm forced to un-sprotect it, I'm out of here, because I don't want to deal with it.

My "e-mail this user" link has always been active, and I will post a note atop my talk page directing anon IPs to use that to contact me. (Can IPs use the e-mail link?)

I will agree to undelete my user talk page, but it's going to take some time because there are quite a few vandalous revisions that I am going to leave deleted, so I have to go through and check a squillion boxes to undelete the useful discussion.

I'm in class right now and won't be able to respond on ANI for a couple hours. FCYTravis (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IP's cannot specify a e-mail address, as they have no preferences like logged in users, so sending them a link to e-mail you will not work. — Save_Us † 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Could they create an account and use the email feature immediately? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That is true I suppose, it just goes against the general notion that you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia. Anonymous editors should be able to communicate with him regardless, permanent talk page protection from IP's is against our policy.
Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
  • User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user.
Policy goes on to say "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. While I sympathize with the problem of persistent IP comments making him frustrated, the reasons for protection are invalid. — Save_Us † 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, we do make exceptions to policy where it is in the best interests of the project as a whole. While semiprotection should not be used "solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users", I would argue that this is not what is happening here. FCYTravis has suggested that the semiprotection is to prevent editing (attacks) by a specific individual who always uses an anonymous IP. The distinction is subtle but important—his intent is to prevent a specific individual from engaging in harrassment (a legitimate aim), that anonymous and newly registered users can't edit his talk page is an unintended and unwanted side effect.
I generally support the policy on semiprotection. I agree that there are strong, sound reasons for not semiprotecting user talk pages indefinitely. I also agree with editors who note that Travis' intemperate responses to unprotection requests have not helped matters here. However, I think that if FCYTravis is able to make a compelling case then there is room for flexibility in this policy. I sincerely hope that all the participants in this discussion can keep cool heads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh—I didn't see that this is being duplicated at AN/I. Please keep all replies there, from now on. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (plus some thoughts)

Thanks for trying. I'm still not sure where that came from, especially the stuff about admins and overlords. I have been rather strong in my criticism of several admin and/or bot operator actions over the last week or so (JzG, East718, Betacommand, and maybe some others), and me commenting on the David Shankbone post might have been the last straw for some people (or one particular person - I'd recently been discussing things with him over at the MfD of the page about BetacommandBot, so I think that was the proximate cause). More generally, some of the AN/ANI threads may have come across as remorseless in the way they laid out a problem that others might prefer to dismiss or ignore, but I do try to be even-handed and summarise things and keep things moving forward, rather than seeing things peter out into loose ends that don't get resolved. Kind of striking a balance between discussion being suppressed and endless discussion that results in nothing being done. Getting a handle on the discussions revolving around Betacommand and his bot is impossible though - they all end up with disgruntled image uploaders finding the discussion and things go downhill from there. But as I said, thanks for the talk page follow-up support from that AN thread. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quarren Isolation League

Long ago, you presided over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarren Isolation League. It was subsequently directed to a series of redirects. Then, just prior to the deletion of its last redirect Confederacy of Independent Systems, an anonymous user restored the whole text (including the VfD template). Not knowing what to do with it, I went ahead and nominated it for deletion again, but i there is a neater Wikipedia hammer that can be brought here, then swing away. Thanks. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was actually deleted though - just merged and a redirect placed. The anonymous user didn't recreate the material so much as he reverted. Does WP:CSD#G4 still count in that case? If so, then awesome (I don't care to wait for the AfD to play out), but the wikilawyer in me needs to be sure. :) CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badgering

I already dropped it a while ago. In any case, I violated no rules. The issue with Less's userpage was a mistake which has already been resolved. You repeating what was told to me already isn't very helpful. Malamockq (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An hour isn't long enough to know I dropped it? I deleted your warning because I read it. It's just how I do things. Malamockq (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Modem

Please don't yell to illustrate a point. Please review the rules, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Ten's comments. You appear to frequently make unjustified complaints, like this one. Friday (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please review the rules. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ten, I suggest you just reply with "Naa", it's all this comment deserves. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop running around demanding civility and pestering the same people over nothing, just because they happen to be administrators. This comment on the reference desk's talk page added nothing to the topic about debates or original research. Instead it attempted to deflect the issue at hand to a comment on a contributor. If anyone is holding a grudge here, it is neither TenOfAllTrades nor Friday. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop making assumptions and being incivil. Ten is a big boy, he doesn't need you to defend him. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE--NAHID 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randy's Block

