User talk:RichardWeiss/Archivehistory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 63: Line 63:


:Thanks for the clarification but please do not assume I cannot make accusations on the relevant talk pages, that is the place to do it and while I am not 100% accurate I am 95%; from your track record you are strongly opposoed to trolling on wikipedia so I look forward to co-operating with you in ensuring that no trolling blocked users (PPA or APA) troll the PAW pages ever again. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the clarification but please do not assume I cannot make accusations on the relevant talk pages, that is the place to do it and while I am not 100% accurate I am 95%; from your track record you are strongly opposoed to trolling on wikipedia so I look forward to co-operating with you in ensuring that no trolling blocked users (PPA or APA) troll the PAW pages ever again. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

::You don't get it,do you? NO article talk page is appropriate for accusations of abusive sock accounts. It should be so obvious that all you need to do is inform an admin. Anything less carries a high risk of cocking up, as happened here. And looking at some of the vague and unsupported reasons for blocking, this very technique risks fulfilling it's own prophecies. [[Special:Contributions/82.45.15.121|82.45.15.121]] ([[User talk:82.45.15.121|talk]]) 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


== Thanks ==
== Thanks ==

Revision as of 15:11, 21 November 2007

If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser. A new search development in Mozilla Firefox is that we can search the editable html text with search.

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)





Hi

Hi Richard. I just thought I'd drop by to see what you were up to. Far more active than I am, I can see. Well, I hope things are going well in your life these days. All the best. Guettarda 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pol64

Hi, I've suggested Pol64 contact you for a bit of informal mentoring. I hope you don't mind. I think you are likely to be on the same wavelength, from what I can make of his background, and your commitment to the project is absolutely evident. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar

Yep, I'm glad to see both of us putting our efforts into improving Wikipedia. I think we both are trying to achieve NPOV in the articles we edit; it's just that sometimes our definitions of NPOV are not the same. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down

SqueakBox, you need to calm down right now. Running around calling WODUP a troll is very incivil and will not be tolerated further. It's a joke. Jimbo started the joke. WODUP is quoting the joke. There is nothing trolling in this at all. Metros (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming Jimbo lives with Bin Laden strikes me as unacceptable, and Jimbo's reponsse included the word troll, didn't strike me as a joke, and it was not me who started using the T word. Please stay neutral and don't encourage the exact same trolling Jimbo opposed, as I see you have already. Some people just can't resist, eh? Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jimbo called the asking of the question trolling for obvious reasons. See Special:Contributions/68.83.50.136, the user who posted the question in July. Jimbo decided to turn it into that joke. So here, WODUP did the same thing. It's definitely not trolling on WODUP's part. Metros (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it still looks like it, check my record, I defend Jimbo and his page. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And check WODUP's record and tell me why you think it's appropriate to insist that an admin on Wikipedia is a troll. Your immediate rising to calling any user a troll over this is totally inappropriate and needs to be reined in. Metros (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know he was an admin.. I'd be worried if there was no opposition to the claim that Osama and Jimbo live together. And I am completely calm, just defending what I think is right. thanks for your intervention, there are hundreds of reverts to Jimbo's talk page every month. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I am not a troll, and I'm not the quickest server in the farm, but I don't think I'm stupid either. Your accusation of bad faith and incivility in this edit really surprises and disappoints me. I had seen you around and never thought that our first interaction would be like this. WODUP 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh me neither, seems like the wrong end of the stick, I was acting in good faith and am happy to recognize that you were too. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, mate. Have a good evening. WODUP 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Mediation

Mediation on what? Húsönd 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. On whether we should call the country Burma or Myanmar, not about anything else. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something that can be decided between two users. That has already been extensively discussed last month at Talk:Burma with the intervention of a large number of users. Please get over this for now and allow some time before proposing the article to be moved back. Thank you. Húsönd 02:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wasn't referring specifically to you. At least one user has suggested arbcom to which I replied that that cannot happen without other steps on the dispute resolution path, hence my suggestion. This is entirely about the naming, nothing personal. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

I think by this stage you are either safe or beyond the point of no return.Geni 12:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully the former. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting Apology

You have scurrilously, with no foundation, posted a comment that I am "a likely sock". Clearly this is done because you are uncomfortable with the academic analysis that I have been providing. There is no basis for this. It is entirely disingenuous. I defy anyone to prove the link you have alleged, since it is entirely false. Retract and issue an apology. Strichmann (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my judgment that you are a likely sock, of Voice of Britain/Mike D78. If you want an apology it would want to come from the user(s) who have proven time and again their unwillingness to accept being banned from wikipedia by continuously re-incarnating as socks, it is these user(s) who are poisoning the atmosphere. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, this isn't exactly acceptable behavior. I posted something to the talk page of the article. Read it carefully. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced your behaviour is acceptable, if you can't be bothered to study what is going on I suggest you go elsewhere but if as a new admin want to support PPA blocked users playing sock games please don't get me involved, I am tired of being trolled. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article talk page. I want this talk centralized on there. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't want this to be personal, I'm out for the night right now but will be back, as ever. Best wishes and hope you appreciate I am not disobeying your requests. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a note here that I've written on the article talk again. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification but please do not assume I cannot make accusations on the relevant talk pages, that is the place to do it and while I am not 100% accurate I am 95%; from your track record you are strongly opposoed to trolling on wikipedia so I look forward to co-operating with you in ensuring that no trolling blocked users (PPA or APA) troll the PAW pages ever again. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it,do you? NO article talk page is appropriate for accusations of abusive sock accounts. It should be so obvious that all you need to do is inform an admin. Anything less carries a high risk of cocking up, as happened here. And looking at some of the vague and unsupported reasons for blocking, this very technique risks fulfilling it's own prophecies. 82.45.15.121 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Nothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks: for the compliments, and for the support. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]