You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Thanks for your reply and enjoy your retirement or break. Your contributions to the project are appreciated. Will Bebacktalk 00:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In yet another Clint Catalyst/buzznet related dispute today, User:Swancookie rather gratuitously impugned your good faith and insinuated anti-"LGBT" bias. Being fed up with the series of hit=and-run SPAs (named and unnamed) who attack rather than discuss, I've raised the incident at WP:AN/I. I doubt you want any more involvement with this tarpit (who would?), but I thought you should be alerted to the situation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record- I NEVER insinuated an anti-"LGBT" bias!
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that's a complete lie.
I need to discuss a LGBT matter that's separate from my issue with HW.
Swancookie (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of arbcom discussion
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we have a template for adding IMDb listings. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I didn't even think IMDB was considered a reliable source (it shouldn't be). Times have changed.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
I decided to do this since you chose to ignore the ongoing attempt to resolve this at ANI (which you had been alerted to) and reverted anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I contest this block since I did not go over 3rr, am well aware of that line and certainly would never exceed it. While I understand that edit warring blocks may be issued for less, I have 3 reverts in my life at that article (of course all today) and no one, except the guy who edit warred beyond 3rr, said anything to me about it. That someone is having arguments with other editors at AN/I is irrelevant to the course of normal editing (particularly enforcing WP:RS. There is no requirement that i participate at An/i or that i allow the "right version" of an article to persist because another editor is making complaints at An/I and is edit warring beyond what the bright red line.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
After some thought, I have decided to unblock. While I am bothered by your reluctance to accept responsibility, you have agreed not to perpetuate this edit war. Since a block isn't punitive, I am going to go ahead and unblock since further disruption seems unlikely. However, I kinda ask you to not revert through good faith attempts to resolve a situation through discussion in the future. Ignoring such attempts only increases the level of conflict. The 'wrong version' of an article existing for a day or two is preferable to an edit war. Sometimes one needs to be the 'better person' and let the other side 'win' temporarily.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I will let another admin review this, but 3rr is not the definition of edit warring - it is an example of it. Reverting despite knowing a good faith attempt to resolve the situation is underway is, IMO, edit warring and can only perpetuate the problem. Who notified you of said discussion is irrelevant.
I take no position as to which version is "correct" and will happily unblock myself if you agree not to revert again until the ANI thread is resolved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going anywhere near that page again -- but you've behaved horribly onesidedly, fella. No warning, no violation of editing rules, the RS thread established pretty clear advice that the blog should not be excepted from policy and .... I get blocked? You're enabling religious POV pushers (i love the bit in that article about the "proof that the rebbe is the messiah" and here you are enforcing "collegial" editing). Please spare me any advice on this page in future. Don't respect you, don't want it from you. Ciao.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked you because you were the first person to perpetuate the edit war after being alerted of the ANI thread. I can only speak for myself, by I most certainly don't have a POV and am not attempting to help any side.
Both you and Debasser are at precisely 3 reverts so neither has violated 3RR. The difference between the two of you isn't who is right and who is wrong about the article (the consensus appears to be that he is wrong), but that he is at least attempting to resolve the situation through discussion and you are just reverting. If you can't understand the difference than I am going to have to abstain from unblocking and let an uninvolved admin decide. Sorry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in your justifications, and I don't really care if i'm unblocked (though you're shifting the goalposts now, it's ok. I understand you're not unblocking me because you're feeling shirty and dissed, not because i failed to say "i'm not going anywhere near that page again.") I understand you're not going to actually interpret or understand policy and that you prefer to be a hall-monitor. Tis a pity.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the "standard" unblock conditions are 1) an understanding of what caused the block and 2) an agreement not to do it again. You have clearly done part 2, but IMO not part one. That is partially my fault for not stating this requirement upfront, and I acknowledge that. The fact that you keep placing the blame on other people (first Debasser, now me) and not admitting fault is why I am hesitant to unblock. Perhaps I am wrong - another admin will decide that - but I am not trying to be unreasonable. (And yes, mild attacks on me don't help your case.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look. I don't care to help my case with you. You intervened foolishly in this instance, and punitively, and presumably to make yourself feel more powerful. I'm Ok with that -- i know that comes with the territory here. I don't want you to acknowledge anything -- as i don't acknowledge that there's particularly anything wrong with reverting unreliable sourcing from the encyclopedia without going over 3rr -- particularly when the policy is so clear cut (as it is in this instance). Your insistance on not learning about the edits at hand and rewarding that hysterical little fellow who is creating the AN/I drama is precisely against the interests of the enecyclopedia. I know you don't understand this -- I know you probably never well. But as long as you insist on returning here i'll try to make it a teaching moment for you. Your choice.