User talk:Rklawton

Some traces of scam left in Oxyhydrogen article

Hi,

just noticed that the Oxyhydrogen article references US patent 4936961 of Stanley Meyer, and also lists one image from that patent. Given the fraudulent nature of Stanley Meyer's claims (i.e. perpetual motion) these ought to be removed I think. I didn't want to edit the page myself given that I don't have an account and don't understand much of wikipedia policies.

cheers,

David 130.149.19.1 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, just realized that the short 'Automotive' section of Oxyhydrogen already does some criticism. But since the image File:Water_fuel_cell_capacitor.png still isn't referenced in that section, it looks like a leftover from earlier edits. If kept, at least the name Stanley Meyer should be linked for clarity. David 130.149.19.1 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - updated per your suggestions. Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Defused

Hey, hope I replied to your message right haha. Yeah, I might need some help. I'm from Mt. Vernon and I kinda know some of the guys in the band. I've sent an email to Mt. Vernons local newspaper to see if they can do an online article on the band, but that might take a while to get up. XM638 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A local paper will help demonstrate that the band exists, but it won't demonstrate notability beyond local, and that won't be enough. Check out the notability requirements for bands/groups and see if the band can work toward any of those requirements. I listened to some of their music yesterday, and I liked the sound. Rklawton (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You did? =-D Awesome haha, I think they are a pretty cool band.... But hmmm.... what if I had some kind of proof that they were played on KSHE? XM638 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FM Station - very local. Good market, but still local. Rklawton (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all My Pictures? Then doing right If I was wrong

What makes one believe it is right and proper to just take down a photo of myself and my brother? and just what is it that you are implying?, As I recall it was taken on the steps of a townhouse building in New York City in December of 1969, when I was 12 years old, by my then living uncle, and was not taken from any television programme and while it has been used elsewhere with my permmisions, by myself on several varied websites and other media regarding my early work as a child actress RKlawton. Really should it be up to me to prove MY property is MY property?, in fact under the WIKI RULE'S that you know is true, you know well you are allowed to challenge and attempt to prove me otherwise, Please do so without gile threats towards me or my account?,as I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am in my rights to question your action at the least without fear of retribution, when done properly and without malice, or am I wrong, Sir? cathie (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Really Sir, you do not know know me or who I really am,and I only ask for the right to appeal what you have implied?, I am not a liar or a thief and I claim the rights to me in my photograph of in spite of words to the contrary, Surely it is a just a mistake perhaps in the warning, and so you need to know the facts, may I write you at your personal address?, that should satisfy you regarding my claims as fact.

In the days ahead may I post another Photograph but not this specific photo per your specific written warning and letter of the Wiki TOS, is that alright?

The new photograph posted shall be taken from the same time period, and then you shall be able to say perhaps "Gee I was mistaken" to me, and not challenge the new one, all under the fair WIKI rules, Is this acceptable for you Sir, Mr. RKLawton?, In the meanwhile I shall abide as you say. Xie xie --cathie (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture was put up mistakenly, sorry I picked the wrong picture, I better get out my glasses b4 I pick my photos out of my vault! my bad. --cathie (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Think what you will, I hardly ever go to my front page, and only this, my talk is bookmarked by me, and I am telling you the truth, However I shall be correcting my honest mistake on that front page now, with apologys to all around, hoping THAT will that appease you, good day Sir. --cathie (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my eyes had failed in my posting of a picture some years ago, at a page I never look at, are you trying to bait me on a honest mistake?, well Sir, PLEASE assume good faith and think otherwise?, as being mean and hurtful to me is not the answer, Please I beg, this not like before when we debated about Lincoln before you became a Administrator Sir, I respect you! and so it is with respect and respectfully I am asking you to grant me leave to go as I grant you your due, and say goodnight and good day, and peace.... my old "debating" friend? --cathie (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't hurt me anymore I am half blind and struggle even to type a few words, soon will be using a brallie computer as my eyesight loss is QUITE degenerative, may u at least pity me! I am very sorry for putting up the wrong picture and pray you will give me some dignity and allow me to say goodbye for now, Sir. --cathie (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

please go to my commons talk page, it has the specific information on what to delete, which is all but two photographs. i trust sincerely we can get off to a fresh and new start RK, Please note I did as you asked, and right away.--cathie (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you to do. What I asked was perfectly reasonable - and something most users do automatically. Rklawton (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

