User talk:Kim Dent-Brown: Difference between revisions
→Topic ban??? LOL: I'm not laughing. |
Mindjuicer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 390: | Line 390: | ||
:: Sorry, but 4 people who bullied me on NLP manage to get a topic ban in spite of clear indication it's so they can POV push? I thought that ANI thread had died. No opportunity to defend myself. This is a failure of this admin, of due process and WP itself. Why on earth would I stay? --[[User:Mindjuicer|Mindjuicer]] ([[User talk:Mindjuicer|talk]]) 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) |
:: Sorry, but 4 people who bullied me on NLP manage to get a topic ban in spite of clear indication it's so they can POV push? I thought that ANI thread had died. No opportunity to defend myself. This is a failure of this admin, of due process and WP itself. Why on earth would I stay? --[[User:Mindjuicer|Mindjuicer]] ([[User talk:Mindjuicer|talk]]) 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::I'm sorry you weren't paying close attention to the AN/I discussion but I can't be responsible for that. Many more than four people concurred that a topic ban was appropriate, and nobody at all raised an objection to the ban or defended your editing style. Your opportunity to defend yourself was at AN/I (though more collegial editing beforehand would have rendered such a defence unnecessary.) [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]] [[User talk:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]] 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) |
:::I'm sorry you weren't paying close attention to the AN/I discussion but I can't be responsible for that. Many more than four people concurred that a topic ban was appropriate, and nobody at all raised an objection to the ban or defended your editing style. Your opportunity to defend yourself was at AN/I (though more collegial editing beforehand would have rendered such a defence unnecessary.) [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]] [[User talk:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]] 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I miscounted, it was 6 people supported a ban prior to you implementing it. Three of them I was planning to investigate for SPI (wanted to do a usercompare first but the tool owner has been banned ironically). A fourth was someone who was told off for bullying me on a talk page and should not have known about the ANI ie probably a meatpuppet. I'm pretty appalled at Jess Mann and Brangifer for calling for a topic ban but they both push POV on that article. |
|||
::::After the 7th (yourself), [Solomon Asch | Asch ] conformity comes into effect. |
|||
::::Why would anyone object the ban or defend my style (as you generalised it)? I did not know about it and nor did any neutral editor who has seen my contributions. |
|||
::::I stopped watching on the 21st as it became clear that Eraserhead did not condone Famousdog's behaviour. |
|||
::::Your ambivalence about lack of due process is akin to a judge saying "it's not my fault the defendant wasn't told about the second trial". |
|||
::::The only way I would consider continuing in this online banana republic is with a withdrawn ban due to premature conclusion and full due process. But that would require a rather egoless admin, something that almost never happens with people in positions of power. --[[User:Mindjuicer|Mindjuicer]] ([[User talk:Mindjuicer|talk]]) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:52, 27 February 2012
Kim Dent-Brown - Talk page
|
Ralph CupperNot sure if you wanted me to write here or in my talk page, so I am just writing here that I replied to you on my talk page, with a link about 5 norwegian newspaper articles about the CDs Ralph Cupper and Inge Haugen made, this should prove that he has one of the criteria of that link you gave me. Anyway check out my talk page. -mpc TUSC token fd9dc9b1cea75d40a8197b4331615093I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Did you know?Thank you for your answer, my friend! I hope you will participate to this discuss on the link that you send to me. Best reguards! Bastien Sens-Méyé discuss 13:55, 3 october 2011 (CEST) New Page Patrol survey
User boxRe your AN comment - yes, there's one at User:SineBot. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Duplicated MaterialThere is now material that appears TWICE in the Germanic neopaganism page: once in the introduction and once in the heathen sub-section. May I suggest that you remove it from the intro? I would do it, but our heathen friend would go thermonuclear. This is the material in the intro: Historically, the term was influenced by the Gothic term *haiþi, appearing as haiþno in the Gothic Bible of Wulfila for translating gunē Hellēnis, "Greek (id est gentile) woman" of Mark 7:26, probably with an original meaning "dwelling on the heath", but it is also likely that it was chosen because of its similarity to Greek ethne "gentile" or that it is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ethnos. This is the material in the Heanthenry sub-section: In the Sagas, the terms heiðni and kristni (Heathenry and Christianity) are used as polar terms to describe the older and newer faiths. Historically, the term was influenced by the Gothic term *haiþi, appearing as haiþno in Ulfilas' bible for translating gunē Hellēnis, "Greek (i.e. gentile) woman" of Mark 7:26, probably with an original meaning "dwelling on the heath", but it was also suggested by Jakob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology that it was chosen because of its similarity to Greek ethne "gentile" or even that it is not related to "heath" at all, but rather a loan from Armenian hethanos, itself loaned from Greek ethnos.