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will help your case with anybody, but that isn't the point... You are welcome to think otherwise, but I always listen to anyone who thinks I am wrong. And yes, I will admit it when I realize I am mistaken. So if you have anything else to say that might make me a better admin, I will listen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure i've got advice. Don't be an enabler for nationalist/religious/political POV pushers as you are now -- it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia and the editing environemnt (and, obviously, makes you a poor admin). Actually look at and try to understand the substance of issues at hand. Finally, don't hand out punitive blocks, and be even-handed when intervening in disputes. Also remember the onus is on inclusion, not the other way, when the quality of a source is in question (and anyone with a brain knows a pdf hosted at a defunct website with a strong pov is not a reliable source for anything.) Any more advice needed, my door is always open.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to grant the request since I implied you only needed to say you'd stop, which you did. (See full comments above.) I thank you for the advice, but must disagree here. The responsibility of an admin is not to decide who is "right", but rather to stop the conflict in as efficient and fair way as possible. I made a judgment call that the best way to do that was by blocking you since you had made a revert which (to me) indicated you were going to continue to war for your preferred version despite good faith attempts being made by others to resolve the conflict without further reverts. Obviously you disagree with my judgment. However, the block was never intended to be punitive, nor should be be viewed as any kind of endorsement of text or the other side's behavior. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody minds me chiming in, isn't the pressure of including something in an article on the one who wants it in, not the one who wants it out. Debasser needs to show how that source is valid, and since it is a violation of WP:RS, he is the one who needs to earn consensus. Consensus needs to be to include it rather than exclude it. We don't ignore a policy just because something is being "worked out" on ANI (if that's what you can call it). Grsz11 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about policy. However, being right is not sufficient justification to edit war. Again, reverting without attempting to participate in the resolution discussion is not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Peace...
.. I will try to improve my English writing skills...Kindly excuse some of the comments by my "supporters" at my RFA. They are not intentional -- TinuCherian - 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i think their comments are intentional. But I appreciate you're a polite fellow, and don't hold you responsible for their actions. I know only one way to express my opinion -- honestly and directly. The nom is for the same reason -- having looked at that article, i worry that you don't understand how to apply notability. None of this means i wish you ill. As it is, your adminship will pass. Take your responsbilities seriously.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you may not like me at the best ( atleast as of now). But regardless of the outcome of my RFA, I wish to collabrate with you on wikipedia in future. Kindly let me know if I can be of any help to you anytime. And my deepest personal apologies, if someone made any unfair comments to you related to me and your stand on the RFA. Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a fan of The Great Gatsby? If so, could you tell me if it is Gatsby or Tom in the promotional poster for the 1974 film? Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge fan but like the book and started that article. Redford played Gatsby in the 1974 film and that's Reford in the poster illustrating the film article. Best. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Murphy ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings.
Hi.
Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.
If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.
Your topic ban is appropriate. That you are dissatisfied with the answers given as to why you were banned and don't want to deal with your own behavior is unfortunate, but something i can't help you with. I have no interest in circular discussions that are irrelevant to the topic. Edit elsewhere for a few months and then maybe see if you can get the ban lifted, is my advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow called me a liar. I'll make a fool out of him every time he does that. He's headed for arbcom if his friends can't muzzle him.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has a rather long track record of such behavior. This recent RFC on the user may be of interest to you. [3].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If his behavior bothers you, bring it up on his talk page or somewhere that matters. Take the high road. Fighting back at AfD is just going to cause a "no consensus" closure. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Bali ultimate, please do not needle AN in deletion discussions, as you did here. I'm specifically talking about "denying" his request for more time, a request that anyone with your experience in AFD knows is directed at the closing administrator. Also, mocking his "sincerely" in various discussions: I recognize that he's been doing it for months and that DGG has counseled him against it, but "Why are you wasting so many man hours trying to force unencyclopedic content into wikipedia! Sincerely, and with great affection for a fellow editor." is just plain mean.--Chaser2 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turnabout is fair play son. He learned nothing from his RFC. He's a disingenuous, MMORPG game player, who confounds the normal process here and who'll be off to arbcom shortly if he doesn't shape up. The problem is all his.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 11:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest and warmest thanks
for your editorial job on Islamic influences on Christian art. You've turned a piece of mindless propaganda into something that could actually pass for factually accurate. This was most brave of you! Cheers, RCS (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks. It obviously is an interesting topic but as written... ugh.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot even BEGIN to imagine the haters and trolls scrabbling all over that page. I'm almost afraid to even look at the history. --King Öomie 22:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks for stepping in at AN/I. I figured anything I posted there would only escalate his conflict with me. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I was a little dissapointed, though -- I expect a little more rhetorical skill out of a rebbe with a 140+ IQ. I guess all that deference takes the edge off.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
