User talk:AaronS

This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

Don't worry. I had my fun.

Vaya con Dios

I'm very sorry to see you go. Now you understand why I have kept away from the anarchism articles. There's a lot more that can be done here other than those, and the right folks, eventually, will probably perservere, so the best thing seems to be to make small edits to those at random intervals, rather than focusing completely on them. I suggest and ask that you take a Wikibreak, or try working on articles completely unrelated to anarchism. Like working on the collaboration of the week, or hitting Alt-X (random article) and finding something to spruce up. It'd be sad to lose you. Good luck. --Golbez 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Intangible and AaronS are placed on probation and may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on WP:ANI

Please see my comments on your post to the Administrators' Noticeboard at WP:ANI.

Incidentally, although our paths have never crossed before, I hope you won't quit spending a little time here. For what it's worth, there are places that are a little less contentious than anarchism ... you might want to hang out there for awhile. Best to you in any event. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate you taking the time to consider the matter.

The way I see it, if we are going to keep bringing up my 3RR violations, then we should consider them as separate, and we should also consider the circumstances surrounding them. The first was inadvertent on my part, and I kindly asked the blocking administrator to lift the block, because I was currently editing New England extensively, working towards FA status. He did. The second was later admitted to be a hasty error on the part of the blocking administrator, who was also very reasonable. The third, by Woohookitty, is a bit up in the air. I contested it, and believe that Woohookitty admitted that he might have been in error, but I'm not quite sure at this point. Either way, in that case, I was reverting without edit warring, an exception to WP:3RR.

Regardless, I do not have a history of tendentious editing. I rarely ever insert unsourced claims into controversial articles. Most of my edits have only been considered tendentious by a select group of highly ideological editors, some of whom are now banned indefinitely. As far as edit warring is concerned, I try as hard as possible to refrain from revert wars, and when I revert, it is usually without edit warring. My reasons are always promptly explained on the talk page of the article in question.

Much of my involvement in Wikipedia's controversial articles (and my involvement with Wikipedia was not exclusive to them, although I took a certain interest in them) has been in conjunction with the involvement of a few other truly bad faith editors, who are now banned indefinitely (Thewolfstar, RJII, TheIndividualist, Hogeye, and their various proven or admitted sock puppets). Considering that I was editing controversial articles that were swamped with a few zealots, it follows that I often walked a thin line. I feel that I always walked that line in good faith and with the best interests of the encyclopaedia in mind.

I pointed out my 3RR violations to the AN some time ago, asking for input. Many editors were sympathetic to my position. We all noted that, sometimes, administrators do not fully understand the context of a situation, especially where controversial articles are concerned, because they are too busy to take the time to do so. I'm very happy that Woohookitty has protected anarchism and taken a greater interest in it. It was only after hitting a brick wall a number of times that I decided that Wikipedia wasn't worth my time, anymore. --AaronS 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you want me to post a motion. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have it covered, but thanks for the offer. --AaronS 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hogeye just got unblocked a few days ago, and has since posted to the anarchism talk page once. They had their blocks extended so many months for sockpuppetry though, that it seemed like they were indef blocked. They really should be though. The minute he steps out of line we need to propose a community indef ban on him. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Re-reading my comments, I feel I was unduly harsh in my responses, particularly given the nature of the matter. For that, I apologize. There's a line between taciturn and hostile that I definitely crossed today. Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. Don't worry, though, as it is quite understandable. WP:ANI is often inundated with less than upright types shedding crocodile tears regarding one terrible injustice or another. I can easily see why it would be tempting to write of most complaints as just that. I'm glad that you took the time to examine my own and that you eventually came to the conclusion that my matter is of a different and more honest nature than most. Best wishes, --AaronS 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope this means you'll be coming back, at least part time. I'm feeling lonely. I don't want to be the veteran on the anarchism page, I'm too new! Besides, you're fun to have around. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I think we're all apologizing to you. :) I treated you too harshly with that 3RR. I should've looked more closely into it. So I apologize for that. I'm glad you are back, even if it's only temporarily. As for Whiskey/Thewolfstar, she's on my sock hit list. :) I.e. I plan on watching out for them. Hopefully she'll stay away but I somehow doubt it. Most socks keep going. I've been dealing with one (John Moore) for going on a year now. Anyway, stick around. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be ironic in the extreme if the unmerited Probation notice winds up drawing your attention back to the site. Maybe we should hand those out more often. :) I thought your summary on the arbitration page was very effective. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