I have no intention of posting to his page. Do you consider my previous attempts to get him to criticized content and not editors poking? BTW, he pokes me on my talk page and elsewhere yet I will often respond to him by clarify the difference between crticizing content and editors. Anthon01 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm happy you responded. According to policy, an editor has the right to place a warning for incivility on a users talk page. I haven't found a policy that says you cannot place a warning on a page if a user doesn't take it well. Your assumptions of bad faith[5][6][7] including I know that it can be entertaining to watch him explode in spectacular fashion disheartening. I left the following message on Fyslee's talk page, at 16:33, February 26, 2008, one minute before you posted your warning on my page.[8] In that message I stated It hurts me to see what this user is going through. He just doesn't get it. Maybe you can help him. I also left you a message in early February,[9] where I wrote ... I think this editor might benefit from some assistance, perhaps from editors he trusts ... I think anti-homoepathy editors need to help this editor get straight on WP:CIVIL means. Anthon01 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would refactor your multiple bad faith comments. Anthon01 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also consider I do sympathize with him that there has been a habit on the part of some of his opponents to goad him into precipitate action using civility warning templates an assumption of bad faith. Anthon01 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I began posting warning on his page was because he would start personal attacks that would escalate into homeopathy talk page insult wars. Ever since I started warning him the talk page has been civil. That's it and nothing more. My comments to him basically boil down to, attack editors arguments, but not the editors. Anthon01 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also per Randy's block

The person with whom Randy was having his altercation couldn't help showing up to needle him.[10][11] (In a by-the-book civil way, of course; he knows how the game is played.) Were you serious about what you wrote in your second paragraph?[12] Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting fed up with the pseudoscience/paranormal crowd baiting their opposite numbers, and I'm getting fed up with my science-oriented colleagues for taking the bait so dependably. I'm trying to explain to the latter that ceding the civility bludgeon to the fringers is counterproductive and warning: WP:SPADE ahead just plain dumb, but it's a long road. I appreciate your stepping in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You really think it just goes one way? Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on my talk page

I am beginning to agree with you; Randy's not in the mood, and I'm not helping. I have no opinions regarding homeopathy except that the weight of such mentions should be appropriate and not given undue weight; on the other side, legitimate references should not be dismissed because they happen to show some favor to a homeopathic viewpoint. SA among others even used underhanded tactics to push their own POV instead of relying on a more general concensus or even editing for the enemy. I'm going to go edit kittens now. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Food for thought

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Call_for_more_bureaucrats. Friday (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replied on my talk page

Do you need notice or do you monitor my page after posting a comment there? Anthon01 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse Me?

First off, if you believed that I was a newcomer, why speak to me in that tone? That is called BITING, and it is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Secondly, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since '03, and up until recently I have not felt the need to create a username. I believe that five years is enough time to familiarize myself with this website. If you could not consider that possibility, I do not honestly believe that you yourself are very acquainted with Wikipedia. I have witnessed instance upon instance of new users joining the Wikipedia community with the intention to spam. The proposal was my solution. Give me my space, and I will give you yours. Park Crawler (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Ten, would it be possible to have restored Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad? and Model Nonprofit Corporation Act? Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not inclined to restore Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. You were trolling, and I don't really see anything good coming from giving you back an essay to support the notion that your (hopefully former) approach was beneficial. If you'd like to add a copy to a personal, off-site blog somewhere, I can undelete your essay to your userspace for a day or two.
Incidentally, you forgot to list your other two account names – User:Thespian Seagull and User:Take You There – on your user page.
Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Well, I wasn't trolling, but that's another matter. Feel free to restore to userspace. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You still forgot User:Take You There. I've undeleted to your userspace: User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Wikidrama. I'll probably delete it finally in twenty-four to forty-eight hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I probably will write a few more essays tangentially related to recent events, but they are not really intended as a defense of my past behavior; they are more just intended as thought-provoking articles on Wikipedia policies and philosophies in general. So, I hope you won't view them as trolling. Normally, someone might write such things under a pen name but obviously I'm not in a position to do that. Basically what I'm saying is, please disregard the source. In my opinion, it's not really important who writes something on Wikipedia; all that matters is the content (and in the case of mainspace articles, the cited sources). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(I would have replied there, but his page is semi-protected) Well, isn't it kind of a WP:DEADHORSE by this point. WP:PRX was stopped, all other accounts are indefinitely blocked or have scrambled passwords, you won't be getting anymore disruption or sockpuppetry from me... you've basically won. Or depending how you look at it, we've all won. You can probably figure it out if you look hard enough anyway. I probably shouldn't even be responding but whatever. I'll just have to earn trust back I guess. All right, later. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] oops

