User talk:IjonTichyIjonTichy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! IjonTichyIjonTichy, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Your addition to Janine R. Wedel has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. This was the first time I created a new wikipedia article.
In the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, I re-edited the article and inserted links to the book reviews instead of the original text of the reviews. Again, I appreciate the feedback.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Zeitgeist Movement. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info.
Please see my numerous responses to your actions and comments on The Zeitgeist Movement talk page.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

It might be good to read about the three-revert rule. It's not obvious how it works, and it's possible to violate it by mistake. Tom Harrison Talk 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Input?[edit]

Though we disagree about some things (though maybe not so many as you may think), I'd welcome your perspective at Talk:LaRouche movement. Tom Harrison Talk 00:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see my numerous responses to your actions and comments on The Zeitgeist Movement talk page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

So, what the crap are you doing? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Improving the TZM article to prepare it for dispute resolution. Please see the recent (last several days) postings on the talk page of the TZM article for further details. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Technological unemployment[edit]

I read this article while it was still the Luddite Fallacy page. I fail to see how the Zeitgeist movement has any bearing here. I just wanted to refer someone to a page that explains the Luddite Fallacy. I'm not sure if these pages should be merged. And Zeitgeist films are hardly credible sources.

Apologies for not following talk page protocol I'm not sure how to add to a discussion. (User:ZombiePriest) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

The three Zeitgeist films (Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) have not been used as sources in the article on Luddite fallacy.
(As you know, the article on Luddite fallacy is automatically re-directed to Technological unemployment). Looking at the list of references of Technological unemployment, and focusing only on the sub-section regarding The Zeitgeist Movement, I only see references to journal and newspaper articles, and three videos. These three videos are listed below.
The Zeitgeist Movement seems to believe that technological unemployment is a very serious problem. They seem to reject market-based approaches to the problem of technological unemployment. Instead, they suggest a new kind of a global economy: Resource Based Economy (RBE).
For more details on The Zeitgeist Movement's proposed solutions to technological unemployment, you may want to view the three videos below --- the two RT TV interviews with Peter Joseph as well as the documentary by New Future Media:
Zeitgeist ideas, Russia Today, Sept. 14, 2011
Further discussion of Zeitgeist ideas, Russia Today, Dec. 2, 2011
Short (38 min) documentary on proposed solutions to technological unemployment, New Future Media, April 14, 2012.</ref>
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear ZombiePriest and OpenFuture, your comments deserve a response. However, your comments should be posted on the talk page of Technological unemployment, to allow all editors of that page an opportunity to view and respond to your comments. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort; let's use this community component. You may want to copy and paste your comments from this talk page to the Technological unemployment talk page, so that the discussion can continue there. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your work[edit]

Hi IjonTichyIjonTichy, Thank you for your work on the TZM article, by the way, I have some userboxes on my page userpage that you may like. you can also use it if you want. ;) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'll definitely take a look at your userpage. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Resource-based economy. And yes, I like your userboxes and am now using some of them in my user page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning about personal attacks, May 2012[edit]

Personal attacks; like accusing several editors of immaturity or laziness are against wikipedia policy and can lead to you getting blocked or banned. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry and I apologize. Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement, Technological unemployment and Resource-based economy. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate on improving future articles. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Translations of foreign-language articles[edit]

By the way neither Wikipedia:Translation or Wikipedia:PAIC apply to your translating a source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,
Are you sure that WP:PAIC#Foreign-language_quotations does not apply to my translating a source? This WP policy says: "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear in translation. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context). If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate."
Can you please explain how this policy does not apply to my translating a source?
As I indicated previously regarding the other WP policy, Wikipedia:Translation, yes, I agree it does not apply directly to my translating a source, because WP:Translation is focused on the translation of foreign-language WP articles into the English WP; it does not discuss the translation of foreign-language sources into English. However, as I wrote previously, WP:Translation is the only other WP policy I could find on translations (in addition to WP policy on Foreign-language quotations). WP:Translation even encourages students to work on translating foreign-language WP articles into English as student projects. (However, as I said before, translating foreign-language WP articles is not the same as translating foreign-language sources.) In other words, from both WP policy on foreign-language translations and WP:Translation, it seems that WP policies call for the community to assume good faith in its editors when it comes to translations from foreign languages into English.
Are you indicating that my conclusion that WP calls for assuming good faith in WP editors when it comes to translations is incorrect? Could you please explain.
As I wrote previously, I currently don't see a problem with using a WP talk page as the physical location to store the translation. (If I'm wrong on this, please let me know.) One of the editors on the talk page of resource-based economy repeatedly claimed that because I've stored the translation on a WP talk page, then the translation is a WP article, and WP articles cannot be used as sources. I explained in response that storing a (translation) of a source on a WP talk page does not turn the source into a WP article, and that the only issue of importance is the reliability and quality of the source (and verifiability, etc.), not the source's physical storage location. Again, if WP policies indicate that I'm wrong on this, could you please explain?
I'm puzzled. If both WP policies above don't apply to my translating a source, then which WP policy does apply?
I'm relatively new to WP and thus am relying on much more experienced and savvy users, like yourself, to provide necessary guidance and insights.
Thank you for your work and for providing feedback, and I look forward to hearing from you soon; at the present time, I would like to continue to move this article to WP:ANEW.
(Any feedback/ insights that you may be able to provide on WP:ANEW in general and WP:ANEW in particular for resource-based economy would also be greatly appreciated.)
Warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand it the WP:PATC is discussing quotations in an article and not the translation of a source. Also I think that posting that translation is a copyright violation, I'm just going to look into it. Non English sources may be used as a reference. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears that translating is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 7#Can translations of works be used without violating copyright? CambridgeBayWeather (talk)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll remove the full translations from the talk page of resource-based economy, the talk page of Peter Joseph, and the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.
It seems that based on WP policy on Foreign-language quotations), I can still use the original (foreign-language) sources to support my WP article edits, as long as I provide translations of quotations of the specific (foreign-language) sentences or paragraphs I'm using in support of my WP edits? Is that a correct assumption? (Of course, I understand that I'll also need to fully abide by the other requirements of the WP policy such as explicitly distinguishing quotations that are translations from those that are not, indicating the original source of a translation and the original language, and providing a reference to the original, untranslated text.)
I'm grateful for your feedback, insights and guidance. I'm learning a lot from you.
Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The information you want is at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions. SO It appears that unless you are using a quote in the body of the article you don't need the translation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks CambridgeBayWeather. Yes, I studied and re-studied both of these WP policies several times before I began the process of citing and quoting from the two Hebrew sources on RBE ...
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring.[edit]

One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that we don't know who you are, and what you know and if what you say is true or not. And that goes for everyone. That means we all have equal amounts of say, and we all have to listen to each other and approach the topics with out eyes and ears open. We also need to understand that quite often we are simply wrong. I am wrong, you are wrong. We have to listen to what everybody else is saying, or we will run into a wall with our edits, and get nowhere. If we don't listen to others, they will not listen.

The articles on TZM and TVP and related topics all suck, and Wikipedia badly needs more expertise on the subject.

Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement, Technological unemployment and Resource-based economy. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate with you in the future. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to WP:DRN, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is helpful. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Outline of automation[edit]

Dear Transhumanist, is it OK to add a section titled 'Social movements' to Outline of automation? The Technocracy Movement, The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project all advocate for applying semi- or fully automatic systems to provide for all human needs - for example in food growth and production which will take care that no one would go hungry, in automatic construction, transportation, healthcare, etc ... In the view of these 3 movements, automated labor should be perfected and implemented on a mass scale globally, eliminating all mundane jobs that insult human capacity when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively, freeing humans to do more creative work (and/or less work). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, all improvements are welcome. I look forward to seeing your contributions. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! I've added the section. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Nicely done. You inspired me to add annotations. Please take a look and make any corrections or completions needed. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice job Transhumanist. One correction -- the Technocracy Movement seem to still be active, they apparently have a well-maintained website.
Your work inspired me to add more to the outline (when I have time in the next few weeks/ months). Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring[edit]

Ijon, you no doubt mean well, but you shouldn't refactor your own comments at WP:DRN after others have responded to them. See WP:REDACT. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. I was not aware it was not proper, and I was not aware of WP:REDACT. I will study the policy and abide by it. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Article about Zeitgeist movement[edit]

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post on my talkpage page. I've been off line for a while. WP email does not allow attachments, so if you want the article from the Journal of Contemporary Religion, you need to send me an email via the wikipedia email system and then I will reply to it with the article. You can send me an email from my user page by clicking "email this user". --Slp1 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Dear User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, I would like to ask you if you can translate the article Israel Tsvaygenbaum from English to Hebrew. Thank you. Sincerely, Boxes12 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Done. Thank you for the survey. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

czesc[edit]

Siemasz, Ijonie, jak leci? Co slychac od Tarantogi? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Staszek, how are you? I hope you are doing well. I've enjoyed reading almost all of Lem's books over the last 3-4 months or so. I've just finished The Futurological Congress and made a minor contribution to the WP article. Lem is definitely one of the very best authors I've read in my lifetime. I've enjoyed his books very much, they are very important books, serious and funny at the same time, and I wish I've read them much earlier in my life. On the other hand, if I would have read them when I was younger, I would not have fully appreciated them then, because for me at least, I'm able to appreciate Lem's work much better now, after accumulating some personal life experiences, etc ... Is your WP user name Staszek after the main character in Hospital of the Transfiguration? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello.[edit]

Regarding climate change (global warming) as “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” (Stern Review) in the Naomi Klein article, please see Talk:Criticism of capitalism#Market failure paragraph. Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down may be of interest too. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I posted a comment. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, I second OpenFuture's warning and have commented at WP:DRN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fair warning OF and Bbb23. Please note I've already apologized to Andy. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Doing an endless series of attacking and then apologizing does not cut it IjonTichyIjonTichy. Being insulting and then praising, over and over, is still disruption and attacking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Believing in good faith that you violated WP policies (followed by explaining in public why you did not) is not normally defined as an attack or an insult on WP. It is normally considered strictly an editorial dispute, not an attack nor an insult. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You have no idea when others are telling you that you are attacking others. I see. Must be a communication breakdown. The consensus is that you are attacking others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but calling it an "endless series" is a bit too much IMO. He has done it a couple of times. IjonTichyIjonTichy: You need to stop getting angry, and stop taking arguments personally. Criticizing TZM is not a personal attack on you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A couple means two. I think not. Good luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
[2] --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to xkcd, it's a fun read. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Also discussion[edit]

I don't know who you have posted the message about the See Also discussion, but if you didn't post to everyone, it's called canvassing, and is frowned upon. The best place to post something like this would be on the dispute resolution discussion, rather than on individual editor's talk pages, so that everyone with a vested interest can participate. VanIsaacWScontribs 23:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have no intention of influencing the outcome of the discussion towards any one side of the debate. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Attacking[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia [3] Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You display incredible audacity in accusing me of attacking you, when it is you who has been obsessively, repeatedly, relentlessly attacking me. See wp:Boomerang. Please do all editors (including yourself) a favor and develop some awareness and WP:COMPETENCY. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion, try to focus on the subject of an article and not editors, and your opinions of them. The name calling things automatically are a non starter [4] Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree we should focus on the subject and not on editor. But you need to stop wasting people's time with a discussion of user's own pages, because all editors are able to read user pages and don't need you to mollycoddle and shepherd them. I firmly believe you are responsible for initiating the attacking, and I'm only responding in kind to your attacks. Furthermore, you fully supported AndyTheGrump in his wholly erroneous, misguided attack on TZM and on a subset of Wikipedia editors. You are only motivated by good faith and are only driven by a strong desire to help and improve wikipedia. But perhaps your desire is too strong and you are too emotionally involved in this article, because your edits and comments are not productive to the development of the article. And you continue to attack me for mistakes I made as a newbie, among many other ways, all un-justified, that you continue to attack me. You finally removed the mention of RBE in the article, and thus credit and praise to you for finally listening to me, after you wasted many, many hours of my, your, and everybody else's time in attacking me for explaining, beginning several months ago, why the term RBE should be removed. But you agreed with Andy on everything else, regretfully, and contribued several comments offensive to other editors and to the subject of the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR - edit warring[edit]

The Zeitgeist Movement - WP:3RR warning - Youreallycan 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN[edit]

Hi Ebe123, you wrote "There is a ArbCom request for Youreallycan, so this should be referred there." I'm not familiar with ArbCom. I read everything on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and I don't understand how this relates to the DRN you closed. Where can I find the ArbCom request for YRC? How is the ArbCom request related to the DRN? Is the ArbCom going to make a decision related to YRC, and how is that going to affect the DRN? (If you could answer on my user talk page it would be great.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom can make decisions on it, and here's the link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. The DRN and ArbCom are both to resolve disputes, but arbcom does it by making binding desisions, while DRN makes consensus finding easier. The ArbCom desision will not affect DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ebe123. Your response is most helpful. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Ebe123 may misunderstand Arbcom; they action on long term conduct issues and explicitly do not address content problems. So any content discussions should be resolved in the relevant forums. If there is a user conduct issue associated with the content dispute then this might be relevant to any arbcom case - but addressing the content issue should take priority. --Errant (chat!) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For me, the dispute seemed to be attached to conduct. And I was not ignoring the request. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ebe123, Prioryman wrote that following discussions between him, YRC and Anthonyhcole, it seems that a solution has been worked out. Where can I find these discussions? I could not find them at the archive. (Kindly please respond on my own talk page.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy that a solution has been found, and you may search the archives (there's a search box on WP:DRN). Please do not edit it though. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Prt YRC & the block evader ATG (TW)"[edit]

Should have been, "Per YRC & the block evader ATG" YRC - YouReallyCan ATG - Andythegrump. Both are experienced editors with a very good eye for editing, so if both of them were reverting you then you need to take it to the talk page rather than editwar. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I will respond to your comment on the talk page of the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

Unless these people are dead[5] I recommend you self revert right now. And I am not at all happy with the way you got around the Examiner being on the blacklist. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [6] [7] [8] [9] --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I firmly believe you are responsible for initiating the attacking, and I'm only responding in kind to your attacks. Furthermore, you fully supported AndyTheGrump in his wholly erroneous, misguided attack on TZM and on a subset of Wikipedia editors. You are only motivated by good faith and are only driven by a strong desire to help and improve wikipedia. But perhaps your desire is too strong and you are too emotionally involved in this article, because your edits and comments are not productive to the development of the article. And you continue to attack me for mistakes I made as a newbie, among many other ways, all un-justified, that you continue to attack me. Credit and praise to you for disagreeing with Andy on his labeling TZM, and several WP editors, as members of a cult. But you agreed with him on everything else, regretfully. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My userpage[edit]

Glad you like them, but there is no story about them. I just went through the category of featured images at commons for images with a 800 × 600 pixels size. Then, I made them random (You get 1 chance per 163 for 1 specific image). The list of images is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ebe123/images&action=edit . ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to request for comment[edit]

Hello

In reference to your posting on my Talk Page here is the section on internal links from the Manual Of Style.

What generally should not be linked

OVERLINK

An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.[1] Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking:

everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the context;

the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions;

units of measurement that aren't obscure. If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units;

Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on.

REPEATLINK

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

I've highlighted in bold the MoS sentence that covers internal linking to Countries. Thank you for the feedback; the Sumo article is very well written and very informative.

Sluffs (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sluffs. This is informative and helpful. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Zeitgeist movement[edit]

By consensus of the community, you are topic banned from editing pages on Wikipedia related to the Zeitgeist movement to include articles, article talk pages, user and user talk pages, Wikipedia space, and all other namespaces. You may not engage other editors on this topic. This topic ban is broad in scope which means that it also includes related 'movements' and biographies of proponents and opponents. The scope of the ban should not be misunderstood to be limited to what I have outlined. You are to avoid any appearance at all of violating this topic ban. If you have questions about the topic ban or wish to appeal, you may contact me on my talk page, as I am an uninvolved admin. I will forward any reasonable questions to the community for consideration. You are strongly advised to reconsider your approach to interaction with the community including taking more care to understand the arguments of those opposed to your opinion.

To quote AndyTheGrump:

it includes everything he does on Wikipedia, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in. And that it specifically includes trying to Wikilawyer around the ban. He has to accept that anything which looks like a ban violation in our opinion, not his will result in an indefinite block. Clearly he will need to have a specific exception for somewhere to ask specific questions relating to the scope of the ban, and should he want to do so, to eventually ask for the ban to be lifted (a sub-page in his user space maybe - or one in the user space of a volunteer admin?), but otherwise, a ban is exactly what it says, and no arguing. And he needs to be aware that regardless of issues relating to TZM advocacy, his behaviour on talk pages has been unacceptable, and that any further verbose screeds of original research and the like, of endless failures to accept clear consensus, and all the rest are likely to also have serious repercussions, regardless of the topic.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi TP, regarding the topic ban, how can I appeal it. The accusations against me are based on a mixture of (a small portion of) truth mixed in liberally with (a much larger portion of) half-truths, omissions, falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, misrelations and misstatements of my edits and my comments. This community discussion aimed at passing sanctions is plagued by bias where argumentation from editors with personal biases against me, due to previous interactions and perceptions about my views on editorial disputes regarding the TZM article, have lead uninvolved editors to support the arguments of the biased editors, due to a perception that multiple editors raising the same concerns is ipso facto evidence of misconduct. I've been railroaded by this community discussion about my conduct and given excessive and unnecessary restrictions that have a damaging effect on my willingness to contribute as they directly generate feelings of futility and persecution. I've been viewed through a biased spectrum that leads to my conduct being treated more seriously than the same conduct from other editors. Some of my contributions represent a far less popular view within the editing community and society at large, leading to my receiving considerably heavier sanctions than would be given to editors that represent more popular views. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to appeal, you may use the "E-mail this user" feature and outline, with diffs provided, why you believe the accusations are not true. However, I'm not willing to entertain any discussion about the movement itself or other people's behaviors. The email should pertain strictly to how your behavior has been misrepresented.--v/r - TP 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll try one last effort to reach out to you, because I'm a nice guy with infinite amounts of hope in humanity. :-)
It's admirable that you stand your ground and believe in yourself, IjonTichyIjonTichy. But this decision was unanimous. When everyone agrees that you are wrong, don't you think it's time to seriously consider the possibility that maybe you are wrong, instead of blaming the problem on everybody else?
In your comment above you claim that seventeen people are all misinterpreting, misrepresenting and misstating your comments and actions. All in the same way. How is it possible that seventeen individuals who has nothing to do with each other misunderstand you and your behavior in exactly the same way? Do you really think that's possible? Doesn't it seem like maybe in fact *you* are the one misunderstanding something? Isn't that at least worth considering? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OpenFuture, IjonTichyIjonTichy is now topic banned from discussing this issue including on user talk pages. Do you think it's appropriate to engage them on it immediately after the ban takes effect? I do not think you mean it, but this could easily be construed by IjonTichyIjonTichy as an attempt to provoke him to test the topic ban which would result in his block. Please just disengage. If you want to discuss it with him, I suggest email.--v/r - TP 21:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. In any case, I'm not attempting to discuss the topic with him, but the ban, which I think is quite clear from above. Or well I'm not attempting to discuss anything, I don't expect or even desire him to answer, I want him to think about why he got banned. Anyway, I will keep to email in future cases, or maybe simply keep quiet. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not at all productive. The best thing you can do right now is leave him alone. There are two sides to every story and his behavior is the sole cause of his topic ban; however, it is not necessarily the sole cause of the dispute between him and everyone involved. Do not think for a moment that he is the sole problem and that his topic ban vindicates everyone else. I am sure he has plenty to say about everyone's behavior that he cannot now. Just back off. What you are doing is grave dancing. Please go away.--v/r - TP 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I will go away. You are wrong, but that's irrelevant. I wasn't aware that he isn't allowed to discuss the ban itself. Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for WP:DE and violating topic ban, see WP:ANI discussion.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Essay = Good Read[edit]

Yup. Really enjoyed it. Primergrey (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for your contributions. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie[edit]

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, IjonTichyIjonTichy is currently topic banned from "editing pages on Wikipedia related to the Zeitgeist movement". I would suspect that this article might be seen to fall within the remit of the topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

if you might...[edit]

There is a deletion discussion about the article The Pixar Theory and the topic seems to have met the GNG though a lot of (recent) coverage.... BUT my own research indicates the the base concept of "The Pixar Universe" has been recognized in media at least as early as 2003, making this later "theory" notable only in it making enough recent waves to be considered a "viral meme". Toward addressing the earlier concept, I began work on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe, but upon further reflection, perhaps best that my little sourced article might best be folded into the main topic Pixar so that we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? And would you care to assist? Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Megalopolis (city type)[edit]

Hi. I am not simply "removing content". I just created a new article and adapted the table in the article Megalopolis (city type). Please, pay attention to my issues before I say I'm doing things that I'm not! Chronus (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice job on creating the new article. It looks interesting. Keep up the good work.
Please try to provide edit summaries in the future, to prevent further misunderstandings. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference I've used is a high quality reference (the New York Times) summarizing scientific research in the US. It does not violate WP:MEDRS. I've left a note on your talk page per your request. IjonTichy (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor IjonTichyIjonTichy for useful additions to articles, for defending their neutrality, and for publishing very interesting reflections on editing Wikipedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBPIA[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fox News Channel controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert McChesney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Maidsafe[edit]

Please respond on the Maidsafe talk page to my questions to you. Sanpitch (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken Spindles[edit]

Hello. I reverted your blanking of Broken Spindles because we don't delete articles by removing all the text. If you wish to have this article deleted you can either propose the article for deletion (see WP:PROD – no discussion, if no editor objects page is deleted) or open a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion.

You might want to do a quick search for references before nominating the page for deletion, and reading WP:NBAND will be helpful as well. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Organizational conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avoidance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

25 November 2014: Accounting of ideas and Intequity[edit]

Re your recent edit of the Entrepreneurship page, copied below.

"(cur | prev) 03:31, 25 November 2014‎ IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,501 bytes) (-763)‎ . . (→‎Recent developments: remove confusing, meaningless gibberish. This mumbo jumbo may be at best a niche, fringe idea and is not widely reported in the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship. Thanks.)"

I do not know how to start a talk page to discuss your edit. Could you do that? Entrepreneurship is a concept, which is far from stable, therefore, new inputs should be discussed. Also "Recent developments", which was the heading, is normally not widely reported.   (Unsigned comment on 17:40, 25 November 2014‎ by User: Mdpienaar)

Thank you for starting the talk page at the Entrepreneurship Talk page. Was not aware of it. I guess the Google filters in your country and South-Africa work not the same. a Google search for "intequity jetems" in South-Africa shows the first researched paper with regard to intequity: jetems.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Management%20Accounting.pdf if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar (talkcontribs) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Haredi[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you could just check through to see if there are any more reports of Haredi being sprayed with skunk chemicals. See Skunk (weapon). Sorry for the bother and ignore if you have, as is probable, nicer ways to use these final hours of 2014. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot think of a nicer way to spend the last moments of the year than to correspond with a person whose WP editorial work I greatly respect and admire such as yourself. I searched on the websites of Israeli newspapers, as well as on the Hebrew version of Google. Could not find a single report on spraying on Haredi or any non-Palestinians (the only exception that I could find is the link that was previously on the talk page of Skunk (weapon) - and the video in that link does not show any actual spraying). Found several reports on spraying on Palestinians (e.g. by entering 'skunk' in the search window of Haaretz.com, the English version of Haaretz) as well as blog posts, e.g. this post (in English) on the apparently indiscriminate, aggressive spraying of Skunk in East Jerusalem in July of this year. Best regards and a good new year, IjonTichy (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skunk (weapon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of American Sniper (film) controversies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Sniper (film) controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems on the American Sniper page[edit]

Another user is removing or slanting all of the criticism section references on the main American Sniper page. I would appreciate if you would like to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Sniper_(film)#Which_of_the_following_references_should_be_inserted_into_the_criticism_section.3F David A (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested in contributing to this complaint: [10] David A (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --MONGO 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WP: BOOMERANG. The only one who has been edit warring is yourself. I have not edit warred in years, and have no intention of ever doing so. I have too much respect for every member of the community, including even for highly disruptive, tendentious-editing, WikiBullying users such as yourself, to engage in any edit wars. Please begin to learn to LISTEN to what others have been repeatedly trying to tell you over the last few weeks (in fact over the last few months), including (but not limited to) not only myself, but, more importantly, highly experienced admins and users such as User:TParis (please see his responses today to your comments on his user talk page e.g. here, here, here, here, and here), User:Erik, User:David A, User:Nbauman, User:Viriditas as well as many others. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@IjonTichy: Also don't take my comments as emboldening. You aren't on the straight and narrow yourself.--v/r - TP 20:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks TP, I appreciate your feedback. IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You continue to misuse this website for advocacy and you'll find yourself sitebanned, Ijon.--MONGO 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
mongo, the AN/I is about you, not about me. You are the problem, not me. Your behavior is the reason the AN/I was started, not me, and your efforts to shift the blame to me are not going to be well received by the community. If you don't want to get topic banned or blocked, you need to begin taking full responsibility for your own actions. The only one engaging in advocacy is yourself. I did not advocate for anything, I just cited from a large number of sources in an effort to build the encyclopedia. I worked collaboratively and patiently and in a friendly fashion with all editors, including those with whom I may have editorial disagreements. In contrast, you have contributed almost nothing to the development of the content of these articles, except to repeatedly delete anything you don't like, to edit war, to attack users with whom you disagree, and to bully people around. You appear to continue to refuse to listen. It appears the content of the articles causes you some sort of cognitive dissonance. It appears your belief system is tied to the ideology of the 'American Sniper' film and you cannot accept the fact a very large number of scholars and commentators say that they have found deep, fatal flaws with what the sources say is the ideology espoused in the film. It appears nobody can convince you of anything you don't already want to believe, because, as some wise person said thousands of years ago, "you can't convince a man to understand something when his whole belief system is founded upon him not understanding it." User: Viriditas explained my sentiments perfectly when he wrote in response to your comment on the AN/I: "Having been the subject of your [mongo's] unprovoked attacks before, I can sympathize with the OP. I'm not the type of person who is out to settle scores, so I think you are confusing me with someone else, perhaps yourself. Thankfully, we are very different people. I just want your attacks to stop, that's all. As for your political commentary, I have to say that I don't have very much faith in your critical abilities when it comes to an unbiased opinion. You are probably a little too close to this topic, both on a personal and a professional level. Therefore, it would be sensible if you took a step back and removed yourself from the article." user:Viriditas 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
--IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is going to block or topic ban me from that article because you have it backwards. Your POV fork failed even though even I supported merging...but what you want, which is a laundry list of every negative opinion on earth is never going to happen.--MONGO 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want a laundry list. I want to contribute to an article built via the WP consensus process, an article that is a well-written, informative and neutral, in the style of e.g. Triumph of the Will, or Birth of a Nation or Zero Dark Thirty, for example. You will be blocked or topic banned because of your battleground behavior, due to the cognitive dissonance resulting from your inability to separate your ego and your personal ideological belief system from your work on political/ historical/ social articles, or sections of articles, that cite sources that contradict your ideological persuasion. On American Sniper (film), and the AfD discussion, you have posted a large number of talk-page comments and article edit summaries that were extremely hostile towards, and mistrustful of, the authors of sources that were critical of the political/ historical/ social/ philosophical/ moral/ ethical/ racial/ ethnic/ religious and other aspects of the film. Your comments were full of derision and contempt for most of these authors. Furthermore, you insisted on repeating Hasbarah propaganda talking points on the article talk page, and you have used Hasbarah messages as a valid and sufficient reason (in your view) to silence the voices of authors which you claimed were antisemitic and to delete their (sourced) views, which were critical of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film. And you insisted and persisted in unilaterally doing all of this against consensus, while dismissing the repeated requests from User:Nbauman, User:David A and myself to stop. your disruptive, bullying behavior. (And when it was pointed out to you that one of the journalists/ authors you labeled as antisemitic [and whose criticism of the film you stifled] was Jewish, you responded with yet more Hasbarah propaganda talking points.

I'm not saying you cannot contribute productively to any political/ historical/ social and related subjects, but there is ample evidence that shows you cannot edit neutrally on political/ historical/ social articles and other complex, intricate, sophisticated, nuanced subject matter that may conflict with your (apparently overly simplistic) worldview and your personal ideological persuasion. (However, your edit history shows you have done a good job contributing to many topics that do not conflict with your personal belief system.) When an author of a source expresses political/ historical/ social views that disagree with your own views, the evidence shows you tend to resort to ad hominem attacks on the writers of the sources (again, as detailed in excruciating, painful detail in the current AN/I and especially on the talk page of American Sniper (film) and other WP political/ social/ historical articles), and you resort to unprovoked attacks on and bullying of fellow WP users.

And it seems you are unable to listen. You appear to have automatically rejected every piece of great advice/ feedback provided to you by TParis and all the other experienced users I listed above, advice that was generously provided to you in the last few hours, last few days, weeks and months. User Viriditas expressed my sentiments perfectly when he posted yet another comment on today's AN/I: "You (user: David A) have provided evidence that MONGO may be misusing the talk page. I say "may" because we don't have all the facts just yet. In the past, MONGO has had difficulty controlling himself on political topics due to his simplistic, black and white way of viewing the world. Reasonable people understand that reality isn't bifurcated between left or right. In any case, you've also shown that MONGO has made personal accusations against you in this thread that lack substance ..." Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Anyway, mongo, I'm not interested in reading any more WP:BATTLEGROUND-style comments from you. If you have anything particularly interesting or novel to add, you are welcome to post here. But if you don't have anything intellectually stimulating to add, then I will not respond to your overly-simplistic comments and/or your war-mongering-like comments and I will not bite into any bait you may offer. You have already wasted too much of my time while you have contributed nothing of value to any of the numerous 'Sniper'-related articles or article talk pages. Thanks and goodbye, IjonTichy (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff above. That's a pretty hefty barrage of insults and condemnations...the kind you are accusing me of btw. You let me know when you write a single featured article before you lecture anyone about their competence.--MONGO 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think your intentions are honorable. I think you genuinely want to help build a great encyclopedia. I did not intend to imply you are not competent to edit all WP articles --- I'm only saying you have serious competency issues on political/ historical/ social articles that express views that clash with your own personal views.
You have repeatedly insulted, condemned, attacked and bullied me (as well as User:David A) on the talk page of the film and on the AfD. And you have ignored all my polite requests to stop your counter-productive behavior. I have politely asked you to refrain from posting on my user talk page any more of your typical battleground-style, hostile, aggressive, overly simplistic, uninteresting, useless, pointless diatribes and rants. Your comments on the article talk page, as well as your recent postings on the AN/I, have only served to prove (again) you appear to behave like a WikiBully and that you are incapable of listening. You appear to have automatically rejected the many insightful, thoughtful, evidence-based perspectives that several experienced members of the community have repeatedly and generously offered to you over the last few weeks (since I began contributing to the set of 'Sniper' film articles) including the last few days since the AN/I complaint was opened, including (but not limited to) User:TParis (on his user talk page), User:Erik (on the AfD and the AN/I), User:David A (on the film article talk page, the AfD and the AN/I), User:Nbauman (on the film article talk page and the AfD), User:Viriditas (on the AN/I), as well as other experienced editors. (And your recent posts on the user talk page of User:TParis [including the edit summaries of your posts] also provide further evidence of your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence-based arguments of experienced editors and admins opposed to your opinion.)
Furthermore, your posts on the AN/I appear to be just a desperate attempt to shift to me the blame for your own disruptive behavior, edit warring, relentless advocacy, and obsessive attacks on and bullying of users, instead of taking full responsibility and ownership for your own tendentious editing.
Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added (in an older section on Talk:American Sniper (film)) several additional sources in criticism of the film and in support of the movie.

As I said before, I think everyone's concerns and perspectives are valid and have merit. May I respectfully ask that users entirely refrain from labeling other users' work as 'POV pushing' or 'coatrack' or anything that can reasonably be perceived as a label of mistrust or derision. This labeling tends to put the recipient in a hostile, aggressive mood, it destroys users' enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia, and significantly reduces people's motivation to find a compromise with everybody's perspectives or positions. Repeatedly attacking a user's work feels like a personal attack, even if admins don't necessarily consider it a sanctionable offense. Attaching negative labels to a user's work tends to significantly curtail the recipient's creativity and work productivity. Let's foster a friendly, hospitable, supportive work environment where we trust each other and where we encourage each and every user who may be motivated to contribute to building a first draft. Let's place our trust in each other, especially in our 'opponents' and let's build each others' confidence and enthusiasm. The final consensus version would possibly, or even probably, look very different from the first (or second or third) rough draft(s), so may I advise for patience and calm, let's all please try to be less emotional about this and more cool and gentle and supportive of each other, especially those with whom we may otherwise disagree.

I hope users don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not saying any specific person is more emotional than logical, I believe every user is simultaneously both an emotional and a logical/ rational person, I believe emotions are very important and have a powerful role to play in debates, and I myself tend to get too emotional sometimes. I hope nobody thinks I'm picking on them or that I'm implying they are a roadblock to compromise, that's not my intention at all, everything I said applies to all users equally. Please let's trust each other fully without reservations, and let's all try to be supportive of each other's efforts without any criticism of each other's work for a while. After we have a first rough draft, then we should (politely) criticize the draft (not the people who wrote it) to try to reach consensus. May I respectfully suggest that users read the WP article on Brainstorming. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, you are welcome to post on my talk page. You and I appear to be interacting civilly and working collaboratively on the article talk page and/or the DRN to reach consensus. It seems we may be making progress towards achieving consensus. However, I'm busy in real life and I'm likely to take a long time to respond to comments. (By the way I enjoyed reading your kind words in your farewell note to TParis.) Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have started a Dispute Resolution discussion for American Sniper[edit]

Please see here David A (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

Hello. If you go to a second user's (e.g. Veritas') talk page to make negative comments about a third user (e.g. Mongo), that is not a legitimate form of dispute resolution. Wikipedia is not for gossiping about people or for carrying on feuds or plotting with others to get editorial opponents blocked. Please consider this a warning that you could be blocked if that activity continues. Should you have a problem with MONGO that hasn't been resolved, please file a request for arbitration with supporting evidence, or else drop it. Do not carry on, in multiple venues, casting aspersions, looking for fights. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 01:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to plot with anyone to get editorial opponents blocked. I have no interest in getting MONGO blocked, I'm working collaboratively with him (at the DRN) to resolve the dispute. In my view, we seem to be making nice progress at the DRN. I am not looking for fights, they are unproductive and a waste of time. although MONGO has attacked me relentlessly and obsessively since my very first edit on the film article, the AfD, and the AN/I, and I responded to his attacks. However, in an effort to de-escalate, I have stopped responding to his attacks on the AN/I. I have not read the AN/I since I last posted there a couple of days ago or so, but I am confident MONGO has stopped attacking me posting there, too, and I greatly appreciate the fact he is investing serious efforts on collaborating with his opponents on the DRN. I am enjoying working collaboratively with him on the DRN in an effort to find a compromise, and I have openly stated on the DRN his concerns and perspectives are valid and merit equal consideration like everyone else's, which I honestly believe (or I would not have stated it). And I added to my user talk page my strong belief his intentions are honorable and sincere.
I agree with you that Wikipedia should not be used for gossiping about people or for carrying on feuds or plotting with others to get editorial opponents blocked. And I thank you for the warning. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, IjonTichyIjonTichy. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Censorship on GMO Controversies page[edit]