what you aSKED ME TO DO I WILL DO as you requested, I am currently in a state of shock and need a few hours to prepare everything before I attempt to deo everything just as you ask, I AM ONLY ASKING YOU to give me untill usa monday to do all as you require, will you not give me this small amount of time RK, PLEASE I BEG OF YOU! --cathie (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You've made claims that I'm harassing you in your talk page comments. Is that true? Have I forced you to upload images you don't own? Have I forced you to claim these images as your own? Have I forced you to add links to your own websites to articles? Have I forced you to invent quotes to support your arguments? Or is it harassment that I simply help administer Wikipedia and help keep people like you from filling it with false information? If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, I suggest you keep civil in all your communications. Rklawton (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish to continue editing at the Wikipedia portion of wiki and I promise to keep civil but it is not very nice to see people ganging up on an innocent girl, and that would be me, here's why....

I cannot help it if my Uncle Malachi left me an assortment of thousands of photographs and slides and negatives and such and then I published them here and elswhere unknowingly if it was done wrongly, sorry.

Also there has been no intentional lie or fabrication regarding the provenance of the MANY materials I was bequethed in his will, they were published here in good faith with the information I had at the time, I know nothing else about it and I am not a liar Sir, and regardless of others opinions I am as innocent as a new born baby in this at the least, and feel very hurt by certain people passing judgement upon me for just trying to share some material that was passed on to me, for what is wrong with me doing that Sir?

Please, you will do as you will, but due to this situation I have no plans to publish any more at the wikimedia commons anyway unless there is a well deserved apology to me, also I have contributed several photos that were of my own collection that are scans of people, Like the Liccoln death photograph, and others and such over 100 years old and are therefore not subject to copyright laws, and also my created animated stick figure .gif,etc.

I only tried to share with the world good things I was given, or do in fact have ownership rights to...so there is no confession but the simple truth I have just given to Mr. Lupo and to you most especially Sir, Mr. Lawton.

My very best of regards to you, Sir. --cathie (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please do reprimand me as is your duty but it can be done without gile and no threats towards me or my account, If there were "mistakes" on my part in the past, that is where they are, in the past RK! Honestly, Please know that I live a much more serene life now than a long time ago and desire to avoud conflicts, with anyone, most especially you, and even in the back and forth "discussions" last night I have been polite about this entire matter and believe in this particular instance that I am still in my rights to question Authority,yet with a respectful manner?

Please take your actions as you see fit RK, I too wish to empty my wikicommons page of non rights published materials, however there are some I published that are mine, or the copyright has lapsed by 100 years and should not be removed, but do not know what to do or understand how to do it to make it look right, I tried to but I am at a loss and cannot fathom the hows and wherebys of doing it.

As to my wiki editing I should not have a fear of retribution from anyone, because since I was suspended that last time, several years ago I have learned proper manners and have not done anything wrong, and what has been done was donr properly and without malice, I have shown in recent years of times I am a polite, even if I am a closely watched editor.

In conclusion please? ask whoever it is in charge at the commons to get rid of those silly uploaded images as per your order policys?, I want to see them gone too but cannot figure out how and lastly and finally only seek to do the right for the wikipeadia, and our small ball of dust in space and my 875 edits show that at least I tried to help, even if I often failed!, what I did was done to improve a page or give a proper fact about something I really know and give backing evidence from a NPOV, and if my own fantasys sometimes crept into the page, it was because I have been at times over-enthusiastic in my editing, I give you my word that non such has happened of the last couple of years at least, Nor would it ever happen again and it hasn't.

I wanted to be loved...cherished and remembered...and have it said that, "well, at least she tried to make it a better world, even in her own strange yet caring way".

