Jump to content

User talk:Floquenbeam

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stefanomencarelli (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 1 April 2012 (→‎Request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Note to self

Unresolved
 – I owe one other person an email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The war isn't yet over, it seems..

Hi. Today should be a very good day for me.After a calvarious path, the Hunter in Swiss Air Force is finally saved. But.. it is happening something different now. Someone is never happy enough to play with rules. Next time i'll have the insane idea to write a new article in the aviation section, i'll surely think twice and more instead. Regardless of the 'legitimate sources' i think it is really borderline, if not worse, to question the basis of an article just saved today! And by who, then? A guy that cannot even understand that the sources are 'PD', and shouts about 'copyright issues'. Shall i presume 'good faith'? There is definively the need of some advisors, as i fear to be involved in a very murky dispute. I don't know how it would end, but if interested, the discussion continues here: [1]Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any real interest in getting involved in a content dispute on a subject I know nothing about, but I'll quickly note here that:
  • An article being kept at AFD has absolutely nothing to do with whether the state of the article is acceptable or not. You can't argue against change in an article just because the AFD was closed keep.
  • If you consider it a "war", I suspect you're not approaching it with the right attitude.
There are multiple avenues available to you at WP:Dispute resolution. If conversations on the talk page stall, you should pursue them. But give the talk page a chance first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS email

Hey Floquenbeam, the email address you entered for your UTRS account doesn't appear to be valid, we got a bounce notice from the toolserver when TParis approved your account just now. Could you send me an email so I can update your email address in the database? Thank you! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent just now, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mail!

Hello Floquenbeam, you've got mail. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

read it but running out door and reply will have to wait. but generally agree and have been watching on and off already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commented. Generally I think you haven't done anything wrong here. I suspect you're frustrated, but please bend over backwards to not let this turn into a crusade of some kind. That's the fastest way to get people sidetracked. Not saying you've done that, just asking you to keep making sure you don't. It's been my experience with others that it becomes more and more difficult to stay polite, and once you get snippy, people seize on that and lose track of the actual issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I take your point, I've seen that happen before as well, so will try to avoid it. Have to say though that it feels, to me at least, that Abhijay's looking for trouble where there isn't, because I've not done anything related to him (until today) after his last request to leave him alone. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Re:ANI links displaying offensive image in popups

It was my edit, sorry - I am not sure why this thing happened - but I think that it is a bug - this image is on MediaWiki:Bad image list +(second bug - it was in nowiki). Bulwersator (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yep, probably (at least) two bugs. I reported the problem here yesterday. Thankfully Floq has made AN/I (relatively) penis-free in the meantime. 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bulwersator, I meant to let you know I fiddled with your edit, but got sidetracked. I was able to make ANI penis-free, but it would be too big a task to try to make it dick-free. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Frivolous accusations

