User talk:Djathinkimacowboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Current time: 15:40,   March   2   (UTC)

SophieAndersonTakethefairfaceofWoman.jpg This user is a WikiFaerie.

So I'm a bit gruff, and yeah, my pants are fancy, so what!!~©Djathinkimacowboy

If I am noted for anything here, I want it to be that I struggle to improve and I keep my word.Djathinkimacowboy

SpecialBarnstar-ribbon.PNG Quasar Ribbon.jpg Civility rib.png Defender of the wiki mini.png Original Ribbon 2.png Teamwork rib.PNG


And please pay actual attention to what this banner says!~©Djathinkimacowboy

User talk:Djathinkimacowboy/Archive 1


Have you remembered to sign your message

I just thought I would let you know, Mycroft, that I have had a quick look through your recent edits, as I said I would, and everything looks fine. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Splendid, old boy. My thanks. Some one of these days I shall have you at the Diogenes Club: there's a letter 'r' in the month and that is when they have the finest oysters.~©Djathinkimacowboy 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Five metals ring

Sorry that somehow I managed to overlook or forget your query about this on my talk page, Mycroft, but I found it when I was doing some cleaning up of the page, and I have now answered it here. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Shall tend to it presently, thanks Watson.~©Djathinkimacowboy 17:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Replies made there, Watson, thank you.~©Djathinkimacowboy 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Three messages

  1. I've replied to your requests for help on my talk page. I hope my replies are helpful.
  2. Thanks for the barnstar. It is nice to know that sometimes what I do is appreciated, especially at times when I have been having more than the usual amount of attacks and bad-mouthing from editors who don't like what I've been doing.
  3. I would avoid edits like this one, if I were you. Even if the opinion you express is perfectly reasonable, expressing it that way is likely to be seen as a personal attack. That could well be taken as a breach of your unblock conditions. Better to either keep quiet, or be studiously diplomatic. With a bit of thought, it is possible to convey the fact that you think someone's opinions are completely unreasonable while being perfectly polite. In fact, doing it that way can often get your point across more effectively than a blunt message, because people are less likely to just dismiss your message. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Watson, I must still have a glance at your replies to my queries. As to the reference you made, I am very grateful for the input. It seemed to me that I might alleviate with some humour but I think you are 100% correct; you see how that never occurred to me. That will not happen again no matter how fun it may seem. Frankly, I couldn't stand the attitude of the poster which reminded me of my old attitude. I certainly thank you for bringing that to my attention. Whether it helps or not, I shall remove it with your permission.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice?

Hi Dja, just another little heads-up, this time about your message "Have you remembered to sign your message?" at the bottom of your talk page.

In Firefox the message covers about 3/4 of the bottom line of the last comment. In IE it covers 1/4 of the line. I have been experimenting with the HTML a bit, and I think I found the mistake. It says "margin: 0em 0 1em;" and I think that should be "margin: 0em 0.1em;" — in other words, there's a dot missing.

When I read my reply now, I can't read the left part of my closing line. Thought you might wanna know. - DVdm (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, D, yes, just the post I was awaiting. I of course copied that thing from someonone else'e page and just lifted it--and he has it like I do. I will see if the change you mention will fix that annoying overlap problem. Cheers!~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Clever D!! It worked. Damned html gobbledygook gets me every time. Perhaps I ought to inform the other feller also and see if he can change it. Cheers, you editor-from-another-world you! And I ought to clarify you were exactly right, only there was actually an additional space too, so it just read as "0 1" instead of "0.1".~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
¡Mucho mejor! - DVdm (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
A mi tambien me gusta asi.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An opinion on recent events

I know you retracted your recent comments on my talk page, but I will still offer you my opinions, which I hope will help.

I don't see anything rude or in any other way objectionable about this edit. I have no idea whatever why the other editor objected to it. I don't blame you for posting to say that you didn't mean to be rude, but perhaps it would have been better not to say "You know, yerhaps [sic] you could have been a bit less rude too". Alternatively, you could have decided it was too unimportant to be worth mentioning at all. (Note that I actually agree with what you said, but I am suggesting that, even when what you say is right, sometimes it is better to leave it unsaid, and if not then you could have missed out the more critical bit.) When we come to this, however, I think we are at the stage where you definitely made a mistake. There really was no useful purpose in continuing the discussion, as the other editor was clearly taking a sympathetic point of view, and in any case the whole thing was about something so trivial that it was not worth bothering with. And what is more, you didn't just make a neutral comment, but escalated the discussion by using such language as "to pick a fight" and "you seem to have forgotten something".