So is this goodbye RK...goodbye?, and truly only the very best of wishes to you, for no matter what you think, and suprisingly as it may sound, I have really always looked up to you RK, Pray for me please that there may be a Heaven so I may go and see my family and friends, I am feeling so lonely and with little hope.--cathie (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, RK? I would ask just one thing, but first I want you to know that I now realise that what I did was wrong, innocent mistake or not in your eyes or those of others I am now all too painfully aware of the mistake, and ask forgiveness in that I be allowed to continue to be allowed to communicate within the wiki community to show you and others that I am a valued Wikipedia editor at times and have turned in to administrators edits by those who had done them malicously and when I saw an error on a date regarding a person or an issue I put it forth and corrected it whenever I could I do help!, please do not ban me, I swear an outh to you I shall do the right things and not allow myself to be a burden on your time, and only a asset to the community, is my plea. Most sincerely to you RKLawton and the wiki's as a whole. Cathie --cathie (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am quite tired of arguing about this , howabout we just sit tight? I will have the photographs up you demand and then everyone will be happy?, what I wrote last night at the commons was out of shear fatigue from being on the chopping block wrongly, I said I was sorry for my mistakes of the long past, but It is hard to take it when misundertandings, about me must be listened to, and listen to these storys which are not true in essence from my perspective Sir, without at least trying to stand up for the truth as far as I know it, and I would like to continue as an editor and am being very polite about the entire matter, I am just askiong, pleading and trying to make ammends RK, and am not questioning your authority, nor making any legal threats or anything unkind to you or anyone Sir! , I though that maybe we could better sort things out with a mediation , which is not disrepecting you as a Administrator, but I only want to do the right things on WIKI in a NPOV way with you and everyone, Again I am sorry Sir , I wont let you down this time, I know my very place here is in danger of being eliminated and I think after you see my photographs and other proofs that then when you know all the facts we can be friends! How I wish we could just talk on the phone, then you would know by my voice my sincerity in what I am saying to you here, and no disrespect is meant at all and I only want to be a good wiki, and make you all proud of me. --cathie (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Each time I call your bluff, you collapsed like a house of cards. You most certainly haven't been placed on the "chopping block" wrongly. Indeed, four days and several deleted images later, it's obvious I'm doing a service to Wikipedia and Commons - one expected of an administrator. Given your history of "mistakes" I'm amazed you don't see that as well. Never mind the trolling (re: Bush), never mind the shrill "help me!" cries. Wise up, or move on. Rklawton (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

congratulations, i lost my cool and you won. your plan worked well it was just a matter of time before i blew my stack...sorry you could not have been a friend instead of an enemy...good luck and goodbye lawton. i wont see you again! --kathy-treks-on (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Woah, not quite sure how I ended up slapping you with a personal attack template. Either Twinkle screwed up somewhere there or I did. Sorry about that! - Vianello (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I've done the same a few times. Rklawton (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa, was trying to click on an IP edit to an article at my watchlist and accidentally rolled back your user talk. Oops. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Rklawton (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU

FINALLY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION!!!

NOW PLEASE OFFER ME A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR KEEPING THOSE PICS????

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.248 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE EMAIL ME AT mo.sayan@gmail.com

Replied on your IP address' talk page. Rklawton (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King tef

To satisfy my curiosity, please tell me why you undid my cleaning up of this project page. You'll have noticed that I didn't delete any of the information; all I did was bring the page in line with the generally used format. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It must have been an edit conflict. Sorry. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks--no problem. BTW, I listened to one of the speedily deleted King Tef's songs, and learned that when he has his hat tilted he goes clubbing. I'm glad I learned something at AfD. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

His/her

Just noticed that you referred to me with "his/her". You're even more cautious than I am about gender! I once created {{genderneutral}}, but I also often use "he/she". But I've never used it for someone who used a known gender-specific first name. Most people refer to me as "he", but you can refer to me any way you want, I'm not easily offended by such things. — Sebastian 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended. I'll use your preference hereon out, so long as I don't forget. Rklawton (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, don't worry - I didn't write this because of any preference. I just felt I found a kindred spirit who also cares about these things. — Sebastian 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad

It's not a legitimate question, it's trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are welcome to the trolls. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the viewing of deleted articles

Hey, thanks for the offer. I was wondering if you could restore a few article to my talk archive so i can see excatly what condition the article was in before they were deleted (I believe they are more than notable now). If its not too much trouble could you copy:

The most current version of List of big-bust models and performers to User talk:Valoem/deleted/List of big-bust models and performers

And if possible the best version of Allie Sin/Naughty Nati (at your discretion) to User talk:Valoem/deleted/Allie Sin. Valoem ^talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your request is reasonable. However, my personal preference is to not assist in the creation or promotion of articles such as these. No doubt some other administrator would be willing to assist. With regard to the subject's notability, I have no opinion. Rklawton (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Skull and Bones

Same editor pulling same nonsense at Prescott Bush. THF (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Idiots

