User talk:82.135.29.209

August 2010

The recent edit you made to Restoring Honor rally constitutes vandalism, and has been removed. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without good reason. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This accusation is completely wrong and dishonest. See my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BS24#Your_accusation_of_deleting_without_reasion_is_obviously_wrong 82.135.29.209 (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowd size

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

82.135.29.209 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

82.135.29.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Edit warring: Restoring Honor Rally

• Blocking administrator: Wgfinley (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the block is justified, see [1]. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Restoring Honor rally after previous warnings.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. WGFinley (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally just came off of protection, all parties were previously warned about edit warring. You violated 3RR on the article[2] [3] [4] and consequently you, and the person you were edit warring with have been blocked. As I said, the article just came off of protection for edit warring, I would suggest review of WP:ROWN and hold yourself to it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

82.135.29.209 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't think the block is justified, see [5]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TNXMan 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since both of you claim to have resolved this dispute I have removed both of your blocks. Again, 3RR is not a line to run up to and is unproductive as a means of discussion particularly on a page that was just protected. Please don't do it again. --WGFinley (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking. And regarding your comment "3RR is not a line to run up to and is unproductive as a means of discussion particularly on a page that was just protected." Well, yes, seemed that both BritishWatcher and me were a little bit hot tempered, and obviously it would have been better to discuss this on talk and not carry out on the page itself. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. --WGFinley (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediator selection

Hi 82.135.29.209. I saw your comments on the mediation project page, and I know you were inadvertently removed by another user here, so I refactored the page here to show that you were one of the involved parties.

When you have a moment, would you please have a look at this page here, and indicate whether or not you agree with Wgfinley conducting the mediation? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the comments on the talk page of the mediation page. How the process goes I don't know, but that would a good place to start. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here [6]], and I mean your recent posting on the Honor Talk Page. The mediation project talk page would be a good place to ask how they might added to the mediation. Again, the process is really vague. Editors have made issue statments on the project pages main page only to have AKG, who seems to be the Boss Daddy over there, delete them, and replace them with a summation, meanwhile my issue statement stayed up. But heck if I know why, but I sure do agree with the decision. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Personalities

Everyone needs to step back and do a little bit of hands off. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Project page revert

I'd suggest letting AKG make reverts, or leaving a posting on his page suggesting edits or inquiries about them. How mediation is done, and what should or shouldn't be on the project page is probably better understood by him than the rest of us, or at least me. Another good effect of letting AKG making those calls would be less clashes between editors. At this stage their should be a cease fire. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I was under the impression that everything was already submitted and you were just waiting for a final decision. I don't want to rudely come in at the last minute. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor mediation

Is the mediation still open for participants? Top1Percent (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the mediator who is handling it, W. G. Finley, as only he can say for sure. You can do that by going to his Talk Page and posting him a note at this link here to let him know you're interested in participating. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor/ Bachmann number

Hello. I have to say that it is utterly ridiculous to include Michele Bachmann's estimate of the crowd size as being reported by a "media outlet." Yes, a media outlet reported on her estimate. This is not the same thing as the outlet reporting the same estimate. Media outlets do not necessarily support the things they report that others have said. If you check the article cited, her estimate is treated as unrealistic. I have read the talk page and the mediation seems to be more on the side of how much weight to give to different estimates within the Wiki article. Whether or not to include Bachmann's estimate, which is triple that of any others, based on the fact that someone wrote an article reporting what she said, seems like an open and shut case to me. I am not opposed to her estimate being included somewhere within the article, but its current placement lends it an air of legitimacy that it just doesn't have. Please get back to me on this. Thank you.

Minusjason (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of those media reports are reporting what other people said. NBC reported what an unnamed mystery-man in the monument said. CBS reported what APL said. NYTimes reported what NBC said the Mystery-man in the monument said. Several media outlets reported what Beck said. Bachmann's estimate is just as legitimate as Beck's, and certainly as accurate. The only estimates that should be given greater weight are the ones that have been calculated through some reasonable means, and not just pulled out from one's backside. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We should consider weight in reliable sources, not what editors consider reasonable means. Akerans (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, these are your opinions. Please don't tell others to edit based on your opinions. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, where did Xenophrenic tell others to edit based on his opinions? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, AC -- BS24 was just joking, and he's known for that. He knows full well that nothing I wrote above is "opinion". Maybe next he'll shoot his jaw off? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I answered Minusjason on his User_talk:Minusjason. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"The only estimates that should be given greater weight are the ones that have been calculated through some reasonable means, and not just pulled out from one's backside." BS24 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with BS24 here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But we really should stop discussing the matter outside the moderation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my position as well. Filmfluff (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also 100% agreement from me. Smooth ending, everybody agrees to BS24's last words. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. We were all doing so good by not touching the article since requesting mediation ... until this week; I think people are getting impatient. Hey, do you like riddles? I have one for you: What's the difference between this and this and this? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your incivility is not appreciated. BS24 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

IP82 hasn't been uncivil in the least. You should take that back. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about you. BS24 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he's figured that out. You are, after all, on his talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well well well, regarding your "riddle": Seems like we could have a new old sock problem....? Oh well, and I was the one who thought we have new interested editors, and I invited them to join the moderation... Maybe I'm really naive.... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way: BS24 blocked as admitted sock 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [7] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki tool for socks

This can help you get a bead on whether there may be a sock.[8] Things to look for are an unusual knowledge of Wiki policy, templates, or jargon that a new user should not know (BS24 was a classic example of this) for such a new user. BS24 had so little self control or sense of guilt, that he is very likely to resume. At this point he may only be able to hit and run, but he won't be able to be involved in sustained discussions, (actually he could, but since he can't edit, who cares?). The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This one is interesting [9], but it's probably not enough to go on. For that you have to find behavioral clues to make it a candidate for WP:Duck. For instance, Soxwon has a rap sheet already, but is probably not a sock. The point is that the Wikistalk tool is just a tool. [10]The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My, my, didn't realize I was the subject of idle chat. Should I provide a DNA sample or will fingerprints suffice? Soxwon (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but you could send me the money you were going to spend on those. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should consolidate to two users: A Obama-fan and Obama-hater, and block any other user as sock of one of them. 82.135.29.209 (talk)

Explain

Could you kindly explain the convoluted logic you've used to reach the conclusion that I'm a sockpuppet of a conservative POV-pusher? Top1Percent (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)