User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive7

User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive1
User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive2
User talk:Ambi/Archive3
User talk:Ambi/Archive4
User talk:Ambi/Archive5
User talk:Ambi/Archive6
Last archived December 20, 2004.

---

Victorian MPs

It's all here Adam 15:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections

Yay! Congratulations! --MPerel 05:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'll add my congrats on your election as well. Cheers. --Roisterer 14:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

++congratulations; BACbKA 22:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ambi -- I wish you my wholehearted congratulations on your election to the AC. Your wit, perception, and willingness to challenge the status quo are the qualities that earned you my vote (and the votes of many others) -- don't let the stress and pressure of arbitration drive them from you. :-) I have great confidence in the new group of arbitrators, and look forward to what you will achieve. If I can ever be of help, do let me know. Merry Christmas and best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congratualtions Ambi. I look forwards rto working with you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me add to the well-earned congratulations. Unfortunately, this makes it a little harder to continue your efforts as a perceptive outside critic. Also, I offer my apologies, if any are necessary, for not having acted on your suggestion that I also run. After some consideration, I decided that my attention was needed for other matters, and because I saw many fine candidates (yourself certainly included) I didn't think it was critical that I run. Since I remain outside the Committee, perhaps I can help fill your previous role from time to time. --Michael Snow 01:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

congrats. Xtra 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the Mediation Committee, and congrats on your ArbCom position. Andre (talk) 17:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations! I know you'll do well. I have filed a Friend-of-the-ArbCom briefing for you to read at your leisure. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to be having a bit of a problem with an abusive user, namely User:Fvw. This individual has taken it upon himself to be the ombudsman of what is and is not a speedy delete candidate. He's reverted my edits and left some snide remarks on my user page and the edit summaries. I've listed him on RfC as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail? Will you please respond to it? Everyking 06:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You haven't told me what I can fix. You are essentially telling me this article can never be featured because you will always object, apparently because you dislike me. Well, that doesn't seem very fair. How did you get elected to the ArbCom? Why did I support you? It boggles the mind. If you're going to object, I think you have an obligation to make your objection clear enough that I can act on it. Everyking 06:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have not told me. If you had told me, I would've fixed it by now, and presumably you wouldn't be objecting. And if you're such a stickler, why was Cathedral of Magdeburg on the main page a few days ago? Not a bad article by any means, but certainly not featured quality by my standards, and I'm pretty liberal about it. Everyking 06:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You tell me I disagree; what is it I disagree with? Hell if I know, I guess you'd know better than I would. "The quotes"? What do you mean? Do you not want any quotes in the article? Is there a particular quote you object to? Explain. "The chart section"? Again, what do you mean? Do you want information removed? Reworded? Transformed into chart format? Explain. This is like pointing vaguely in the general direction of a big city and telling me to go fix that broken window. Everyking 07:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you have anything personal against me or not. I have no idea. But you did get me to support you for the ArbCom, and then you got me to think you weren't going to object to my nomination by discontinuing our discussion. Even more infuriating is that I see articles on the main page every day that aren't of the same quality as Autobiography, which just adds insult to injury—how on earth are those getting through the process while my nomination is held up perpetually, and I even get personally insulted by a few people? A person shouldn't have to contend with all that, I don't tolerate that sort of thing well at all. Everyking 11:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have absolutely never ignored anybody's objections. I take offense. Quite the contrary, I've spent far too much of my life arguing about those objections, trying to figure out exactly what they are, and trying to resolve them. Now I think I've more or less figured out the crux of the objections: you and a few others are deliberately vague and unclear because what you really want is for half of the article to be deleted, but you're recluctant to come right out and say that because that would mean the nomination has become a broader question of inclusionism or deletionism—should an article be comprehensive, or should it be merely a brief summary? And to me, the implications of that go way beyond this one article. Everyking 12:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive of information. You know that. If I removed everything you want me to remove, the article would be a sad, miserable stub that even I wouldn't want featured. Featured articles are supposed to be thorough and comprehensive—you are supposed to read one and think, "Damn, that's great, and just look at all these other links I can follow...", not "Well, I guess they hit most of the main points and kept it concise, which is good because I don't have more than five minutes to sit down and read anything anyway." Now, I'm willing to talk about reducing the size of the article, but it absolutely must be done on the basis of preserving the info—there is no question of totally removing anything. That means that it can be moved to other articles, for example; but you know the problem with that, last time I created a subarticle it got deleted. Everyking 03:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Didn't you want me to remove the chart data? I think articles you linked to are a bit short and disappointing, by the way, particularly Louis Armstrong. Everyking 04:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me, Rebecca, but when you talk about summarizing I read "removing information". Because that's what it means, even if you only remove a detail here and there. And I think when you talk about poor writing, what you really mean is that there's too much detail. If that's not what you mean, why don't you do me a favor and take some paragraph or a few sentences that you think are poorly written and rewrite them in a better way on the talk page, so I can see what you mean? Because as it is I'm not understanding. The tables were created specifically to avoid the problem of endlessly droning on with numbers. Everyking 04:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Data doesn't become unimportant just because you think it's boring, you know. Everyking 05:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MedCom