math.toolserver.org
or something like that ;) 113 at the moment. It won't go down unless the page is deleted or something is oversighted; I suppose there is a chance of the latter. For general use. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
All is kewl. It's all friendly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(saw the edit summaries ;( mellow, please, you're both friends of mine. Tensions are high and I urge a lot of calm. Bali was just telling me to go eat well — or else ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack -- I'm a calm person. The hall monitor needs to learn to open his eyes. He might give admins a bad name otherwise.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm sure you know; Rlevse is an Arb. He's going to be part of the next motion. Don't poke the nice arbs with a stick, ok? Sincerely,Jack Merridew 05:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just so i'm sure you know: I don't care. It's not supposed to matter. The same standards apply to everyone. I appreciate the advice -- but if one can't call an "arb" a "hall monitor" without having a bunch of me too fools rounded up on some chat room to form a mob to protect the honor of one of their own (or one of their potential future "sponsors") from such a vicious, vexatious personal attack (how do they stand up to the abuse?) then i have no place here? These are the same simps that tolerate vicious BLP violations enduring not for hours or minutes but for years. These are the people who make this the most tedious (yet strangely engrossing -- I'm guilty) MMORPG of all time. At this point, I'm toast here anyway. My values and wikipedias values are not aligned. So who's feelings am i meant to protect? They're on the same course as the german version, but with a much slower burn and a much higher drama qoutient. Long live the kind! In all honesty, i think they've got five years left yet (first mover status and all that. Could be longer. Who knows?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really doesn't matter. "Civility" is one of the policies that makes a great weapon; this is one of the great schisms in this project. Some people go off on and damn word and some don't give a flying-fuck. Getting someone dinged on salty language is wiki-war 101. If you direct raw emotion at someone, you're very, very at risk. There are, of course, back channels; twisty mazes, all alike. They guy's you are snapping at are not the problem. Please focus on who the problems really are; and no, not all the problems are people. The very nature of the wiki has structural flaws and the soup of conflicting policies and guidelines is a direct result of all the players being able to edit the rules. The issues that are fucking this project up are understood; it's implementing solutions that's proving difficult. I have been here over five years and know far more about the wiki then most editors. I've left before; shit, I left last week. You know I resigned an adminship on another project? I got it back, too. So, *mellow*. Go read my ANI post about my occasional sig; I'll paste you a copy
re the below; *I* have no issue with the dialogue Bali and I were having on my talk page. This is all spill over from the toxic environment on my unban review talk page and the heat there all originates with Ikip. Please remove this block; and Bali you need to not be snapping at Rlevse — unwind that ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Apparently, i've been blocked for using language with a friend that neither he nor i found offensive? Do i have this right? My conversations with Jack Merridew were perfectly cordial, he certainly had no problems. If it was about something else, please be more specific? That was the only thing i received warnings for (however misquided and unwelcome). Truly puzzled.
Decline reason:
If you felt Rlevse was misunderstanding your comments, there was an appropriate way to mention that, and an inappropriate one. The appropriate way would have been along the lines of "It wasn't my intention to offend, I was joking with Jack and I believe he knows this". You chose the derogatory, inappropriate method. That, along with other very incivil comments I'm seeing, got you blocked. Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Outside of the unblock requesst -- please explain how my interactions with Jack Merridew led to this. If it was with someone else, please be specific. And really, if it was over Jack's and my banter, I expect grovelling from the hall monitors involved. I'd love to know what harmed person complained about this, or what harm to the project was being prevented here.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was for comments directed at others (as per my diffs). An example being an edit directed at Rlevse with the edit summary: "i have no differnences with jack. Least not today. You really have zero clue here. It's the culture, i suppose." Tiptoetytalk 04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what horrible offense is the block over my comment to Rlevese preventing? He ignorantly thought i was taunting jack, when i was bantering with him. He posted here warning me. I told him his warning was silly and suggested he speak to the person he imagined i was offending. And you're protetcting wikipedia how, here? You're convincing me to go away and never come back? You're protecting Rlevese, how? From being told that his ignorant comments were unwarranted? Explain how this is a useful and acceptable flexing of admin muscle?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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).
So let me understand this: I'm being blocked because i failed to show proper deference to rlevse when he ignorantly, and completely innapropriately (on the facts of the case -- i wasn't being unpleasant to Jack) called Relvse a "hall monitor" and said he "had no clue" in edit summaries explaining my friendly banter with Jack and inviting Rlevse to check in with Jack before warning me again? The mind boggles. Is there some greater offense on offer here? I'll be honest: I didn't offend Jack, and if admins can't handle being called "hall monitors" when they fail to look at the context of friendly banter, then, well, I really don't belong here full stop. If this is the behavior y'all are seeking to modify, then, well, indef me now baby.
