| Revision as of 10:51, 17 June 2013 editDieSwartzPunkt (talk | contribs)3,096 edits →North America DHCP← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:55, 2 November 2017 edit undoFastilyBot (talk | contribs)Bots239,264 edits BOT: Notify user of FfD | ||
| (262 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== October 2015 == | ||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| ( Moved here from my talk page --] (]) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC) ) | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = '''''This account has been ] indefinitely''''' as a ] that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that using multiple accounts is ], but using them for ] reasons '''is not''', and that all edits made while evading a block or ban ]. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ] (]) 18:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->}} | |||
| Guy, I noticed that you placed a comment on our mutual friend's talk page which got the usual ignore and delete without response treatment (and the edit summary says it all). However, having been following the discussion at ] for some little while, one thing seems to be becoming more and more obvious. There seems to be a lack of consistency between engineers and measuring instrument manufacturers as to how to handle the concept of power flowing the wrong way. There also seems to be no world standard on the point. I take your point about Wtshymanski not willing to go with the flow (and he even has an illustration of an indicator in a power station showing negative power factor on his ] page with a caption that speaks volumes). Wtshymanski has trotted out some IEEE document claiming that this is how it should be but, as someone pointed out, the IEEE don't rule the world. The one point that you made, and I have to agree, is that Wtshymanski has (as usual) decided that his method of handling the concept is the one that everyone else should adopt and that's what the article should say. After all, he is right and every one else is wrong. | |||
| == ] listed for discussion == | |||
| ] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. <!-- User:FastilyBot/Task12Note --> | |||
| The reality is: that as things stand, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the article should document that reverse power flow is handled by measuring instruments in different ways. But I doubt that Wtshymanski would allow that to stand for very long. | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">ATTENTION</span>: This is an automated, ]-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details. Thanks, ] (]) 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder if the time is becoming ripe for another RfC. Perhaps the Admins might take note of a second one demonstrating that little has changed. As evidence for starters, I note two reversions of Wtshymanski reversions with a summary along the lines "Edit warring for the sake of it"; two Wtshymanski reversions with a summary "rv Anon edit" with no further clue as to what the objection was (Wtshymanski does not believe anon editors such as myself have a right to edit). And also the usual mergitis in spite of a specific instruction from an Admin to decist from doing so - and he still refuses to tidy up the merge properly having done so (he believes his way right and the Misplaced Pages policy wrong - not my opinion: Wtshymanski actually stated this in a response to that Admin). ] (]) 12:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Before making that decision, there are a couple of procedural issues. First, look at ] for a discussion as to where to file. Then look at ]. To meet the minimum requirements you need to post a calm, reasoned, and civil message on ] explaining politely what he did wrong and requesting that he change the behavior in question or at least discuss it with you. Past performance suggests that any such request will be deleted with a sarcastic comment, but we need to ] and give him ample opportunity to change his ways. Any such post must be super-polite and should contain links to specific examples. If your post gets deleted I will try to reason with him. --] (]) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see that there has been no response to your request yet. However, myself and one or two other editors did attempt to add new sections to the closed RfC. We were duly slapped down by the Admin who originally closed the RfC who claimed that we could not do this and refered us to the instructions at the top of the RfC. The problem is: that adding a new section is exactly what the instructions ''did'' say. I pointed this out and got no response. | |||
| ::Before embarking on such a venture, the one thing that is definitely required is solid evidence. As you state, a suitably worded objection to his behaviour should be posted on his talk page (though I think we can both guess the outcome, we should at least show good faith ourselves). The other thing is to compile a list of transgressions so that evidence is easily to hand if we proceed - and the more evidence there is, the more it is likely to be taken seriously. I am prepared to allocate a dedicated talk page area to such evidence (keeps it in one place), but I first need to know if there is any Misplaced Pages policy covering such a page. ] (]) 12:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Such pages are allowed. See ]. Also see ] and ]. The entire ] is well worth reading. | |||
