Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 6 November 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Elonka-Reply

I'll see about putting together a User Page in the next couple of days/weeks. As soon as I get some free time - although given your schedule I should be ashamed to make that statement. 8-) Thanks again. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please

Never post on my talkpage again. If you need to place a warning or comment, get another Wikipedian or administrator to do it. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ScienceApologist, you can't just tell uninvolved admins to go away. A better option would be to heed my advice: Stay civil, don't edit-war, do engage at talkpages, do follow the normal steps of dispute resolution, do heed the ArbCom restrictions which were placed on your behavior from cases such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Elonka 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it like to live in a world where those who either disagree with you or who wish you to abide by the same standards of behavior as everyone else are not worthy of respect? Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt SA is completely in his rights to use an automated tool to rollback all of your posts on his talk page. In this context, advising you that it's futile to post on his talk page is perfectly ok. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, per WP:BLANKING, ScienceApologist absolutely has the right to remove any posts which I place on his page (with certain exceptions such as unblock templates). I don't believe I ever said that he couldn't? --Elonka 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, glad we agree. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

more sensible topic thread

ah, well, read Kohlberg. People are where they are... add that group dynamics can easily drop everyone involved a level, as can strong emotions, as can anonymity, distance, and other forms of social disengagement, and wiki-dynamics actually starts to make a kind of perverse sense. heck, I usually top out at stage six by all the measures, and I still find myself occasionally getting involved in spitball wars over article disagreements. C'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 05:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of the G.I.F.T.?  :) --Elonka 05:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - errr... can I return that GIFT, or at least exchange it for store credit? truly not the kind of thing I'd buy for myself.

there's actually a fascinating paper in this, if I ever get the time (and cojones) to write it. there's an intellectual movement in various corners of the social sciences to advocate Internet Democracy: easy access and anonymity are supposed to foster public debate, circumvent problems related to prejudice and partisanship, and provide an endless supply of information for informed reasoning. yet I think I was on WP maybe ten minutes before I realized that the community had simply created new, abstract forms of prejudice (e.g. this whole science/pseudoscience thing, though there are several others), and taken to some fairly sophisticated forms of disinformation and political pressure to back them up. Misplaced Pages might be the test-case that single-handedly debunks a really nice, idealistic theory. Don't know whether to laugh or cry... --Ludwigs2 06:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's always Robert Wilensky's famous quote: "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the internet, we know that is not true."  ;) --Elonka 06:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OH my heavens! that one is going straight into my class syllabus. LmfAo! --Ludwigs2 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify on G.I.F.T., I linked you to my blog above, but the blog was in reference to this Penny Arcade comic: --Elonka 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) Ah, I see it's so popular there's actually a paragraph about it on Misplaced Pages! --Elonka 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - and the world comes full circle. On the flip side of this coin, though, some of my more spiritual friends talk about the 'collective guru', meaning that they go to certain sites on the internet and get really mind-opening insights from random, anonymous strangers. really, the internet is just a collective delusion (like the rest of the world, except without the pretense of physical reality) and it basically takes on whatever colors and meanings your own mind is predisposed to give to it. marvelous diagnostic tool, if you're inclined towards self-reflection; although self-reflection does not seem to be a common inclination... --Ludwigs2 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably enjoy reading my blog, where I collect some of those insights (and a lot of other miscellany). Also, ever seen my book? It's a puzzle book, but each of those puzzles has an answer, which means that there are several hundred quotes in the back of the book, from a variety of sources. One puzzle even decrypts to a quote by Jimbo Wales.  :) --Elonka 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your book? no, sorry... you seem to have neglected to send me my free copy. what, did I fall off the 'random strangers' section of your Christmas mailing list? --Ludwigs2 19:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Related to the above. I've endorsed your warnings at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back to ScienceApologist. I've also pointed out a few of the other discussions. Is this being discussed anywhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for block and delete