Sorry, I had somehow overlooked that I was editing your user page instead of your talk page. Normally, I do not edit other users' user pages (unless absolutely necessary). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Great quote. Rklawton (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I have made use of your editing statistics for comparison purposes only at User:Tyrenius/THF#Collect_and_Rklawton re. this post at AN/I. There is no suggestion whatsoever that you have any involvement in any sockpuppetry. Ty 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to use check-user if you like. Rklawton (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitic conspiracy theory/Henry Ford

Wow, talk about scrubbing. Why did you revert that? Do you not want to know where the dreaded 'anti-semitic conspiracy theories' originated from? Because I can tell you for a fact it was Henry Ford that brought it into worldwide circulation. Are you denying that happened as well, or does it bother your collective conscience as an American?84.28.82.149 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place for cranks or conspiracy theorists Hey dude, if you are DENYING that it was Ford that put that stuff out, YOU ARE THE CRANK, OK? Get past your ego and admit the fact you MAY NOT KNOW A WHOLE LOT. Ok, bubba? Go to Henry Ford's page - it's even on there.

Sheesh, talk about the blind leading the blind.84.28.82.149 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also not a talk page for Henry Ford - speaking of blind. Rklawton (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What a deceptive little creature you are indeed. Assuming good faith - eh? You deliberately scrubbed that because it sheds a little light on where all these race hygiene theories originated from - from your dear little country, that's where. That doesn't fit well with you, does it? So you want to create the perception to your readers that I AM THE CRANK and CONSPIRACY THEORIST, when Wikipedia's own article on Henry Ford includes that stuff about the Protocols of Zion as well.84.28.82.149 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye. Rklawton (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Any ANI complaint best comes from you, but I have compiled a list of diffs on the subject. The resignation is in Archive520. THF (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the implicit compliment, but I do not have admin tools. THF (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your two messages

Thank you for fixing the fixing the Image copyright problem for me. Also, regarding the cluster bomb, that seems to be not a problem anymore. If it turns out to be one, could you please post it at WT:SLR as I'm usually not active here anymore. — Sebastian 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I hope you are well. Unfortunately, I'm not monitoring those articles, so I won't be aware of any problems. While I admire your approach, to foster greater tolerance and understanding, my approach is more pragmatic: block persistent troublemakers, and so I'm probably not the best person to take over your work. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I am well, but I am taking an indefinite wikibreak because of something I learned from the recent event on WP:AN. I now understand the sock scare, which I had previously seen as a form of mass hysteria, as a natural consequence of a shift of Wikipedia's priorities. I started writing a bit which I may eventually post as an essay; if you're interested I can send you the draft. — Sebastian 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Send it along when you're ready. Rklawton (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of 'authority'

Not to burst your petty little power trip, but it isn't exactly fair game to ban someone just because he was right and you were proven wrong. When someone accuses another of being an 'anti-semite' just because the ADL has labelled him as such, I want to point out to to the Wikipedia audience that however horrible it may be, 'anti-semitism' actually originated from the United States, not Nazi-Germany, though it later adopted it from the likes of Madison Grant and Charles Davenport. Wikipedia's own article on Henry Ford states as much, yet when I bring it up in a Talk section, I get accused by the likes of you for vandalism and banned.

It is the sheer height of hypocrisy that you can go around calling people like me a 'crank' and 'conspiracy theorist', yet I get BANNED by you just because I call you a 'deceptive little creature', which you clearly have demonstrated you are. You can CALL ME all sorts of names, yet I in return am not allowed that privilege. You are deliberately colluding with THF and Collect (two other sockpuppets on Prescott Bush's page) to get rid of as much 'inconvenient' information as possible. Perhaps it's just because you're really clueless and really don't know alot - that would be at least the half-way respectable scenario, and the least weighing on your conscience.

You want your audience (who I presume you want to delude, that is, unless you really DID NOT KNOW Henry Ford published The Elders Of Zion) to remain in a paradigm - without ever knowing where anti-semitism originated from and what a joke it is to see the ones who PROMOTED the concept of 'racial purity' and 'Aryan superiority' to Hitler to remain free of persecution. You use that 'ploy', that 'slogan', 'anti-semite', 'crank', as a silencing technique. It's a deceptive con-game, especially when you never get at the heart of the matter - where the anti-semitism came from, who started the ball rolling, and hey, guess what? The source of origin is a very unlikely one, and very unfortunate and inconvenient indeed for the self-righteous Americans always eager to trot out charges of 'anti-semitism'.