Heya, I noticed you withdrew your support for my MedCom nomination. If this is to do with the RFC User:Lucky 6.9 started on me, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the edit histories in question (if you haven't already). The allegations of personal abuse are untrue (also note the RFC has been withdrawn again without specifying a reason). Thanks. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 22:13, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

IP 172

Given that my IP was blocked before any evasion took place, I would assume 172's IP should be blocked as well for breaking the 3RR. El Trey 10:34, 21 Dec 2004 (PST)

Mmmk, time to unblock Stone's IP 64.7.89.54. It's been much more than 24 hrs, even with 172's repeated bans.

10:56, 22 Dec 2004, 172 blocked 64.7.89.54 (expires 10:56, 23 Dec 2004) (contribs) (Blocking Trey Stone\'s IP for violation of 3RR on Efraín Ríos Montt) Mr. Stone 22:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR?

This looks like a violation of the 3RR to me, what do you think?

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 [1] to his previous version [2]

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 [3] to his previous version [4]

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 [5] to his previous version [6]

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22 [7] to his previous version [8]

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 195.7.55.146 12:23 Dec 22 [9] to his previous version [10] --Jayjg 03:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who wrote the Ashlee-related articles you speak of, Rebecca? I've never seen such an outrage in all my time here. Why must you resort to provocations? Everyking 14:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll tell you the truth, if you succeed in this outrage, I'm gone. Absolutely. Everyking 14:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are threatening me. Do you expect me to respond well to threats? I'll quit in a heartbeat. This has caused me enough stress and sleep loss already. This absurdity you're pushing could actually carry some weight because of who you are. I have been at the table for as long as there's been a table to sit at. I want you to withdraw the case against me and apologize. Everyking 14:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Am I in an alternate dimension? I'm the only one who has been trying to compromise. I don't think you've ever even written anything on the talk page! Once again I want this withdrawn and I think I deserve an apology for being threatened. Everyking 14:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian and I have the right to revert edits I disagree with. This is unbelievably outrageous. Am I some second-class editor who isn't entitled to the same rights as others? And I've never said I won't accept the removal of information from the article under any circumstances. I've always said I'm willing to discuss it if and only if it is preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. I have myself suggested a scheme of creating more subarticles and reorganizing on that basis. I can't deal with this. I don't know how to react or what to do. I don't want to be treated like this. Everyking 15:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that you think you have a veto over the article, and you are trying to get me banned for having a disagreement. Why isn't it you who's banned? Why should one side in a dispute be treated this way? Why are you resorting to this? Why can't we just discuss? You talk about discussing, but you haven't done hardly any, and now you're trying to get me banned. I don't know how I can continue to contribute to a project when I'm being threatened this way. I don't want to leave, God knows Wikipedia's just about the most important thing in my life, as pathetic as that might be, but I have a certain degree of dignity that I'm not willing to give up, and that means I will not under any circumstances accept having my editing rights restricted, not even for an hour. Everyking 15:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do stand absolutely for the principle that the information must remain somewhere, in some form. But does that make me a bad editor, just because I value information? You seem to stand absolutely for the principle that the information must be deleted, so if I'm in the wrong, you're just as wrong as I am. Where is the difference? Should people be banned from editing just because they have different opinions regarding inclusion and deletion, Rebecca? Aren't we supposed to discuss these things? And even if we can't reach an agreement, does that mean one party should be banned from editing just because he or she has an opinion? And even if, in some alternate dimension, that was right, wouldn't that mean both parties should be subject to the same penalty? Everyking 15:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I want to discuss things and I have always tried to discuss. You have not—do you not recall ignoring me before? In any case, I have the right to revert within the limits of the 3RR forever if I so please, as do we all. I want to reach an agreement, but if we can't reach an agreement, I reserve the right to continue to revert three times a day. I demand that my basic rights as a Wikipedian be acknowledged and respected. Everyking 15:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually no, you have no such right. If you kept an article from being edited by performing, say, one revert per day to get rid of all the edits you didn't like, you'd probably hit problems with other editors before long. If you kept it up and refused to stop doing that you'd probably end up before the AC with a view to getting you to stop squatting over the pot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, Rebecca. I only want to discuss, but it seems you're just out to get rid of me for a reason I cannot even fathom. Disagreements notwithstanding, I have no desire to get rid of you. There is hardly anyone I've ever disagreed with that I'd want banned. Frankly, I can't even imagine having that mentality—I disagree with you, so you should be deprived of your right to edit. Disagreements are just disagreements, people have opinions, that's how life is. What do you want to achieve? What good will it do to force me to quit the project? Do you seriously think the articles would benefit from having me—the person who has written virtually all the content—banned from editing them? Everyking 15:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem is precisely that you did write nearly all the content--because you refused to let anybody else's edits stand. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebecca, why do you ignore me when I say that I want consensus and compromise? You say you want me to discuss and come to consensus, but I've been doing that all along. So how can I do what you want? Will you please remove your request for arbitration and acknowledge my right to disagree with you regarding the issue of inclusion? I'm asking you as a person. I can't go on having the sword of Damocles hanging over me. I want to edit in peace. I can't stomach this kind of situation. I always assume that whatever disagreements people have, the basic right to edit remains—a certain level of basic respect for others is maintained. But you are trying to deprive me of that, and it is more than I can accept or comprehend. Everyking 16:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I only want the information preserved, Rebecca. Let's go to the talk page and start discussing a system of subarticles so we can shorten the article and address everyone's concerns without removing any factual content. I don't want to feel threatened; I don't want to think someone is out to get me. I want to think we have the right to disagree, and that neither one of us would take the route of trying to get the other banned just to win the argument. It is hell, absolute torture, for me to think my time as an editor might be coming to an end. Everyking 16:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We can of course remove quotes, provided it can be shown that the information contained in the quotes can be given adequately in another way, or is already given adequately in the text. That is not a major issue for me. What must be preserved in some form is facts such as chart data. Everyking 16:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for help on Autobiography (album)

Ambi, could I ask you to take a look at the album page over the next few days and see if it can be improved? I've just had a conversation on the talk page and the upshot is that Everyking still thinks my edits are "radical" and says suggestively "I will have another three reverts come tomorrow", and asks me to revert my edits myself and "discuss" them. He refuses to correct whatever is wrong with them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has all bothered me deeply. I'm not quite sure how to go on from here. You're going to be on the ArbCom, so please read this: Wikipedia:WikiLove. I keep that link on my user page, because everyone needs to be reminded to maintain that positive spirit, including myself, but trying to get me banned just seems to be beyond the pale. I would really appreciate an apology for doing that. I'm really thinking maybe I should quit, arbitration case or not. I just can't deal with this kind of thing, with an atmosphere in which I'm going to have to feel threatened from here on out. I only want to edit in peace in a spirit of compromise. I don't understand what you have against me, I really don't. Can't you acknowledge my right to edit, even if my edits aren't to your liking, and my right to vote on FAC as well? Everyking 16:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Can't you acknowledge my right to edit, even if my edits aren't to your liking?"

How about all the other editors? If you keep reverting their work, it's as if they had no right to edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course they have the right to edit, but anyone can make a bad edit. People ought to revert me if I make a bad edit, too. Everyking 17:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that you seem to think that every edit that some other person does is a bad one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)