Thanks for your block of impersonation account IAmReallyKenBayfield and speedy deletion of vandalism article Demand Media. This appears to be spillover from blocks of other sockpuppets and related request for checkuser. Most of all, grateful that your vigilance protects LP Ken Bayfield, who's being dragged in by vandal in a case of mistaken identity. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! --Elonka 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hi, I created an article earlier (District B13 Ultimatum) and it was deleted by you with the reason "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." I did not request the deletion of the page or blank that page. I did blank the temporary page I had in my User space, but not the main article. Can you restore the page or do I have to create it again? Thanks --The Son of Man (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you accidentally blanked the live page instead of your userpage. I went ahead and restored the article: District B13 Ultimatum. If you'd like your user subpage deleted, I can do that too, but be careful of those redirects!  :) --Elonka 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be more careful in the future. And yes, could you please delete user subpage. Thanks for restoring the article. --The Son of Man (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 21:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your MiszaBot services

That is. Are you backing up Pcarbonn's behaviour? Note that:

• I get as reference John's action in this case (very correct, and full of common sense). His post came after your MiszaBot services. An your MiszaBot services came after your "actions" regarding ScienceApologist (,).
• Instead of trying the "appropriate way", I chose the "It would be nice if Pcarbonn reconsiders it" way. And I worded it focusing on the user page. You can analyze the outcome (can you analyze it?). Do you see nothing worrying in Pcarbonn's behaviour?
• You are a member of the workinggroup, and I believe you should be more sensitized toward those aspects (mainly battleground).

Summarizing: ScienceApologist must be banned-blocked-burned, and Pcarbonn is an angel?

Now, please, enlighten me. --Owdki 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all I did was archive Pcarbonn's talkpage. I archive lots of talkpages, feel free to check my contribs. One of my hobbies is keeping the category clear at Category:Archive requests, and I regularly scan for other pages that are long and need to be archived. The discussion on those pages has nothing to do with it, I just like archiving. :) --Elonka 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you did. And I know what you didn't do.

Hmmm... ♪ ♫ I can't get no...♫ ♪ ♫

If I let working my common sense I would say that you're avoiding to answer me. ♪ ♫ 'Cause I try... ♪ And I try... ♫ And I try... And I can't get no answers to my explicit questions.

If this matter irritates me... picture ScienceApologist. That, Elonka, is a trigger for incivility, frustration and anger. Or in other personalities, a trigger for a goodbye. ScienceApologist should change his behaviour: it's obvious. He must. But you doesn't help not at all with that unbalanced (selective?) "method".

Hey, and Pcarbonn, currently, is an angel. Do you know where I look in the meanwhile? Here: "I have had to spend inordinate amount of time in a battle that in the end does do nothing but label me as a fanatic too, clearly illustrating the old adage about what happens when you fight with pigs. I am done". Do you get the point? Kirk shanahan is mashed, and he is "interested in abiding by Misplaced Pages community norms". I beg you to offer him your MiszaBot services as soon as possible.

I'm out. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry for bothering you. Cheers. --Owdki 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? She offered to set up a bot... you may think that's a waste of time, or a foolish inconsistency if you like, but it's certainly not a sign of favoritism. I think perhaps you might not be giving Elonka a fair shake here. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Feel free to archive the whole 400k, and leave a blank page. If possible, by some system that would preserve the order of the page. I think it best not to use an automatic system, since I am not likely to be around much, if at all, and it would only lay idle. Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks in retrospect. Sorry for being exigent. And the extraordinary thing was, all that furiouly combative rhetoric went down without a murmur of protest. I checked and the talk has yet to make a report on AN/I about being ghosted into archival mummification without due discussion! Is there no end to wiki's wonders? Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Election silence

Hi, I was thinking about creating this page but saw it has been deleted. I can't find out why, however. Since you were involved, could you perhaps tell what happened or give a link to the deletion discussion? Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that was there was a small unsourced stub, created earlier today and then blanked within 15 minutes by the person who created it. So there wasn't a discussion, it was just deleted as "per request of creator". If you'd like to create a new stub, and you think you've got enough sources to confirm that it's a notable and encyclopedic concept, I'd say go ahead. If you're not sure if you have enough sources though, you might want to create a version in your userspace, for example at User:Malick78/Election silence (or User:Malick78/Draft). That way you can take your time with it, and then when/if it's ready, simply move it into mainspace. --Elonka 19:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification:) The topic deserves a page, it's just the phrase is inelegant since we don't use it in English really. The BBC used it once here though, and Polish WP has a page on it here (though I appreciate you may not be able to read it:) ). Thanks again though:) Malick78 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Encouragement