Hi Floquenbeam, I noticed your block here on one of the SPA. However the other one has not only kept this frivolous complaint up but has repeated it on numerous talk pages. I would suport the call for a CU to be done. --Domer48'fenian' 11:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, from what little I've seen, I suspect you're right, but I don't have much time to look into yet another editor's edits, nor much experience dealing with this contentious subject area. If Gravyring had kept his head down and been less public and blatantly obvious about his disruption, I wouldn't have noticed. Isn't there a noticeboard somewhere that specializes in problems in this area? Or AE? I guess I'm saying you probably do need some help, but I'm not going to be able to be the one to provide it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said at the noticeboard, if you're going to look into so called SPA's, you should also look into the history of Domer, otherwise your blocks look extremely one sided and short term self-defeating, if they are intended to prevent POV editing in the Troubles area. If Domer wants to present themselves to you as someone who has interests on Wikipedia outside of the Troubles, then you'd do well to investigate that. He is an SPA as far as this topic area goes, you don't have to do much investigation to come to that conclusion. And if you did do any further investigation, you'd see how little effort he expends in actually discussing issues like the one Gravyring is upset about properly, in the manner that consensus building is supposed to occur. Hence when you block one side without looking at the other, you're not doing anything really to settle the dispute long term. I just examined Domer's last 5 edits to actual article talk pages (which are very hard to find in amongst postings to user pages and noticeboards looking for action of the sort above, or the rest which are just article reverts, mostly as part of slow-motion edit warring of the type seen at the Loch article). Not one of those 5 can be described as genuine attempts at consensus building at all, not in my book. [2][3][4][5]. It probably goes on like this through his history for quite a while, and the general quotient of reverts to talk page edits should concern anyone considering his block log. I would be cautious about believing him if he tries to claim every one of these is an article where he is fighting against disruptive SPAs like Gravyring. I'd say it's more than likely he has more than a hand in precipitating these disputes himself, through either the nature of the actual edits, or his methods of ensuring they remain in articles. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Floq, but Neetandtidy has a previous account, which he has not named or linked his account to, I have asked him to e-mail an admin to clarify he is cúla-búla, the admin would let us know that he is not a sock. He has also questioned whether or not my account is my first, I have stated yes and would e-mail an admin if required to prove this here. Let me know what info you would need of my real self to varify this. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Murry, the question has to be asked...why are you getting involved? Asking other users to prove their identity not really your place.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hound the question has to be asked, are you telling me what I may and may not do on the project? A user has to connect his accounts, if they wish to edit on the project, if it is a case of identity protection they can choose to start a clean account but they must inform an admin to give it the ok. This stops socks. AGF, I am asking for clarity, not accussing. And that is my right, not to know who they are, but why they are not connecting thier accounts. If it is an ID or outting issue I have no problems with that and I would not ask anymore info from them if an admin cleared it. Murry1975 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've neither the time nor inclination nor dispute resolution skills nor patience to get involved more deeply with this topic. I really have no idea how to solve the complex problems with editing in this area, and I'm not saying there are no long term editors who also cause problems. I don't know Domer, and have only had a passing interaction with Murray on an unrelated issue. They could be the good guys, the bad guys, or somewhere in between, I don't know or care. The best I can do is solve the small, easy-to-identify, obvious problem of an editor who is only here to argue about one contentious topic, who made clearly bad-faith ANI reports to try to "win", and who is clearly a returning previously-blocked editor. If I was truly taking Domer's side in this, I'd block you two as obvious returning previously-blocked editors as well, but since I'm not familiar with who's who in this area, and don't have the time for some kind of investigation, I'll leave that to the braver souls who deal with this issue more often than I do. But no one is going to convince me to play cop more often in this area, for either "side", so you should really think about whether further posts here are a valuable use of your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Floq, I wasnt asking you to take sides. Murry1975 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Floq, we all appreciate that adminship is time consuming, but your blocking logic should not be based on blocking a newish editor who would not be entirely fluent in wiki policy while letting a user with a history of edit warring go free. And from the looks of it Domer has broken their probation albeit 5 months ago when no one picked up on. Why did you decide to deal with the matter if you did not have time to look into both sides? I am assuming that Gravyring will have their account unlocked then?Hackneyhound (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the 5 month old history first. It wasn't a violation of their probation (you know this). That's why I called it an incorrect, bad-faith report. Gravyring (like you) is not a newish editor, of that I am certain. So no, you assume incorrectly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well Domer made 4 edits in 2 weeks, on a page where his probation applied and where he is only allowed to make 1 edit per week. Ohh well. I still think Gravyring should not of received an indefinite block if Domer can continue to edit even after years of edit warring yet Gravyring is blocked for 1 bad faith edit. Doesn't add up and is not very fair.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Floq, again I am sorry the way this spilled over onto your page, I apologise if I came across as trying to influence you, it was not my intention. Just to let you know, if you are unaware, that hackneyhound is now block for multiple accounts as is Neetandtidy, your comment above rings true. Again I aploligise for the spill over. Murry1975 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, Murry, it really doesn't bother me that this showed up here, as long as everyone understands that I'm probably not going to do what they'd like me to do. Domer asked me to get involved, you provided backup info, and I declined; I don't see anything wrong with any of the three actions. Good to know my sock radar still functions, but this was pretty obvious, so I don't know that I've really established anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