Unfortunately for you, and your sources, Prescott Bush's collusion with the Nazis is a well-established fact, and is well-documented in numerous high-profile books on the subject, including Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot. What you have constructed thus far are 'strawmen' arguments and falling back on 'guilt by association'. You peddle establishment sources as the ultimate harbinger of truth, perhaps KNOWING or NOT KNOWING the complete collusion of mainstream news with the establishment. More unfortunate for you, still, is that President Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, the father of JFK and countless other Americans clearly believed in the Nordic/Aryan races' superiority and viewed the Nazis as good. Worse still is that FDR refused to take Jewish refugees from Nazi-Germany. Even worse, university professors were making statements in 1936 to the tune of 'Hitler is beating us at our own game - race hygiene and sterilization'. This is all documented in books such as Edwin Black's 'War Against The Weak' - and don't come with your silly, puny little slogan such as 'conspiracy theorist' just because you don't care and don't want to know.

Unlike you and your petty insults and one-liners, I can back up all these claims with facts and more. I can only conclude that you're a weak-minded yuppie who really does not CARE about the facts, but whether or not you can hang out with your equally deceptive Wikipedians, gain some 'street' credits and keep people in a deceitful paradigm while slandering people who want to break out of your make-believe reality. And of course, being an American, you want to uphold this concocted, grand noble myth that you're the good guys and you fought Nazism. I can only tell you haven't looked into the eugenics history of your own country, or the Royal Institute of Intl. Affairs Conference of 1938. You didn't read Edwin Black's War Against The Weak, haven't you? You haven't read Eugenics And Other Evils by Chesterton, huh?

We live in the information age, sonny. Ignorance is no veil to hide behind - and neither are petty and childish retorts like 'crank', 'anti-semite' or 'conspiracy theorists'. So lose that beard of yours and that smug grin (BTW, not to hurt your ego, but you don't look all that great), quit being so gullible, because I have a newsflash for you, if you keep sticking your head in the sand, you're gonna get hurt real bad too, bubba - by your own masters. The only thing you're doing is discrediting Wikipedia even further by engaging in clear deception.

And if it serves your power trip, go ahead, ban me again. Do what thou wilt. Do your worst, 'bubba'. Show me your power!!!! (ROFLMAO) Your Internet is gonna get shut down soon, bubba, replaced by Internet2, and given the futures market, Jimmy Wales the Wall Street hustler is not going to be there to give it another tug - so there goes your admin privileges. Just know that I don't grovel to the likes of you - I don't bow down and I do not let myself get silenced just because some deluded individual has familiarized himself with a 'slogan' that is somehow intended to put me down. OK, bubba?84.28.82.149 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

THF and Collect have been investigated as socks, but without result. Ford's newspaper published "The Elders of Zion", and this is already in Ford's article. Anti-semitism as a practice goes back at least as far as medieval Poland where the Vatican took exception to Jewish prosperity there. There is no evidence directly linking P. Bush with the Nazis, but that's all on the article's talk page. Name calling will just get you blocked. I'm familiar with eugenics in the U.S. (it didn't originate here), and it's shameful. Your rant is now over for awhile. Bye. Rklawton (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WBC

Unsure of your reason to alter, and basically remove, that section from the WBC page. I didn't quite understand the reason for that section's title ("Announced Protests" seemed fitting for basic entry in "Activities and Statements" due to similarity in content), but I don't see how it can be used to arrive at the assumption that such listings were "to provide a list of announced protests" - instead, I assumed it be used to indicate those that were announced/planned and possibly had not occurred or had yet to occur. Note the wording used in those entries: "WBC threatened to"; "the church declared intent to"; "announced they would".

In other words, it seems that your objection to those entries was based on their potential of use to promote WBC, even with positivity. I'd hope that a concentrated re-reading might leave you with another opinion.

Those listings provided details on actions and statements by WBC that continually made the news, to the point of their being of current history status.

