User talk:^^James^^

/archive1

^^James^^ 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive page

I have moved your talk archive out of the main namespace and deleted the redirect at ^^James^^/archive1. If you have questions about that, please ask on my talk page. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks. ^^James^^ 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

I have blocked you for a fourth revert at Acharya S. There is no 'entitlement' to a fourth revert, even if the 24 hours are up. You have been engaged in sterile edit warring at this article long enough. Bear in mind that policies here are interpreted in the spirit, not just the letter. Your block is for 24 hours.

Charles Matthews 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AJA continually reverts with stated intention not to talk it over, and with continued uncivility directed at myself and others. [1] Why you "appreciate" such efforts is beyond me. Considering his refusal to discuss on the talk page, I think your strict interpretation of policy in this instance is a bit much. ^^James^^ 23:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken this up on Charles Matthews talk page [2] but have had no luck. I should warn you against pursuing this yourself after the block as I have never seen a case like this where the user with a problem actually came off well. At worst you will get blocked again for trouble making and at best you will be told not to waste everyone's time. Depressing but true.

I'm also taking this up at 3rr [3] as A.J.A. got away with it by reverting us both with one blow - thus saving his "allowance". This is a terrible situation and I'm appauled by all of this. However I'm also getting increasing disillusioned with the ability of the admins to police themselves. Charles Matthews is on the arbcom so you will win no friends by fighting this and I'm sure I won't do too well by posting this.

If you wish to try your luck you can post {{unblock}} on your talk page and another admin will look at the block. Since this has not been logged at WP:AN/3RR as it should have been no one else has had a chance to comment (I'm just watching the Acharya page as I've croosed swords with A.J.A. before and saw a message about your block). Be warned though - this may result in the block being lengthened. Sophia 13:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sophia, thanks for your comments. My concern about the block is the risk of being tarred a 'problem user' over time due to a rather strict and selective application of policy. I won't fight this because it is technically a legal block. Still, considering that AJA refuses to discuss on the talk page while reverting a number of peoples work, I do think blocking me in this instance is questionable. OTOH, the Acharya S edit war has been going on for many months, and Charles has applied the 3RR strictly against others in the past, so I don't feel so bad. ^^James^^ 19:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen all this and am appalled. No wonder A.J.A. behaves as he does - his bad behaviour is being ignored and the way cleared for him. Charles Matthews obviously doesn't understand that in wikipedia all editors are equal so if what he feels is an attack against him justifies a ban then so should calling other editors "vandals". He also doesn't seem to have got the hang of the idea that if you are involved you should not issue the ban yourself unless the article space is in danger which it clearly is not in this case. I will take it up with him directly at the risk of being accused of showing "bad faith". Sophia 18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's actually User:skullnboner and there is a history with him at the Acharya page I think. I've asked Charles Matthews to log this one on WP:ANI as he should have done with your block too so I'm waiting for him to do that so that this discussion can take place in public. If he fails to log it then I will so I'll let you know when and where to comment if you wish to. Be warned as I don't expect this to go too well. Sophia 18:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars

I am leaving the same message for you and for A.J.A.

Looking at the article's history, in recent weeks you two have engaged in the most reversions by far. If either of you revert the article Acharya S again, I will suspend your editing privileges for a short period of time.

I'm tired of watching the same slow motion edit war go back and forth. Poor editing practices by one person do not justify them by another. I will not be editing the article further myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: There seems to be some confusion—to clarify, if a revert occurs, I would only block the party that reverts the article. It was drawn to my attention that the wording of my statement was unclear. I don't want either of you to mistakenly believe that I would block both of you in the event that only of you reverts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert articles without comment in the edit summary. Using just "RV" leaves people wondering what's been reverted, and why. Thanks for discussing the issue on the talk page, though. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. ^^James^^ 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

antiscience

A clarification about my changes to antiscience: the changes are negotiable, but WP:NPOV is not. In other words, the outcome of the negotiation must continue to conform to WP:NPOV. Al 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I get it. ^^James^^ 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Al

I have posted an outside view as I can't believe they consider the final straw leading to Arbcom calling someone an "edit warrior". If Al gets banned I'm going too as this place really is beginning to resemble the Stanford Prison Experiment. To be quite honest it takes people like Al to rock the cozy boat a little, stretch the bounds of understanding of some limited editors and let people like me make what is then seen as reasonable edits that bring the article closer to NPOV. With Al gone I'll be faced with either wasting my time or becoming more bolshy myself which does not sit very well with my British/avoid conflict at all costs mentality. Sophia 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are spot on which is why you know it's ultimately pointless. Shifting the ground on entrenched editors with strong POV's is as you say a dirty job and I dislike conflict and don't see why I should do it for a hobby. Al steps up to the mark in a way I admire (although in the past his methods sometimes left a lot to be desired) and don't have the stomach to emulate. I'd rather be gone than effectively sign my name to heavily partisan articles. Sophia 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: G33

Thanks, I'm not going to get invloved in it since it seems like nothing more than a stupid wheel war. Thanks for bringing AN:I to my attention though. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Erich Fromm

^^James^^, I borrowed the Erich Fromm quote from your page, hope you don't mind.--Tomtom9041 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

James Churchward

^^James^^, I reverted your entry on the entry for my great-grandfather. There is no blatant factual inaccuracy in my posting. Jchurchward (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

^^James^^, the information contained in the links I added are accurate and I will stand by whatever a neutral third-party agrees. First, it was that the information was inaccurate, then you placed comments on my blog attesting to the inaccuracy of my statements, now I am being dramatic and I should not place information on the page because I wrote it. By your logic, I could make a fake account and put the link there and it would be ok; but I already know what happens after that. btw, the information cited is a webpage and not a blog entry.

Face it, you don't like negative information on Acharya S appearing on the internet and you have decided to fight it. Just so you know, James' brother Albert Churchward was also quoted by Acharya S in about the same manner as James, only the number of his citations was greater, so there should be more fodder to publish more blog entries, webpages, podcasts, etc. Now the choice is yours. We can settle it through a neutral third-party or continue to escalate the rhetoric Jchurchward (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)