User talk:Unomi

Everything is wrong. Ha.

Yes we took many pictures, but I have no idea how to show them to you..and this was not my first trip to Israel(Oldpanther 21:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldpanther (talk • contribs)

Robert Flint

Hi, I found some Robert Flint materials in Resource exchange, check it out. trespassers william (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. un☯mi 12:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism

I admire your persistence in trying to convince the atheist crowd that atheism involves a reasonable degree of certainty that God doesn't exist. This would seem to be self-evident. I'm not participating in the debate because I honestly don't believe that people who have a basically religious, fundamentalist frame of mind - whatever their personal beliefs about God - are capable of persuasion. But good luck all the same. Carinae986 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah thick is the irony. un☯mi 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Carinae986 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed think irony here, but I suggest it lies in trying to convince atheists that atheism *by definition* must involve any particular degree of certainty. If atheists themselves don't think so, how are you going to convince them? --Dannyno (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to try to convince atheists of what the consensus definition of atheism is any more than I have to explain the definition of evolution to ID'ers - I merely have to insist that they follow wikipedia policy and rely on quality sourcing regarding the content of our articles. What you believe is as irrelevant as what I believe - what matters is what the sources say.

However, there is indeed considerable irony in the position that some new-age-atheists seem to take with regard to a presumed intellectual high ground and the inability to accept the contents of, as an example, Encyclopedia Britannica. One of the red-flags of fringe theories is when we see words sought redefined arbitrarily. un☯mi 23:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

You can't just reopen AE cases because you feel like it. The case was legitimately evaluated and closed and I think YTA's latest statement indicates this is a clean and obvious indefinite block. --WGFinley (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked some pretty basic questions that would help me understand AGK's interpretation of events and policies. As I asked those questions to the AE patrolling admin before the case in question was closed I felt that it would be fair to let him answer - rather than have the case be closed and archived with the potential reading that there was a reluctance to answer.

I obviously hadn't seen YTA's statement when I asked the questions, and I honestly don't think that it has relevance - all it shows is that YTA reacted poorly to being blocked in this manner. un☯mi 02:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you have more questions, you can ask AGK directly on his talk page. By the way, your signature is not searchable on the displayed page (doing a 'find' on Unomi won't pick it up). If you used a plainer signature it would be easier to locate your statements. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did - btw, my signature is indeed searchable, albeit perhaps not that easy to type. Copy pasting works fine, yielding: "un☯mi". un☯mi 02:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Safari find key (Command-F 'unomi') doesn't get it for me. I think it's the graphical middle letter. I could open up the page source (using the edit button) and try to search the edit window which is plain text. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nod, you will have to copy this: un☯mi into your clipboard and paste it into your 'find' box - that should also work if you copy my signature as it is rendered on the page ( no need for page source ) un☯mi 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stating he has been socking and intends to troll other topic areas with other socks is not relevant? --WGFinley (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reacting poorly to an indefinite block under unclear circumstances is not unusual - we don't know if he has been socking, he seemed to make no particular effort at obscuring the connection between Dimension31 and YTA64 and did not seem to use them in a sanctionable manner, by my current understanding. un☯mi 02:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Except for the part where he states he has several "clean" accounts which means he's been socking, see the forest through the trees. --WGFinley (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

People who are upset can at times say a great deal of things that aren't true - his transition from Dimension31 to YTA does not seem to indicate much sophistication or anything in the way of account juggling. It could be that he is operating other accounts concurrently - but I have seen no indication of that. D31 does have previous blocks in 2008 for socking, and this could be why he sought a cleanstart of sorts - not particularly well conceived, but neither is it, without evidence of further wrongdoing, reason for indef ban and blocks. un☯mi 05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Occam's Razor --WGFinley (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

lulwut? You really find it simpler to accept that despite his straight-forward, nonoverlapping, unsophisticated transition from one account to another that he is 'secretly' juggling multiple accounts? ferreal? un☯mi 05:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, I can believe that he's simply just upset about getting caught socking and just stumbled into disrupting folks in AE to the point they reported him multiple times and he really has no malice in his heart to do any harm or I can believe the last thing he said which was he has multiple accounts and he intends to troll with them as he was with that account. THAT would be the premise with the least number of assumptions. You do have a future has a Keynesian economist with that many assumptions without any basis in fact though. :) --WGFinley (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have time to address all that sophistry right now, maybe later. un☯mi 05:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll grab the other razor and assume that you are being serious.

1. "I can believe that he's simply just upset about getting caught socking" - Assuming that D31 = YTA, was that in itself enough to warrant an indef block?