I fumblefingeredly misinvoked my archiving bot and accidentally created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/1900 January 2. Can you delete it for me, please? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (And -- lookit that -- the link just above is all nice and red now.)
On the other thing -- thanks. I'm gettin closer and closer to taking that plunge. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Model Nonprofit Corporation Act

Hi. I noticed when looking at something in my logs that Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) had turned blue again. Contributions of blocked/banned users created after they are banned are generally deleted - to not delete them would be to encourage block evasion. You did not leave a summary when restoring it, so it at least has my curiosity up. --B (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandal

I've been rolling back that IP vandal's reversions of your posts. Reported to ANI. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed

Through extensive research, I've been able to confirm that Nigeria, helicopters and DeKalb County, Illinois really do exist. I think we're onto something!!! Friday (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Out of office

Things are busy at work these days, so I'm not going to be on Wikipedia much. Fear not, I'll be back.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section31

No, I don't plan to make an account of that name but since my ip will rotate randomly (and because I have access to a whole range of ISPs), it's so people know who they are talking to. An account is a hindrance. Section 31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

no I like section31 and I'll keep using it - your blocks are ineffective so please don't bother with those empty threats. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
feel free to rangeblock - I edit by wardriving - so it's an ineffective method of stopping me, as it makes me unstoppable. I'm not wrecking articles, I'm just using an IP to have to avoid the rather slow process of identifying and dealing with dangerous POV pushers - with an IP I can say the things that editors are not permitted to. Don't bother leaving any more messages at the fredrick day account - I've abandoned it, it served it's purposes and is no longer required (I have another account for my regular editing - it doesn't get involved in policy matters). section31 --87.112.33.78 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
why waste your time with those blocks? --87.113.0.48 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are solutions to the problems that editors like User:Fredrick day present. Unfortunately, one of the people who understands them is User:Larry E. Jordan. The same solutions that would utterly bypass the deletionist/inclusionist controversy would not only remove the whole thoroughly wasteful XfD process, while at the same time making the encyclopedia more reliable, but would also vastly reduce harm from socks and vandals and spammers and POV-pushers (who are becoming increasingly professional) without sacrificing the openness that makes Wikipedia so special. It will take, however, a community willing to look at the problem and at solutions without automatically rejecting them before understanding them. If you are ever interested in exploring this, email me. I'm dropping efforts to address the community with these ideas; part of the concept is that one doesn't try to force a horse to drink water.--Abd (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is obvious response to this user's threats. He claims to have another account, which I already thought extremely likely; while I have a suspicion, the probability remains low for it. I'm not going to pursue checkuser myself, but this is a case where a checkuser should be involved, and promptly, and not merely one responding like an automaton to an RfCU. If asked, I'd also be interested in helping to build a rapid-response network to deal with this kind of threat. Some elements, I'm sure, already exist. Others could use some of the ideas I've been working on. A side-effect would be that Jordan would have trouble creating and using new accounts, but ... I've seriously asked him not to do that, or at least not for more than a month. If I could control him, I'd just leave out the exception. I've learned to leave communities that don't want me, factoring only for participation bias.--Abd (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Checkuser is a waste of time on people like me because it only works for people who actually use a single Isp... Section31 86.144.52.202 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy really thinks he is brilliant. He's not. Sure, he can drive around, he can go to a library, all that, but ... it's going to be a lot more inconvenient, plus we now know what to look for. I'll put in a little duty on this, probably, but ... I actually don't think he is now as harmful as he was. With seriously abusive socks like this, before, the harm is in when they are not identified quickly. I saw one who was around for over a year before he was IDd. He's still not blocked, but hasn't edited in a long time, so I'm not exercised about it. He made a cameo appearance at my RfA, where he provided additional evidence re his identity, though it was pretty obvious already, and then was "helpful" in identifying Absidy socks. Anyone ever wonder why an SPA, hasn't edited for months, is suddenly doing a lot of research on a blocked user? Once one knows the history, it is no mystery at all.--Abd (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning about your personal attack on my Talk page.

