User talk:TenOfAllTrades

Talk archives
2004 and January to March 2005 April and May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August and September 2005 October and November 2005 December 2005 to February 2006 March to May 2006 June to August 2006 September and October 2006 November 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to January 2008

Note

This editor is having a problem understanding civility. I mean literally. Even though he has been warned by a number of other editors[1], and blocked by you, he continues with uncivil remarks[2] I think he just doesn't get it. I left a warning on his page about 1 hour ago, and he followed with this[3] and this[4]. I think this editor might benefit from some assistance, perhaps from editors he trusts. The homeopathy page has been contentious at times but nonetheless and otherwise, civil. Anthon01 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain please

Just what do you mean by "If you decide to take this on-wiki - which I strongly, strongly discourage you from doing - the ensuing mess is on your head." please? DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on mine now. Taking full responsibility (like that means anything). Sorry Ten, Duncan and everyone who gets to deal with this now. Was fed up. One of the reasons I'd suck as an administrator, I guess. Bad temperament. Wish I could take it back. Was angry. Can't take it back now. :-( Considering a refdesk break. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Transclusions

Thank you, I managed to find some info, but you have resolved this completely for me. -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the usual?

What's the usual approach to the RFC?

They threw the whole kitchen sink by listing all those items. Because of that, each and every one has to be addressed.

To create a less confrontational approach, I shortened the RFC so that my response could be simply a few words. Is this bizarre? The intent was that I kept many things of the original RFC in an attempt to reach common ground.

A RFC is not an everyday event. Is the expected response merely a confession, even to items that I think should not be included in the RFC?

Should an RFC be an attempt to harmony and co-existance? Or should one take a position and not yield? The shortened RFC is a first attempt at compromise and harmony. Archtransit (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not personal blog

Hi Ten, I was not aware that adding links from a single site will make you think thats a personal blog? Theoriginof is basically an information site with original content thats why I added the link here. :) I hope you will undo the delete.

Re: That's enough

You must feel like a schoolyard monitor sometimes. I'm still feeling out the dimensions of the civility thing. Tit for tat, the norm in the world outside Wikipedia, is a habit that's hard to break. I am feeling rather cranky today, to be sure, so I'll try to re-establish the lag I usually put in my "save page" procedure that allows me to not post when I realize it's better not to. I receive your remonstrance as deserved and I will factor it into my developing understanding of the Wikipedia mode of being. That said, I still think he was being argumentative, unfair, and petulant (whining), and was only posting on the talk page to grind his axe (trollishness). My evidence is the way he came back. And I don't make a distinction between anons, registereds, and admins. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're always right, and it's starting to piss me off. Listen—the pillars of Wikipedia are theoretically sound, and it's high time humankind gave them a fair chance to work. We should bend over backwards to accomodate annoying people, because we're all annoying. Golden rule, other cheek, first stone, the full monty. I'm excited to be part of what I consider to be a monumental experiment in world communication. I'm trying to do it right, but I am by nature a mordant, sarcastic prick. I'm funny, though. A lot of your really nice people aren't funny. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. Ignore me. There's nothing important going on, and I'm not hitting on all eight cylinders right now. Let me wind up my comments on this matter by saying thanks for keeping your eye on the ball. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

I still think it's an egregious BLP violation, it doesn't matter where it's located, if there are no reliable sources, all of this shows up in Google. But you are right that I should have given a better edit summary, I generally do in those cases, but I just forgot in that case. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think you can "take" any cruft from Wikia?

Sorry, but once some of that info is gone into the Wikia hosted black hole, it never again returns to the universe for commercial use by anybody else. Hawking was wrong. SBHarris 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment

If it reads like an attack to you, then that's how you read it. I read it as the only way to state my dissatisfaction with Carcharoth's 'get the fuck out' attitude, without getting blocked by him for using compliments for an editor I respected. I'd like to state support for Shankbone, but as I stated there, that's not permissible anymore. I recommend further that you please take notice, i'm not the only one chafing under Carcharoth's new policy. ThuranX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack. Carcharoth said above my post that complimenting a user makes you biased. So I can't compliment, thus, can't show support. As far as 'history', I just find his general attitude towards users who have been here a while, or do a lot of good work to be antagonistic at best, and flat out hate at worst. he's trying to get betacommand banned, and he's encouraging David to leave. Both are great contributors who do a lot to bring the project UP. I don't see you confronting Filll about his agreement with my assessment of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it's right there where he says that offering praise to any one editor insults all other editors. Thus, it shows preferential treatment to one editor, aka bias. Thus, a problem. I'm really tired ofjumping through hoops for you. Carcharoth made it clear not to compliment David Shankbone, so I'm not. I'm abiding by an admin's instructions. If you want to block me for that, go ahead, I know Carcharoth will if you don't. ThuranX (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't call me "son". I'm even less likely to take you seriously when you start patronizing me, especially since I'm probably older than you. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

