User talk:Writegeist

* * * If I opened a new topic on your talk page, please reply there. * * *

Republika Srspska

Hi. This edit changed the meaning of a sentence. You changed "Since the war this classification was no longer relevant" to "Since the war this classification has been relevant". In any case, I think the sentence should be removed since it's unsourced and I'm pretty sure that some people in the RS still consider themselves Yugoslav. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks, you're right, I forgot to type the prefix, shoulda been "irrelevant"; and I agree the sentence should be removed. Writegeist (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thread referenced at RfC

The Collect thread

For the benefit of those taking an interest in the RfC, here is the thread that I referenced there. I've copied it here from his Talk because he deleted key responses as it unfolded there. Below is the thread with the deleted material restored.

Diffs please...

...for my calling you 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more'[1]. Also, please, diffs for my 'friends', as you refer to them, who you allege made the same accusations. Thank you! Writegeist (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do a WP search, and also read the names of those whom you contacted at the time. Meanwhile note the Scrambled{?} charge of socpuppetry. Then offer your apology. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You're more experienced at WP searches than I am, so if you're refusing, as it seems you are, to post the diffs and names (which presumably you have, otherwise you wouldn't have made the allegation) please tell me how to do a WP search for instances where I and these alleged 'friends' called you 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more.' Incidentally I didn't know Scramblecase had made a charge of sock puppetry. Against? A diff for that too would be helpful. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

look up "wikibreak" and then look at the WQA on Ratel. should give you a start. Collect (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have looked up 'wikibreak'. I have looked at the WQA on Ratel. Neither contains any evidence or reference for my having called you a 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more.' I asked you to direct me to instances of the accusations that you allege -- either in the form of diffs, or in the form of directions to perform the WP search that you advised. Please help as requested. Thank you. I note that although you posted a wikibreak template to this page, you have made numerous posts since. So I trust that providing this information won't inconvenience you any more than posting evasions, as you have already done twice. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have not been on your advertised "Wikibreak" for some time now and that you have been posting to various pages. I would be grateful for the courtesy of a civil and informative reply on this page (or on my Talk if you prefer) to these perfectly reasonable requests:

• 1) Diffs to support your accusation that I called you 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more.'
• 2) Diffs to support your additional accusation, namely that other editors, the ones you refer to as my 'friends', made the same allegation.

IIRC, I have only ever flown one sock kite here: nothing whatsoever to do with you, and obviously not serious, it was a satirical suggestion that WP's administration might be nothing more than the two cartoon characters Dumb and Dumber plus their socks. (Cf. Eddie Izzard's crack that WP is actually written by "three people in a toilet.") Understandably therefore I'm concerned by your accusations -- not least because, if they're true, I must start worrying about my memory. Not to mention you'll have to start worrying about yours if we discover that you simply made up any or all of this socky stuff!

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

3 posts a day is a Wikibreak for me. Especially since the person I asked to be my proxy in mediation declined on account of time. Ikip made the allegations, even though he is an admitted sockpuppeteer, and had over a dozen blocks and innumerable warnings) , you are an admitted sockpuppeteer, GreekParadise is an admitted sockpuppeteer, and so on. Buster wrote "Ferrylodge was "spring-cleaning" the Sarah Palin article 5 (FIVE) weeks before she was asked to join the ticket. A truly remarkable co-incidence!!! To pretend that operatives don't exist and to take editors to task for stating the obvious is improper behavior.--Buster7 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC) " Others who have butted heads are Abbarocks (banned) and Spotfixer (caught as sockpuppeteer). IIRC, you had an indef block at least. " he topic of this mischievous alert should actually be Collect/Scramblecase, who is disrupting several pages on wikipedia at the moment as well as wasting my precious time. ► RATEL ◄ 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC) " specifoca;;y calling me a sockpuppeteer. Thus showing that you and your firends are, indeed, admitted sockpuppeteers, and that I have been falsely charged several times. That a person who has had an indef block can berate a person who has 2 3RR violations in over 7K edits is astounding. A person who wrote: "And it led me to wonder who might be whose sock over there. Writegeist (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)" "The quiet patience of a saint illuminating a manuscript; the tenacity of a terrier hunting a rat. — Writegeist (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)" "I don't know whether or not "Fcreid" is a sockpuppet. It's plausible." ""Warning" from one of a WP:TAGTEAM? That's rich. Writegeist (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC) " Your friends? "I am a Cubs fan. The pain is unbearable at times. I would no more consider watching the "fillies" win the Whirrled Series than I would....um.....a......consider Collect a good faith editor...:')....--Buster7 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) " "rIGHT....I have been the one that has been arguing with c_____t about paid operatives. It started 3/4 weeks ago...It just seemed like an obvious statement of fact that Both parties would be present to make sure that they had their say in matters. AND IT WASN'T JUST VOLUNTEERS, BUT PAID STAFFERS. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT, I WAS MERELY MENTIONING IT..If I was running a campaign I would certainly want to know what was going into the Sara PALIN article. It just made sense. WELL>>>>>C_____t got all upset and said I was reprehensible for even thinking that. He/she made a big todo about it...in the hopes of shutting me up, I guess. She was the only Palin editor to have a problem with it. Ferrylodge was OK withit. No-one else got into a snit....just C_____t. Which made me suspicious. so......I started to sniff around and see if something fragrant would surface. You know the rest....see you at the Palin pages!--Buster7 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)" "I am trying to improve the article by attempting to force Collect to stop having anything to do with it. --Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" So much for rational fairmindedness. But wait -- there's more! "It would seem that Cummulous Clowds was not alone in his paranoia. Maybe, had I known of our mutual situation, we could have compared notes.--Buster7 (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)" And then, of course, "Using a tag-team is not a way around 3RR, nor is 3RR a way around NPOV, Verifiability, etc. Warn away.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) " "Thanks But I have a feeling these guys are getting a paycheck for this. I wonder how long they will try to keep it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)" and of course, the "best of edit summaries" from him ... "Utterly, utterly ridiculous. Black is white! Up is down!) This is pretty amusing, and around and round we go. Black is white! Up is down! Take the red pill.) Undid WP:Tagteam This material was added by consensus in talk. It will not be removed unless there is a consensus to do so in talk.) Undid Undoing vandalism. Persist in this and I will seek to have you blocked.) This is now abusive vandalism and deliberate ignorance of consensus. You've been warned repeatedly.) Lying" is not the same as "rebutting") " Introman did over twenty reverts in his first twenty edits on WP -- a record. And finally [2] showing your status as a meatpuppet at nest. Thanks! Now back to Wikibreak. Collect (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

