User talk:Fnagaton: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:18, 16 January 2008

Attention: Unless otherwise requested I will answer messages here on my talk page to keep conversations together in one block, it is my hope this will make it easier for others to read them.

Messages

RE Sarenne's latest

Amazing to see Sarenne self destruct like this at the end. He almost had an admin convinced on his notSarenne talk page that he could contribute to Wikipedia in general (just not kib/mib/etc. stuff) Then he went ahead with the usual edit war from multiple ip's and all the calling me a terrorist and threatening me with an ak47, and even that harrasment of an admin on his own page. Wow, that's really out there behavior. --Marty Goldberg 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me laugh because Sarenne self destructed like this the last time he was blocked. ;) Fnag aton 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably keep your sockpuppet documentation page and add everything that transpired today to it. Including the block of nonSarenne for being a Sarenne sock puppet as well as all the edit warring, threats, etc. he did. Makes a handy reference to point admins to if he disappears for a few months again and comes back again. --Marty Goldberg 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is all very good evidence. Fnag aton 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an email from Sarenne claiming that NotSarenne was not his sock, and that he has only ever edited using the username Sarenne, never from any anon IP. How sad indeed that I have gotten the wrong guy. <rolls eyes> -- But|seriously|folks 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Yah, "I'm emailing you out of the blue to say its not me. Don't ask how I knew something was going on involving me, or why I've suddenly decided to email you after I...he was banned. The timing is just coincidental. And you should really reinstate me-I mean him, and forget the harassment of editors and admins, the threats, and edit warring from multiple ip's after being blocked. Because he is not me and I am not him and we are not them. I am notSarenne, goo goo g'joob." --Marty Goldberg 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I got out of it. He's been banned for six months but he was so disturbed by the wrongful accusations against NS that he took the time to email me to tell me so. It reminds me of the old "Final Record Offer" bit by Robert Klein: "My name is Conrad Jarvis, and I've been dead for six years. But this record offer is so spectacular I had to come back to tell you about it!" -- But|seriously|folks 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to login and see something really funny to make Monday mornings better. :) Thank you for keeping the Sarenne sock puppet report up to date Marty. Fnag aton 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received the following today from NS: "I am not Sarenne but NotSarenne. Would you please either tell Sarenne who has contacted you, according to a comment of yours, my email address, forward this mail to him or tell me his so I can contact him? As you are convinced that I am the same person this would not be a privacy violation or the like in either case." Gee, I guess I was wrong. ;-) -- But|seriously|folks 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received an email titled "NotSarenne" from somebody at hushmail.com. Deleted it without opening since I cannot be bothered reading whatever rubbish was inside it. Eventually Sarenne will get sick and tired of sending these. Fnag aton 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to MOSNUM binary prefix

Did you notice this change to WP:MOSNUM#Binary_prefixes on January 1, 2008?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=181448943&oldid=181258557

--SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did not notice the change and it certainly was not talked about, so I have reverted it. I'll also put a note on his talk page asking him not to make changes that have not been talked about first. Fnag aton 11:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd want to report him at WP:AIN, he hadn't violated 3RR yet. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I have now done so. Fnag aton 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ::::::::Received the following today from NS:  "I am not Sarenne but NotSarenne. Would you please either tell Sarenne who has contacted you, according to a comment of yours, my email address, forward this mail to him or tell me his so I can contact him? As you are convinced that I am the same person this would not be a privacy violation or the like in either case."  Gee, I guess I was wrong.  ;-)  --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;[[User:Bsf|<font color="White">But</font>]]|[[User talk:Bsf|<font color="White">seriously</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Butseriouslyfolks|<font color="White">folks</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 :::::::::Received an email titled "NotSarenne" from somebody at hushmail.com. Deleted it without opening since I cannot be bothered reading whatever rubbish was inside it. Eventually Sarenne will get sick and tired of sending these. '''[[User:Fnagaton|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton|aton]]''' 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-==Date format and MOS==
-On the Dates and Numbers MOS talk page, you asked "Why not use the date format that is used in the majority of sources related to each article with disambiguation to the mostly internationally recognised format (dd/mm/yyyy) on the first occurrence of a date format that is opposite?". Since the thread in which this was asked was about number ranges, and I consider your question a bit off-topic, I decided to answer on your talk page. Good publications adopt a widely recognized manual of style, or create their own. Unfortunately, the consensus mechanism that governs Wikipedia is not up to the task, so whenever there is controversy, the "decision" is usually "do whatever you want, just try to be consistent within an article." In any good publication, dates from sources will be reformatted to the house style, unless the date appears within a quotation. There is no reason for a publication to change the date style from one article to another just because the sources for one article predominantly use a different style than the sources for a different article. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] ([[User talk:Gerry Ashton|talk]]) 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-: It may be true for paper printed publications since they cannot display formatted dates according to preferences. Wikipedia however can display dates using preferences. If you think a global "house style" is important for Wikipedia then make the "house style" one that is used by the majority of the world, which would be dd/mm/yyyy or yyyy/mm/dd or "15 January 2008". Using a style (like mm/dd/yyyy) that is only used by a minority (compared to the rest of the world) only serves to confuse the topic even more. '''[[User:Fnagaton|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton|aton]]''' 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-::It is also true for electronic publications where the reader either can't be bothered to set preferences, or so security consious that he/she won't register and blocks cookies. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] ([[User talk:Gerry Ashton|talk]]) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-:::That is not the fault of the electronic publication. '''[[User:Fnagaton|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton|aton]]''' 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-::::I expect that the electronic publication would have a consistent default appearance for those users who don't set a preference, unlike Wikipedia, which lacks the collective courage to do such a thing. --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] ([[User talk:Gerry Ashton|talk]]) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Which brings me back to what I wrote above regarding the logical choice to use for a default "house style". '''[[User:Fnagaton|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton|aton]]''' 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 == Change to MOSNUM binary prefix ==
@@ Line 52: / Line 39: @@
 You'd want to report him at [[WP:AIN]], he hadn't violated 3RR yet. --[[User:Wgungfu|Marty Goldberg]] ([[User talk:Wgungfu|talk]]) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
+: Thank you for the advice, I have now done so. '''[[User:Fnagaton|Fnag]][[User talk:Fnagaton|aton]]''' 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)