Jump to content

User talk:Everyking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RonaldTaril (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 18 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speak up and be heard! (last blanked 7/26/05)

Preservation of Fecalcore

Hi! I am very glad you found my article funny, that is the main point, a serious, encyclopedic funny. I see you were talking of preserving it on BJAODN, which I would greatly appreciate, as I have put considerable time in making it what it is. Would you mind discussing the BJAODN w/ me and how I could put it on there? Or should I just go RAMBO and put it on there myself? Thanks!

Sango's RfA

Thanks!
Thanks!

Hi, Everyking. Thank you for supporting my RfA! I am honored to have your endoresment and hope to make good use of the mop. Sango123 01:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

AN/I

I think some of your recent comments on AN/I have really been over the line. I hope you'll moderate yourself as discussed in our mediation and other times. Snowspinner 17:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

/sigh. Arbitration will be requested against you shortly. Snowspinner 18:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I noticed the request for arbitration regarding you and User:Snowspinner where you mention User:David Gerard. David Gerard was involved in a dispute with me and a few others wherein they attempted to discredit me and my attributions. David correctly recused the arbitration, but mentioned he was going to be submitting evidence. David has still not provided any evidence in the case. However, I have evidence of him arbitrarily claiming an organizations affiliations with Scientology. He initially ignoring my questions about it and then he came back and corrected his claim of affiliation which turned out to not be Scientology. He is a critic of Scientology, yet he is a member of the Scientology project which claims to have the goal of NPOV'ing Scientology articles. I don't know if this mention helps you in anyway, but I thought it wouldn't hurt your case or mine to mention it. If you want the evidence, let me know. Also, Snowspinner blocked me for 24 hours last weekend as a result of a erroneous 3RR report by User:Jdforrester. I explained this to them, but they ignored me and this was right at the time of dispute I mentioned above. TINC is no longer true, IMHO there IS somewhat of a cabal. --AI 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's fun facts

I rarely snort when I laugh, but "you can't call the massacre a "fun fact"" in your edit summary did it. Joyous (talk) 00:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, EK. What was this for? My faith in your vandal-fighting is still as strong as ever! Cheers, [[smoddy]] 11:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear me. I should not have said that. I did not read my comment through, as I was in a bit of a rush. I should know better by now... Comment removed. Would you accept my apology, and my continued faith in you? If it makes a difference, I think the RfAr against you is completely spurious, and borders on a personal attack... Cheers, and best wishes, [[smoddy]] 12:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear it. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 12:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brinkman

You were kind enough to support my nomination of Jean Schmidt as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman. PedanticallySpeaking 15:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Problems

I saw your troubles on the requests for arbitration pages, with respect to Raul654 and those other clowns. Don't let them get you down.

Block them?

69.118.219.88 has had all the warnings they need... -Splash 01:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the userpage revert; quick to catch vandalism as usual. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canderson7's RFA

Thanks for supporting my RFA. I'm honored! --Canderson7 16:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Important VFD

Please see the VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. This is of vital importance. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being VFDd off Wikisource (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being VFDd on Commons, where people don't realize that Commons accepts texts (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. -- BRIAN0918  22:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hey EK - Why don't you come onto IRC tomorrow night (Wednesday night, US Eastern Time) so we can discuss your case. →Raul654 08:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, several of us (myself, Fred, David Gerard, and Jimbo) waited up for you, but you never showed. →Raul654 00:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yes discuss the case outside of Wikipedia, in *IRC* of all places. The idea of TINC is propaganda. I have a new term IRCCE (IRC CABAL EXISTS). :) Anyway, congratulations Everking, I am glad they did not impose any extreme restrictions upon you. If you have time, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision. Aloha --AI 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination

Jim, of all the support votes I've gotten, yours is the first I've directly responded to since it really means a lot. I know that you're very particular about who you support for adminship. I truly cannot thank you enough. - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN and arbitration talkback

My fellow James...it's odd, but I can't recall the last time I posted on your talk page. We've both been around for so long, I feel certain I have before....but perhaps I haven't? If so....allow me to belatedly welcome you to Wikipedia! (Forgive my bizarre sense of humor this evening.)

Now, with my perhaps foolish attempt at humor aside, I hope you'll extend me the courtesy of hearing me out -- I'm tired of seeing you try to take on the AC on WP:AN. I said something about it before, apparently to no avail. Now you're talking back to them on AN about the agreement you made in EK3 or whatever the heck they called it. I almost unloaded on you right there, but I decided I should take this to you privately on talk first. You've been a fantastic contributor (better than I, by far) and a good admin (more active and probably more effective than I, again by far), and you deserve that courtesy. That said, I truly implore you, if you have any respect for my opinion whatsoever, stop doing this on AN. It only makes people like myself weary of your comments and frustrated at your desire to publically challenge and defy a group of people you clearly don't respect. And I like and value you as an editor (please don't misunderstand me on that point -- I'm very sincere about this).