Decline reason:
The block was justified. —Dark 07:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please stop trying to sugar coat it, look at all the diffs I provided under the block template. This is not just about you calling Rlevse a "hall monitor" and I think you know that. Tiptoetytalk 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then spell it out. I won't break under the shame. What, exactly and precisely, is the problem? Some other interaction? Let's hear it.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Yes, being outright rude towards Rlevse was part of it. I've have given the same warning if I'd seen the "idiot fucker" comment, as I expect would any passerby. That you in fact weren't trying to insult him does not excuse a holier-than-thou attitude towards the person who misunderstood. Theseedits also are nothing other than blatant trolling. Your "sugar coating", as Tip appropriately calls this, is not helping your case to be unblocked. Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, hersfold -- It's about me pointing out earlier today that Ikip was on a 130+ edit crusade to try to get somebody else blocked is why I'm now blocked. So it's a disruption block? My pointing out that hounding is the real reason? And not the current reason? It's all so confusing? What, precisely, was i blocked for and what harm was the block (current or future) the block preventing? The blocking administrator certainly hasn't been clear. Yours is one opinion, i still don't have a solid one though. If it's disruption to point out that someone posts 130 times to a discussion page in which there name was not involved (until they inserted themselves) i'd love to understand why pointing out 15 or fewer times that they were hounding someone was. Anyone else?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "I didn't hear that" game isn't going to help either. I just told you why you were blocked. Rank incivility and trolling. The block is obviously placed to stop them, although I must say it's not doing a terribly good job at the moment. Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which difs? As you can tell i'm not interested in toucing my forelock for the likes of you. What trolling, precisely? What rank incvivility precisely? I'm listening. I might learn something (but bowing down before information? Of course not). What 1 or 2 or 3 diffs (your choice) led to this block?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed them out. Try reading my posts. I'm tired of repeating myself, and I'm going to go do something more productive now. Hersfold(t/a/c) 05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not one single diff interlaced with any of your posts. Not one. Toodles to you. Toodle on.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Bali; you need to mellow. I have *no* issue with our dialogue and appreciate your support over on that other talk page. You need to take a step back here and say you'll chill a bit and not bite the arbs and clerks. Don't you disappear for months, again, ok. It all sorts in time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, take Jack's advice. This could have all been avoided had you taken more care in choosing your words. Also, no one wants you to leave the project and I hope this block does not do that. Take some time off, then come back rejuvenated. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Your self-righteous advice, in the service of the passive-aggresive culture here, is of no value to me. I called an "arbitrator" (my god! I'm shocked the lord hasn't had my head yet) a "hall monitor" for acting in rank ignorance. And now y'all are schooling. I get it. Players of rank are to be treated with kid gloves, their vassels are to be given 130+ edits worth of rope. And being mildy intemperate in an edit summary on ones own talk page? Fatal. Who started this? You did Tiptoey, your crocodile tears here not withstanding. You still have not any case to make that you've protected the project with this foolishness. Unless it's this: People like me aren't welcome here. That was the message that came through loud and clear (and what prompted you to send the message -- somehow i doubt it was because of a watched page). Got it in one. If you hoped that your poor behavior wouldn't drive me away, then you shouldn't have acted a fool. The choice was yours.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to actually address your hostile behavior in some fashion rather than just repeatedly arguing it was OK. I agree not a single post was a blatant "block now" offense by itself, but your continued hostility (before & after the block) is not helpful to yourself or the encyclopedia. At this point, you would probably be better off disengaging, letting it go, and maybe even re-evaluating your general attitude. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thad -- you already know that i think you are a hall monitor par excellance and that I have zero respect for your "advice." It's funny how you found you way here so quick, though. Welcome. Would you like to explain how you dish out preventive blocks to long-standing editors that haven't gone over 3 reverts again? That would amuse, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you think insulting me will help your case, but to answer your question, your talk page is on my watchlist. Free free to check my block record and tell me where I've erred if you like. You may be surprised to learn that I very rarely block anyone; guess I am not as 'excellent' as you thought. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you got the impression that i particularly care about getting unblocked thad. I think you have terrible judgement, and shouldn't be in a position of responsibility over content and standards, anywhere in the humanities, broadly construed. Just pointing out that my previous block was a pre 3rr "edit warring" block, issued by you, over keeping a blog as a source in a biography that, more or less, asserted that a rebbe was the (factually, induspitably) messiah. And you didn't notice. I guess, just keep your eye on what matters son.Bali ultimate(talk) 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here, and with your editing in general, if that you think you are infallible. You aren't and you don't have the right to act like you are. Whatever good you do here is canceled out by the way you treat others. Just because someone makes a mistake, says something stupid, or doesn't understand policy doesn't give you the right to insult them. Sure you normally avoid making your insults explicit and usually avoid "bad" language. That has protected you in the past, but it shouldn't. You attitude is poison, as you yourself *should* realize since you are so quick to jump on those who think they are right but are "obviously wrong." When two people are on the opposite side of an issue, at least one of them is wrong, but when neither is willing to even discuss it becomes a big problem. You usually get your way here - partly because you are usually right, and partly because you are more aggressive than your opponents. The encyclopedia might benefit in the short run from more accurate articles, but it loses in the long run from losing editors that started off POV pushing but would have evolved into good editors if you had treated them with respect rather than contempt.