Your comment shown in this diff was a personal attack. Please refrain. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for semi-protecting my User Talk page

Thanks for protecting my Talk page against edits by the IP socks of User:Fredrick day. I'm not sure that this is the best response, though. His taunts there flag the IPs for me and thus I can check the contributions and revert, as well as accumulate IP evidence about his patterns. In any case, nice to be able to thank you right after having complained. I hope it evens it out some. As to continuing that semiprotection, your call, either way is okay with me, and I appreciate the intention in any case. --Abd (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing magical methods

Why are you putting the magical methods back into the talk section? The whole point of removing them is because they were unsourced, original reesearch, and (most importantly) to stop edit wars when magicians come over and delete them (like what recently happened in Out of This World (card trick)). Putting them back in the talk section is just as bad in my opinion.

There is always a possibility that some of the methods are breaching copyright, and posting it in the talk section is still leaving Wikipedia open to breach of copyright. If you must state what has been removed, could you at least just put a link up to the section of the history that showed what was removed, rather than posting the secret as well? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your reasoning, and I am still not overly convinced. However, may I suggest this notification as a compromise? It includes a link to the deleted method (which is available from the history), it is hopefully less abrupt than my original text.
If it is ok with you, would you mind changing the talk pages of those that have been done already appropriately? If you'd rather, I can do it for you? I would rather not edit your text without your approval. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My concern about having the text in the talk page is that the method is visible. Ok, it is harder for the person to find (and I do take a small amount of solace from the lack of visibility from Google), but it is still there. What specifically concerns me is (and I could be worrying about nothing) that some magician could come along and delete the text from the talk page. I personally won't do that, as I will be removing someone elses text (I will always ask first, then act accordingly). However, someone else might do that. This will end up with an edit war taking place on the talk page, ending in blocks/bad feelings/etc.
By not having the method on the talk page (just a link) is that the deletion event I described above is less likely to occur. Those editors who do want the method in the article will still be able to see what was removed, and seek out suitable and appropriate sources; the magicians who don't like seeing methods exposed will hopefully be satisfied; and people like me (Wikipedians who also happen to be magicians) will be satisfied as they have managed to skirt the fine line between helping to maintain Wikipedia's quality and their fellow magi. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. However, whether or not the two of us can hammer out an agreement, there is no guarantee that anyone else will agree with what we think, or even realise that we have had this discussion. I have therefore opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic#Removing_the_method_-_what_next.3F, and I would suggest that we carry on our discussion over there. Hopefully we will all be able to come to some agreement, and get it written up into the guidelines for the project. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start letting the other members of the Wiki magic project know about this discussion - I feel it is important that (whatever way this goes - even if it doesn't go the way I would like it) the other members of the project a) get their chance to put their thoughts, and b)make them aware of what should be done in future. I'll notify the others later (gotta get back to work). In the meantime, if you can think of any others who aren't in the project but who may make like to make a contribution to this discussion, please feel free to let them know. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing - apologies

Regarding your note - I am familiar with that policy, but I guess I was probably skating a bit too close to the mark, in which case I do apologise. My intention was only to contact those who would be interested in the outcome, not contacting everyone and their uncle, thus keeping the circulation limited.

I deliberately phrased the message I sent so that I was not saying "come and vote this way", but to state the possibilities in a non-biased manner, thus maintaining neutrality. I did my best to avoid votestacking, by ensuring that you, who holds the opposite view to me, was aware of what I was doing and had the opportunity to let others know. I have no idea as to how the other members of Project Magic would vote, so I was probably safe from votestacking anyway - I was just playing it safe. Stealth canvassing was not an issue, as I was only notifying on Wikipedia.

With that in mind, I felt my actions was safe and above board. Reading your response on my talk page, and reviewing my actions, I see now what I should have done:

1) Waited. The debate had only just started, and as you pointed out, most of the interested parties would have it on their watch list. 2) Taken into consideration that you are almost certainly a busy person, and you have more than enough to think about than one small detail.

So what should I do now? Learn from my actions by looking back over the last day or so. I believe I was right to question your actions about putting the secrets on the talk page (by that I mean that my opinion differed from yours and so I needed to know why, in case I had missed something/needed to learn something).

When I disagreed, I believe I was right to move the discussion to the talk page, and give you the opportunity to respond. My reasons for that were: 1)To get a concensus - I would go with what was decided, regardless of whether or not I agreed totally with it. 2)What the two of us come to an agreement with would mean nothing if no one else knew about it or had the opportunity to have their say.

...And at that point I should have waited to see what happened. I had made my point, you had made yours, and responses were just starting to come in. I guess I was a bit too eager.