I've served on the AC....longest 5 months of my wikicareer. I loathed every minute of it. Bearing responsibility for those decisions was agonizing -- no punishment seemed fair to anybody, no explanation was sufficient, no case moved quickly enough (or else we were over-hasty). That's not to say that there isn't legitimate room for criticizing arbitration here, or specific AC decisions. I know you feel shabbily treated by the AC. All I can say is, your public criticism of them is not being taken seriously, and only serves to further marginalize your opinion in the eyes of many (judging from the response of most editors to your comments). I think you have a valuable perspective -- you're an undeniably talented editor who has experienced the sanctions of the AC and has remained here as a contributor. I think that gives you an insight into arbitration that can be very helpful as we continue to explore how that process will be used by Wikipedia in the coming years. But I am continually frustrated by the fact that, as far as I can tell, you want to limit most of your criticism of arbitration to potshots and nit-picking, usually posted in a forum (AN) which is not traveled often enough by arbitrators (especially the arbitrators with whom you do not seem to have a "past"). I feel that, if you didn't do these things, you would be in a far better position to make some serious and well-thought-out suggestions for how arbitration can be improved here.

Yes, this is far too long -- if you've read it all, I thank you for that courtesy, and I hope I made it remotely worthwhile. If you want to discuss this with me, please drop me a note. Whether you do or not, please be fairly warned -- I respect you, I value your contributions, I hope to see some positive and constructive suggestions about arbitration from you in the future. But if I see you using the AN as a forum from which to criticize the AC (either explicitly, as you did in the Zivinbudas case a few weeks ago, or else implicitly, by challenging the lack of a time limit in an agreement that you voluntarily accepted and by then implying that you were coerced into that agreement), I'm not going to just leave a note here explaining my perspective. I'm going to be very clear about my objection on AN in response. I know you may take this as a threat, and I apologize if it reads as one. I just feel that my politeness in replying to you in the past was not taken seriously, and I want to be taken seriously by you -- I assure you, when you make serious criticisms of Wikipedia practice and policy, whether I agree with you or not, I always take you seriously. I wish you the best of luck in the future here, and I hope that my comments here did not offend you in any way -- I mean to be clear about how displeased I am, but not offensive or rude, and if you think I crossed the line, please know that I will fully apologize for doing so if I am informed. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, James. I hope you know that I don't mean to silence you, and I can't imagine that you think I have a personal grudge against you (I certainly don't). All I mean to say is that I personally feel that any quibbles or challenges you mean to address to the AC should go directly to them, not onto AN. And that I think you will find more support and more people seriously attending to your perspective if, instead of challenging the AC on specific issues on AN, you instead put together some more general thoughts on arbitration and what could be done to improve it, then invite others to comment and discuss. If I'm tempting you to violate your new agreement, please forgive me -- I'm not intending that. I just feel frustrated, because (though this is probably not a fully accurate perception) it appears to me that everytime the AC announces a decision on AN, you want to turn it into an opportunity to start an argument. And I'm saying that I feel that's not productive. I really appreciate your talking about this with me in a calm and reasonable manner (heck, I didn't expect any less :-) and I hope you don't feel attacked by me. I'm headed for bed, but thanks once again for your reply, and I hope this somewhat briefer note helps clarify my position. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 10:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand my position

Why do you people want to block me? I'm trying to spread the message of Democracy to Cuban people (and also i'm active within Cuba), this is hardly extreme POV pushing--Comandante Gomez 09:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya...

I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:


Calton told me that you were hip-deep in fighting these vandals. I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail.

Are you able to help? If so, please use the format:

We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.

If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).

If nothing happens, I'll be taking the whole subnet to ArbCom as I can't think of any other way of dealing with the problem.

Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

And once again I ask you why. To which policy or guideline are you referring? Why do you think that the information automatically created by rollback is inferior ro to the information I'd have placed in the edit summary anyway? When editors don't explain their edits, or engage in large numbers of vandalistic reversions, why do you think that rollback is inappropriate? Don't just issue commands to we lesser beings; have the courtesy to explain yourself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is OK to use rollback on a self-revert? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism to RCP page

An anon user has been adding zip file links to the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) page repeatedly in the last 24 hours. This seems a pretty obvious violation of wiki protocol. The zip files could consist of anything and the relevance seems tenuous at best. The contributor is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.19.62.186 And to a lesser extent from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.145.21.94 Any help you could give to monitor the situation or block the user, if necessary, would be appreciated. DJ Silverfish 07:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt and Hackett

You worked on articles on the special election in Ohio on August 2. I have posted my articles on the nominees in that race, Jean Schmidt and Paul Hackett, at Wikipedia:Peer review and would appreciate your comments. The individual pages are at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jean Schmidt and Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett. PedanticallySpeaking 19:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Admin out of control

Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [1]

It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.

Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.

Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?

Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?

This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.

SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Everyking&oldid=21284925"