You seem to want to block that user, thepokeratlas. If you do, I will certainly not unblock. Go ahead, do it. I won't un-do it. I have already explained why I unblocked. You have not said why this user is different and why he should be blocked despite the generic discussion. Is it that the user is American or pro-gambling? Or you don't like any name with the word "poker" in it? Please explain. Archtransit (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have misunderstood me. I am not accusing you of being anti-American or anti-gambling. If you re-read the above comment, I am asking you why should User:thepokeratlas should be blocked. Based on your misunderstanding and subsequent comments, I assume that the fact that the user is possibly American or is possibly pro-gambling has no bearing and is not a reason that you think should explain his block. I also assume that unrelated facts are not important, such as the user name has 13 characters.

So what is the reason? Because it's a corporate name? If so, that issue was raised in AN. Is a corporate name sufficient reason for automatic blocking? Policy says no but some may feel it is yes. If so, policy could be changed. Concern should be then directed at policy change, not at me.

People have said that I don't get it. Therefore, please explain why User:thepokeratlas should be blocked. Answering this type of question could help resolve the situation. Thank you! Again, please do not misunderstand and think that I am accusing you of being anti-American or anti-gambling. Archtransit (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For being a voice of sanity and reason. There is a damn good reason I want my talk page semiprotected - I'm subject to vicious off-wiki harassment which has resulted in IP vandalism crap. Every time I unprotect it as a test, it starts up again. I meant what I said - if I'm forced to un-sprotect it, I'm out of here, because I don't want to deal with it.

My "e-mail this user" link has always been active, and I will post a note atop my talk page directing anon IPs to use that to contact me. (Can IPs use the e-mail link?)

I will agree to undelete my user talk page, but it's going to take some time because there are quite a few vandalous revisions that I am going to leave deleted, so I have to go through and check a squillion boxes to undelete the useful discussion.

I'm in class right now and won't be able to respond on ANI for a couple hours. FCYTravis (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

IP's cannot specify a e-mail address, as they have no preferences like logged in users, so sending them a link to e-mail you will not work. — Save_Us † 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could they create an account and use the email feature immediately? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is true I suppose, it just goes against the general notion that you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia. Anonymous editors should be able to communicate with him regardless, permanent talk page protection from IP's is against our policy.

Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:

• User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user.

Policy goes on to say "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. While I sympathize with the problem of persistent IP comments making him frustrated, the reasons for protection are invalid. — Save_Us † 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we do make exceptions to policy where it is in the best interests of the project as a whole. While semiprotection should not be used "solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users", I would argue that this is not what is happening here. FCYTravis has suggested that the semiprotection is to prevent editing (attacks) by a specific individual who always uses an anonymous IP. The distinction is subtle but important—his intent is to prevent a specific individual from engaging in harrassment (a legitimate aim), that anonymous and newly registered users can't edit his talk page is an unintended and unwanted side effect.

I generally support the policy on semiprotection. I agree that there are strong, sound reasons for not semiprotecting user talk pages indefinitely. I also agree with editors who note that Travis' intemperate responses to unprotection requests have not helped matters here. However, I think that if FCYTravis is able to make a compelling case then there is room for flexibility in this policy. I sincerely hope that all the participants in this discussion can keep cool heads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh—I didn't see that this is being duplicated at AN/I. Please keep all replies there, from now on. Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (plus some thoughts)