I will summarise what I think are the essential points here. I fully agree that you did nothing wrong to begin with, and the response you got seems to me to have been unreasonable. However, if someone has been unreasonable, you have tried to clear up the misunderstanding, and they stick to being unreasonable, then there is rarely any point in carrying the discussion on. It is very unlikely they will suddenly change tack at this point. If it's something really important then it may be worth trying to seek help from elsewhere, but for something as trivial as this case, it's better to shrug it off and forget it. There are much better things for you to spend your time on. Finally, although I think it would have been better to have stopped earlier, at least you did realise that it was better to drop the matter before it got really out of hand. There is progress, and I trust you can build on that progress. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Watson, I appreciate all you have said. And I agree--because it wasn't what I wanted either, but I still went ahead and posted. What I would draw to your attention is perhaps a bit niggling, but as I said I like that editor and am not angry: why post deliberately with one's IP and then try to use it in such a bizarre fashion? I honestly thought the IP was someone else intruding, but I did not post anything addressing that at first. I did not know editors could do such things. However, be that as it may, I want you to know I appreciate and agree with your evaluation--and it won't be forgotten. I really wish I had walked away completely, as you pointed out, instead of posting again.~©Djathinkimacowboy 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wonder whether I simply exasperated that editor earlier. I got lots of assistance from that quarter, perhaps he tired of it finally. It all makes me sad, as I have stated. Again, thank you for your help in this matter. Your review of it and the evaluation you left me here is priceless and a good reference for me.~©Djathinkimacowboy 01:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

I noticed that this page was still semi-protected to stop the unconstructive IP edits that took place in April, while you were blocked. Since the reason for the protection no longer applies, I have unprotected it. I'm sure you don't need persuading that IP editors have as much right to be able to contact you as those of us who have established accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Watson. I am absolutely in agreement and believe it or not, I was wondering about it but did not know. As I said someplace else here, I edited here for nearly a decade starting in the 1990s under my IP and was always treated well. I have never forgotten that.~©Djathinkimacowboy 01:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A cheerful notation about IPs and their strange ways...

An example: this diff shows someone editing with an IP very close to mine was at the time, though I cannot locate what mine was. It was clearly not I--in spite of what looks stunningly like my style of writing--it is not I, as seen here and that proof simply because I have no interest in Darrington, Washington and did not even know it existed. Yet I recall I did edit at Panama Hat, God knows when, since I have always loved hats. Sadly, it is the very best I can do to illustrate how horribly things can go awry and how awful it is that someone would actually utilise that weakness. These IPs! Can't Wp do something about all this?~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(This actually makes me a bit itchy to go edit at Panama hat since I collect them and absolutely love the subject! Too risky, does anyone think?)~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's another IP at Panama Hat (diff's here) and again, that is certainly not I because by then I had my username. There's this too, not even a slim chance it was I. Proof is here, a diff representing something I edited on that very date of 9-FEB-2012, for Birthstones--one of among dozens. Surely the above info is one way to exonerate myself, since it can be seen how these IPs can become easily conflated. At that time, judging from my history, I was working very intently on birthstones and adding something to the article on rings. So as irritated as I am by all this, let the false accuser raise the cry at an SPI if he dares.~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As you know, I unblocked you to give you another chance. As you also know, I have put some time and effort into trying to help you overcome the problems you had experienced. The unblock was on the basis of your agreement to conditions proposed by Kudpung. Among other things, those conditions said: "You will not make or exercise any battleground approach, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, personal attacks, incivility, or harassment," and "Any single breach of the above may result in an indefinite block and a permanent site ban."

I have tried to give you a considerable amount of leeway. For example,

here I wrote "Even if the opinion you express is perfectly reasonable, expressing it that way is likely to be seen as a personal attack. That could well be taken as a breach of your unblock conditions." In fact, a more accurate description was that what you did clearly was a personal attack, and clearly was a breach of your unblock conditions, but I was trying to give you as much of a chance as possible, and I preferrred to try to help you rather than condemn you. However, you continued with a battleground approach, incivility, harassment, and so forth, so that it has increasingly looked like a question of when rather than whether you would be blocked again. I will remind you once more that the unblock conditions, to which you agreed, included the statement that any single breach might result in an indefinite block and a permanent site ban. You have made far more than one single breach of those conditions, but I have held back from invoking that clause of the conditions. However, it has now come to my attention that your editing has all along been a flagrant violation of courtesy vanishing, and that you have had previous accounts blocked for sockpuppetry. Contrary to what you seem to think, the evidence for this is not just use of similar IP addresses. There is far more than enough evidence to constitute proof beyond all doubt.You have also compounded your offence by angrily attacking an editor who mentioned, in a perfectly civil way, that you had a previous account (without even suggesting that you had abused them), making totally unsubstantiated accusations about that editor, and denying what is clearly the case.

Both because of your breach of the conditions of your unblock and because of other issues, such as your history of sockpuppetry and you attempt to abuse courtesy vanishing to evade scrutiny, I have blocked you again, indefinitely. Also, you may regard the permanent site ban (which you agreed could be imposed if you broke your unblock conditions) as now being in force. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not only have you totally disregarded the conditions of your unblock, but you have abused the good faith of James and myself who are among the most forgiving of admins. I have no alternative but to confirm the enactment of the permanent site ban which requires no further admin discussion, and I am extending the block to your talk page.(Defacto banned). If you wish to appeal the permanent site ban, you may do so by following the instructions at WP:BASC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)