Mr. Dent-Brown, thank you for the "heads up" on the complaint, but what should I do? When I went to the page in question, I noticed that it is for administrators only. By the way, although I complained about the Bhlegkorbh edits, I did not actually reverse them. That was done by an administrator after my complaints. --ThorLives (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Addendum: The deletion was made by this administrator, and I fully support him! [1] --ThorLives (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, disrupting the article was not my intention, but I see that even the best intentions may not always foster peace. On the positive side, the article is much better than it was in the dark days of November 2011, so I will "stand down" and let others make the improvements. --ThorLives (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
ReplyYour concerns have been noted. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC) What?Kim, you're a pagan?? Oh my... Perhaps this image of Christ carrying the Cross will change your mind. It's not too late! Drmies (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfair RebukeI am curious that you rebuked me for cleaning up the beginning of the Germanic Neopaganism article. The current version is wordy and repetitious: Germanic neogapanism (also known as heathenry[1] or Germanic Heathenry[2]) is the contemporary revival of historical Germanic paganism. Precursor movements appeared in the early 20th century in Germany and Austria. A second wave of revival began in the late 1960s, and has developed a number of denominations which lay claim to a Germanic religious heritage, the most prominent ones being Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr and Theodism. Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddeses of the North, the movement is found in many countries.[3] Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals. Different terms exist for the various types of Germanic neopaganism. Some terms are specific in reference whereas other are blanket terms for a variety of groups. In a 1997 article in Pagan Dawn,[4] the authors list as more or less synonymous the terms "Northern tradition," "Norse tradition," "Ásatrú," "Odinism," "Germanic paganism," "Teutonic religion," "The Elder Troth" (as the name of a specific organization and at the same time an attempt to replace trú with an English equivalent) and "heathenry. This is my version, which was repeatedly erased: Germanic neopaganism, is Germanic paganism in the modern world. Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddeses of the North, the movement is found in many countries across the planet.[1] Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals. Different terms exist for the various types of Germanic Neopaganism.[2] Some terms are specific in reference whereas other are blanket terms for a variety of groups. In a 1997 article in Pagan Dawn,[3] the authors list as more or less synonymous the terms Northern Tradition, Norse Tradition, Ásatrú, Odinism, Germanic Paganism, Teutonic Religion, The Elder Troth (as the name of a specific organization and at the same time an attempt to replace trú with an English equivalent) and Heathenry. My version contains ALL the points--including a reference to so-called heathenry--without all the verbiage. --ThorLives (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, my suggestion that we include material on Bhlegkorb's group was not meant to be sarcastic. He is either in a group, or he has a web site, or has a book or article that he is trying to promote. In the interests of peace, we should simply ask him and include a reference in the article. Again, I am not trying to be provocative here, but simply trying to restore the peace.--ThorLives (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we move protect it? There are many attempts to move it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to knowThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. That an editor practically admitting to engage in harassment-like aggressive verbal behavior is not a topic of administrators' interest. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Belatedly off-topic, I hopeI just saw you add your real-life research to your user page. It looks like an intriguing field for the complete outsider that I am. I guess the drama boards here do work as dramatherapy for some, but not for others. I'd be interested to hear your professional opinion on that issue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops the leadYeah you're right to remove that, I was actually going to but I copypasted it down while I was working on rewording things and forgot to remove it after --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Gotta ask...so did you actually meet/see Hess at Spandau?VolunteerMarek 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar For YouHasteur (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day. For handing out a Ban to Andy The Grump and making ANI a less toxic dumping ground. Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend. Thank you - it feels awkward to be thanked for handing out a block (not a ban...) as it's not a thing I ever enjoy doing. Andy is a good veteran editor and he lost it momentarily. But hopefully if the result that people feel slightly less free to dump on others in future it's a net gain. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a noteappreciate all your wonderful and hard work on the AN and AN/I stuff. :) — Ched : ? 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
