| Revision as of 17:57, 27 August 2007 editOne Night In Hackney (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,879 edits Questions← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:26, 27 August 2007 edit undo84.13.10.123 (talk) fueron un sinsentido del principio al finNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| I look forward to your answers, answer here seeing as you can't edit my talk page, and I'd also appreciate you not editing my talk page when you're logged into as well. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | I look forward to your answers, answer here seeing as you can't edit my talk page, and I'd also appreciate you not editing my talk page when you're logged into as well. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Bowdlerising terrorism and diminishing the details of which innocent victims were blown to shreds and reducing the precision and helpful categorisation of our encyclopaedia may be games to you, 303, but I certainly don't play games with my contributions. | |||
| :I'm deadly serious. | |||
| :I find it indicative of your biassed editing and fanatical POV agenda that you don't even want to see any discussion taking place on your own user page. | |||
| :However, I'll answer you here as you requested. I'm an inclusionist. I thought that the language was fine and the references were certainly as good as those for your own assertions that civilians have never been targeted by PIRA. If you read Spanish, you'll see that the contemporary Columbian newspaper reports described the trial as exactly that: ''fueron un sinsentido del principio al fin''. The fact that these words are antithetical to my own point of view that they were not on vacation in Columbia is neither here nor there - it was a significant stance in Columbia that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge never mind achieve a conviction. '''Frank'''] 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 27 August 2007
- Ok, now who are you?? And if I block your Opal UK account, who's going to get caught in the autoblock? - Alison ☺ 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you wish to block me? (Genuine, not rhetorical question.) I am not aware of having made any incivil or disruptive edits from this IP address. If I am wrong in this opinion I will, of course, desist in any pattern of editing you categorise as inappropriate since you are an administrator I respect.84.13.10.123 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious who you are. What I don't understand is why you're using an IP address to post messages to others' talk pages, as you are. Read WP:SOCK, esp. "it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts, or to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions". Would you agree? - Alison ☺ 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the case, it seems I may have received incorrect advice.
- I thought it was permissible, for example, to use a different account if you were using a computer that was not your own and you had a fear that keystroke logging might be in place to trap your normal account password. I also understood it was permissible to use a different account from usual if there were at least one of the reasons outlined in WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. It's not crucial either way. I can just stop editing until I return home next week. It seems a bit daft to exercise a right to vanish for just a week, create a new account, vanish :on that one and then pop up again next week using my usual highly non-anonymous account. Goodnight. 84.13.10.123 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- It all comes down to intent, really. Given that you edited as an IP and made controversial edits, then logged in and continued on (yes, I checked). That kinda doesn't make sense, given your rationale above. As for multiple *accounts*, well yes. That's why I have User:AliClick and have already declared that one well in advance so there's not avoiding scrutiny - Alison ☺ 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand. Which was my controversial edit(s)? I thought all my edits were informative and referenced and civil and pertinent. I'm not wishing to be argumentative here and, as I said above, if there is any specific area or areas you do not wish me to edit until I get home, just say the word.84.13.10.123 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've yet to see any rationale for what you did. The whole away-from-home / keylogger thing doesn't ring true, sorry. You've already logged into your account today (I know). So why didn't you sign your name even though you were editing under an IP? I really don't know what your trying to do here, Frank. Care to fill me in on what's really going on? - Alison ☺ 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, hopefully now you understand (check your e-mail) that I just logged on for a quick signed reply to Padraig with my cramped and tiny keypad WiFi mobile (then I continued with the alien computer with normal keyboard since both you and super-sleuth be fully aware by now of the articles I like to edit) - as far as I know, Padraig might not have been aware of who I was when I addressed him by name. And I'd really prefer it if you contacted me directly rather than assume bad faith. Now it's 2 in the morning here so I really, really must say Goodnight!84.13.10.123 01:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've yet to see any rationale for what you did. The whole away-from-home / keylogger thing doesn't ring true, sorry. You've already logged