Thanks for trying. I'm still not sure where that came from, especially the stuff about admins and overlords. I have been rather strong in my criticism of several admin and/or bot operator actions over the last week or so (JzG, East718, Betacommand, and maybe some others), and me commenting on the David Shankbone post might have been the last straw for some people (or one particular person - I'd recently been discussing things with him over at the MfD of the page about BetacommandBot, so I think that was the proximate cause). More generally, some of the AN/ANI threads may have come across as remorseless in the way they laid out a problem that others might prefer to dismiss or ignore, but I do try to be even-handed and summarise things and keep things moving forward, rather than seeing things peter out into loose ends that don't get resolved. Kind of striking a balance between discussion being suppressed and endless discussion that results in nothing being done. Getting a handle on the discussions revolving around Betacommand and his bot is impossible though - they all end up with disgruntled image uploaders finding the discussion and things go downhill from there. But as I said, thanks for the talk page follow-up support from that AN thread. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quarren Isolation League

Long ago, you presided over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarren Isolation League. It was subsequently directed to a series of redirects. Then, just prior to the deletion of its last redirect Confederacy of Independent Systems, an anonymous user restored the whole text (including the VfD template). Not knowing what to do with it, I went ahead and nominated it for deletion again, but i there is a neater Wikipedia hammer that can be brought here, then swing away. Thanks. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was actually deleted though - just merged and a redirect placed. The anonymous user didn't recreate the material so much as he reverted. Does WP:CSD#G4 still count in that case? If so, then awesome (I don't care to wait for the AfD to play out), but the wikilawyer in me needs to be sure. :) CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Badgering

I already dropped it a while ago. In any case, I violated no rules. The issue with Less's userpage was a mistake which has already been resolved. You repeating what was told to me already isn't very helpful. Malamockq (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An hour isn't long enough to know I dropped it? I deleted your warning because I read it. It's just how I do things. Malamockq (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Modem

Please don't yell to illustrate a point. Please review the rules, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Ten's comments. You appear to frequently make unjustified complaints, like this one. Friday (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review the rules. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten, I suggest you just reply with "Naa", it's all this comment deserves. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop running around demanding civility and pestering the same people over nothing, just because they happen to be administrators. This comment on the reference desk's talk page added nothing to the topic about debates or original research. Instead it attempted to deflect the issue at hand to a comment on a contributor. If anyone is holding a grudge here, it is neither TenOfAllTrades nor Friday. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions and being incivil. Ten is a big boy, he doesn't need you to defend him. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE--NAHID 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy's Block

I have no intention of posting to his page. Do you consider my previous attempts to get him to criticized content and not editors poking? BTW, he pokes me on my talk page and elsewhere yet I will often respond to him by clarify the difference between crticizing content and editors. Anthon01 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm happy you responded. According to policy, an editor has the right to place a warning for incivility on a users talk page. I haven't found a policy that says you cannot place a warning on a page if a user doesn't take it well. Your assumptions of bad faith[5][6][7] including I know that it can be entertaining to watch him explode in spectacular fashion disheartening. I left the following message on Fyslee's talk page, at 16:33, February 26, 2008, one minute before you posted your warning on my page.[8] In that message I stated It hurts me to see what this user is going through. He just doesn't get it. Maybe you can help him. I also left you a message in early February,[9] where I wrote ... I think this editor might benefit from some assistance, perhaps from editors he trusts ... I think anti-homoepathy editors need to help this editor get straight on WP:CIVIL means. Anthon01 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would refactor your multiple bad faith comments. Anthon01 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also consider I do sympathize with him that there has been a habit on the part of some of his opponents to goad him into precipitate action using civility warning templates an assumption of bad faith. Anthon01 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I began posting warning on his page was because he would start personal attacks that would escalate into homeopathy talk page insult wars. Ever since I started warning him the talk page has been civil. That's it and nothing more. My comments to him basically boil down to, attack editors arguments, but not the editors. Anthon01 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also per Randy's block

The person with whom Randy was having his altercation couldn't help showing up to needle him.[10][11] (In a by-the-book civil way, of course; he knows how the game is played.) Were you serious about what you wrote in your second paragraph?[12] Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting fed up with the pseudoscience/paranormal crowd baiting their opposite numbers, and I'm getting fed up with my science-oriented colleagues for taking the bait so dependably. I'm trying to explain to the latter that ceding the civility bludgeon to the fringers is counterproductive and warning: WP:SPADE ahead just plain dumb, but it's a long road. I appreciate your stepping in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You really think it just goes one way? Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