You claim you don't want to play games, but your actions say otherwise. Several people have explained to you that no one diff caused your block, yet you keep arguing that there is nothing wrong with calling someone a hall monitor. That is probably true in isolation, but then again it didn't occur in isolation. You either don't understand or are ignoring this on purpose. Since I don't think you are stupid, it must be the later. You instantly remember every detail of our past conversation, whereas I didn't recall the details. I had moved on to help the encyclopedia, but you were holding an unproductive grudge. Finally, you choose to ignore opinions based on the source from which they come. Surely someone as intelligent as yourself realizes that is a logical fallacy. Good advice is good advice (and bad advice is bad advice), regardless of the source. My judgment doesn't enter into it. (Of course, you would still think it is bad advice because, of course, you are infallible to begin with.) All of this shows quite clearly you are here to play games whether you admit it to yourself or not. If you want to actually help the encyclopedia, I suggest you ignore where the advice is coming from and think maybe, just maybe, you actually are wrong sometimes, and access the damage your attitude causes. But, if all you want to do is play games, by all means tell yourself "that's just dumb old Thaddeus talking and ignore everything I've said. You choice is yours.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thad -- I don't reject your opinions because I don't like your name or personality. I reject your opinions because i think you have poor judgment (you also don't have any grasp of what a Logical fallacy is, but whatever). You appear to be one of those misguided souls who think the number of articles and editors matter, that this is more of social networking site than an effort to write strong, accurate content. You appear to believe that people with poor writing skills, a tenuous grasp on research and verifiability, conflicts of interest, nationalist/religio agendas, obsessive compilers of absurd lists of fictional persons, places and things all need care and protection. But people who actually know how to do the work, and had the responsibility and respect to figure out policies on their own by, you know, reading them, are to be hounded as problematic.
I give the opinions (which are what most of those statements are from you up there -- not facts) of people whose judgment I don't respect less weight. Nothing personal. I certainly don't think i'm infallible. And of course other people's stupidity and mistakes don't give me the right to insult them. What are these insults? Two diffs in which i tweak Ikip for his vexatious, over the top editing (i started keeping track of the number of edits he'd made in an attempt to frame jack for some wiki crime or other after he went over 100). If you're going to allow that kind of hounding going on, a few comments noting the hounding is more than fair. (Really "Keep it open! Ikip is only 64 edits shy of a double century! Don't declare now. Think of justice and Sir Don" is an insult?) "I strongly suggest you get a clue (or talk to jack) before you post ill-informed hall monitor crap here again" in an edit summary to an aggressive editor who falsely accused me of something? "i have no differnences with jack. Least not today. You really have zero clue here. It's the culture, i suppose" in another edit summary (as Rlevse reinserted his false warning and allegation on my talk page) is beyond the bounds? Another edit summary to the dedicated battler Ikip of "got the mote out now. Ikip -- Go away. You are unwelcome here. All future posts will just be rvv" after he, too, was edit waring to include stuff on my talk page that I had already removed. I have now dispensed with all the diffs provided by Tiptoey.
By the way Thad, I remember the details of our past interaction because it was recent (a month ago), I have a good memory and your foolish, punitive block to make a point (you don't like straight-talkers; you prefer an indirect sidling step) was the only one I'd ever received. What grudge? Did i pursue the matter? Did i give you another thought? Not once. Until you reinserted yourself here, unwelcome again, confirming my assessment of you.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last post, as I am obviously wasting my time... Your insults are implicit, not explicit. Not are they limited to the small number of diffs provided in this thread. I am quite sure you are aware of this.