| :::What we want to avoid is anything that even hints at being a ]. The goal is still to convince him to not misbehave -- blocking is not our first choice -- and we need to be careful that the last RFCU not having been effective does not influence us. We need to be scrupulously fair, and the RFCU needs to be calm, logical, and evidence based. --] (]) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the advice. I have set up a collection page for evidence at ]. Recognising that I will undoubtedly invite others to contribute, I have put a set of guidance rules at the top of the page. If you feel they are not right, please amend as you think. If you have anything to add, then please add. Since Wtshymanski follows my edit trail, I do not doubt that he will find the page. Hopefully, it might just persuade him to adjust his editing style. I am (not very) hopeful that we do not as far as another RfC, but let's wait and see. ] (]) 17:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just finished my first try at organizing this. It still needs a lot of work, so please edit to suit. --] (]) 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Strewth you have been busy! I had not anticipated actually drafting an RfC at this juncture as I agreed with you that the primary aim is to change his behaviour (and if that can be achieved without getting to the RfC stage, then all well and good - who am I kidding!?). I had assumed that the current plan was evidence gathering and adding the appropriate requests to WTS's talk page and logging the lack of any attempt at engaging in meaningful dialogue (and the first failed attempt has already been logged). | |||
| If you check the revision history of WTS's talk page, there is a clear pattern. General discussion seems to remain until it is a week or so old (nothing really wrong here), but any critisism from any quarter on WTS's tendentious editing style results in an immediate page clear. It is obvious that WTS does not want any such critisism tarnishing his erroneous self belief to visiting editors that he is anything other than a model editor. ] (]) 17:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I figured that this is going to go to a RFCU sooner or later, so I got a head start on formatting the RFCU. | |||
| :As for deleting criticism, True, but completely allowable. It is only natural to criticize Wtshymanski for something like that, but I also suspect that you would have ignored it if someone else did it. That kind of thing, even though it is normal human behavior, just reinforces Wtshymanski's belief that all his critics are idiots. There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about, so you should carefully weed out anything that is questionable from your list. Far better for the closing admin to find five legitimate complaints that to find ten complaints and then have to weed out half as being complaints about allowable behavior. --] (]) 21:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point taken and agreed. Even though deletion of the attempt at discussion may be allowable. It is surely still evidence of an attempt to discuss the editing behaviour, and (more importantly) a refusal on WTS's part to engage in such a discussion. Once evidence is reasonably populated, it should be a simple matter to extract the most pertinent evidence for the RfC and discard the boring stuff. ] (]) 09:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. Focus on the refusal to discuss, which is against policy, and not on the deletion, which is allowed on his own talk page. (He could do both by deleting it on his talk page and opening a discussion on your talk page or an article talk page. Clearly you don't care where it is discussed.) --] (]) 09:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wo don't yet meet the threshold for an RfC because two editors have not yet attempted to resolve any of the issues so far in the vidence list (since the 1st RfC). ] (]) 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Patience, Patience... We will have plenty of certifiers. Right now I am a bit swamped with work, but I will be adding some evidence later this week. I think the best thing to do is for you to tighten up the wording of draft RfC (putting your attempt under certifier, for example) and adding any other evidence you have, me going over it a second time and doing same, then me advertising it to everyone who participated in the previous RFCU. I suggest leaving the advertising to me; there are some subtle issues in avoiding violations of both the spirit and letter of ]. For example, I always keep a log of why I selected the users I selected. --] (]) 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Roger! I think we may want to just hold back on any tweaks to the current wording until we know how the evidence is going to pan out. Once others have added their contributions, we certainly want to extract the six or so worst misdemeanours and ignore all the small potatoes. The wording then needs to focus on these. No admin is going to read a 28 page RfC! I take your point about canvassing. However: I note that the last RfC attracted plenty of support despite a lack of advertising. I assume many editors keep an eye out for matters such as these. ] (]) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AElen_of_the_Roads&diff=549327301&oldid=548831581 --] (]) 16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe we covered this in the first RfC. It's just like a naughty child who has broken something and adopts an air of innocence. "Who me?" ] (]) 15:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the time has come to put the finishing touches on the RFCU and post it. | |||
| ::I think that the first remedy that we should ask for is a topic ban on all deletion-related activities, including nominating for deletion, tagging for deletion, merging, and section blanking. To that end we should lump together all the deletion-related material, like nominating articles for speedy deletion without listing one of the criteria for speedy deletion, and doing it again and again after being told again and again not to do that. | |||
