Altering/removing my comment to make a point is not the same thing as removing edits by a banned editor, please don't do that. Historian of Logic was not "blocked", as an account, but was banned as a person when he made that post. It is nothing personal, I removed all his posts. I am sorry if I sounded patronizing, but I think my tone was subconsciously in response to the tone of your initial post here. [[User:Chillum|Chillum]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:Chillum|Ask me]])</sup></small> 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Altering/removing my comment to make a point is not the same thing as removing edits by a banned editor, please don't do that. Historian of Logic was not "blocked", as an account, but was banned as a person when he made that post. It is nothing personal, I removed all his posts. I am sorry if I sounded patronizing, but I think my tone was subconsciously in response to the tone of your initial post here. [[User:Chillum|Chillum]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:Chillum|Ask me]])</sup></small> 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:You really are a waste of space Chillum. How on Earth can you block people? Crazy. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 03:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have my e-mail disabled due to abuse. If you want to send me a confidential message then here is my gpg public key: User talk:Chillum/GPG Public Key.
Note: Sometimes people post uncivil comments on my page. If you don't wish to be exposed to them simply add this line to your monobook.css:
.uncivil {background-color:black;}
Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
"exactly what is the plan to replace this image? WTF is the logic here?"
I think you should wait for the result of your current RFC before making any further decisions about fair use. Sorry for the unnecessarily colorful "WTF". Chillum(Need help? Ask me)18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my way of telling you that you should be listening to what the community is telling you. Being "right" is nice, but unless the community agrees then being right is not enough in a collaborative environment. This is an issue that is open to more than one interpretation, not an objective measurement. It was also my way of apologizing for my salty acronym. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chillum - is this still the right place for Name Watcher Bot requests? Just noticed that the request page is set as different from the talk page (which redirects here to your talk). Thanks. 723:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additions to the patterns it searches for can be discussed here, and the patterns themselves are here. The page you posted on is to request new features. It already supports regular expressions. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm becoming quite frustrate with User:Off2riorob and would like to ask for advice from someone who has interacted with this user in the past. After a previous Wikiquette alert and a discussion at AN/I, Off2riorob followed me today to an article where he or she was not involved to make personal attacks: "COi, is an essay, it is not big deal, there appears to be a lot of opinionated discussion here on the talk page, wikipedia is not an excuse to assert negatively on people that would intellectually eclipse us."
The statement was clearly directed at me and the timing leaves no room for doubt that harassment was the sole intended effect. As I learned from other users when I first encountered Off2riorob, this sort of thing is happening regularly. Can anything be done about it or do I just grin and bear? Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If deleting the section is the best way to resolve the proximate issue, then yes. (Another admin had already redacted the problematic edit that you reported - any further discussion at ANI would have generate more heat than light). –xenotalk13:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If deleting the section is the best way to resolve the proximate issue, then yes. I cannot for the life of me imagine how removing that thread will resolve the issue though. The last advice I gave Roux was to try to ignore Malleus and that if Malleus kept following him around taking shots then someone would notice and report it and something would be done about it. I am not sure what Roux can do other than respond to Malleus if we try to resolve the issue by not talking about it. I attempted to warn Malleus to not take shots at Roux but it was not received well. Often an attempt to avoid short term drama leaves the real problem to fester without scrutiny. Perhaps it is just a different definition of "resolved", to me just because the attack was removed does not mean there is not an ongoing pattern of such targeting. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug it off only works if uninvolved people defend you. "Shrug it off and we are going to do nothing" results in a hostile work environment. We don't have civility and personal attack policies so that we can power trip over strong headed editors, we have it so that we don't have our other editors driven off by nastiness. Your proposed solution is no solution at all and shifts all of the problem onto those receiving personal attacks. Ignoring personal attacks is noble but we should not require it of our editors just to work here, we should defend each other. We have been ignoring violations of policy to avoid drama for so long, but we don't see that the sum of the drama created through ignoring it is far greater than the drama we would have to suffer just dealing with it. This is like an endless addition of zeros. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get it. Doesn't ANI work on consensus like everyplace else? If one (or two) admins think the best way to deal with a problem is to sweep it under the rug does that automatically mean that's the consenus? Obviously you thought it was enough of an issue to raise on the user's talk page. If Xeno et. al. just wants to post it's best ignored I have no problem with that -- but just deleting the posting seems uncivil. Is this something that is commonly done? Gerardw (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three admins thought it best that we didn't have yet another shitfest. Someone might disagree that it wasn't the best way to deal with it - that's fine. Chillum is quite obviously in the "actively deal with it" camp. But as for the general question of removing the ANI thread? Happens all the time. Editors don't have some sort of inherent "right" to start any thread they want. Tan | 3915:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think in this case the fact that an admin had already redacted the comment in question and the offending user seemingly was OK with that (not having restored it), that an ANI dustup likely wouldn't have lead to anything productive. The removal of your report should not be taken as an affront to you. –xenotalk15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the next time you think something should be ignored, then ignore it instead of removing it. If someone thinks an issue is worth discussion then you should not override that without a good reason. You think discussion would not be productive, but others think added scrutiny is exactly what is needed. This incident was not in a vacuum but is part of a larger pattern, so being reverted does not really resolve anything. You can have a difference of opinion on the value of a discussion, but others will have their opinions on the value of the discussion to. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough, you had a good reason in your mind. However I will tell you now that you did not prevent any drama, you just drove it underground. It will be back later with stiff interest charges because the issue was never resolved. I am not against the idea of removing unhelpful threads, I just don't think pointing out an ongoing pattern of targeting a user is unhelpful. The last time Malleus came out of nowhere to take a jab at Roux it provoked Roux into a nasty response and they were both blocked, I want to avoid that. My advice was that if he ignored Malleus that the community would protect him. I would like it if that advice was accurate and not just a crazy dream of mine. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum wasn't even involved in the ANI issue; Gerardw came here because he knew Chillum would be sympathetic. Again, regardless of how one might feel about this specific situation, removing ANI threads is relatively common and there isn't a "civility" issue with doing so. Tan | 3915:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was involved in the previous ANI issue about the exact same thing, that is likely where my name came from. I am indeed sympathetic to anyone attacked on Wikipedia, it has happened to me and if I was not defended by the community I would have likely stopped coming here. I don't want a Wikipedia where the nasty users have pushed away the sensitive users, I have been on websites where this has happened and it kind of sucks. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Came here because Chillum had posted a warning about the same edit reporting on the talk page. So ANI does not work on consensus model, but it's just a matter of who is first to market on seeing the posting? Gerardw (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Gerardw, there is pretty much nothing I can do about this situation. I don't suggest you "get over it" as I think we should strive for something a little better, but I guess "pick your battles" would be good advice. I wish there was more I could do. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum. You've been very helpful. It does seems to me we're falling short of the vision [[2]]. Sorry to drag the WP:DRAMA to your talk page -- do you think Tan is monitoring you or me? Anyway, now that I know the answer, the solution is obvious -- attempt to ascertain which admins are active before posting to ANI. Gerardw (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have spoken with Tan and Xeno on this talk page numerous times over the years so that is likely why I am on their watchlists. I find them to both be reasonable people. Reasonable people often disagree, but at least they can disagree reasonably. Thank you also for being reasonable today. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)16:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to note for the record that the removal was complete and utter bullshit. I was told by many "Just ignore Malleus, someone else will deal with it," only to find that he shows up again out of nowhere to attack me (hey! that sounds familiar, is it possible it's happened before? naaaaah, couldn't be...), and nobody does one goddamn thing about it except for a warning that he ignored anyway. So I put it to all of you.. what exactly am I supposed to do when this sort of thing happens? Ignore the personal attacks? That will only happen if admins actually do something. Since admins have no interest in doing anything, I must deal with it myself.. which, invariably, gets me blocked because admins are far too lazy to actually do something about the situation, and instead merely shut up whoever is yelling louder. So... yeah, what exactly am I supposed to do? One notes, also, that I was blocked for telling someone to fuck off but Malleus was not. Fascinating, that. → ROUX₪17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct to be a bit annoyed at this Roux. I am also annoyed because the current environment is hostile to the idea of even and consistent enforcement of the no personal attack policies. The idea that certain people are just to dramatic to deal with has crept in and gained a foot hold. People not only believe that these users cannot be dealt with, but their belief causes them to reinforce this effect. I am frankly sick of it and will celebrate the day where we have no "special exemptions" to our policies in an attempt to avoid drama. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. If you wanted "no special exemptions", you'd have warned Roux about his recent behavior same as Malleus. You have your favorites too, Chillum. Tan | 3918:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get your facts straight, I just the other day declined Roux's unblock request because I felt his attacks warranted a block[3]. I am not playing favourites. I have done exactly what you suggested I should have done. Interesting use of the word "too" though. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or he recognised that there is a fundamental difference between appearing out of nowhere to attack someone, and being pissed off in response. One of those actions deserves censure, the other does not. Admins tend to get them backwards, unfortunately. → ROUX₪18:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in that one thread you were right. Fine, I give you that. You've been a Class AAA Douche since you came back, tho, and if anyone is gonna bitch about admins and NPA enforcement, it damn well shouldn't be you. Don't get me wrong, I don't give a fuck about your or Malleus' shit-throwing contest, but I do think the answer should be that you both STFU about it, rather than crying that enforcement isn't handed out evenly, or to whoever you want it to be handed to, or whatever hurt your feelings. There are a thousand active admins, of course there's gonna be uneven enforcement. Tan | 3918:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fine then. As someone who has been on the receiving end of more bullshit (and punitive--that's not supposed to be allowed, is it?) blocks than a reasonable person should have to undergo, I am indeed in a position to bitch about NPA enforcement. Particularly when others remain unblocked for shit that would have me on a week-long vacation. It's not that enforcement is uneven, it is that it is consistently uneven. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution, Tan. Pick one. → ROUX₪18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, as usual) It's simply not true the community ignored MF's last provocation. One editor (yours truly) posted on ANI, another removed the remark from WQA and Chillum posted a warning. In fact, if we believe MFs last statement on his talk page, he's left, apparently as a result of the ANI post and Civility warning. Your (Roux) behavior -- throwing accusations and profanity around, escalates the situation rather than de-escalating it. Your comment MF responded to an WQA (paraphrase) yes I can't read I'm an idiot was itself snarky and unhelpful. Did you really expect a good outcome from that?
I came here questioning the ANI comment removing because I didn't know that was part of how ANI works. I may disagree with that (probably do, in fact). But continuing to engage those we disagree with non-productivity doesn't help. As Tan said there are 1000's of admins working for free so it's not realistic to expect some sort of perfect consistency. More importantly, I can't control other's behavior but I can control my own. So I simply try to ask myself before each post will this (hopefully, possibly) increase the WP civility quotient or reduce it. Maybe I don't always get it right, but when I know I'm going to get it wrong, I rephrase or take a break or just let it go. Gerardw (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unbiased administrators
Out of curiosity, do you have some written statements or policies of how to prevent cases where administrators favor certain users in solving disputes ? --PtBg (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasons for your irony. However, could you give any practical advice if something similar happens, where could someone at least discuss it, or request unbiased opinion ? --PtBg (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have countless locations to discuss disagreements. The correct venue really relates to the nature of the problem. If you think an admin has exceeded their authority then that is one thing, if someone deleted your article and you disagree then that is another venue all together. I can't really point you in the correct direction without more information. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can try to make friends and allies with those who have tools, try to get them yourself, or put up with a lot of harassing bullshit. Most of the good editors here suffer biased enforcements from admins who look out for their buddies and go after those they disagree with. It's part of the fun! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be beyond the aim of wikipedia ... unfortunately. Wikipedia could only function when people are good willing, and they really want to reach consensus. However, from the small touch recently with obsessive users, the fun wikipedia stops existing. Such users turn wikipedia into just another project, and the credibility of it suffers. I have the strong suspicion that wikipedia is just a free course of rhetoric and nothing more than this. --PtBg (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you mean by "function". Contentious areas are governed by a Lord of the Flies type Law of the jungle. But there are still opportunities for collegial collaboration amongst the adults that don't run around bashing people with their "tools", or baiting and harassing those they disagree with. Trying to work on anything political or disputed is extraordinarily difficult, and provides the opportunity to undergo awesome trials of patience while trying to maintain one's grip so as not to go insane. Self medicating may help, but I think it's best to just keep it all in perspective as a MMPORG or some kind of strange Orwellian nightmarish dystopia. It's Wikipedia's version of the Odyssey. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of the patience is it costs time/money, i.e. I don't want to turn my wikipedia fragile interest into a full time job. I try to write only proven facts. However, when someone comes and deletes these facts, it becomes kindergarten wikipedia edit game. --PtBg (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to communicate with any admin you have a disagreement with and if you cannot come to an agreement then to seek further outside scrutiny. If the issue is the deletion of an article then Wikipedia:Deletion review is a good place to start. While there are issues with admins playing favorites I don't think that has anything to do with this situation, and ChildofMidnights advice to essentially join a cabal is probably best disregarded. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)20:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, of course I will search the dialog as always. (But after working on it for so little, I understand why the academia dont accept wikipedia as a source, it is not the truth which is leading, but the opinion of those who know how to use it).--PtBg (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw what else would you recommend when a request for 3rd party opinion is refused and deleted. From my point of view unjustified. The dispute is between two editors, and the request is refused because it was declared as "incivil". I couldn't follow such request deletion, and I don't know of other opportunities. --PtBg (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias should never be a source for a serious academic, paper or otherwise. At most an encyclopedia is a starting point for serious research. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are also less likely to get help when a post like "So, shall I understand that the aim of deleting the requested third party opinion is to protect the user Megistias, and his approach ?!?" is your first communication with another editor. The simple willingness to assume good faith on the part of other editors will get you farther in what is being miscalled a jungle. --204.194.251.5 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Blenheim Palace was brought up on that talk page, but I headed over and found it interesting. I expressed an interest in it, now I face a chance that I'll be banned from it! See the thread on WP:AN#Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy, which got closed off due to general confusion and chaos, but which will apparently be reopened in 24 hours. Go figure huh? As you were the one being baited, you might want to keep an eye out on WP:AN for the next few days, I have no doubt that either Equazcion or Unitanode will be making another attempt, and in the last attempt that was made Unitanode expressed a desire to make bans on the talk page, ostensibly because he says that AN/I is a drama fest. Which I don't believe for a second, as I believe that he wanted to have a maximum chance of teaching me a lesson.
What a lot of drama and angst would have been avoided if Chillum had followed my advice and protected the page from team tagging ect. Never mind, doubtless Chillum had his reasons. Giano 09:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if I had protected the page so you could have your way in a content dispute then there would be less drama. I know when you get your way there is less drama. I am not going to start using my tools to favor a side in a content dispute to avoid more of your drama though. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you said you were going to be disengaging from me, or was this a lie? I have not messaged you, nor have I discussed you, but you seem to be popping up on messages I post to others. Why is that? Are you a liar? I only ask this because you have made repeated accusations that I am one, but it seems that you are not being honest yourself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking it over I don't think you have to worry about anything. While some people are taking this opportunity to take shots at you for doing your job as an admin, the majority of the community sees how baseless these accusations and the attempt to topic ban you are. You didn't do anything wrong Tbsdy, this is what the community always does to admins who attempt to enforce community expectations without preferential treatment to our untouchables. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emails to Unitanode
I'm not sure where exactly the off-wiki spamming accusation is. I didn't read Tbsdy's lengthy explanation of events. I'm assuming the email exchange between myself and Unitanode are what's being referred to, and are under suspicion now. I'm answering here because I feel this is a side issue that will likely turn into a lengthy tangent if placed in the thread at AN.