NoteIf the discussion had been strictly about the blocked editor, it wouldn't have "involved" me. However, as certain editors saw fit to try and blame me for getting that editor blocked, they opened that door. Feel free to point that out to them. And you're right, I've made my positions clear, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to become a useful idiot for the admin cabalSee this feeble attempt. If you have any comments... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thanks so much Diannaa, I really appreciate the barnstar! The best thing is of course that the input really does seem to be having an effect at the moment, and everyone seems to be collaborating to make it a better place. I'm not so stupid as to think the change is permanent, but if we can distinguish what makes AN/I run well from what makes it run badly, maybe we can increase the ratio of good days to bad ones. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Kim: Thank you for closing out the AN/I report on this user, and for putting the note on his page. If I'm right about this editor being the IPs from the past, their pattern has been to move along to another IP, or maybe, in this case, an ID. If I notice this happening, would it be OK to let you know so you can take a look and see what you think? Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Speed closing getting out of handThere is a reason we don't archive threads for 24 hours on AN/I. There are many time zones and in many cases you're archiving threads very shortly after the last comment to them. This limits input and hampers discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
VP thread on new "admin abuse" noticeboardYou might be interested in m:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale. --He to Hecuba (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Post at Moni's pageHi Kim - just alerting you in case this is of interest to you. User_talk:Moni3#Work_proceeds. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Stavgard/Tore GannholmFYI: I don't doubt that it really is him. And yes, he is famous, on Gotland. He is a well known local original and local-patriotic pseudo-historian. He has a lot of good points but, as all pseudo-historians, lack all forms of self-criticism. His books are self-published and not reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't understand why everything I wrote was refuted. OpenFuture is in Sweden disreputed and what his says about me is a lot of nonsense. If you let him censor everything I write than it is meaningless to use Wikipedia. It is an insult to call me local-patriotic pseudo-historian. I might sue him. I wrote: You are breaking the rules. We can discuss here why you want to stop a paper presented at an international symposium in Moscow and edited by 2 professors and published available for you to buy the book. It fullfills all the requirements. Will I be allowed to continue to censor? Stavgard (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OpenFuture is heading a group of disreputed people whose aim is to censor everything they don't like and defame his opponents. Hi was before Christmas banned from the Swedish newspapers. I learnt very much from you and am greatful for this. Stavgard (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I have read the Wikipedia rules a few times and As far as I can find, it says: "All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia." In my interpretation I can refer to "2000 Jahre Handel und Kultur im Ostseegebiet - Gotland, Perle der Ostsee" ISBN91-972306-6-9 As far as I can see this book qualifies. If you accept this we can go further. If you search ISBN91-972306-6-9 on Google you will get 109 results" OpenFuture does not accept this. Are you reading the rules in the same way? Stavgard (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OK, this has officially become funny. :-) I don't mind Stavgard trying to "out" me. In fact it is interesting to see who he guesses at. He doesn't know who I am, so his guesses will continue to be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why your friend Martin Rundkvist does not like ref to Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. He has deleted my article. He started insulting me under the signature OpenFuture. Than he used the signature Mrund to delete my entries. An now he uses Bazj. I presume you have higher ranking than Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture alias Mrund alias Bazj It is not acceptable for him to delete links to papers edited by two professors at the Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Actually it was you who entered the reference when I wanted to include it last week. The refernce he now has deleted I hope you will take some action. Stavgard (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Please read Talk to Grooves (archaeology) and you will understand what Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture alias Mrund and alias Bazj It looks like Martin Rundkvist is not interested in Puplicised litterature but prefere his own speculations Stavgard (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - Wikiquette assistanceHello Kim. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contributions at diff1 and diff2. I asked for a sysop to leave a message on a User’s talk page, and you did so HERE. Many thanks. I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff Dolphin (t) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC). Edit being repeatedly deleted by a cyberbullyHello, Since Kevin Rutherford wasn't much of a help (actually no help at all), I decided to turn to you. One of my edits is constantly being deleted. I edited the page "Julian Assange" by adding two facts which I've put under a new segment, the common "In popular culture". It has been removed several times, even though there is no reason which would justify that act, since I've written it according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Many articles have that segment, such as "Neil Gaiman" ("References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job.") and "Lindsey Buckingham" ("In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch."). Especially after reading these edits one can see that there is no plausible reason for deleting my edit. In order to avoid the risk of being accused once again of being engaged in an edit war, for a mere act of reaction on my part to someone's act of arbitrariness and to put this once and for all behind, I would like to ask you the following : What am I to do in order to keep individuals from deleting my edit repeatedly and without any reason ? If the two aforementioned segments aren't outside the pale and can be and stay in the respective articles, so can mine. After all, you can see it for yourself ; look up "Difference between revisions" of that page, you will find it under "Revision as of 08:30, 15 February 2012" (In popular culture He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012. He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010.). As far as I can see, there is not one thing in these edits that could be considered a breach of any of Wikipedia's policies. The only step to be taken by someone in my position that is suggested by Wikipedia (or at least the only one I happened to find) is to discuss it on the talk page, which isn't an option in this case ; discussions with unreasonable individuals who are arbitrary by nature are unfortunately impossible. Someone who responds to my edit with "Trivia - this article doesn't need random 'popular culture' entries, and see WP:CRYSTALBALL" is not open to any rational conversations. As far as I know, that individual has been reported for incivility in February 2012 and during January he has been advised to stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page and received the following warning : "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at talk:East Germany, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.". I started contributing to this encyclopedia with the intention to share relevant and valuable information and knowledge with the international community and not to be dragged into an edit war and subsequently being verbally abused by someone who is constantly breaching guidelines and insulting other users. Plus, none of my edits includes speculations, rumors, or any sort of information that is irrelevant and/or false. In this case, both are approriate encyclopedic content ; if "References in popular culture ; Gaiman made a guest appearance on long-running cartoon series The Simpsons in 2011, in an episode called The Book Job." is appropriate, then "In popular culture ; He will appear on the 500th episode of The Simpsons, which will air on February 19, 2012." is as well ; if "In popular culture ; Lindsey Buckingham has been portrayed by Bill Hader in a recurring sketch titled "What Up With That" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. He appeared as himself on the May 14, 2011, episode during this sketch." is approriate, then "He was impersonated three times on NBC's Saturday Night Live by cast member Bill Hader, during December 2010." is as well. If instead of "...which will air on February 19, 2012" a change to "...which is scheduled to air on February 19, 2012" is necessary, then this change will be made. After all, after February 19, 2012 it will be necessary to change it anyway to "...which aired on February 19, 2012". I would like to settle this before the airing date, since it's a jubilee, a milestone, and therefore a cause to celebrate.
Topic ban??? LOLReposting in case you're not following my page. Wow that's still going? You didn't look into my case very hard, did you? In spite of all the improvements I've made to acupuncture that consensus has agreed upon and the complete lack of any validated accusations of recent bad editing, you brought out that ban hammer that the POV pushers wanted. You've driven away this editor. Epic fail. --Mindjuicer (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
|