I just sent you an email, please respond asap on my talk (slightly different instructions than what I said in the email, but still. Just respond on my talk with yes, no, or maybe, with a title of "response". That's it. Nothing more. If you can send a more detailed response by email too, that would be great. I'll check it tomorrow (I don't have access to the account right now, complicated situation). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How mysterious. I'm intrigued. Will do. --AaronS 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your grad school application

Luck. So, why 20th century French philosophy? Sounds sort of strange, what attracted you to it? And where are you applying? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Foucault, Sartre, Derrida, Camus, and others in different French and philosophy courses attracted me to the subject. I've also studied in France several times. So, I simply combined my three favorite subjects: French, philosophy, and literature. I'll be applying to seven different schools, listed in the order of how good their program is for me: Johns Hopkins (the best), Harvard, NYU, Yale, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, and Princeton. After graduate school, I'll in all likelihood become a professor of some sort. --AaronS 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to come sit in on a class of yours! Seriously. I'll probably have the time. Hop a train to wherever you are. That would be cool. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

Cease and desist your personal attacks and name calling against Hogeye, as seen in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism&diff=76499585&oldid=76498281. This is your first warning. - MSTCrow 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack. Incivil maybe, but certainly not a personal attack. (Copied to MST's page) - FrancisTyers · 12:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just telling it like it is. After you've dealt with a disruptive user for so long, a user who has refused to change his behavior, and who has been given every opportunity to do so, you'll understand where I'm coming from. I do find his antics boring. --AaronS 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I got so narked I called him a troll, then thought the better of it and removed it - and the wolfstar socks keep putting it back in, claiming it was directed at MSTCrow and have even gone as far as adding a typo! I said "ban", not "band"! Donnacha 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious it was directed at hogeye, not you. I didn't know they put the typo in though. That's lame. I actually responded by saying something like "I don't want to be in a band with hogeye. Now if you meant to say ban, I fully support it". It got taken out with the removal of all the crap that was going on that page that day though. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack (not by you)

I suggest you report that hogeye just called you an asshole in his edit summary. There is a thread on him at AN/I right now. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't put the template back on yet, don't want you getting 3rr or in trouble for edit warring. Maybe point the situation out to Francis or Owen. Woohoo, Bish or Bunch might be good too. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's no point in re-adding it, if he's just going to keep removing it. No biggie. But thanks for the heads up. --AaronS 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have Hogeye's answer to your question. [1] Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thankyou

But I'm not Thawolfstar. But thanks for the welcome. Very kindly of you. Rule by Secrecy 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I love how you act so dumb you can't even spell your old username. Typical wolfstar. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Check it. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogeye's anarchism tree

Hogeye has one of his trees on Individualist anarchism. I started a thread on the talk page and removed it (which he put back in) and I would appreciate your help. Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --Konstable 00:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called the editor in question, who has been banned and blocked a number of times for disruption, trolling, OR, and so forth, "dishonest," because he was acting dishonestly. I explained to him why I felt so. I called him an idealogue; but, he has already admitted to that. A synonym for "idealogue" is "zealot." Perhaps I was being a bit egregious by throwing in the word "charlatan," but a an idealogue and zealot who feigns neutrality (after admitting to his immutable bias) is indeed a charlatan. I really wish that you would look at a situation more closely before throwing around these warnings. Also, I'm not sure why this is a final warning. I can't even remember the last time I was warned for making a personal attack. --AaronS 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did calling him all that help the discussion in any way? I don't think so, it only drives up tensions making the discussion less and less hospitable and hence more and more pointless. From the first paragraph of WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Konst.Able 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the policy. When a user is a troll who disrupts in a particular way, it is indeed useful to expose that. I have been watching the discussion for quite some time, only adding my own thoughts very sparingly. I have had experience with Hogeye in the past, before he was originally banned. He was diverting discussion aimed towards improving the article towards the same kinds of things that got him banned -- originally-researched diagrams from his personal web site, leads that purposefully do not attempt to reach any compromise, etc. He has already stated, more or less, that his intention is to make editing the article so unbearable that people will be forced to give him what he wants.