Thank you for your work trying to keep a lid on tendentious and disruptive editors. I naturally do not perfectly agree with everything I have seen you do, but it at least should not be a thankless task. Regards, - Eldereft (cont.) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what exactly I did that you're thanking me for, but you're welcome.  :) --Elonka 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. I didn't mean any harm. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure you were aware of things. :) --Elonka 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the 30 day ban for ScienceApologist, I think... his approach was not at all collaborative. However I'm not sure I follow why you also banned Martinphi for the same period? I reviewed his contributions, and the messages you left him and I'm not seeing it. Can you take me through your reasoning, please? Thanks. Also, where have you placed a notice of this action? At WP:AE? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working through the paperwork, but as a quick reply, the logs were placed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I'll post more once I'm caught up. --Elonka 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nod, I crosslinked it from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist. What I'm not clear on is where the best place to discuss this further is, because, as I said, I'm not seeing the clear rationale for Martinphi's restriction here. Paperwork sucks, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, especially when the appeals are flying fast and furious before I'm even done logging the initial ban. :) I'm still not caught up yet, but to answer your question, here at my talkpage is probably as good a place as any to talk about this. Or maybe Martinphi's talkpage? In a quick nutshell though: I had previously cautioned him about reverting at WP:FRINGE, especially because he was getting into a back and forth with ScienceApologist. Then today ScienceApologist went right back to reverting, and the very next edit was Martinphi trying to downgrade the guideline to an essay. It was my feeling that this was disruptive, especially since this was just extensively discussed in July, and the strong consensus was that the page should stay a guideline. The ban is fairly mild, on both of them. They're not to edit the guideline, but they are both allowed to participate at the talkpage. Which is probably how things should be done anyway: Discuss first, implement second. If there's a consensus at the talkpage, their changes will get implemented that way, by other editors. And this way neither one of them gets to jump the gun and make non-consensus edits. So we still get the benefit of their participation, sans the edit warring. Make sense? --Elonka 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm.... I think downgrading something that has consensus as an essay to a guideline is not a good thing to do, by any means. But it's not the same level of badness and repeated edit warring with uncollegial summaries to my way of thinking. So the remedy, being exactly equal... seems imbalanced somehow, or disproportionate. I'm interested in more views on this than just mine so that's why I asked about where else to discuss it. Perhaps on AN/I where I crosslinked from? This not being an out and out block, there's time for the paperwork to come to rest, I'm sure. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you realize that the thread you crosslinked, has already been archived, yes? So I doubt anyone will see the post that you added there. --Elonka 03:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No I missed that. However it itself has been vigorously linked to by at least three people in the developing AN/I discussion. But that's rather a minor point, comparatively. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got caught up on the paperwork. I've posted at ANI, let me know if you have any questions. :) --Elonka 06:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss further there. However... My read is that you almost certainly don't have consensus for the Martinphi pageban, the consensus for SA is marginal at best, and there's a growing consensus that you probably are, in general, not the best admin to be involved in this area, and specifically, not the best admin to be enforcing ArbCom sanctions in this area, going forward. I tend to find myself in agreement. Because unlike Kay the other day, which was a routine action and where your charge of my being involved was pretty off the mark, they have a point, you're pretty invested in this long term. So you might want to address those points, and do so in a way that doesn't just come across as "I'm right and you're wrong", but instead shows a genuine interest in the views of others, and a willingness to modify your views to conform to consensus.