You treat people with contempt and create a hostile environment which is a net negative on the encyclopedia, no matter what you think. I don't need to look very far, since you keep a list of (anonymous) stupidity you've encountered right on the userpage. Your behavior affects both "useless" contributors and useful ones. Many people who are quite capable chose not to contribute because they dislike the drama created by aggressive people like yourself. (You are far, far from the only one, but that is not relevant here.)
My block of you was never intended to be punitive. Your actions in that case indicated you rather edit war than discuss because you were "obviously right." Thus the block to prevent further edit warring. I unblocked you when you agreed not to edit war further despite your insistence you were in the right, when you weren't, and your insults of me. Being right is not an excuse to (implicitly) insult people, nor is it an excuse to edit war.
As far as I am concerned, yes the encyclopedia would be better off without aggressive know-it-alls, even if that means losing some good content contributors. Any loss of content will be made up for by others who would have left if the aggressive editor stayed.
Finally, attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself is indeed a logical fallacy.
No need to reply, as I am done with this conversation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hurt your feelings. Well, it's good to know you won't bear a grudge (by, say, repeatedly returning to where you've been told your advice is unwelcome). Your block of me was prior to a fourth revert and with no warning, and zero chance of me going over the line. You did it because you don't like me and it's why you're here now. Happy that you're going. Many, many people who are quite capable give up editing in disgust because of sub-par Randy in Boise enabling administrators like you. I may be curt, but i don't track people down on their talk pages to stir up trouble, file endless AN/I arbcom and good knows whats against people i don't like. The encyclopedia of stupid comments on my user page is an example of the tortuous, sub-par debates with semi-educated people that one must endure to contribute here.
Finally, if the source of an "argument" is based on "opinions" that emanate from someone of questionable judgment rejecting their opinions isn't a case of "attacking the source."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly impressed with this block. Your edits on Jack's unban talk page weren't productive, but nothing on that talk page was particularly productive. Had I been in your shoes, Rlevse's lack of clue and unnecessary warning probably would've gotten under my skin as well. This block looks like an overreaction by the ArbCom clerks and I think a "time served" is appropriate, though your obviously uncivil remarks post-block don't make that much of a possibility. AniMate 05:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. Could you quote the uncivil, clearly block generating comments. Was there something worse than "hall monitor?" If so, I can't figure what it was. And if that's it, how does that compare to the heaps of nonesense i've (and many others) have had to deal with here?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact words used to insult aren't really relevant, IMO. An insult is an insult. Please explain how you think insulting people is *helpful* to the encyclopedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone ever ask me not to call Rlevese a "hall monitor" again. And did i fail to heed them? Did i follow them around with this epithet? How is your presence here helpful. I find it annoying (presumably in the fashion that rlevse found being calleda "hall monitor" annoying). Can i have you blocked for annoying me? That would assuage some of my hurt feelings, i must admit.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside view
Let's see -- two editors engage in banter containing some rough language but clearly of a friendly nature, advising on where to obtain good food. Admin sees naughty word, doesn't bother to look at context, gives stern warning to one of the users.[9] Editor is clearly miffed at this gross misunderstanding, requests that admin speak to other party to confirm. Admin refuses to do so, ups the ante by reinstating his previous comment (despite long-held principle that editors are free to delete comments on own talk page), re-emphasizes his failure to understand the situation by referring to differences between the parties. Editor responds again with edit summary requesting that admin attempt to understand the situation, though not in parliamentary language as editor is clearly miffed that admin is being so obtuse. The supposedly-insulted party chimes in to say there's no problem, no insult. Editor again removes comment by admin, still obviously miffed. Editor gets blocked. Have I got this right? Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it in one (I suspect there's some use of email/chat rooms here as well, but of course i can't prove it).Bali ultimate (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just take a vacation for a while. This is by no means the first time I've seen Rlevse take a "ready, fire, aim" approach but he is an arbitrator, so there's no way you can win. Go have a beer, crank some tunes, and come back to Wikipedia in a few days. It's just a website. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is probably it for me. I'm actually not that much of a critic of the vested editor mindset, has some merit (more rope for the more invested). But because he's an arbitrator and so therefore rounds up a posse because he got tweaked a little for being foolish? Not my kinda place. Someone else warned me earlier not to fail to grovel because he was an arb. I ignored it -- I thought that's silly. If i don't violate basic standards for users in general (edit warring, ad hominems, etc...) there wouldn't be any problems. I've been around a while. But this was fairly stunning and illuminating. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Fuck that 'this is probably it for me' shite; it's just a block; I took one for eight months. Rlevse is no idiot; I'm gonna go build his dog a nice user page when this shit-storm ends. @all; *time served* and an expectation of some mellowness. Make-It-So. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To folks that share me views
You are of course welcome to post here. But I have no intention of grovelling in the face of this idiocy. If it's in some way harmful to your interests (broadly construed) to be associated with this talk page or my approach, step away. It won't bother me. If i thought well of you a week ago, I'll think well of you (more or less) no matter what you say here or fail to say here going forward. It doesn't matter. I am, to say the least, thoroughly unconvinced that calling rlevse a "hall monitor" was a blockable offense. If folks want to engage me (support/oppose/opine/whatever) on this idiocy I'll respond for the next day or two (the burn rate on this version of the game). If you disagree with me, that's all good too. But I'm not amenable to taking the advice of fellow game players. I am going the full monty. So if you have a longer term commitment to the game, and your inclination is to say things in my support, be forewarned. If i was in your shoes (and cared) I would not do so.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need a few beers, blow-jobs, Javanese girls cruising Seminyak. Probably in another order.