| ::I think that the second remedy we should ask for is a 2RR restriction. To back this one up we should list all the times that he has edit warred without violating 3RR, standing with his toes just over the line. | |||
| ::Lastly, we should document cases of incivility, sarcasm, not seeking concensus, and passive-aggressive talk page "discussions" that are just a ] with no intention of actually seeking consensus. Not sure what remedy e should ask for on this one. --] (]) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have not been around much of late, certainly not to do much in the way of contribution, though I have been seeing what is going on. I note that I B Wright has added a very interesting section on Wtshymanski's qualifications to edit the articles that he does (as in apparent lack of). He has also hinted that he has some more evidence (I shall request that he posts it). But, yes, I think we do have the necessary evidence. I have noted tht a number of articles have become locked directly as a result of Wtshymanski's repetitive reversions. That should definitely be included as evidence, because what we have proposed is a logical extension. I have also noted your attempts to get the lock lifted at ] and Wtshymanski's refusal to decist from his edit warring (and ''that'' should definitely by included given that his argument is based on his misinterpretation of an IEEE publication). ] (]) 14:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Three phase electric power== | |||
| Your input may be valuable ]. ] (]) 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I have already stated my view and it hasn't changed. ] (]) 15:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sorry for the confusion. To make the whole thing "legal" I have notified any editors on the last two pages as an unbiased motion. No further comment would be necessary without any opposition expressed there. Thanks ] (]) 06:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your work in progress evidence and RfC. == | |||
| I notice that you have a work in progress RfC and evidence gathering page. I have just had to place a complaint on Wtshymanski's talk page regarding his continued and repetetive edit warring (]). Is there any objection if I supply evidence or contributions to the RfC? Thanking you in advance for your efforts in this matter. ] (]) 17:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :You are very welcome to contribute. It is intended to be a collaborative effort after all. I will leave you to discover what Wtshymanski's response to your complaint is for yourself (but you may have guessed from the previous RfC and the draft RfC). If indeed, the response is what I believe it to be, please do document the fact in the draft RfC. ] (]) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Eye thank ewe. And good luck with it. ] (]) 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may like to know that when I contributed to the last RfC, it was as a third party, not having seen much direct interaction up to that point. Since I made the observation, it is clear that Wtshymanski has been ] my editing and reverting anything and everything possible. I also found evidence that another of the contributors to that RfC was being considered for appointment as an administrator. Wtshymanski supplied a vote of opposition to the appointment giving a reason that qualified as one of his usual diversionary tactics. It was spotted and flagged that the opposition was solely due to that editor's negative (for Wtshymanski) contribution to the RfC. So his ] of Misplaced Pages seems to extend to spitefulness towards those that oppose him. (Thinks: I shall have to find some good words to add this to the new RfC). ] (]) 16:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I have added a new section. I was not quite sure whether it fitted in Section 2.2 or 2.3. It would fit equally well in either. I have added it to the former, but as you seem to be the lead editor in this, I will bow to your judgement if you feel it belongs elsewhere. I note that you were involved in the incident as well, but I considered that as I made the attempt at discussion on Wtshymanski's talk page, it was probably better coming from me. In any case, looking at the RfC guidelines, it would appear that another editor attempting (and failing) to resolve the dispute is a pre-requisite for an RfC. | |||
| I followed your lead and applied a sub section title to delineate my contribution from yours above it, but I thought I would leave the sub section title for your part to you as I did not want to tread on your toes. Keep up the good work and I hope it achieves something. ] (]) 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for that. I doesn't matter where it goes, it's just evidence gathering for now. It will get polished up later. | |||
| :Incidentally: good idea about putting the guideline violations at the end. It may help with sorting the evidence later. ] (]) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a concerned fellow editor I recommend you avoid the flippant personal observations on this guy's behaviour. You have already made a few. I know you are frustated with the attitude but I have watched a few of these complaints, that I thought were very valid, go sour because of some dug-out-of-the-archives comment the complaint originator made. The result is the one raising the comcern gets a blocked for being a jerk. See ] It's the cry that appears to call fellow editors to retaliate on the complainant for every little thing they can find after. Careful. Take a WikiBreak, Try to walk away. Best of luck. I wouldn't be offended if you removed this comment. ] (]) 06:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::AFAICT, he can only be refering