Note carefully that while I may have my doubts about all of this, which I express here, I strongly backed your action at ScienceApologist's page because, unlike you, I think it's a bad practice to undercut other admins right there on the page where the measure is put into effect, that it's better to discuss elsewhere, arrive at consensus for change, and meanwhile stand behind the action of the initial admin. Far less confusing and far more consistent. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi isn't at all sure either about how he could have deserved it. I've already appealed it to the Committee by email, but would much much rather work it out with Elonka and just write and withdraw the appeal. Elonka has done very well in general on these articles, but I think, especially per the explanations I've been posting, that she went overboard in this case, especially in that she treated me the same way as SA- which is not based on my editing. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Elonka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:ANI#Elonka.E2.80.99s_ban_of_ScienceApologist_from_WP:FRINGE. Thank you. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

let the Bard have the last word

"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." the longer I'm here, the more that wikipolitics astounds me. --Ludwigs2 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What may be even scarier, is when/if you get to the point that it doesn't astound you.  ;) --Elonka 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yeee-ikes! if I ever get to that stage, please show me where the hidden button on the euthanasia page is (you know, the one that zaps you... or have they moved that over to assisted suicide?). --Ludwigs2 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

battle of Opis

Hi Please look here: under "misconduct issues". I feel like there is simply an unhealthy atmosphere created by the rude behaviour of a certain admin. More importantly I wanted to ask if an admin has the right to delete items from the archives that are not his own words and do not violate any Misplaced Pages rules? For example I had listed three scholaly books with quotes in the archives and they had disappeared when the above admin was doing the archiving. He has also driven away different users from the discussion through intidimation and threats of permanent ban. So I have decided to basically not edit that article anymore. Despite my Misplaced Pages record being clean unlike that admin, I feel like there is an unhealthy bureaucracy where different admins group together to stifle other admins or users who may disagree with their viewpoints. I just wanted to thank you for your previous help. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look at it, but could you please provide some specific diffs of the actions that you are concerned about? Thanks, --Elonka 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The user deleted these comments when archiving: . These are valid sources but then he calls them WP:OR. And finally when I remention these three valid sources, here is how he interacts: and this is his comment: "I'm inclined to think that a user RfC would help to clarify the problematic behavioral issues concerned, and could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback." and "Carrot first before stick?"(I do not think that is a right tone for an admin to use when he disagrees with regards to conent with another user). Note, not only comments in archives, but prior to this, he had deleted half of a crucial sentence from another scholar: ChrisO quotes Kuhrt in half(deleting the crucial part of a sentence) and cuts off half of her sentence: and then deletes it from the archives when this is pointed out: . This part was also deleted from the archives. Knowing that ChrisO is an administrator and has his administrator buddies, it is obvious what would happen if I edit the talkpage! Please note, I have over 12000 edits and I have not been blocked even once by admins over the last 3 years or so. I have contributed to a variety of fa articles. Note I have hardly edited the main article where disagreement has occured, where-as ChrisO has broken 3rr on that same article couple of times. One time I wanted to report him for 3rr violation but I took it back, partly due to being nice (he won't obviously do the same since he is looking for a final solution) and partly because of a threat of another admin who seems to be close to him:. Note the part he says:In addition, if you file a report, your own behavior will likely be scrutinized! Actually I did not even do one revert for that article as far as I remember. So that is why I am leaving even the talkpage/userpage of that article as a protest to the fact that an admin can be rude (making the atmosphere non-conducive for any understanding) and threaten bans on users (for disagreeing with his opinion while I have not even edited the article!). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also wondering does that editor have the right to defame other editors: on his personal wiki-space?. For example he writes about me: Very similar problems as with Ariobarzam. Has edit-warred, pervasively pushes OR with regard to Battle of Opis in particular.. Then he writes about Ariobarzan:Edit warring, repeated incivility, pervasive OR, NPOV problems. Has created numerous unsourced/uncited articles based on personal OR. Currently indefinitely blocked. . You can look at how many edits I have made to that article, basically none. And I have never reverted in that article. Also I have never used incivility (ChrisO has in my opinion by threatening to ban users). I am wondering if he can label other editors the way he likes on his personal page: --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case this slips under your radar screen, Elonka, Nepaheshgar's remark, 'he (ChrisO) won't obviously do the same since he is looking for a final solution,' in so far as that is the standard English translation of Endlösung, is nudge towards the subtextual innuendo ChrisO's edits are veined with an anti-Semitic cast of mind, a stronger statement than other innuendoes to that effect frequently made in these pages. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading my comment and misintrepreting it. The reference was meant to my account and nothing else. By the way, feel free to also comment on ChrisO's comment: "carrots before stick". This shows exactly what type of mentality ChrisO is editing Misplaced Pages. He feels like he owns it and perhaps it can be taken that he thinks of others who disagree with him as animals (which shows a superiority complex and predujice). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I noticed nobody had informed you of this. --John (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I am following all of the discussions. :) --Elonka 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of the Blue question