into your account today (I know). So why didn't you sign your name even though you were editing under an IP? I really don't know what your trying to do here, Frank. Care to fill me in on what's really going on? - Alison ☺ 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand. Which was my controversial edit(s)? I thought all my edits were informative and referenced and civil and pertinent. I'm not wishing to be argumentative here and, as I said above, if there is any specific area or areas you do not wish me to edit until I get home, just say the word.84.13.10.123 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- It all comes down to intent, really. Given that you edited as an IP and made controversial edits, then logged in and continued on (yes, I checked). That kinda doesn't make sense, given your rationale above. As for multiple *accounts*, well yes. That's why I have User:AliClick and have already declared that one well in advance so there's not avoiding scrutiny - Alison ☺ 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was permissible, for example, to use a different account if you were using a computer that was not your own and you had a fear that keystroke logging might be in place to trap your normal account password. I also understood it was permissible to use a different account from usual if there were at least one of the reasons outlined in WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. It's not crucial either way. I can just stop editing until I return home next week. It seems a bit daft to exercise a right to vanish for just a week, create a new account, vanish :on that one and then pop up again next week using my usual highly non-anonymous account. Goodnight. 84.13.10.123 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre Message
Why should I be aware of that, if I may ask? I am only tangentially involved in this case and I aim to stay that way. It's for the arbcom to decide what to do, not me. My only input would be to say that many, many people are at fault here and blame perhaps should be spread among numerous participants. Please sign in and sign your posts in future. Badgerpatrol 01:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because you have been listed as an involved party at the ArbCom case.
- I hope you manage to achieve your goals.
- I do not subscribe to the suggestion that a layer of calumny should be evenly spread over all "participants".
- I do endeavour to sign all my posts, but I have not risked compromising my account or password by signing in on a computer I do not control this week (as I have attempted to explain above). If you wish to mail me directly at w.frank.bgmail.com I will be pleased to set your mind at rest. Please be aware that, this week there may be delays in my response.84.13.10.123 09:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to email you at work, and to be frank I'm rather surprised at being listed as a party in the arbcom case. They can decide the best course of action, should they choose to pursue it. Badgerpatrol 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
User talk:BrownHairedGirl
Do not re-factor my comments under seperate headings. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Questions
If you'd like to play games Frank instead of improving the encylopedia, perhaps you'd like to play a game where you answer some questions. Nothing tricky, just ones about your editing. I'll summarise the events first, just so you fully understand the questions.
- Diff. On 17 May an unsourced addition that failed NPOV was added to an article.
- Diff. 20 minutes later I reverted it with a clear edit summary of rv - good faith edit, but unsourced and fails WP:NPOV"
- Diff. Two months later (on 22 July to be accurate, I know you like your accuracy) you added back the unsourced information.
So, now we both know the sequence of events, it's time for the questions:
- Why did you add back the information I removed?
- Did you read the information you added before doing so?
- If you did read the information, didn't phrases like "The trial itself proved something of a farce" and "Their testimony, when it was given, was rubbished" strike you as being POV?
I look forward to your answers, answer here seeing as you can't edit my talk page, and I'd also appreciate you not editing my talk page when you're logged into as well. One Night In Hackney303 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bowdlerising terrorism and diminishing the details of which innocent victims were blown to shreds and reducing the precision and helpful categorisation of our encyclopaedia may be games to you, 303, but I certainly don't play games with my contributions.
- I'm deadly serious.
- I find it indicative of your biassed editing and fanatical POV agenda that you don't even want to see any discussion taking place on your own user page.
- However, I'll answer you here as you requested. I'm an inclusionist. I thought that the language was fine and the references were certainly as good as those for your own assertions that civilians have never been targeted by PIRA. If you read Spanish, you'll see that the contemporary Columbian newspaper reports described the trial as exactly that: fueron un sinsentido del principio al fin. The fact that these words are antithetical to my own point of view that they were not on vacation in Columbia is neither here nor there - it was a significant stance in Columbia that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge never mind achieve a conviction. Frank84.13.10.123 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)