User talk:VanTucky/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

The Wine Society

Hello,

You didnt seem to take very much time before you dismissed the wine society as a useful link. If you had read this page http://www.thewinesociety.com/Society.aspx?PageCode=ABOUTSOC&SubPageCode=Aboutmut , you would have realised that the society is a non profit organisation which exists soley for its members, although the site sells wine it does so for the benfit of its members.

Sim0n20 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Simon

Please desist

Your personal attacks, SqueakBox 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SqueakBox 01:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile

Hi Van, sorry about random surliness...I had been involved in one too many wikibattles, and my judgment apparently suffered. I'm in South Tabor, so we're practically neighbors! -Pete 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. --Chaser - T 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The 17th of this month isn't a recent enough last warning to block IP vandal 65.31.98.166? That certainly wasn't an incorrect AIV report, the fourth warning was only two days ago! VanTucky 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a report from two days ago is not recent enough. Dynamic IPs regularly change in a manner of hours. Without some firm evidence that it's static, we treat them all as dynamic. You can reply here.--Chaser - T 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well I'll remember that from now on...but several times in the past I've had admins block for a fourth warning as long as it was in the same week. Dunno if that's a breach of blocking policy, but it's happened. VanTucky 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yogacitations

Hi VanTucky. I yet replied on your question at the Sun Salution origins, at my talk. Now I found out that many books are to be read on the internet yet. I found at least one book on http://books.google.com by searching with de ISBN-number only. You could try to verify the statements in this way. I am fairly only active on the Dutch (.nl) Wikipedia and only make corrections here once and a while when I hop into them. The edit at Sun Salutation was merely a mistake, since I was in the supposition that I was editing on .nl, which I later tried to fix. So maybe you have a tool now for verifying the statements on the Raja of Aundh. Good luck and take care, Davin7 15:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC for Conservapedia

Just a heads up that your RfC is somewhat malformed. First off, you shouldn't sign the RfC request with your name. Second, you haven't created an RfC section on the article talk-page. Check out the instructions at WP:RFC. -Chunky Rice 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The letter to Simon

I had put that reference there because it was the source of Simon's mention in her article. She had confirmed this to me when I talked with her on June 13. I am well aware of who this individual is and what he had caused with regard to us at CP. Whether or not it should be included in the article is up to you, but in my opinion I feel it is a valid source. I am user Karajou over at CP, by the way.

Wiki research

Thanks VanTucky. I have your survey and thanks for your feedback. --Sutton4019 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI thread about you

Hi, VanTucky: there is currently a thread on your conduct here; just an FYI in case you want to monitor or contribute. Anchoress 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, look over here, there is something about your interest

Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas#What_about_this.3F

E&M ^(talk) 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

State terrorism

I'm not sure if I'll have the time or energy to dive into that, but I want to at least say "thanks" for the ringing endorsement of my approach…it's true, I do put a lot of value into WP policies and goals, and it's nice to have that recognized. I'll definitely take a look, but no promises about participation…after all, I have to keep what sanity I have left! Thanks, -Pete 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean when you talk about preserving sanity... VanTucky 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

I don't really think you're a dick. But "arguing is [not] fun" : ) I've been hanging out on these articles for like two years now and I'm actually trying to get away from the arguing part of it. It's just a style issue on this one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology merge debate