When an editor is blocked, should a regular editor leave a blocking template on a blocked users talk page or should an admin do so? Ab hijay  ☎ 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, three issues. One, if we're talking about the {{indef}} tag-of-shame on a user page, I don't even think they should be used at all, but if they are, it should always be the blocking admin to do it. Two, both {{indef}} and {{uw-blocked}} templates should match reality (i.e. no indef-blocked templates on a page of someone blocked for a week). And three, it's almost always better to leave it to the blocking admin's judgement. They probably have reasons for doing what they did. Even if it was an accidental omission, the blocking template doesn't really do very much; all the essential information for the blocked editor is in the block message they get when they try to edit. In the very rare case of the tag being necessary, and not placed by the blocking admin, leave it to a very experienced editor. So to answer what I think is your underlying question, no I don't think there are any situations where you should place such a template on someone else's page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Floquenbeam. Ab hijay  ☎ 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abhijay, clearly I don't want you to believe I'm hounding you, but I think Floq's quite clearly said above that you shouldn't ("I don't think … you should place such a template on someone else's page") be making edits like this. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhijay, I'm... speechless. I am quickly coming around to the possibility that you may be trying to be disruptive on purpose, or see what you can get away with. Still assuming for the moment that you aren't, you need to start thinking much more carefully before making edits like that, or you will find yourself blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of you, chill out, I'm sorry, OK. I'm sorry. I didn't know a rule like that even existed, until today when you guys have brought it to my attention. I wasn't being disruptive neither trolling. I didn't know I was doing the right thing, until now. Chill out, both of you. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't really true, is it. I said you shouldn't do it, you acknowledged that, then you immediately did do it again (incorrectly), saying "per discussion with Floquenbeam". In those circumstances, I am having a very hard time imagining any good faith reason for that edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abhijay, I'm a high-functioning autistic. And as I'm an Autie rather than an Aspie, I'm farther away from neurotypical on that scale than you are. It's not an excuse to get away with stuff; it's a reason to try and take a bit more care because you know you might miss things. But I'm not at all sure that being an Aspie would make you miss what was pretty darned clear, there. Next time, read everything at least four times before you're sure you've understood it right. And then leave it for 24 hours while you think about it ... Pesky (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See your talk page. I just.... I don't know what else to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Floq, if you ever have a problem with Aspie/Autie people, I'm always more than happy to do the "interpreter" thing (knowing what's actually a reason and what's just being used as an excuse helps!) Hugz. Pesky (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PeskyCommoner, thanks but no thanks. I guess I have explained enough, and I think I don't want to talk more. Soviet King (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijay/Soviet King, I've just noticed your "Retired" banner. By all means take a break, but don't be too disheartened! Aspie/Autie people can end up making excellent Wikipedia editors, and I personally know several people on the same scale as you and I who are admins here, so it's certainly not