My emails with Unitanode concerned
letting him know I intended to post a new proposal following the 24 hour break, and asking him if he wanted to collaborate on the wording of the proposal, which he declined
my request to Unitanode that he try not to allow himself to be baited into long drama exchanges as he did in other threads with Tbsdy, as it muddies the waters
That's pretty much it. I'm not too thrilled at the suspicion that private emails were some sort of conspiracy attempt, or that an administrator took those rather unfounded and paranoid suspicions seriously. But there you have it. Equazcion(talk) 15:35, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I confirm that the above summarizes well the entire off-wiki exchange between myself and Equazcion. I've grown tired of having Tbsdy deflect and spin every concern raised about how he comported himself toward Giano. I was beyond frustrated with him, so in the interest of not giving Tbsdy myself as a target to deflect criticism towards, I decided to simply defer the drafting of the proposal to Equa. Interestingly, that didn't deter Tbsdy from attempting to deflect by smearing me, but I guess it was worth a shot. Scottaka UnitAnode15:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can "Wow. Just wow." all you want, Tbsdy. You've consistently muddied the waters regarding how you treated Giano. Even to this point, you refuse to acknowledge that what you did at that talkpage was wrong. It has to end. Scottaka UnitAnode16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean :) If you have a problem with that communication then please do explain. Otherwise the flabbergasted responses don't really do any good :) Equazcion(talk) 16:09, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Soooo, you attempted to talk off wiki to seek collaboration for a proposal against TB, and the party you contacted declined to do so. But you also want to deny the idea that any sort of conspiracy or attempt at conspiracy took place?
It is fine if you want to try to talk in private about proposing collaboration against someone(I am being generous with the word "fine" here), but please do not take offense when someone accuses you of trying to talk about them behind their back to plan against them. It is hardly a smear to point out what you yourself admit to attempting. It is not really paranoia when you are correct. I know exactly what tbsdy means what he says "Wow. Just wow.". Chillum(Need help? Ask me)22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the only accusation is attempting to talk about someone behind their back, then I admit that 100%. I don't see that as something to gasp about. I'm pretty sure I've been discussed via emails between other users before, and I see it as neither a policy violation nor something to be upset over. If you are, then I suppose that's your prerogative, but not my concern. Equazcion(talk) 22:57, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Who said I am upset? You came to me, I didn't come to you. I have no emotional investment in this issue. I am not sure what other accusation has been made other than the one you admit 100%, in fact I remember only a question about your off-wiki involvement and not any accusation at all. Perhaps I missed it, I have not followed this dispute around so it is entirely possible.
I do find it a bit contrary that you seek off-wiki collaboration against a wikipedian to respond to perceived harassment, it seems sort of like a worse example of what you are accusing him of. Perhaps it is just my vantage point. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the figurative/collective "you", not you personally. Tbsdy's comments at the ban proposal regarding off-wiki activity seemed rather accusatory, but likewise, perhaps that's just my vantage point. If it wasn't an accusation of wrongdoing then it probably wasn't relevant and I don't think it should've been mentioned there.
I sought off-wiki collaboration out of respect. It seemed ballsish to stick my drafting a ban proposal and collaboration on it in the subject's face, or at least in public where he can see, as if it were some innocuous article, and seems it would've only served to brew more hostility in the interim.
Off-wiki collaboration has nothing to do with this dispute, so I don't see how the emailing would be a similar infraction. Harassment is when you try to communicate with someone and get into their business, not when you attempt to hide something from them. Those seem rather opposite to me. But again that could just be my vantage point. Equazcion(talk) 23:19, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I am really not sure what either of you are seeking. I suspect TB pointed out such behavior because it was a mirror of the behavior that he was being accused of. If you make it more clear what you want from me then perhaps I can help you, but I think it is clear that we have different opinions on this issue. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want anything from you. I posted a response here to your question about the emails' contents from the ban proposal. Equazcion(talk) 23:36, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
3rd opinions requests require an assumption of good faith on behalf of both parties. He did not refuse to talk about it, he gave a good reason for removing your request. 3rd opinion is not the place to contest a deletion, but rather a place to resolve a deadlock between two willing parties. I suggest deletion review if you want to challenge a deletion, but be sure that your challenge has a basis in policy or it will surely be rejected. I am not sure what you are talking about when you refer to a "most authoritative institution" so I won't comment on that. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not clear to me how an agreement in good faith could be achieved when one of the parties constantly sabotages the discussion? (Did you mean with "most authoritative institution" my complain that someone behaved like an ultimate authority: "That is it, and no discussion anymore"). I know it is natural, but it was only proved that the longer known party has more credibility than the newcomers, although the old party obviously defends a very narrow view point. Final result was that by refusing my request, and leaving the untouched statements of the other party, was that opinions/facts from newcomers (although supported with references) will not be given any chance ...
