User talk:AaronS: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:48, 10 August 2006

Talk archives: here

your comment on my page

Hi, AaronS. Thanks for the comment you left on my page. You said, "I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack some of the users who are editing anarchism." I attcked the editors of anarchism? You mean on the anarchism article talk page? Where did I do this? To be honest with you I would appreciate it if some of these editors would stop attacking anarcho-capitalism. Its sure looking to me like an attempt at destroying an excellent article. I would also appreciate it if some of you would stop attacking Hogeye, RJll, Vision Thing and me. Anyway, I would rather live in peace than war and in kindness than in meanness, so it would probably be a good idea if we all started to treat each other in a more considerate way. Peace, Shannon^{duck talk} 03:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Intangible. See [here]. Please post any comments you desire to add.--Cberlet 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Don't mess with valuable featured articles. I didn't censor anything. I merely put it on the discussion page. Shannon^{duck talk} 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

I'm good! How have you been? Are you still going to (was it Dartmouth?) I'm in a time warp, for all I know you graduated years ago =) Blahblahblahblahblahblah 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I quit flag for good some time ago. Things are pretty normal with me, my mate is begining her last year of med-school, my daughter is spending the summer playing and learning to swim better, and I've finally gotten coverage for a medication that treats my arthritis. So its hard to complain when everyone is relatively happy and relatively healthy. How are your studies progressing, what subjects particularly interest you now? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 10:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your degree is very similar to mine, a double major in English Literature and Philosophy. I had enough for a minor in Women's Studies, but didn't feel like writing the thesis required for it. I'm also planning on going back to the university and picking up my masters, which I had to quit years ago when my arthritis got bad and someone needed to stay home to take care of my daughter. I'm also hoping to eventually go into teaching, so maybe someday we will be colleagues ;) Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page.
Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing!

NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm.
Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

your playing advice

Thanks for the advice, but no thanks. If I take advice from someone about playing nice it will from someone who actually does play nice. Shannon^{duck talk} 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

Re: Thanks

It is a very heated and controversial topic, and it often times can be hard to be objective about, often simply due to the fact that the subject matter has an extremely complex history which is often misrepresented and distorted by primary sources on all sides of the matter. While I tend to disagree occasionally with your edits, you do tend to keep a cool head when discussing them, which I must credit you for. Two-Bit Sprite 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA. It passed on the relatively narrow vote of 38/8/8. It was also one of the least-participated-in RFA nominations in several months, so pat yourself on the back, and join the party on your left, but first, take your cookie!

NOTE: I can't code HTML to save my life. I copied this from Misza13. I guess I should write him a thank you note as well. Cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons. May contain peanuts or chicken. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3. Do not take with alcohol. This notice has a dark background and therefore may be eaten by a grue at any time. The receiver of this message, hereafter referred to as "Pudding Head" relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit or any other litigious activities. RyanGerbil10, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Georgia, North Dakota and Wisconsin are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts.

Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I saw this comment you made on Two-Bit Sprite page "There's way too much original research going on." That gave me a good laugh coming from you, Aaron. Thanks for the laugh. Don't take offense, though. Better to laugh. Peace. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England

Hi AaronS,

Thanks for all the work you've done on New England. It's an interesting and informative article. I'd support it for featured status. However, of course, one thing I've learned from reading WP:FAC almost daily is that it's really difficult to anticipate the faults other editors will find with the article. In any case, if it doesn't make it, you'll get some ideas for improvement. Presently, Peer Review isn't bringing enough feedback, so that's one way to get a larger part of the community to comment on the article.

Again, thank you for your contributions to the article.

Fg2 04:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You always did despise our kind!

I told myself I would stop reading it, but to the degree it doesn't flat out scare me its just too damned funny to ignore. Honestly, I get a good laugh from almost every post. Perhaps this is a sly joke being played out for our benefit? I mean, how often to you hear an "anarchist" denounce the use of traitorous rhetoric?