Thanks for the note on the merge debate re: Controversy in parapsychology into Parapsychology. I do think there should probably be more discussion and consensus going on. I don't think Martinphi should have sole decision over which criticism is worth retaining and which is "not current" or "ancient history" or "not noteworthy". That said, User:Antelan was doing some in depth work on both articles a while back and appeared to have some specific suggestions regarding the criticism section. I'll drop a note on his Talk page. - LuckyLouie 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*Waves at LuckyLouie and Nealparr* - Hi VanTucky. LuckyLouie brought me over here. I had originally suggested that the Controversy in parapsychology article be merged with Parapsychology. This actually happened, but then the parapsychology article was rewritten from scratch and the criticism section was severely truncated. Consequently, I "unblanked" the Controversy page and slapped an NPOV tag on top because I think it needs some rewriting. That said, by rewriting I just mean tightening up the language, not mass removal as Martinphi seems intent on doing. The arguments are legitimate and sourced (and those without sufficient sourcing can be improved). I'm up for undertaking this task with some help. (This isn't really an area of interest, but since the most interesting counterarguments to parapsychology are essentially physics-based, I'll suffer through it). I haven't checked the talk pages of either of those articles, so I'll do that now. Glad to see another person has become interested in working towards better articles in this arena. Ante lan ^talk 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please remain more civil in disputes. This is unacceptable, you do not need to resort to swearing and belittling other editors in a content dispute, if you continue, you may be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ryan is right. Your logic is clear, and it will only help your argumentation to refrain from invective. Diffs are preserved forever, and magnanimity in the face of absurdity will give your actions more weight. Ante lan ^talk 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Loud and clear. My frustration has gotten the better of me, as I know for a fact that several other users strongly support my arugments against the merge, but I have been the only one saying anything of significance. They are essentially letting a newcomer to this Parapsychology debacle take the hit (from Martinphi) for them on this one. I can see why they are burnt out. VanTucky 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's essentially accurate, and I do apologize. The ArbCom proceedings have been exhausting, and even minor edits on mediumship get axed for reasons that I can't personally understand. Ante lan ^talk 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this will all go away once Martinphi gets the block on editing paranormal articles he so justly deserves. Though Nealparr and Wikidudeman are supportive of a merger, they are most certainly reasonable users and not trying to push the pro-parapsychology/paranormal POV. VanTucky 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I too, plead exhaustion, and FYI, I support your arguments against the merge as it was being pursued by Martinphi. In other words, I disagree with the wholesale cutting of content without discussion. I do see a possibility that Criticism can be successfully included in the main article, but it will need much thought and consensus. If Scientology (the article) can do it, so can Parapsychology (the article). - LuckyLouie 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand how taxing dealing with an ArbCom hearing can be. Well, even in a simple merge without the hack and slash deletions that Martinphi is conducting, the article would be 58KB, which is borderline at best according to the ideal length per WP:SIZE. Their recommendation for a 60KB article is that it "almost certainly" needs topical splitting. VanTucky 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the merger debate.

Could you briefly explain to me your opposition to the merger? Be brief for I don't have much time to read the previous debates. Just directly to the point could you briefly explain to me your main reasons for objection? Limited to about a paragraph or so. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with two versions of the merger proposed. As to the possibly reasonable merger proposed by most of the parties involved, a simple merge of all the content, I object on article length grounds. The Manual of Style states that articles over 40KB (the present Parapsychology article is 48) may need reviewing for splitting. Adding the content of the Controversy article would push it up to 58KB. WP:SIZE says that articles reaching 60 or more KB of length "almost certainly" need splitting. What's more, in real Wikipedia practice, most articles have content split after just 32KB. If the articles were combined and then reconsidered for splitting per SIZE, no other section is large enough to create its own article. An article about the controversies within and criticisms of (with careful attention to avoid a mere POV fork) are some of most common topical splits made. As to Martinphi's idea of this "merge", it is a clear violation of NPOV to delete the detailed, mainstream criticisms of Parapsychology found in Controversy. VanTucky 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Controversy in parapsychology article. It's bulked up which causes it to be so large. It could easily be condensed into 2-4 paragraphs without sacrificing any content. Also, The same applies for the Parapsychology article. It's badly written and thus is bulked up to a size that could easily be condensed if written in a more wikipedia friendly way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The content doesn't need to be condensed. Some of the paragraphs need a little trimming or clarification of language, but no wholesale summarization. The reasoning behind the criticisms of parapsychology needs to be heard just as much as the explanation of parapsychological research. If the information exists, as it does in the article, just having a summary of what the criticisms are isn't sufficient in either NPOV or simple encyclopedic terms. We're as an encyclopedia to provide all the information on verifiable topics as is possible. And don't try and tell me a wee little 15 KB article is "bulked up". VanTucky 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you support a merger if I showed you a draft of what the Parapsychology article would look like with that content merged into it after it has been trimmed down while still conserving content? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comment to Nealparr after I apologized to him. Essentially I would, but the only section originally duplicated in the articles I see is the Fraud section. All the others are necessary elucidations of topics touched upon in the main article. VanTucky 03:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the new version of parapsychology, as well. It would be a welcome change from the fractionated mess that we have now. Ante lan ^talk 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be forgetting...

that the first order of advice given to those subjected to personal attacks is to simply ignore it. By deleting it over and over again, you are adding fuel to the fire. You are in fact the subject of an RFC, so you can't hide it. But the rambling editorializing that follows the mention of that is complete nonsense. Just ignore, and stick to the issue at hand. VanTucky 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As advised elsewhere, I ignored this user's first few dozen attacks, including the malicious efforts to abuse Wikipedia policy using the AN/I and RFC processes. His remarks were a blatant personal attack and the time to respond has long passed. Alansohn 07:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

VanTucky - Thanks for your welcome. I have admired Wikipedia for some time but I was inspired to contribute after reading an article in today's NYT Magazine. Haven't edited my own Talk pages yet but I may do so. Nice to know you and other experienced editors are out there. Steve W. Talkingtomypocket 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things.

Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a compliment, the project need more members, then I'm trying to recruit anyone, are you interested??? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, right now I can't look out for one, but can you look for one to me? I'd be glad to modify when I can, because right now I'm going to sleep. BTW feel free to invite and recruit anyone else, this project was dying, but now I'm reviving it! The project has a great scoupe, but just need members interacting within.Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you?

Why did you remove the gallery from the Shar Pei page? The Undersigned

Concerning the merger of this article, See the rough draft I drew up.

Please see [[1]] for more info. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Golden Retrievers

Hi,

Sorry - I read that after I posted the link. I was going back in to delete it but I guess you beat me to it. Again, I apologize... Egoldens 16:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Godwin

First of all, the unqualified deletions of a rude anon are not a breach of 3RR. They are removal of vandalism.

I thought I asked you to spare me that excuse. Oh well.

Second, why can't you even look at the evidence I've provided on the talk page before reverting in a knee-jerk fashion.

"Mr Kettle? It's Mr Pot on Line 4. He says you're black".

In case, you can try trotting out either chestnut here and see if they take. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation on Mike Godwin

You have been temporarily blocked for violating WP:3RR on Mike Godwin (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:VanTucky reported by User:Calton (Result:12 hours)). When you return please use the Talk: page to work out disputes. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

unblock

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 have never been warned or censured for violations of the 3RR before, and I sincerely believed I was reverting a vandal. My later reversions ceased once editors with an objection to the content in question made their concerns clear and reverted me."

Decline reason: "You reverted 5 times, ignoring the consensus that your tag was inappropriate. 12 hours was lenient. — Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 07:53, 5 July 2007 (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.

You've been editing for almost a year now, so you're not a new editor, and you also reverted an established editor. Based on the 5 reverts I could have blocked for 24 hours, but I only blocked for 12, in recognition that this was a first offense. Please don't make me regret that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten me for contesting what I feel is an illegitimate block. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you; I'm pointing out that you are responding to leniency regarding your 5 reverts in 70 minutes with complaints of an "illegitimate block", which really is a slap in the face. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

you're right about the leniency I guess. I just feel like I've been attacked and then blocked for simply adding a basic tag requesting citations that didn't exist in a biography of a living person. I don't understand why this was so controversial. The tag gets added to hundreds of articles with uncited facts everyday. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for pointless edit-warring.

And this? Not very smart when it's so easy to figure out. A little self-reflection might be in order here. --Calton | Talk 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

~~What are you talking about? the link just shows some ambiguous info about such and such number of users being blocked.~~ So you see two different Comcast IP's and assume it's me? I have never been pursued by anyone so vehementely, nor ever commited vandalism (and honestly, if I was going to lash out at you, I should think of something rather more clever. I'm not a paid writer for nothing). Calton, we've never interacted before, and I don't understand why you have such a hard time taking my word when it comes to having good intentions. I'd rather not interact if we're going to be so combative. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you see two different Comcast IP's and assume it's me? -- How odd, I only saw one.

So we have you, an editor from Vancouver, Washington -- I mean, you put it in your NAME, for god's sake -- who gets blocked because of my report, and an hour later an IP from Vancouver, Washington vandalizes my user page. I can put two and two together quite well, thank you.

Make whatever assumptions you like about me, but kindly don't include gross stupidity on your list. Or do you wish to claim that you were framed or something? --Calton | Talk 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm just a technical idiot, but I don't see how your link provides incontrovertible evidence that I vandalized your userpage. But if you wanna talk location...you're easily forgetting logistics. I live in Portland, I do not own a car, and Trimet bus routes end early on a national holiday. You think I biked all the way to Vancouver in an hour just to vandalize someone who hasn't done anything to me? You didn't make those reverts, I did. Thus I was blocked. The fact that you put it on the noticeboard is of no consequence, as any of the editors who participated in that trivial edit war could, and probably would, have done it. And no, just for the record, I make no judgments about the mental capacities of a person who I have not only never met, but whom I have not substantially interacted with online. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to assume the worst of people, and think that a vandal from a city of more than 150,000 people must be a user who resided there more than two years ago and who has never been accused of vandalism against those who he had edit conflicts with, simply bc it was the same night, then that of course is your perogative. I however, will no longer be responding to this cyclical and pointless stream of accusation and denial. And thank you for your WikiLove, I'll try to return it in the future. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I am allowed to remove speedy deletion tags when they are inappropriate. On a user page, they are inappropriate. Deb 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives