User talk:KrazyCaley

Re: vandal[edit]

He's on the watchlist. If he vandalises after 4th warning list it at WP:AIV --Winter 21:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.231.204.185 Spammer[edit]

Thanks for the reversion of the User:69.231.204.185 linkspammer. If you get tired of writing out messages to linkspammers, some templates could be useful for you. Add {{Spam}} (or {{Spam2}} or {{Spam3}} as appropriate) to the user's talk page for spamming. Usually the users are just new to wikipedia and the warnings are reminders of policy. It also documents that they have been warned, so they can be blocked if it becomes necessary. More stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Thanks and great work! --Hansnesse 07:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRT mediation[edit]

Thank you for mediating this dispute.

Things have settled down somewhat in the last day or so. Avidor has stopped re-applying the neutrality tag every time we removed it, so it may have resolved itself.

But it could also be just a temporary cease fire, so your assistance is still desired and much appreciated.

A Transportation Enthusiast 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me, KrazyCaley,

I don't expect this article to read like what I've written about PRT. I am a critic of PRT. I'm not sure I want to have a part in writing this PRT Wikipedia page.

Contributors are welcome to quote and link to anything I've written about PRT.

Wikipedia contributors do not have my permission to twist my words. It is okay to describe me as "a cartoonist", but it may be more informative to readers to mention that I am a transit advocate and that I have written about transportation for several publications. I am also the Transportation Editor for the new Twin Cities Daily Planet:

[[1]]

I do expect that every claim be linked to relevent web sites so that readers can see for themselves if the claim is backed up by the facts.

I want to see plain, easy to understand language used in the introduction.

I expect that that opinion be labled as such.

If critics are mentioned, I want to see them treated with respect. Quotes and links. There can be no good reason to mention me and not Professor Vukan Vuchic who is a professor of transportation at Penn State.

Information should be as up-to-date as possible. Skyloop for instance was rejected by Cincinatti back in 2001. Ford's "Prism" is also history.

PRT is an unproven concept... I would like to see the present tense removed..."it may", "it could" instead of "it is".

Most of all I want it to look like a wiki, lots of links...links...links.

Thanks,

Ken Avidor Avidor 05:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KrazyCaley,

Let me put it bluntly: Avidor is an extremist. I don't know why or how he became that way (I don't know him personally) but make no mistake: he is completely irrational about this topic. He spends his days writing letters to editors all over the world, and infiltrating PRT forums everywhere with anti-PRT propaganda (sometimes even using multiple usernames so it appears there are multiple people saying the same things on the forum).

On two occasions now, he has vandalized this Wikipedia page. The first time (in April 2005), he replaced the entire text with a paranoid political rant. The second time was a few days ago, when he deleted 90% of it.

He will not (cannot) rest until PRT has been eradicated from the planet, and the more it spreads (now in Korea, UK, Sweden, etc), the more desperate he becomes. He is convinced that this technology is a tool of the highway industry, which uses PRT to "divide and conquer" transit proposals in order to kill his beloved light rail projects.

Take a look at just how much letter writing this man has done: [2] [3]

Every one of these letters make the same argument: PRT is a hoax and a fraud, a tool of the auto/highway industry.

Let's take a step back and analyze this. PRT started in the 1960s. It has been researched and studied by literally hundreds (likely thousands) of researchers in the last forty years. Very intelligent men have made this technology their life work. There are now companies investing billions of dollars in at least 5 different countries on 3 continents, in various forms of personal rapid transit.

All of the above are verifyable facts. Most of it is documented in the links section, and in the books listed in the references section. There is no denying that this technology exists.

Now, given all that, do you really believe that this technology is nothing but a hoax created by the highway industry to stall light rail projects? Can you really trust the motives, the neutrality, of someone who has such a paranoid, ridiculous viewpoint?

Certainly, the article has a few issues. Sdedeo identified a few suspect words and removed them. He also complained about the lack of links. But the references are there! Those books (which are not online) cover just about everything that is in this article. This is a real emerging technology. Now, this doesn't mean it's guaranteed not to fail when it's deployed; of course every new technology has its own stumbling blocks (especially something as complex as this). But that doesn't mean it's not real.

Avidor will not quit. Despite Sdedeo's comments today, the NPOV is back up there again, and he has a new set of complaints. This will not end. He will continue to do this because wants to be able to point to some piece of evidence that PRT is a fraud. He is using this endless neutrality challenge to further his extremist cause.

Please don't facilitate this mockery any longer.

A Transportation Enthusiast 06:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KrazyCaley,

Just a note: Thanks for the note on my page. I only cleared out the mediation section on your page because Sdedeo had handled things so badly that I lost trust in the whole process.

I am quite pleased with the way you have handled this since you've gotten involved. I only wish Sdedeo hadn't gotten there first, because he really made things worse.

By the way, I do realize that Avidor now appears to be cooperating, but for a time I am quite convinced was intentionally not cooperating. And that was the source of my frustration, because it was readily apparent that it was just a propaganda game for him. This was confirmed when he started linking back to the page from other discussion forums, using the neutrality challenge as evidence of the "PRT cult" (something he also refers to several times on the discussion session).

I'd also add that Avidor is known for these kinds of propaganda games. He's been doing it for years. See today's entry at [4] for an excellent blow-by-blow account of how this whole dispute exactly fits Avidor's typical pattern of misinformation.

In fact, that blog (among others) is evidence of just how much anger and frustration Avidor has caused with his multi-year campaign of personal attacks, misinformation, half truths and propaganda. This dispute has a lot more history than just these pages...

I think KrazyCaley has offered a very fair solution to this dispute. I was reluctant to contribute, but I think two very seperate pro and con sections might work if everyone behaves themselves. I intend to abide by the Wikipedia rules and write the section with as much neutrality as possible and conform to the Wikipedia style (I may need some help with this).

In a day or two, I will write a new, brief "con" section. I will also redo the "skeptic" links. I will not edit anything else.

Thank you for mediating, KrazyCaley.

Avidor 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did what I was asked to do. I wrote the "cons" and minutes later, I had to change it back.

I don't have time to play Sisyphus.

I hope Wikipedia has procedures for dealing with controversial subjects like this.

Good Luck. Ken Avidor Avidor 07:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added factual information to the cons section. Taxi 2000 wrote a very detailed response to the OKI report, so I added that fact (with a link) to the text on the OKI report, in the cons section. Avidor contends it does not belong in the cons section, and that it is redundant (since both reports are mentioned earlier).

I say, cons section or not, it does belong because it is a direct response to the OKI report. If you suppress the fact that the OKI criticisms were challenged by Taxi 2000, isn't that misleading? Wouldn't the omission of such information make the cons section biased against PRT? If redundancy is a concern, then remove it where it occurs elsewhere and keep it here, but don't imply that the OKI report went unchallenged.

Re: Sisyphus: I added the OKI response, he removed it. I added it back in with comment that it was factual and therefore relevant, he removed it again saying it doesn't belong in cons. So I left it alone came here. Currently that text is not in the article.

KrazyCaley, what is your view?

Thanks, KC for offering to mediate. You tried your best. My last comment is on the discussion page.

Thanks again,

Ken Avidor Avidor 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Beecher Stowe[edit]

Please do not remove information from articles just because you feel it may be inaccurate. Harriet Beecher Stowe's mother was indeed Roxana Foote Beecher. Arniep 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a mistake, sorry about that. Feel free to revert it back, of course. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 04:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW Project[edit]

You voted for Aeronautics, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

The Mediation Cabal needs your support. You are listed as an active mediator ready to accept assignments. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request and delegate it to someone else. --Fasten 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis[edit]

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [5] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request[edit]

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

Audioslave article[edit]

Hi there!

I am currently working on the improvement of the Audioslave article, now about halfway done, I'm opting to make it a featured article, but that is a lot of work. It isn't visible on the article yet, I haven't saved any changes, I want to save the whole thing once, when it's complete. I'm not from an English speaking country, I'm from Hungary, so I'm not really good in writing, expressing my thoughts in English, or not on that sophisticated level the feature article criteria requires, but I try to do my best. So the reason I'm writing to you is that if you'd like to help me in any way, e.g. finding sources, references, citations, any ideas on how to improve the article, maybe images, you're really welcome! Of course, if you like Audioslave as much as I do and would like to see it as a featured article. The best would be if you could help me with English, the grammar and stuff like that. So if you're interested I can send you the work I've done maybe in e-mail or some way, I don't think it would be good if I copied it to the talk page, it's pretty long and currently I'm just working on it in Microsoft Word. You can check it then and see if you have anything to add or help/correct. So anyways, if you're interested just say so.

Thank you very much in advance. Gocsa 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]