User talk:Askahrc

Welcome!

Hello, Askahrc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Vlad III the Impaler

I reverted it because you introduced bad grammar into the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So I did... The Cap'n (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, overcats on Ignatius Pell

Greetings, the enthusiasm is great, but most of the categories you've added to Ignatius Pell don't actually exist, or aren't formatted right and thus don't like. The best way to figure out what cats to add is to find an article for a similar figure and copy/modify his cats. Also, if you want to see if a given cat exists, if you type, say "Category:Pirates" into the Search bar, it'll list out what items match that beginning ("Pirates by country", "Pirates executed in the 1800s", etc.) Do note that for cats the capitalisation does matter. Further, articles should go into the most specific applicable cats. For example, an article about a Buddhist temple in Foak District, Thailand doesn't go into "Buddhism" and "Thailand", it goes into "Buddhist temples in Thailand" and "Buildings and structures in Foak District". So Pell would not go in the basic cat "Piracy", he would go into things like (making up examples) "Pirates of the 1780s", "Pirates of the British Empire", etc. Just make sure that such a category actually exists before you add it. Feel free to write me with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, that's very helpful! I've cut down the cats to those relating more specifically to the topic. This is my first original article, so I've been missing some of the little touchs I always took for granted. Much obliged. The Cap'n (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No original research

You aren't allowed to invent a term such as "fringe scientist" and apply it to articles without references, see WP:NOR. Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the references; I don't know if that term has been used extensively enough to be applied. That said, I didn't make up the term fringe scientist, we have an article about it here on WP.

Editing a closed AE complaint

Hello Askahrc. Please undo this edit. It does not make sense to add material to a closed discussion. Anyone reading it in the future may assume your comment was ignored, while in fact it was merely too late. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Tried to edit it but someone deleted by comment already... The Cap'n (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake Talk

It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion (ANY opinion) HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the Sheldrake Page

If anyone else is uncomfortable with the tone of the work on the Rupert Sheldrake page, please drop me a line. I've been uneasy with the antagonistic dynamic that's developed there and would like to hear what others' opinions on it are, as well as see whether we can come up with some sort of resolution. I look forward to hearing from you! The Cap'n (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. You wouldn't be the first. 134.139.22.141 (talk)

Did Another Editor Get Blocked/Banned On This Cursed Page?:

- No because it was the same editor who got banned in the first instance. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Gee, your interest in this article and the fate of User:Tumbleman seem a little familiar. Do I smell yet another sock? We've seen ridiculous wastes of time like your Sheldrake-fanboy arbitration request before. It's never worked before and still doesn't, because you pseudoscience folks are all the same: you troll and BS your way through, too ignorant to be aware of WP:ROPE. How many of you people do we need to ban before you leave and make your own page WhackoWiki? 134.139.22.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, 134.139.22.141, are you trying to prove my point about inappropriate threats? Feel free to call for a CheckUser on my account, but if you think my style is identical to Tumbleman, then I'm afraid I'm not the ignorant one. The Cap'n (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am on the keen lookout for Tumbleman (talk · contribs)/PhilosophyFellow (talk · contribs)'s latest sock, and Vzaak (talk · contribs)} is very good at getting diffs. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

link-syntax bug

Hello, there was a small bug in your sandbox-page, which I fixed there just now. I'll let you propagate the same fix (or a variation that was what you intended) to your actual Arb request. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! The Cap'n (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer About Offsite Contribution

I recently contributed a statement on Tumbleman's website about the problem with online pressure, bias and abusive practices on Wikipedia. I am posting this notice here to clarify that while I have deep concerns with the way Tumbleman and many others were isolated and blocked from WP, I do not intend to discredit, disparage or disrespect the work that is being done on Wikipedia. I think that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with regarding the silencing of minority editors, but I feel strongly that it is an issue that can be (relatively easily) fixed and WP will be the better for it.

Please do not mistake my acknowledgement of another's point of view as evidence that I am a sockpuppet, proxy, pseudoscientist or abuser of WP policies; I am not. I am, however, planning to do everything I can to ensure Wikipedia remains a civil, open, free and neutral encyclopedia. The Cap'n (talk)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Callanecc. Have I done anything inappropriate or is this a general heads up? The Cap'n (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Home again, home again...

Hello again, dear Wikipedians. I've got a new work schedule and anticipate having much more time to pursue my WP addiction, allowing me to actually dig into some of these tricky pages I've been wanting to work on. May His noodly appendage give me strength... The Cap'n (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: "No."

I tried to post an update of what I'd found out after I dug into both the Tumbleman issue and the various editors who have been blocked (in my opinion without proper consideration) under suspicion of being sockpuppets of his. I posted it onto the Tumbleman talk page, since it concerned that case (after erroneously posting to the archive I was reading, I acknowledge).

It was not a puff piece for Tumbleman, indeed I described how I had confirmed his use of multiple accounts and included all his confirmed aliases to allow further policing to get more accurate policing of any actual sockpuppeting. My main point was describing my concern over innocent editors who have been blocked under suspicion of being Tumbleman, but at this point do not appear to be. I was as transparent as possible in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and explained why I was posting it.

The response was a blanket revert with the explanation "No."

I'm not sure why the editor in question felt compelled to do so, what makes them think they have arbitrary policing authority over public talk pages, or what offense they felt I had committed. I am not promoting a blocked user nor acting as a proxy (the data I included was hardly complimentary to Tumbleman); I'm including information on my own examination of a case that has been the basis for many blocks and informing editors that this basis may need to be more carefully scrutinized to avoid losing innocent editors to the hunt for Tumbleman. The Cap'n (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just post it here. We shouldn't lose your good thinking, and we shouldn't tolerate bullying, even by owners of a group of pages. Lou Sander (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lou Sander, I think I will. I appreciate the feedback! The Cap'n (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tumbleman Sockpuppets and Collateral Losses

NOTE: I tried to post this to the Tumbleman Talk Page, but it was promptly removed without explanation (obviously not by the page’s owner). I’m not interested in starting a revert war. Therefore I’m reposting my comments here, as they contain interactions I’d like to be transparent about and information that I feel is highly pertinent to how editors are treated going forward. These are my thoughts and conclusions, except where I explicitly reference the opinion of someone else. When I do, I am bringing up information relevant to these concerns, not serving as a proxy to air their grievances.

There are a few issues about these recurring sockpuppeting claims that I'd like to address and examine. Does anyone have any proof Tumbleman has had more than one account active on Wikipedia at the same time? As far as I can tell, the records show that he has not; the disputed charge of sockpuppeting was not the reason he was blocked. The reason I ask is that under the assumption that Tumbleman has countless aliases a large number of users have had sanction threatened or levied against them. Since his blocking an unreasonable number of editors have been accused of secretly being Tumbleman and blocked, in many cases with only cursory, arbitrary or biased evidence. As I've mentioned before, I've noticed that most editors who argue for similar purposes as Tumbleman end up getting slammed with warnings, sanctions or blocks. I strongly feel the chilling effect this has had on certain WP articles is more disruptive than anything Tumbleman or these other editors did (what exactly did they do that was so disruptive again?). I've been trying to look into the situation whenever I can and reached out to Tumbleman to get his perspective, as I noted on my talk page. I also reached out to several of the editors who were accused of being socks for Tumbleman, and the ones I’ve contacted appeared to be clearly separate people.

Tumbleman argued that he felt his indefinite block was the result of harassment by Vzaak and others who worked to damage his personal credibility and silence dissenting positions on the Sheldrake article. He acknowledged to me that he did not accept his blocking as just and has created new Wikipedia accounts when his previous accounts got banned so he could continue contributing to Wikipedia. He insisted that none of his accounts have done any disruptive editing and asked admins to peruse his activity to prove as much.

Out of respect for WP policies I requested that Tumbleman create no new accounts or contribute on WP except through transparant avenues (appeals, etc), to which he agreed out of a belief that upon closer review his blocking would eventually be reversed. Since he is going to refrain from editing anyway, I asked him to list every account he has had on WP so that we can determine how many editors have been unjustly blocked after accusations of being a sockpuppet and identify a pattern for CheckUser. He lists the following as the only accounts he has used: 'The Tumbleman', 'Philosophy Fellow', 'Halfman Halfthing' and 'No more scary monsters'. He states he has not performed any IP edits. I think it’s obvious that he has nothing to gain from admitting to some blocked accounts and denying other blocked accounts, so the conclusion is that those blocked as Tumbleman socks other than the above were wrongly blocked, including Oh Boy Chicken Again, Shaynekori, Alfonzo Green and Barleybannocks.

Aside from the question of Tumbleman's blocking in the first place, it's clear that there's a serious problem with the fact that a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage in the search for someone who was never clearly abusive. As I've said from the beginning, it's better for WP to give the benefit of the doubt to any given editor as opposed to robbing the community of whatever knowledge and insight they may possess. I'm not proposing blanket amnesties, but this is an issue that's going to need to be addressed for future editors. By all means we need to look out for sock/meatpuppetry, but the priority has got to be maintaining an environment where people feel free to contribute without fearing they're going to be accused of something.

As a postscript, I read in the archives that Tumbleman's IP is based in Los Angeles, so I felt it pertinent to point out that I live in the greater Los Angeles area (which is home to 18 million people, more than 3 times that of the entire nation of Ireland). Given the level of suspicion other Angelenos have received, I welcome any CheckUser reports to make it clear that I am not yet another sock (a deep cover sock… waiting for 5+ years before I began trolling/proxying).