I'm emailing you next; enable it if it's not on ;) Jack Merridew 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (who's never fucked an idiot; I like the sharp girls;)[reply]
What a gang of ankle-biters
A 48 hour incivility block for calling an admin a "hall monitor" in an edit summary, on my talk page, when I removed a warning i received for friendly banter between me and a third party that neither of us found offensive or innappropirate. Then unblocks are denied twice because i don't express sufficient "contrition" for the non-offense of calling Rlevse a hall monitor, whose judgement was appalling, and who failed to check in with the user whose honor he imagined he was defending after being invited to twice -- second time after he reinserted, in a pointy and dare i say hall-monitorish fashion, his unwelcome and misplaced advice. Another hall-monitor, Tiptoey something or other, then blocks over this offense. Apparently my crime is especially heinous because rlevse is now, or is about to be soon, an arbitrator? Why should that matter at all. Oh yes, there was me "didn't hear that problem" when i asked "Hersfold" to explain how, exactly, "hall monitor" deserved a 48 hour block. Listen little fishies -- you've got your wish. Just keep on enabling your fellow MMORPG players, and ignore content. Your mommas will be so proud.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong track. I've been pinging. The misunderstanding about our dialogue is small beer; if it were just that, you would be unblocked now. Combative posts while blocked do not lead to unblocks. Please, chill and ask nicely for time-served tomorrow. People understand your argument, they are wary of the presentation. I run into this same issue, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i understand that it's about asserting power and control, largely to make them feel more important. There was absolutely no disruption to the project. There was no motivation behind this beyond swatting down someone who didn't ass kiss. I don't engage in ad hominems, don't game over content, don't have a POV to push, and now don't care to satisfy any of them. Appreciate the spirit of your comments Jack, but you misunderstand me if you think i'm on the "wrong track." It implies you think my intent is to mollify them. It isn't. The heaps of abusive behavior these idiots condone, explicity or implicity, every day, the nonsense and harmful content they protect, are the real issues. The abusive "warnings" used like game chits by the game players (so they can later say "teacher -- bali won't stop touching my desk and he's already be warned fo times") are tiresome. I won't be taught to be more manipulative and passive aggressive, which is the outcome they're seeking (remaking the world in their image -- per Obama last night, it's a temptation few can avoid).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ambient model is to try and keep the lid on and stop forest fires. Seen the huge fires that get going in real forests because they let too much brush build up for years? It's the same damn thing, here. I'm telling people that and I see movement in the right directing, but the inertia is huge, so it takes time.
If you're unblocked, you gonna cause shit? I don't think so. Just *say* so and we're done here. Listen to a friend, ya stubborn fuck; ok? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 13:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If unblocked, i will behave more or less as i did in this instance in similar cases. Rlevse's ignorant posturing and poking was the problem here. He was like a child walking into a room. He had no frame of reference. That's called being clueless -- not particularly uncivil when one understands that he failed to comprehend some reasonably friendly banter on his own. When asked to get help in comprehension (by talking to you) he poked again with his little admin stick. He came here and sought me out -- not the other way around. Then he went for the drama button by privately contacting tiptoey (and perhaps others) to block me because I said he was behaving like a "hall monitor" and that he was "clueless." Oh, the mighty disruption, I'm lucky it was only 48 hours. It was so bad, around the time Rlevse secured his block from his friend, he disappeared from wikipedia for a while. I'm sure he was crying all night.