Hey, after reading your article on here, I was wondering, do you remember, have you given a steganography talk at a colloquium for the CompSci department at the University of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri S&T) in the last decade or so? (I'm just wondering, as I know I attended one on steganography, and the Kryptos sculpture being mentioned, and all that, and am wondering if it was you.) Thanks! umrguy42 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sure was.  :) I've given a couple talks at Rolla, and will actually be there again next week with an updated version of my Kryptos lecture. I'll also be showing the video clip from the PBS NOVAscienceNOW program, and talking about my appearance in that segment. Will you be attending the talk? --Elonka 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I decided that 10 years spent in undergrad and grad work there was enough, and I'm now working in Milwaukee, so, alas, I will have to miss it :( But I hope it goes well! umrguy42 17:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, if you're interested, I'll be speaking at the University of Wisconsin-Madison next April, probably on something to do with Misplaced Pages.  :) Let me know if you'd like the details. --Elonka 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, love to know the details, will try and keep that in mind (depends on scheduling, most likely), thanks. Heh, more randomness from the link to MS&T's SIG-SEC announcement - I haven't been able to eat at Kyoto's in Rolla (I think) since they moved into what used to be a gas/service station :p Anyway, best. umrguy42 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be posting more deals on my Madison talk on my website, so check there to find out the latest.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

<-- unindent Hmm, yup, looks like I would've seen you in your Jan. '03 visit to Rolla... would've been the semester right after I had Dr. Ann Miller's "Trustworthy Networks" security course, and was in a course with one of the ACM faculty sponsors (Dr. Daniel Tauritz)... *reminisces briefly* ahhh, good times. Okay, enough irrelevancy, I guess :D Hope to be able to see you in April. umrguy42 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of 142.30.43.228 (talk · contribs)

Hi!

You blocked the above IP for vandalism to Sonic boom. 142.30.43.159 (talk · contribs) and 142.30.43.130 (talk · contribs) also vandalized the same article, likely the same user on a dynamic IP. A range block might be needed on this.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I've blocked those anons too, and semi-protected Sonic boom. I was looking at Sound barrier as well, but it seems to have stabilized. If you spot any other disruption, let me know or post at ANI/AIV, and we'll take a look.  :) --Elonka 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hit the fan

FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, another confirmed sockpuppet of User:Jagz has been contributing on the talk page of Ludwigs2's Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/sandbox. Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd been blocking anons too, but wasn't aware that some of the socks there were Jagz. Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There was also User:Deadasamackerel: see the discussion on MastCell's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and based on the contribs, I concur that it's Jagz. If any others are spotted, let me or any other admin know, and we'll block on sight. I have no patience for block evasion. --Elonka 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nickhh