Showing exactly how Hogeye disrupts discussion enables other contributors to be cautious and helps them better understand how to deal with him. Hogeye already has a chip on his shoulder the size of the Titanic. My comments bounced right off him. The purpose of them, however, was to show others that, until he changes his behavior, they should not be wasting pages and pages of talk page discussion rehashing the same old points that he was bringing up before he was banned. --AaronS 12:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DTC: sock puppet

I notice that you inserted a <Susptected sock puppet> template on DTC's userpage a while ago, but have you ever filed a formal report about his being a sockpuppet? If not, is it because you don't think there's enough concrete evidence to have him blocked indefinitely? -- WGee 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly empathize with you, though perhaps this weekend I'll file a report... maybe. Or, I might simply abandon the anarcho-capitalism article altogether. I'm leaning towards the latter right now. -- WGee 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

I live in London these days, so I'm only back in Ireland four or five times a year, but it you haven't been there since the late 90s, it's changed massively (particularly Dublin). Good parts: It's very multicultural with a substantial Chinese and African population. Bad parts: Ireland got rich and hit the verge of cultural breakdown (though it looks like people went to the pub, had a few drinks and got over it). Dublin's been tarted up and has lost a lot of its soul. House prices are through the roof. Drinks cost a fortune. There are too many cars. LOL! I left in 2002 when the dot bomb bit RTÉ. Donnacha 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

In case you haven't seen it, the AnCaps are trying to delete the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article [2]. Donnacha 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

Thank you. I feel like I'm abandoning you guys and I apologize for that. But that article is just hopeless. You are a very good user. I would really recommend that you get involved with some of the cleanup projects or something like that. I think you have alot to give the community. But if you stay at just anarchism stuff, you are going to burn out. Guaranteed. You already sort of have. :) It's just a mess. And I'm not sure that it'll ever be "fixed". --Woohookitty^(meow) 21:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wolf in our midst?

hey, keep an eye on Imagination débridée at anarchism, i suspect another thewolfstar clone. Blockader 16:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that she is. --AaronS 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towns of Massachusetts outline map

I saw the Massachusetts towns image you apparently uploaded November 13, 2005. Image:Ma_towns.png

1. I am interested in knowing how it was made...in order to consider making similar maps for other New England states.
2. I also noticed that the copyright license offered, as public domain, is not the form that Wikipedia policy apprently currently aims for--as an editor marked the license section with a request for a revised copyright template, indicating how it became public domain--that is--the source. Since it is a good and useful map, I would like it not be deleted in the future.

Could you indicate via a revised templete the source?

3. On reading your talk page I see you're departing from Wikipedia: I would like to invite you to check on your other images and see if they have the similar licensing issues.

I am not acquainted with your work (though I may scan your contributions shortly), but I'll express regret that you're departing, as I inadvertently encountered one very useful item you caused to show up on Wikipedia that I is being used right now in an article I care about: New England town

I'll email, in case you're not checking your pages much during your departure period. Yellowdesk 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ma towns merrimac.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ma towns merrimac.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Who are you and what the heck are you talking about? Doctors without suspenders 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something smells wolfie

Hi, Aaron. I have blocked the latest (or... is it?) incarnation of the injured innocence I see posting just above, please see your unarchived ANI thread. Thanks for your help. Bishonen | talk 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]