much of an impediment to progress. Any time you feel you're not quite sure of an explanation, or just want to chat with me or others on the same scale, come over to my talk page. I have stalkers on there who are also Aspie/Autie, and who were incredibly helpful to me when I goofed up as a newbie, who would be delighted to help you out when things get tricky. Cheers, Pesky (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pesky. @ Floquenbeam, if you are too steamed to talk to me, I guess that I will agree on a few things here. But before we go to that, please note that I'm sorry for having used my disability as an excuse to get away with what I wanted. Yes, it was over the line, and I owe you an apology for the disruption caused. Before I put this matter to a final end, please note that I left the message at Joniquq's page because I felt that he was being a target of a potential block. In this case, it wasn't and I'm sorry for that as well. I now understand that at WP:ANI, I should carefully assess a person's contributions before commenting on a proposed block. With you saying that I shouldn't post at WP:ANI just will not make me edit there. I want to contribute to WP:ANI because I assume good faith, and so are you. Conflict, sure isn't my thing as I added potential 'fuel' to the conversation there because I thought that ThisThat2011 was doing it on purpose, but after seeing his reply on the talk page, I understand that he too went over the line. Editors like them I agree could be a bit difficult to work with (given his apparent judgmental attitude), and I admit I was a bit angry upon reading his comments. You have to admit that ThisThat's jibe seemed rather hurtful, and as Aspie's we tend to proceed in such a way that we often don't realise what impact it would have on ThisThat if I reacted like that. Having said that, I agree conflict may not seem the strongest of my contributions to Wikipedia, and entirely this case was based upon human error and stupidity. I am more than happy to contribute less to conflict between editors, but I feel that it is generally hurtful for you having said that I caused trouble at WP:ANI. Please acknowlegde the fact that I didn't know that ThisThat meant really, and that I acted without having realized that. And note that I actually found out that he went over the line after saying that, and I too went over the line. It would be very rude of me not to accept your constructive criticism on my talk page. I appreciate your constructive criticism, and as and admin it is your duty to make sure stuff is clean and right in it's place. Saying that I use it (my disability) as an excuse will not help me improve on Wikipedia. After all, everyone is trying to the best to make this project like a great big resourceful book isn't it? Up today, I didn't know that rules existed where Administrators can block someone if they post a blocking template on someone's talk page, and I never knew that Templates are a pre-requisite if someone does something stupid on Wikipedia or if they are blocked. Conflict at WP:ANI may not be strong, but in the past I have reported several users for Edit warring. That's enough said of me, and have a nice day. Soviet King (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I and my stalkers can do to help you get along, SK, we'll do our best. The big key is always to relax and wind down, I know. If I'd known in my teens and twenties what I know now, I would have been so much happier and got on so much better! Remember I'll always try not to nag you, and I'll always mean well, but there will be times I'll just remind you about stuff. One of the biggest problems we A-Spectrum types can have is being a bit trigger-happy and over-reactive, and misunderstanding what other people are seeing. But the tricks to dealing with that are actually much easier to learn than a lot of us realise. It gets better as you get older! I'm sure we can get to a place where we can all work smoothly with each other.