Another issue (this is more wikipedia issue, rather than related to the discussion): how do I know that deleting my (3rd party) request is not done by a random guy? . --PtBg (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that good faith can be achieved "when one of the parties constantly sabotages the discussion". I am saying that the third opinion service is only practical when both sides are assuming good faith. I also said you can go to WP:DRV where there is no requirement that you and the person you disagree with come to a compromise. You ask how you know if something is done by some random guy, just go to the talk page and you can see a button called "User contributions". Authority on Wikipedia comes from the community and it is the job of every Wikipedian to enforce the collective standards of our encyclopedia. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your opinion. Actually I was asking what would you do in my place? You are suggesting use the deletion page, WP:DRV, but not knowing all policies, I will most probably fail to meet a certain one, and thus nobody would want to hear my argumentation. Do you see any other possibilities? (Because as it is now, the guy who has been contributing before my edit, was able to force the deletion of all other view points). --PtBg (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. About the "random" guy. Fact is, that he deleted the request without hearing any other opinion. In my view, the good faith and etc. policy definitions are so vague, that it is always a matter of interpretation to brand some discussion as being led with "bad" faith ... --PtBg (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fairly long term editor who has made (I hope) primarily constructive edits. I've been trying to maintain the Unobtainium page, but again an anonymous user has been making what I think are unhelpful edits. (You've semi-protected the page before to help with this). I've explained why I believe these are not helpful in the edit summary, asked for discussion on the talk page, and so on, but to no avail.
Now the anonymous user has taken a new tack, reverting my good faith edits on other pages. (See, for example, these contributions [5]. I am asking your advice - what is the best way to deal with this? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the page again, longer this time. All we can do is hope this individual will see the next big movie and become obsessed with that instead. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)01:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible a Vandalism of Expert-subject-multiple|date=September 2009
Hi,
I have looked on the article Etiquette, but there is comming a crazy text:
"Brahma Kumaris are individuals of all ages and backgrounds who regularly attend classes at more than 8,500 centres of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University located in 110 countries.
It is a study spiritual knowledge that nurtures respect for all faith traditions, coherently ..."
This text is in the internet on the site:
www.bkwsu.org/
to find too.
I suppose, the problem is comming through the Expert-subject-multiple|date=September 2009
command, in the wikipedia article.
The same problem is to find on the articles:
- Information processing
- Preservative
- Personal armor
I am sorry that I can't repair the problem, possible you can fix it.
That is the nice thing about Wikipedia. If you don't know how to do something, someone who does will be along the way soon enough. Feel free to ask for my help anytime. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not actually a misspelling <g>
"I see not ..." is a perfectly valid, albeit unusual, English construction. You are decidedly not a "fool" <g> as you seem to have feared. Collect (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you are, but I'd appreciate you not editing my Talk Page. Apart from the presumption - I wouldn't dream of editing other users' Talk Pages - it's an extraordinary waste of energy, because even if I hadn't read the section you deleted (I had), the deletion would only have made me more interested in it.
First off it is common practice to remove edits by banned users, the person posting was a banned user. Secondly you don't own your talk page. I look forward to anything else you may wish to discuss with me. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you accidentally removed my comment when making that post, I have fixed it. Only the edits after they are banned. Banned means one may not edit. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was deliberate, because I found the comment "you don't own your talk page" to be remarkably patronizing. Something along the lines of, "Oh, sorry I didn't explain..." would have been more appropriate. You say the practice of removing edits applies to "(o)nly the edits after they are banned. Banned means one may not edit." Well, Historian of Logic was not banned when he edited my Talk Page. Peter Damien, on the other hand - assuming it is he - was banned long ago, so I am not sure why the edits to the article shouldn't be reverted.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Altering/removing my comment to make a point is not the same thing as removing edits by a banned editor, please don't do that. Historian of Logic was not "blocked", as an account, but was banned as a person when he made that post. It is nothing personal, I removed all his posts. I am sorry if I sounded patronizing, but I think my tone was subconsciously in response to the tone of your initial post here. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
_by_Ron.jpg){kind=small}
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Flyguy649 talk 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