to you often pointing out WTS's edit warring. Since I and several others are also flagging his continual edit warring, and given that 174.118.142.187 is trying to stop you opposing his opinion I would suggest that you treat the above with the contept that it deserves. Incidentally, have you noticed that 174.118.142.187 is having a very good go at trying to discredit you on the ANI that you raised? I have added a third party comment with my view following my attempts at trying to unravel what has been going on at ] and its talk page (it is fairly interesting). You were a bit naughty though, but 174.118.142.187 has declared that it wasn't vandalism so that's all right. ] (]) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for the heads up. I really wasn't a good idea to log on when there are tendentious editors around after the office party! ] (]) 15:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Note== | |||
| In the future, please make an extra effort to insure you are logged in while editing, to cut down on any possible confusion. Additionally, do not add blocked tags to editors pages, that is not how it works around here and it just causes problems with "drama". ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 02:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==ANI discussino that maybe of your interest== | |||
| I'm an accused party by the IP editor at an ANI. One of the discussions I've added there is the sock puppetry accusation made towards you by the same editor. Perhaps you may find it worthwhile visiting. ] (]) 03:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to have disappeared before I got back. If you check out that IP editor's talk page, you will discover that he is compiling evidence against (apparently) every editor that has opposed him in one place or another. If that is not unco-operative editing, then I don't know what is. ] (]) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's the archived version of closed discussion ] (]) 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Usage question == | |||
| Hi! I could use another opinion at ]. Could you take a look? Thanks! --] (]) 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The discussion seems to have gone before I got there. There are several views on this. The correct English (as in British English) usage is that 'an' only ''ever'' precedes a vowel (thus 'a HTTP'). I am aware that the US government have some language guide that mandates that 'an' precedes any abbreviation or word where the pronounciation starts with a vowel (and I believe the ] is based on this incorrect usage). Thus 'an HTTP'. There is also a small group of English who believe that 'an' also precedes any word starting in 'h' (as in 'an hotel'). This last view is completely wrong and came about by snobs wanting to show off their knowledge that 'hotel' in French is pronounced 'ôtel' - the 'h' being silent just like the 'p' in 'bath'. This is probably of no help at all! ] (]) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I wondered if you had seen the current barney about the correct title and the term "socket-outlet" at ]. I noted that FF-UK has referenced earlier remarks you made about the use of correct terms, and also picked up on your mention of the use of "plug top" and cited its use in a technical memo from 1943! ] (]) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes I had just noticed it. Will add my 2 penn'orth for what it is worth. ] (]) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == LCD or CRT image == | |||
| ] Thanks for the heads-up about the controversy on this image and your assumption of good faith. | |||
| Regards, ] (]) 16:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. As far as I was concerned, there was no evidence that the image was supplied in anything other than good faith. ] (]) 11:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI notice == | |||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may be involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| This is not a report against you, but ] is attempting to reveal personal information about you at ] along with allegations of sockpuppetry based on faulty evidence. You can read my analysis of the faulty evidence at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 16:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI courtesy notice == | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> | |||
| I inadvertently placed a notice on your Wtshymanski whining page in error. My apologies. Here it is here. ] (]) 16:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==North America DHCP== | |||
| DHCP works no differently in North America than Europe, or in your particular case, southern England. You just need to use your anonymous account name DieSwartzPunkt. Static IP addresses are a quite few bob in Canada so they are not used often and almost all are dynamic. Check the DHCP Lease Time setting in your router. Going on about how you violate Misplaced Pages's rules and policies and being insulting to other editors is not helping you or Misplaced Pages. Hope this helps summat. Cheerio, mate ] (]) 12:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :So you do understand dynamic IP address allocation despite your claims to the contrary. In spite of your totally uncivil response above, the assumption that you had a static IP address was a perfectly reasonable one given that it had not changed since you first appeared in October 2012. ] (]) 10:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 2 November 2017
October 2015
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
|
File:Macrovision pulses small.tif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Macrovision pulses small.tif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)