I submitted the last entry to that category, and because it was in today’s news. It also includes reference to other notable and wikied names. Regroce (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you bring this up on the article's talk page so everyone can participate? Rklawton (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

{{user delete}}

Thought you might want to consider adding yourself to Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with that user. Cheers Kyle1278 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Monsoor

First off, there's no reason to get all huffy and butthurt over it. Secondly, I was in error. I was confusing that image with the image that is frequently attributed to being Michael Murphy's MoH. You'd probably be received a lot better if you'd calm down and not resort to threats and flexing of your "muscle." 98.220.54.37 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You removed the image twice. After the first time, I explained that you should examine the image's exif data to verify the image's attribution. Somehow this appeal to reason failed on you, and you removed the image again. Threatening to block you got your attention where reason did not. Some people respond well to reason. People with limited mental capacity tend to respond better to threats - as in your case. Rklawton (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. As an administrator you should be well versed in policy, and should know that implying that I have "limited mental capacity" is a blatant personal attack and should be removed from your page. I'm afraid that i'm going to have to report you if it is not removed. Remember to comment on content, not the contributor. 98.220.54.37 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing this matter can see that you started it (top). Nor after searching will they find any evidence supporting the notion I was in error. You certainly made no claim my assessment of your edits has been in error. Now, go whine somewhere else. Rklawton (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note explaining the error instead of a threat of blocking probably would've gone a long way in resolving this without issue. Your comments on someone's supposed limited mental capacity are clearly inappropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I carefully and politely explained the editor's careless error in the edit summary. It resulted in "edit warring" (reverting without comment). The threat got much better results. The comment you found objectionable was in response to the editor's own insults. Rather than block him for harassment, I returned the favor. As for the AN/I remember, just because someone makes a fuss - doesn't mean they've got a valid point. Some folks go through life raising a stink to get their own way because it works for them. I do not walk on egg shells for anyone. If someone wants to behave like an ass, I'll treat them like an ass. Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't a substitute for discussion...especially week old edit summaries. A note on the users talk page saying "Yes - it is HIS medal of honor (read the EXIF data)" probably would've been more successful. His original message here wasn't a good way to start a civil conversation, but that doesn't make your response any more appropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have been a week old, but it was only three edits above his. And leaving notes a day later on an IP's talk page is often a waste of time. You've suggested the editor walk away from this one. I suggest you do the same. Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. To hell with AGF and CIVIL. No room for polite warnings. Your only options were to respond in kind or block him (Seriously, do you think blocking should even have been even remotely considered an option?) I'll take my leave now since you aren't interested. Have a nice day. --Onorem♠Dil 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"The threat got much better results". I find this comment worrying. Blocking people straight away might yield even better results, however that's *not* how trivial content disputes are or should be resolved on Wikipedia. Your role as a sysop is not that of a super editor imbued with the power of the last word. Equendil Talk 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the power to block disruptive editors; I have done and will continue to do so. In this case, I simply warned the editor that the path he/she was on was leading toward a block. There was no content dispute. The editor repeatedly removed information from an article, the editor ignored the comment explaining his or her mistake, the editor chose to revert again without comment, and I warned the editor accordingly. In response, the editor posted insults to my talk page. It's not complicated. The fact that the editor filed an inappropriate AN/I lends no validity to his or her complaint. Indeed, it lends significant credibility to my theory that this is a contentious editor who indeed rates another warning. Rklawton (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

In case you missed it, you are being discussed here. --Tom (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