2. "they reported him multiple times" - As near as I can tell, this was his second time getting reported to AE as YTA - and I couldn't find any for "Dimension31". Technically 2 times = multiple times, but in reality that kind of language is really in poor judgement for any admin, and more so for one that thinks that they should be adjucating at AE.

3. "no malice in his heart to do any harm" - I don't even know what this means, harm the project? Have you seen him misrepresent sources or anything untoward in that regard? Remember this? That is where you let a person doing actual demonstrable harm to the project by letting source misrepresentation slide.

4. "troll with them as he was with that account" Could you please back that up? From what I have seen he was brought here for 2 1rr violations for 'shock' inserting into the article what every single source states as fact ( apart perhaps for travel guides and restaurant reviews etc. ) - namely that it is termed "occupied Syrian Golan". Reinstating sourced information that seems to represent the consensus position of quality sources is now 'trolling' in your eyes?

5. "You do have a future has a Keynesian economist with that many assumptions without any basis in fact though." I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, some kind of political dig? You fancy yourself moving to New Hampshire and buying laminated plastic with strips of silver? Perhaps building a utopian city in Honduras and imagining that they will keep you around? Or wait! Further erode the educational system which has by all accounts failed you, personally, miserably? You don't have to answer 5, but please do address the issues that you have opened with 1-4. un☯mi 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you take out all the vapid nonsense this is what you are reduced to:

"Let's see, I can believe that he's simply just upset about getting caught socking and just stumbled into disrupting folks in AE to the point they reported him multiple times and he really has no malice in his heart to do any harm or I can believe the last thing he said which was he has multiple accounts and he intends to troll with them as he was with that account. THAT would be the premise with the least number of assumptions. You do have a future has a Keynesian economist with that many assumptions without any basis in fact though. :)

All that said, I am very disappointed to see: "I have never edited under a previous account.", I am still not convinced that the circumstances called for a indef block / tban as the previous account did not seem under sanctions or even under threat of same, and it does not appear to me that any advantage was sought in the transition from one to another. un☯mi 08:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's a single-use account. If you check YTAs edit history the account has almost entirely been used to edit WP:ARBPIA articles. Pretty clear YTA is making use of good hand/bad hand accounts. "I have no choice to but to use one of my clean accounts (I have several)..."
2. From his latest AE Report: Warned on 1 December 2011 by Biossketch, followed by EdJohnston, followed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#YehudaTelAviv64 closed three days ago, followed by User talk:EdJohnston#YehudaTelAviv64, followed by Wgfinely (I may be missing a few)
3. Harm = disrupt the project. As indicated above, this is a single purpose account that immediately started making disruptive edits.
4. Those are his own words. "I have no choice to but to use one of my clean accounts (I have several) with a clean IP history to troll some other troubled topic area."
5. That was a joke.
6. I see you left out the parts you are stipulating to without a number, YTA claimed to be a new user unfamiliar with WP on multiple occasions and refused to respond to inquiries as to whether he was a sock: Denies being a sock and links a ton of policies, removes the sock inquiry and calls it a personal attack, reports that user to Wikiquette(!!), Deletes sock inquiry,labels the inquiry as a "baseless" personal attack (apparently not so baseless).

So, to sum up, we have a single-use account making disruptive edits in the ARBPIA space that turns out to be a sock despite numerous denials to the contrary and reports of other users as harassment. That right there is WP:DUCK (AKA Occam With Feathers). YTA's last statement admits to using multiple accounts and the intention to make use of WP:GHBH to troll other conflict areas. That's a duck quacking. --WGFinley (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like #5 might apply to the comment listed at #4. Did you consider that Yehuda was being sarcastic?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't have time for this round. un☯mi 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Atheism dispute resolution

I was on the talk page a similar point. The lead definition was almost drawn word for word from religioustolerance.org's definition of lack of belief in a deity which includes agnostics. I thought a good strategy would be to undermine the reliability of religioustolerance.org as a source for this. I lacked the time or the energy for a protracted fight over the issue. If you need another interested party in the DR let me know. --Alatari (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think that it is necessary to undermine the reliability of religioustolerance for this matter, all that needs to happen is that RS sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica are given a higher degree of primacy. That said, I don't think that DRN is a closed forum, there is no intention to exclude anyone who wants to participate. un☯mi 04:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sock-Puppet Accusations

Hi, I have been accused of being your sock-puppet here [1]. Perhaps you could chip in to help dispel this accusation. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be deeply surprised if the technical data doesn't conclusively paint a picture of 2 deeply unrelated accounts. You should be flattered that they would stoop that low to get rid of you ;) un☯mi 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Unomi, I advise you to revert this bigoted outburst.—Biosketch (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I advise you to go support some more failed states in their psychopathic endeavours. un☯mi 10:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

AE.—Biosketch (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)