I appreciate the time and effort you have spent in countering my arguments, and in making your point on the talk pages (mine and on Project magic). I apologise for any headaches I have caused you with my over-exuberance, and I promise that I will think twice before posting once. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An old nemesis

I thought you might want to keep an eye on this. --LarryMac | Talk 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Magic - discussion expanded

Hi,

Just to let you know that I have waited for further comment in the discussion, but I don't see that any real concensus is being reached - we magicians can be a rather biased lot (grin). Anyway, I have posted a request at the village pump asking for people outside the project to comment.

If you have a chance to, please feel free to come back over and take part/keep an eye on (delete as applicable). If you can't, fair enough. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment - no concensus has been reached, so I have raised an RFC on the matter. If you can, please come over and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic#RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next?|join in. StephenBuxton (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The RFC had been quiet for the best part of a week, but activity has started (ok - two posts: one from my Admin coach - unsolicited, I hasten to add! Plus one from me). Thought I ought to let you know, just in case you had stopped looking in due to lack of anything really happening... StephenBuxton (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking part in this RFC. It looks like there may be a concensus/compromise finally being reached, so I have summarised what I think is being agreed on. However, I would not be so bold as to say everyone is in agreement, certainly not without you having your say! If you get a minute or three, could you cast your eye over my summary, and make your comments/edits/etc? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] knowledgeable

Your a very knowledgeable individuals how do you get so smart? College?Makey melly (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk page

I saw your comment about myself and User:Nakon. I trust that you found this on her talk page.

I was going to say that you were incorrect in referring you my comment as 'sexist', and certainly my second comment had no such intent, but I realize that you may be referring to my first, in which I did indeed make the implication that she might be on the side of User:Nandesuka owing to their common sex. Judging from my experience, that is not unlikely.

As for my allegation of censorship, that is factually correct as I am attempting to exercise free speech and she is preventing me - see User:The way, the truth, and the light/What I believe which she removed from AN immediately when I posted it.

I am sorry that you (and others) may have misunderstood my post at AN/I. When I wrote 'I demand an apology', I meant to express my opinion that she ought to; I did not expect an apology, nor did I desire her to be forced to give one (a forced apology is of course meaningless anyway). It was 6 months ago, true, but I never forget, and it still is relevant if she (User:Nandesuka) could block me again in rhat manner. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of an Obuibo Mbstpo file

I came across this:

(Deletion log); 15:21 . . TenOfAllTrades (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Discussions in progress" (mob recruitment tool for banned editor)

Why? Obuibo Mbstpo (not banned at the time the file was created) was, of course, very controversial. The "Discussions in progress" file may have been legitimate or not, but I'm sure it was not a "mob recruitment tool." I think people should be able to judge for themselves, and find it odd that you would, as one of your few edits or actions recently, take this step. I don't think it's an appropriate use of your admin buttons, and ask that you stop. This file should be restored, please, or please provide me with a copy with history. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lilith

So I attempted to convince User:Lilith2396 to come around. She has in turn bitten my head off. It does not appear that either she or Edward is willing to be a constructive contributor, and it is very clear that she is a meatpuppet, if not a sockpuppet. Therefore, I am requesting that she be indefinitely blocked. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea

Hi. I thought that this was a good idea. Protects good faith OPs from having their questions removed and deters all but the extreme jokers. Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on user you were involved with

I have created an RFC on User:Lilith2396's behavior. As you were one of those who attempted to resolve the dispute, your input would be appreciated. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incarnation of AT

Eff wone (talk · contribs).  --Lambiam 00:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives and Avril Lavigne

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Algebraist 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Twinkle doesn't work properly here. Sorry for the inconvenience. Algebraist 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

==Help! -- 71.100.8.192 ==

Hi Atlant, is it time to block this one[13] refdesk Abe Lincoln -- he's wiped out three of my posts troll warning and in reply to him. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC) What thuh...? Sorry, 10, I seem to be on the wrong page... *steps gingerly across the web, gently waving* Julia Rossi (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the refdesk talk page just now, realised it's the right user page, wrong name. My apols 10ofAll for vaguing out like that. I did mean to be talking to you about blocking that one, but time has gone by. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Removal of magic methods - what next? More input please!

Hi! As someone who has taken part in the RFC in Project Magic, I thought you ought to be aware that it looks like a consensus is being reached, and it is probably now just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. If you could pop over to the discussion and add your thoughts, that would be great. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to the draft guidelines I created a while back, I have taken the bold action of making them the current guidelines. You can view the change here. If you disagree with the revised changes, or have any further comments on the change, please feel free to raise it on the project talk page. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for fixing my stuff, after that lunatic swept through wikipedia like a tornado. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)