About that, since no one else has done it yet I've come here to advise you that making personal attacks isn't allowed. You know that, so don't do it. My advice would be to apologise. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It was in response to a personal attack. Would you suggest I just block the user for harassment instead, or should I just suck it up? See also above. Rklawton (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know as well as anyone that incivility does not excuse incivility, merely explains it. You also know that using the tools in the middle of a conflict you're already involved in isn't so good either. *shrug* Looks like you were screwed either way. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first part. As far as the second assumption - there was no conflict (or dispute). The editor deleted content from an article (vandalism - or an honest mistake) and reverting without comment (edit warring). If he/she had continued along that path, I would have blocked him/her - exactly as I warned him/her on his/her talk page. As far as the article itself goes, I've had no part in writing it (no vested interest so no conflict/dispute). My involvement with that article (as it is with thousands of others) has been limited to formatting, grammar, and fixing vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So then really, this was just a phrase taken too far about a user that "just didn't seem to be getting it"? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you rephrase the question above? I'm not sure what you mean. Rklawton (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what exactly was his personal attack? Explain please. Also suggesting that you could block him for "harrasment" because he complianed about your behaviour is clearly oversterpping the mark.Theresa Knott | token threats 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to block for a harassing AN/I report. The harassment (personal attack) came from the editor's first post to my talk page which followed my warning on the editor's own talk page. I wouldn't hesitate to block for harassment, nor would most admins. I wouldn't block for an AN/I report even if it was abusive because of the conflict of interest - and other admins can easily identify an abusive AN/I and take appropriate action. In this case the AN/I was inappropriate(rather than abusive), and other admins have noted it as such. Rklawton (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously that's not harassment and it's not a PA. It's a rudely worded reply after a threat to block. I suggest that you take another look tomorrow when things have calmed down and you'll see it in a different light Theresa Knott | token threats 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It boils down to incivility, and that's what his post on my talk page was - uncivil. And I read it exactly as a personal attack - from a person actively engaged in removing correct information from an article and edit warring - and it rated my blocking him. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and now he's actively engaged in wasting your time. Rklawton (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep it does. He was uncivil. Being uncivil is not the same as making a personal attack no matter how you choose to read it. He was uncivil, you made a personal attack. You are an admin and so especially shouldn't do that. You have been told repeatedly by several different people that you response was innaproriate yet you appear to be incapable of even considering that you may have overstepped the line. Let me just point you to WP:NPA policy. It's policy. You don't do it. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Making negative references to someone's sexual orientation - whether accurate or otherwise - constitutes a personal attack in this and most other cultures. And several administrators have noted this fact. The fact that you have made no NPA warnings or warnings of any sort to the other editor - and in fact have sought only to appease him/her - shows a remarkable lack of judgment on your part. Go play out your petty Wiki-dramas somewhere else. You have no credibility here. Rklawton (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am only getting slight sexual overtones, and it took a few reads to get that. Nevertheless, the minute you referred to them as "dimished mental capacity", it was over the line - remember in sports, it's the retaliation that gets the foul. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: The post that may have been uncivil by them is attributed to an IP address...I can go and warn the IP if you would like. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a sport. I don't play games. The IP/editor has already admitted to making each of the mistakes I've noted, so I do not think an additional warning over this matter is warranted. If you wish to provide further guidance to anyone, then consider reviewing all the various AN/I and talk page edits and consider whether the various participants created an entirely unnecessary Wiki-drama over a matter that was properly and appropriately closed. Rklawton (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Making a complaint about an admin isn't creating wikidrama. Disagreement isn't drama. People use the word wikidrama far too often. As for the sexual overtones I'm assuming you are referring to the word "butthurt"? The correct response would have been "don't use that word when talking to me" and you know that. And yes I warned you and not him because you sre a bloody admin and should know better, and you had already threatened to block him inappropriately ( and yes I did look and it was inappropriate). Anyway, I have said my bit. It's clear that you tnik you know best and couldn't care less what others think. Any disagreement is drama and so can be dismissed. So be it. Just don't do it again. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes one or two of you who like to waggle fingers at admins and several more who disagree with you - believing the AN/I report wasn't appropriate and that the matter was handled sufficiently by simply pointing out the obvious to each party. All of which supports my notion that you're the drama queen - one apparently experienced in hearing that term "far too often". Rklawton (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe because it's because I have been here so long? Ah yes I remember the good old days when admins didn't make personal attacks, and if they slipped and did so, had the decency to apologise instead of accusing others of wikidrama for pointing out their error.Theresa Knott | token threats 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the ANI, I believed that the issue was dealt with ... all I was waiting for was rklawton to simply post in the ANI thread saying "read, understood" and we were allllll done. Yes, rklawton was uncivil. Agreeably, it was retaliation, but that's a side thing. This needs go no further unless the actitiy starts again. Indeed, I expect the other editor might do a little needling to see if rklawton will react - let's hope not. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

misfiled ANI comment

One of your CoM comments (02:54) has strayed into the Mattisse thread. I can't move it because I don't know where it belongs. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up,and sorry about that. You can delete it as misplaced. When I couldn't find it, I assumed an edit conflict, and I re-created it in the correct location. Rklawton (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Spirituality

Hmm... thanks for looking. Nothing visible to you? Re my one of my style pages, this is a very secure machine, in a secure location, updated daily with norton. I've check my css's etc and there's nothing there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Spirituality is the only page (wikipedia or elsewhere)that shows the self-serving Zack text, and yes, my caches etc have been flushed and rechecked. I'll explore mediawiki a bit and see if I can see how it's done. Csalmon (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Let's start with apples/oranges (are we looking at the same file). I've got 688 lines of source code for Portal:Spirituality. What's your count? Rklawton (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)