Lol! Things have been really funny lately. I thought it would get better with RJII and Hogeye gone (at least from their main accounts) but it seems to be worse. Oh well. Have you seen this edit yet? Can you believe it--a patriotic anarchist? I thought I had seen it all! The Ungovernable Force 04:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just an FYI

You might have a look at some of the accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thewolfstar, soon to be joined by User:Lingeron. Maggie has "issues" and has been pursuing the same agenda on Wikipedia for some time, but hasn't gotten the hint that we don't want the crazy nonsense she's selling. She's also interested in "overthrowing" the evil admins that block her for acting like a nutter. (see edit summary). The best thing you can do for her is to encourage her to seek professional help. Also see the article attacking Wikipedia on her website, http://www.earthhopenetwork.net. Laupheimer 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lingeron

I feel your pain. Just a quick browse of her talkpage and how she manages it (and berates those that point out simple policy to her) shows that she is very bad at assuming good faith. Her approach to editing seems like a bad fit for Wikipedia, and I wish you luck at the Administrators Noticeboard.--Rosicrucian 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, AaronS, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7...

I am now an admin!!!

I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yank sox 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words

I find that half the fun of Wikipedia is the fact that I end up places I ordinarily would have no interest in. While I do make the rounds of my primary interests, most articles I end up getting really wrapped up in editing are things I never would have expected. Half of them I couldn't even tell you how I reached them. I'll try not to get burned out on the anarchism discussion, but it was an interesting find when I spotted it while reporting a vandal on the noticeboard.--Rosicrucian 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your reverts

Undue weight? I'm citing sources here. Have you ever cited sources? Intangible 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one making the positive of claim, so the burden of proof is not on me. It's on you. Considering all of the good discussion that's going on at Template talk:Anarchism, this is highly disruptive and tendentious of you. There's no point to it, and it doesn't help anything. --AaronS 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just citing the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. What's wrong with that? Intangible 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Anarchism. --AaronS 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what cites have you provided there? Only some marginal book by some freelance journalist published by some marginal publishing house was presented, by another user; a book which started with the WTO riots in Seattle. Intangible 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, follow the discussion. Namely the part where there is nearly a consesus (save for you and TheIndividualist) that there is a dispute, here. That's the definition of a dispute -- people disagree. One source says one thing, another source says another. There are plenty of sources on anarchism that don't even mention Murray Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism. --AaronS 21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on anarchism that don't mention Stirner or Tucker. You have not provided any sources that say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, while I have provided sources that say it is. Intangible 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see my argument regarding the burden of proof. I don't need to provide you with a source to back up the claim that faeries aren't real, for instance. --AaronS 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Individualist

Has revealed himself to be RJ [1]. Didn't take as long as I thought it would to use decency arguments to get him to fess up. I guess he has a bit more moral fiber than Hogeye (not that this is saying much). Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked! You mean that was a sock the whole time? No! So hey, that's two blocked in two days, not bad! The Ungovernable Force 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, I think we're starting to get the gist of this. --AaronS 12:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox City vs Infobox New England

Hi, Aaron,
I noticed your comment on Assawyer's talk page regarding Infobox Town NH and have a question for you. What, specifically, does Infobox City NOT cover?

If it's the form of government, can you give me an example of one that cannot be displayed using the City template?
If it's something else, can you explain?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand why a couple people think that the standard template won't work. Thanks! -- SatyrTN 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aaron,
Thanks for responding. Infobox City has been working fine for towns where there's a Board of Selectmen - take a look at Meredith, NH for example. -- SatyrTN 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right!

RJII is crazy! [2] and [3]. The Ungovernable Force 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He/She is. But please, let's not stoop to his level. --LucVerhelst 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is rather pointless. --AaronS 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England

It's difficult to say we get so many good article nominations (which is good) that you learn to say yes or no very quickly. Definitely remove the single sentences and take the time to make sure the article reads properly. With that done I think you will have a pretty good article. For an article this size, shortening the article is always an option but I think the article at the moment is pretty focused so it's not really a problem. Good luck! Cedars 07:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Such as, "In the end, however, you're just an inauthentic sophist, a false intellectual, and a phony, because you're incapable of autocritique, incapable of seeing your own insanity -- in a word: a charlatan. I always think that it's sad when people who have the potential to practice real philosophy settle for the lowest common denominator. You're nothing more than a partisan pundit..."..blah blah [4] ConcernedUser 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hush hush, sock puppet. Your novelty is quickly fading, and I grow tired of this same old routine. --AaronS 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you always been a magnet for wikidrama? My sympathies.--Rosicrucian 23:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the things to be a magnet for, it's got to be the worst. =) It does seem that way. It comes along with editing political articles -- you'll always run into ideologues. This time, however, I have to admit that it was my fault. I was having far too much guilty fun needling RJII. --AaronS 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caro Blymyer Dawes

You flagged Caro Blymyer Dawes for deletion because you felt that she is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Apparently being the wife of a Vice President of the United States does not make a person noteworthy enough for you. Why do you feel that the Second Lady of the United States is such an unimportant position? By your logic, there should be no article on Jennie Hobart, Cornelia Tappan Clinton, Eliza McCardle Johnson or any of the other less famous Second Ladies. I ask you to please remove your request for deletion from the Caro Blymyer Dawes page, explain why the above three ladies deserve a page yet Blymyer Dawes does not, or delete all of the pages concerning the Second Ladies of the United States. Thank you. Wscc05 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, or what you're talking about. I had nothing to do with that. I've never even seen the article before. Perhaps you're mistaking me for somebody else? --AaronS 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're correct. I'm terribly sorry! My mistake. Wscc05 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. =) It's one of those days. --AaronS 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

No problem. -- Vision Thing -- 11:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism talk

Now you see the fun that has erupted while you were away from the article. Given that User:Uiofvnondc showed up out of nowhere to tell us the true meaning of anarcho-captialism, and seems to only edit on that article and its talkpages whilst quoting wikipolicy left and right, Twobitsprite and I are fairly sure it's a sock. Of someone. Don't know who, but RJIII and Wolfstar/Lingeron are prime candidates as recent bannings and rabid PoV warriors.--Rosicrucian 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This block relates to reverts at Anarchism. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I was reverting the edits of banned users' sockpuppets.[5][6] The person who reported this was a banned user's sockpuppet.[7] I was acting in good faith and within the exception provided by WP:3RR. I don't really mind the block, and I've emailed the administrator who has blocked me, but I do wish that, with regard to the banned users in question, administrators would cease to facilitate their gaming of the system. --AaronS 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was anyone supposed to guess that AceLiner is a banned users sock? Someones sock, yes. Furthermore, if you're reverting a banned user, you should make that clear in the edit summaries and/or talk William M. Connolley 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody had bothered to contact me, considering that I am a long-time editor in good standing, I could have informed them of the situation. Alternatively, they could have simply looked at the edit history and user contributions. My first revert had the following edit history: rv boring sock; get some new material, please.[8] --AaronS 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's hoping the block expires soon. I'm getting a bad case of head meets wall over the continuing debate on the anarcho-capitalism talk. Well, I suppose it's not a debate so much as Uiofvnondc claiming the word "political" is a violation of NPoV, and ignoring any evidence or consensus to the contrary.--Rosicrucian 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. Get used to this if you want to edit anarchism related articles though. The Ungovernable Force 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information I have now, I would not have blocked you, as at least one of the four reverts was reverting a banned sock. However, given the information available at the time, I feel I acted correctly. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You'll get a better response if you go back and make that about 75% shorter. - brenneman ^{L} 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 173: / Line 173: @@
 Here's hoping the block expires soon. I'm getting a bad case of head meets wall over the continuing debate on the anarcho-capitalism talk. Well, I suppose it's not a debate so much as Uiofvnondc claiming the word "political" is a violation of NPoV, and  ignoring any evidence or consensus to the contrary.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 :Tell me about it. Get used to this if you want to edit anarchism related articles though. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> [[User:The Ungovernable Force|<font color="green">'''Ungovernable'''</font>]] [[User talk:The Ungovernable Force|<font color="black">'''Force'''</font>]] 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
+::Given the information I have now, I would not have blocked you, as at least one of the four reverts was reverting a banned sock. However, given the information available at the time, I feel I acted correctly. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 == ANI ==