I am beginning to agree with you; Randy's not in the mood, and I'm not helping. I have no opinions regarding homeopathy except that the weight of such mentions should be appropriate and not given undue weight; on the other side, legitimate references should not be dismissed because they happen to show some favor to a homeopathic viewpoint. SA among others even used underhanded tactics to push their own POV instead of relying on a more general concensus or even editing for the enemy. I'm going to go edit kittens now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Retracted per your recommendation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Call_for_more_bureaucrats. Friday (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

Do you need notice or do you monitor my page after posting a comment there? Anthon01 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

First off, if you believed that I was a newcomer, why speak to me in that tone? That is called BITING, and it is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Secondly, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since '03, and up until recently I have not felt the need to create a username. I believe that five years is enough time to familiarize myself with this website. If you could not consider that possibility, I do not honestly believe that you yourself are very acquainted with Wikipedia. I have witnessed instance upon instance of new users joining the Wikipedia community with the intention to spam. The proposal was my solution. Give me my space, and I will give you yours. Park Crawler (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ten, would it be possible to have restored Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad? and Model Nonprofit Corporation Act? Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not inclined to restore Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. You were trolling, and I don't really see anything good coming from giving you back an essay to support the notion that your (hopefully former) approach was beneficial. If you'd like to add a copy to a personal, off-site blog somewhere, I can undelete your essay to your userspace for a day or two.

Incidentally, you forgot to list your other two account names – User:Thespian Seagull and User:Take You There – on your user page.

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. Well, I wasn't trolling, but that's another matter. Feel free to restore to userspace. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You still forgot User:Take You There. I've undeleted to your userspace: User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Wikidrama. I'll probably delete it finally in twenty-four to forty-eight hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I probably will write a few more essays tangentially related to recent events, but they are not really intended as a defense of my past behavior; they are more just intended as thought-provoking articles on Wikipedia policies and philosophies in general. So, I hope you won't view them as trolling. Normally, someone might write such things under a pen name but obviously I'm not in a position to do that. Basically what I'm saying is, please disregard the source. In my opinion, it's not really important who writes something on Wikipedia; all that matters is the content (and in the case of mainspace articles, the cited sources). Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, has Obuibo Mbstpo disclosed all of his sockpuppets to you? The "others before that" and "used only a time or two" comments on his user page are a tad disquieting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(I would have replied there, but his page is semi-protected) Well, isn't it kind of a WP:DEADHORSE by this point. WP:PRX was stopped, all other accounts are indefinitely blocked or have scrambled passwords, you won't be getting anymore disruption or sockpuppetry from me... you've basically won. Or depending how you look at it, we've all won. You can probably figure it out if you look hard enough anyway. I probably shouldn't even be responding but whatever. I'll just have to earn trust back I guess. All right, later. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

oops

I fumblefingeredly misinvoked my archiving bot and accidentally created Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/1900 January 2. Can you delete it for me, please? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (And -- lookit that -- the link just above is all nice and red now.)

On the other thing -- thanks. I'm gettin closer and closer to taking that plunge. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Model Nonprofit Corporation Act

Hi. I noticed when looking at something in my logs that Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had turned blue again. Contributions of blocked/banned users created after they are banned are generally deleted - to not delete them would be to encourage block evasion. You did not leave a summary when restoring it, so it at least has my curiosity up. --B (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

I've been rolling back that IP vandal's reversions of your posts. Reported to ANI. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

Through extensive research, I've been able to confirm that Nigeria, helicopters and DeKalb County, Illinois really do exist. I think we're onto something!!! Friday (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of office

Things are busy at work these days, so I'm not going to be on Wikipedia much. Fear not, I'll be back.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Section31

No, I don't plan to make an account of that name but since my ip will rotate randomly (and because I have access to a whole range of ISPs), it's so people know who they are talking to. An account is a hindrance. Section 31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

no I like section31 and I'll keep using it - your blocks are ineffective so please don't bother with those empty threats. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

feel free to rangeblock - I edit by wardriving - so it's an ineffective method of stopping me, as it makes me unstoppable. I'm not wrecking articles, I'm just using an IP to have to avoid the rather slow process of identifying and dealing with dangerous POV pushers - with an IP I can say the things that editors are not permitted to. Don't bother leaving any more messages at the fredrick day account - I've abandoned it, it served it's purposes and is no longer required (I have another account for my regular editing - it doesn't get involved in policy matters). section31 --87.112.33.78 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

why waste your time with those blocks? --87.113.0.48 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)