In seriousness, Rleves's appalling behavior in this instance (why keep coming to my talk page and poking me over a matter of which he was entirely ignorant? Why not just go away?) is par for the course round here. I get it. All in the game. But have any respect for it? No. Any contrition over my part in this? Of course not. The ones w ho need to apologize and modify their behavior are Rlevse, Tiptoey and a few others. I know that will never happen. They have the big stick and I do not. But dance for their amusement and puffed up egos? Aint gonna happen.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize, but you must see the irony in berating and insulting people for blocking you over imagined incivility. --King Öomie 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, you'll notice I'm largely addressing their conduct, which was far, far out of bounds. I guess "clueless" is directed at Rlevse directly, but i think he was demonstrably that in this instance.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clueless is repeated instances of name-calling, gross incivility, and personal attacks while trying to get yourself unblocked while under a civility block. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think I wanted to be unblocked particularly badly? You're even sillier than i thought.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←*cough*
The block is about to run out in a few minutes. Hint: that would be a good time to look forward. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bali, would you mind removing or rewording your comments at WP:ANI#block review requested? That type of article isn't really my cup of tea either, but that's kicking someone when they're already down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The editors "valuable contributions" are in fact problematic for the encyclopedia. That's something you should deal with -- not simply pointing out the sorts of articles that they write. I was blocked 48 hours for calling someone a hall monitor. There's a problem here, and it ain't me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I had nothing to do with your earlier block, and was unaware of it until now. Personally, I'm in favor of a polite word with someone, instead of "civilty blocks", ("hall monitor" garnered 48 hrs? really?), but evidently that doesn't work either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just be sure to leave my comments alone, in toto. I'm lightly pointing out a broader problem of the sort the community never deals with. That isn't "kicking him when he's down." I"ve called no one a bigot, to "kiss my ass," etc... as that editor has. I have pointed to a helpful link to one of his japanese fetish porn articles (at which the child in africa is greeted by some wonderful, wonderful encyclopedic content.) I'm far more concerned about his efforts to turn wikipedia into a porn directory than i am that he was rude and intemperate on a xfd talk page. Again, don't lay a finger on my comments.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your edit, as the RfA is currently on hold.
The candidate's statement was not filled in, and the RfA is on hold until the candidate has the opportunity to correct this detail. Obviously, once this is done, you are welcome to re-add your comment (in fact, if nothing else is done in the meantime, you can just undo with an edit summary of 're-inserting my !vote now that the RfA is no longer on hold' or something!
People like you are the reason a lot of people are giving up on this site. I hope you continue to have fun "kicking people when they're down".James Frankcom (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People like you, who claim academic "credentials" but create copy-paste copyvios and fail to adequately source almost any of their contributions (a real academic would know the hows and whys of this) are almost as much of the problem as a system that allows unsourced, unverifiable alleged information to persist here for years. You applied for a role you are not qualified for and you got a straight response. Plagiarism used to be a good way to get drummed out of the academy, or haven't you heard? If having glaring deficiencies pointed out in a straightforward and professional manner is why some people "are giving up on this site" then that's all to the good (though it doesn't really appear to be so). The people who care about getting it right will learn that unsourced information is unacceptable. You don't strike me as one of those people. Prove me wrong. Go source all the articles you've created that are unsourced and get rid of the copyvios -- requesting speedy deletions for those would be the easiest route.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think this post vindicates your Oppose fairly well. Even outside every other issue, this attitude gets a resounding "hell no" from me. --King Öomie 15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bristol Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, noticed you were also working on Nicole Blackman. It seems to me as though most of the material listed in the bibliography section is inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia (magazine articles, chapbooks, etc) - if you could please help sort this out, that would be great. Thanks, keep up the good work! Feather Jonah (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may not repropose something for deletion once the prod tag has been contested, see WP:PROD. Instead, use WP:AFD. Thanks, Prodegotalk 16:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about and why are you deprodding an unsourced blp?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain?
Since you didn't leave any explanation on the article, could you please explain the issues represented by these tags? The source is an official government biography that confirms the information in the (two-sentence stub) article. Tony Fox(arf!) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source tag is to indicate that the article rests entirely on a primary source, which is not sufficient for notability and verification. The refimprove tag is a reminder that reliable sources, independent of the subject, are required and that the referencing needs to be improved.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Toshiyuki Kakuta, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain?
[10] ? I don't see any unsourced statements remaining. RayTalk 03:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to editwar, but do you truly consider the provincial government of Manitoba to be unreliable concerning the historical membership of its assembly? RayTalk 03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a primary source, insufficient for building a proper encyclopedia article, for many reasons. I'm sorry you don't understand why blps of nobody's that hinge on a single primary source need primarysources and refimprove tags. You're inability to grasp this concept is beyond my ability cure.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to the discussion of Baden Powell's homosexuality
You have twice deleted properly sourced material from the article, and you are the one who is in danger of breaking the three revert rule, and you are the only one who has interfered with my edits. I suggest you read the rule book before you get in any more trouble. Haiduc (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