Elonka, I was wondering if you could weigh in about a dispute Nickhh and I are having. If you look at his talk page (the version before he erased my last post) , you'll get a pretty good sense of what the difficulty is. In my view, Nick has stalked me to Urban Outfitters, Cynthia McKinney, Second Intifada, and User:PatGallacher's talk page. That I know of -- there may be more pages I simply haven't noticed. I have asked him to stop, but he has responded by calling me a troll , telling me I can't count, accusing me of making 4 reverts in 24 hours on Cynthia McKinney (which is clearly not the case) and removing my comment from his talk page. I'm fine with him binning the whole thread on his talk page -- I believe he has that right. But picking and choosing what to keep there to make it look as though I have not responded to him is, I think, out of order. I'm happy to host the whole conversation on my talk page, but it needs to be all together, not misleadingly truncated. Anyway, I believe this probably falls inside the ARBPIA thingie, and I know you are well-versed in it, so guidance would be helpful. IronDuke 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good gravy... you posted while I was writing this! IronDuke 23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The smell of barbecue always brings the neighbors.  ;) Anyway, per WP:BLANKING, he does have the right to remove anything he wants. Though if he's removing or editing your posts to say something different than what you intended, that would be a different matter. I once had a roughly comparable situation, where I went in and deleted everything that I personally had posted, which left the conversation looking like someone was talking to themselves. A bit on the WP:POINTy side, but it did bring the dispute to a close. As for the other articles, I'll take a look, though it may take me some time to come up to speed. Perhaps a nice game of croquet in the meantime? :) --Elonka 23:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... as long as Nickhh leaves me alone, I don't feel the need for anything bad to happen to him -- and I truly believe he will leave me alone, so I'm hoping that's the end of it. The blanking question is curious. I mean, if you write "IronDuke assassinated JFK" on your talk page, wouldn't I have the right to rebut (leaving aside the various ways that comment would violate WP policy)? No biggie, but maybe a whole in the policy. As for croquet, well, it's not really the season, is it? IronDuke 23:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now the stalking allegation is all over three pages?! Elonka I'd be more than happy for you to review all the articles referred to - as I say, we seem to be talking about 4 articles over a space of 6 months, some of which this user had been nowhere near for months when I dipped in. I recall some interaction on Hamas (in March), so maybe it's 5 in 6 months. That is NOT unusual in this context (nor, if anyone will take my word for it, was it deliberate). Yes I used the T-word, but after being accused of "stalking" and of "needing education" in something I happen to be quite well read on, and being dragged into an interminable discussion on my own talk page. I have absolutely no interest in stalking or following anyone, and actually find it quite offensive that I might need to be told to "leave alone", even if they generously don't want "anything bad" to be done to me. I mean, as I said, who was posting on whose talk page here? --Nickhh (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I said I'm willing to drop this, barring further incident, and that offer still stands. IronDuke 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Dropping this would entail you not repeating that I am a troll over and over again, I think, as you do here. That's a serial NPA violation, when you've just recently been blocked for incivility. IronDuke 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, drop what exactly? Anyway, I'm out of here for now. What a waste of time all round .... --Nickhh (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could press that you were stalking me. I honestly don't know how people would react. Like a lot of these sorts of things on WP, it depends on who's listening at the moment. But I wasn't of a mind to create more drama; I don't care if you admit that you stalked me, I'm only interested in it stopping. My gut feeling was, after our recent exchange, that it would. However, you continue to call me a troll. In addition to that being 180 degrees wrong, it is a gross violation of NPA (something you recently quoted at me, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). You did this even after an administrator specifically told you not to. So... that would also be a thing that needed to stop. IronDuke 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke - stop accusing me of stalking (and of not understanding the varying definitions of the word "revert" among other supposed but more trivial sins), and making those accusations across three different user talk pages now. It's nonsense, and it's the only reason I accused you of trolling (or, in the section I linked to - "pestering and misplaced criticism"). Elonka, perhaps you could direct some of your analytical gaze towards this user, rather than just allowing them to spew their rather surreal allegations everywhere. Maybe for example you could warn them that they should be careful about flinging the word "stalker" about? I seem to recall you've provided a similar admonishment function to me when I've used words you've taken against. --Nickhh (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka

I see that you saw my Article, Rj Revilla. I just wanna ask of my page is notable enough? or it is not right to put it on wikipedia. Please refer Rj Revilla it to my userpage. Thank you. Bautistar (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

If you have specific concerns then let me know what specifically concerns you - do not simply delete things you don't like. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted at the talkpage. --Elonka 21:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't try that again, please, or I will block you. I'll reply to the issues you've raised on the talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)