I wanted to alert you to the fact my response to you was censored here. Is such censorship ethical? David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, in general removing a user's comment on an article talk page is against WP's policies and WP's communitarian nature. However, it is a good idea to remove a comment if the comment contains a direct personal attack against specific user(s). Your comment did not mention anyone in person, but I'm not familiar with your past comment history on the particular page or other articles in the general area of GMO.
Regarding the content of your comment, you may be entirely correct or you may be entirely incorrect. As with most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I'm not an expert in the area of GMO and I simply don't know. In my view the editors that are active in the GMO area have done a reasonably decent job over the years. I often disagree with their personal perspectives on GMOs, expressed e.g. on their own user pages or their own user talk pages, but in general there is a great deal of evidence to show they have most of the time (not always, but almost always) consistently and repeatedly over the years put aside their personal views in order to do what is best for the encyclopedia. Their blanket rejection of primary sources in favor of secondary ones is not always the best approach but it works reasonably well. Over the years I've come to accept the WP GMO articles are not perfect, nor even near-perfect, but they are not bad, they are reasonably decent given the complicated, messy, difficult, challenging, simultaneously-ugly-and-beautiful, simultaneously-insane-and-illogical-and-rational-and-logical environment all WP editors, and more generally the global human population, find ourselves in.
My personal approach has worked very well for me over the last 2 years: specifically, I do not assume anything about other users. I don't assume good faith, and I don't assume bad faith either. I assume nothing about fellow editors. Assuming any faith, good or bad, is a waste of time, and almost always leads, eventually, to disruptive behavior that (sooner or later) results in a topic ban or block.
My advice to you is to not waste your time focusing on the intent of other users. Instead, research for secondary sources, and discuss them on GMO article talk pages. For one example among many, the full text of all papers in the current issue as well as in the vast archives of PNAS are available for free viewing and download. Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
APPENDIX:
Paraphrasing WP:Don't assume: If you don't feel like assuming good faith about another user's actions, you don't have to. You can still give the benefit of the doubt by simply not assuming, one way or another. As User:JeffBillman put it: If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap. Cheers, JeffBillman (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"What do I think? Well, at the risk of sounding rude, I couldn't care any less. Let's put it this way: I don't assume there's any truth to Niteshift's claim of being a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy". I don't assume that it's a lie, either; or a joke, or anything else. It is to me, simply a statement Niteshift wished to share with readers of his userspace, for reasons I'm rather disinterested in knowing at the moment. Because of this, I don't assume anything about Niteshift when I read his contributions here. I find this to be a much more tenable position than the assumption of "good faith" Wikipedia asks us to maintain. Because I don't assume good faith per se, it's also difficult for me to assume bad faith. I'll admit this is a fairly recent discovery of mine. Up until recently, I tried to assume good faith of my fellow editors, and failed miserably at times. This seems to be working out for me thus far. Just a suggestion ..." JeffBillman (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: No angry mastodons: "A related mistake is to speculate about the intellectual capacity or the mental health of other editors. People do not rise to their best selves when they are reminded of their worst selves or accused of faults they do not possess. Editors who make these accusations exhibit poor self-control. Leave the angry mastodons in the Ice Age and focus on the article."
Ijon Tichy note: In other words, don't assume any user attributes at all, e.g. whether they are intelligent or not, whether they have integrity or not, whether they are a "good" or "bad" person, etc. Furthermore, don't speculate or claim to know that an editor has or has not read a source, read the article, or read a policy or guideline. Don't focus on users, focus on the sources and policies - make statements similar to these examples: "As noted in the (source, WP policy or guideline, etc) it is the case that X, Y and Z." Your comments, whether on edit summaries or talk pages should address the sources, Wikipedia article content, structure, policies and implementation of policy in accordance with the WMF mission rather than the habits, knowledge, skills, abilities, or lack thereof, of WP editors.IjonTichy (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

David, some reading for you: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable (and the section under that, "Editing comments"). Basically, another editor can remove your comment if it's not in accordance with talk page guidelines. It's not "censorship". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback. If you read the diff. I provided, I don't think I "assumed" anything about the other people nor did I "attack" anyone. Let's look at the code section for WP:NPA, and see if *anything* in there applies:
Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
Not applicable
Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
Not applicable
Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
Not applicable
Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
Not applicable
Threats of legal action
Not applicable
Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
Not applicable
Threats of vandalism
Not applicable
Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
Not applicable
Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.
Not applicable
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
This is the only one that is applicable. Admittedly, I did not provide evidence; I did not know it was necessary. It is certainly easy to do that! A simple look at the footnotes, the article and talk page histories for any time someone has suggested an article from an NGO consumer group are always rejected--if not, it has no doubt been scrubbed by now for this very reason. I have seen no exceptions to this. The behavior there is nearly 100% consistent. If it comes from GMO critics, they reject it. Which is exactly what they did for exactly the reasons I gave. I just don't see why not giving evidence of the behavior that is clearly there is a "personal attack" or what this is about assuming "good faith" or "bad faith". It's just stating a reality that is easy to see unless you are Pro-GMO or unfamiliar with the GMO critics positions. I didn't assume anything, except that the behavior of the past will be repeated in the future, a fallacy that is the fundamental to all science, as David Hume noted in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I was stating a fact, which is easily verifiable by any experimenter who wants to look at the history of the article. So, I just don't understand how that is a "personal attack" to state this fact. And I think new editors need to know this so that they don't get frustrated by the opposition they will receive for trying to include material that is relevant to the article will without question be unreasonably barred from entry, based on exactly the criteria I outlined, just as happened in this case. It appears to me the problem is not that I made a "personal attack" but that I pointed out behavior that is problematic that is true. Since, it is not a "personal attack", I think the best explanation is the person who deleted it doesn't want anyone else to know about what is going on on that page, something I continue to bring up. I could bring it to DR, etc., but I thought you are supposed to first try to resolve problems on the Talk page, which is what I have been doing...David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)