Oooh, huge pro-tip! Stop thinking of it as a "disability"; it really isn't, it's just a "difference" in the way we process thoughts and perceptions. Pesky (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: angle trisection, etc.

Thanks! I think I was going through the right motions (e.g., alerting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics) but obviously I should have done that well before I got to 5 (or however many) reverts. I'll definitely be more careful in the future. Best, Joel B. Lewis (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I wouldn't have blocked you myself, but it was a judgement call and I guess I understand why it was done. The key is that you seem to have rolled with it, rather than get your back up, which is probably the most refreshing reaction to a block I've seen in a while. Cheers, and thanks for all the content-related work you do here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soumitrahazra

Hello, You have allowed User talk:Soumitrahazra#Discussion is not optional him to edit one month ago. Now see, he is not listening to anybody in spite of many messages. And I patrolled his contribution page, he is not doing assessment properly and not writing any summary after notice. Thank You. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 13:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've reminded him. If he resumes assessing articles without discussion, please let me know and I will block the account for good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a joke

[6]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just got worse: [7], [8], [9]. The person is even edit-warring to keep their clueless message on my Commons talkpage: [10]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw; the amazing thing is, this guy's got like 30k edits over there. As I said on my Commons talk page, I'd forgotten that Commons will keep anything if it's related to a penis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so. But I still think this is an attack page on Pepsi Co. Is there anything that can be done via ANI here? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "The Pepsi Logo is public domain. So there is no copyright issue." Is this actually true? Because... I think the Pepsi folks may have made a slight mistake in their marketing strategy, assuming this is correct... Doc talk 02:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But somehow the editor at Commons claims it is PD, even though I doubt it. Regardless, this is an attack page on Pepsi Co's image. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I printed that logo up and sold t-shirts with the image on it, I guarantee you I'd face a lawsuit from Pepsi if I were big enough that they'd catch wind of it. I don't care what morons on the Commons say: no Pepsi logo (or Coca-Cola logo, etc.) is "public domain" in the real world. Doc talk 02:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Well said Doc. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the uploader of the image at Commons used it to vandalise the Pepsi article here: [11]. What does that tell you about the image? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I ran across it. I thought I'd help out by going over to commons. Of course, if you notice, he's now nominated another (harmless) picture the same vandal uploaded for deletion - that kind of thing they won't accept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pepsi would not allow their logo, which earns them ludicrous amounts of money for every second that it exists, to be interpreted in any other way except that they own it 100%. Because, of course, they do. That image needs to be seriously reconsidered on the Commons, because it is not in the public domain. Let alone any "penis" derivatives... Doc talk 03:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've launched a deletion request on commons since one editor is rather rudely declining the obvious speedy... Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pepsi_Logo.jpg . Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Doc: Good points. I wonder if we can raise the issue at ANI or Jimbo's page? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good call Barts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good call Barts. I know for a fact that ANI, or any other noticeboard here on en.wiki, will be powerless. I'm not sure Jimbo would care. I've asked Fastily (a Commons admin) to give me a reality check. Just like "notability" means something different on Wikipedia than it does to normal humans, perhaps "vandalism" means something different on Commons than it does to normal humans. Barts1a's idea is probably the most productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Floq. I guess we don't need any additional drama. And I know Commons is outside of the jurisdiction of ANI, but the only reason I mentioned ANI was that perhaps we could find an en.wiki admin who is also an admin in Commons who could possibly agree to speedy delete this vandalism. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tear this mother down ;> Doc talk 03:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if my talk page here is considered "canvassing" over there? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing for common sense? But you never know. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Coca-Cola script is PD because it was published before 1923: convincing enough. This Pepsi logo is not PD, for obvious reasons. Copying the "Pepsi globe" along with the letters: apparently not copyright infringement in any way. Commons is... ill-informed. ;P Doc talk 04:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. The idiot that defended the vandalism got a VERY STERN warning to boot. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fry1989&diff=69091558&oldid=69087649 . Discussion was closed as "Deleted: Blatant Vandalism. Why are we even having this discusison?". Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spyder Grove

As you were typing your final warning to Spyder Grove (talk · contribs), I was blocking him for disruptive editing. I'll defer to your judgement and let you decide if he should be unblocked or not. Regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I didn't block myself was because I thought someone might think I jumped the gun, and I'm not going to be around much longer today to argue. Good call IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huggies

Wolfly hugz for you
Just because you're a darling ;P Pesky (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: angle trisection, etc. -- Repeated Deletion of New Relevant Material

Hello, I've attempted to enter new information under the seventh heading of Wikipedia's "Trisection" webpage entitled, "By infinite repetition of bisection". Such information references a relevant 1995 United States copyright.

a) On March 29th my work was deleted several times. Because of attempting to re-enter the data, I was BLOCKED for Edit Warring.
b) I've received information from you addressing your concern over my placing of multiple entries via different log-in names. I wasn't aware of this problem until now; and will be sure to log in EVERY time I make an edit hereinafter.
c) When I made my complaint to MuZemike, I made notification that two people had multiply deleted me from making such edits. One was blocked along with me, but the other was left free.
d) Today the other again has DELETED my work leaving as a reason that he had decided my intentions for placing the work on your site were for personal gain. I have concerns about replacing this information at this point because again I might be tagged with Edit Warring. However, the information which I've attempted to add many times references copyrighted information and is completely disclosed on
http://www.truescans.com/index-Trisection.htm.
e) Remaining information just added and now afforded under this heading is supposedly copyrighted in 1997. Under that copyright on the following referenced webpage it contains the curious words, "Under construction (just kidding, sort of)". This information of a later vintage carries the same exact mathematical progression terms as my copyright and should definitely be investigated by Wikipedia's "copyright crew".
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm

So, in conclusion, The other edit warring partner whom I previously identified is named -- User:D.Lazard and JUST DELETED MY ATTEMPTED ADDITION. This represents his third deletion of my work. As opposed to allowing such user to make decision as to what copyrighted information is bonafide, I would appreciate if you NOW INTERVENE in this matter. If you check my talk page for March 29, my appeal to MuZimike, item (3) requested his intervention so this type of problem would not continue after my block duration had ended. And this is exactly what re-occurred.

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A couple of notes

Please read these; they will help prevent you from being blocked from editing here.

  • The idea that the current wording of that section of angle trisection is a copyright violation, and that your version somehow fixed it, is bizarre. You do not have a solid rationale for your version.
  • Please do not revert anyone on that page anymore, or I will block you from editing. You are edit warring, and have significantly exceeded the three revert rule.
  • Please be careful how you word things; your post at WP:ANI could be interpreted as a legal threat, even if that was not your intention.
  • You can't copyright an idea. Especially one that existed long before 1995.
  • Please don't source anything else to www.truescans.com. It is not a reliable source.

Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments at the top of this page, and am concerned that you don't plan on changing your ways here. So I just want to make sure I've been crystal clear: If you resume any of these things again once your block expires, I'll block you indefinitely. Furthermore, I note that in the past, you've used Special:Contributions/WIKI-1-PIDEA, Special:Contributions/66.91.237.221, and Special:Contributions/Ronready2go to add the same material to various articles. This is against our policy of sockpuppetry, and will also result in a block if it continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO: "You can't copyright an idea" as listed above, .....

I've already rendered response to that same question as asked by another person -- ref my User Talk page which reads as follows:
"I am most certainly not claiming a copyright for an idea sir-- That allegation is preposterous. What I have made available is an APPROACH for trisection. The 1995 copyright represents the first time on official record that "negative factor" geometric progression represents a true analogous solution to the trisection problem. And that, most certainly IS NOT OBVIOUS! Prior to that research, the statement that iterative trisection could solve the problem was not sufficient because means for incorporating direction had to be determined. So, in conclusion -- before an APPROACH is determined, no one can make a statement as to the results...."

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO: "Please don't source anything else to www.truescans.com. It is not a reliable source" as listed above, .....

I ask why truescans is not considered a reliable source. It specifies direct pages of very rare books which have lost their copyright status because of being printed over 100 years ago. What can be more reliable than that? With almost five-thousand Wikipedia readers, there has not been a single assertion that such website is incorrect, misleading, or inadequate.
And now, truescans presents a mathematical proof and trisection linkage for "negative factor" geometric progression as described above. It is not a question of the reliability of the webpage which governs here, it is the adequacy of the United States copyright -- which by the way, is watertight. If, what you seek is direct correlation to U.S. Copyright TXu 636 519, I'm sure that can be arranged.
Lastly, what makes truescans any less reliable than http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm which is now referenced at that seventh heading location?

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE TO: "The idea that the current wording of that section of angle trisection is a copyright violation, and that your version somehow fixed it, is bizarre. You do not have a solid rationale for your version".as listed above, .....

An algebraic proof is rendered on the above referenced truescans webpage, as likewise in U.S. Copyright TXu 636 519. There cannot be anything more solid than an algebraic proof which stands 100% correct! So, I don't understand why you contemplate such proof as being bizarre since it [and it alone I mind you] directly connects "negative factor" geometric progression with "trisection"

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

After some discussions with other contributors, i have temporarly quit about this stuff, as it became too warm even for me. But, even if i quitted , someone didn't stopped to insult me. I think that Dave's gratuitus attack was really gratuitus and offensive, as i could be many things, but i am not surely a troll. Regards.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&oldid=485012210"