More on Travb/Ikip/Inclusionist et al ... [3] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134#Travb.27s_response] and a slew more. You are known by the company you keep. And I did not need to look at 7K eduits one-by-one for this. Collect (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

More from GreekParadise: "At any rate, I feel like you should check whether Kelly, Hobartimus, and/or Collect are sock puppets of each other or somehow connected with the McCain campaign. ... GreekParadise (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)" "But I'd simply ask that you check to make sure he is not a sockpuppet of Kelly or Collect, and if he's not--and there's no way to check if he's a political operative--I'd let it go.GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC) " One more example of a totally false, egregiously false, sock accusation made against me. Do you really want more such posted? I would be glad to post these anywhere you like. Collect (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The following response was deleted by Collect:

That's just silly. There's no such accusation there. Just queries. Also, I have no "friends" on WP; just co-contributors. What other people say about you is irrelevant. Your attempt at some kind of guilt by association is not appreciated, and it does you no good here.

I asked for diffs to support, specifically and most importantly your serious accusation that I called you 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more'.

You haven’t provided supporting diffs.

Instead you posted counterproductive responses that follow your familiar pattern: first arrogant, snide and totally unhelpful; then ignoring the issue altogether, and finally hauling up a netful of red herrings.

Not only did you fail to provide the diffs I asked for. You added two more gratuitous insults, the first being that I’m "an admitted [4]" and the second that a post from another editor proves my "status as a [5]] at nest" – the former WP:PA totally untrue (and of course unsupported by any diffs) and the latter unsupported by the diff you provided.

To support your allegation that I accused the SPA newcomer Fcreid of being a sock, you submit my statement, in dialogue with him at his Talk, that I couldn’t possibly know whether he was one! And you omit my explanation for raising the subject in the first place, which came later in the same post: "There's always a possibility of sockpuppetry where SPAs are concerned. Please see WP:SPA again: While a new user [new user "Fcreid" for example] who immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history [again, new user "Fcreid" for example] may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party wishing to improve the Wikipedia project [e.g. as "Fcreid" claims]... (Please note there are no remonstrations, much less the officiousness SPA's can encounter here, in my responses. Just good-natured joshing.)" [6] Dirty pool, Collect.

My reference, in the same thread, to other editors at Sarah Palin at that time acting, IMO, as some kind of "stooges" for the GOP and puppets of McCain and Palin self-evidently has nothing to do with sockpuppetry (should you be tempted to play dirty pool with that one also).

Please now provide diffs for:

• 1) your accusation that I called you 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more' [7]
• 2) your accusation that I am an ‘admitted sockpuppeteer'[8]
• 3) your accusation that I am ‘a meatpuppet’ [9]

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I supported the exact statements that I made -- that you and your friends made unfounded charges. Now you are on the edge of abusing my talk page. Kindly refrain from such abuse. Collect (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The following response was deleted by Collect as "vandalism" :

Your accusation was not general as you now pretend; it was particular: you attacked me very specifically for calling you 'a sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more.' [10] It is not true that you "supported that exact statement." You provided no diffs for it.

As you have now proved that you cannot, in fact, support it, I think it’s reasonable to ask you to withdraw it as an unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attack.

I note you deleted my previous post in this thread (although fortunately it remains in the thread’s history[11]). As it comprehensively refutes your claim of support for your accusation, and as it also requests diffs for the latest in your series of wild and unfounded accusations (i.e. that I am an "admitted sockpuppeteer" and a "meatpuppet"), your deletion of it is significant. Needless to say, you have not provided diffs for your latest personal attacks on me either.

Please note: "I would never accuse anyone of anything ..." Collect (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) [12][13] Hm.

I note that your latest line of attack is to respond to my requests for substantiation of your other personal attacks on me, and also to my observation that you cannot produce it, with yet another accusation -- of "talk page abuse".

Sorry about your cat. Writegeist (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Significantly, Collect chose to delete responses that drew his – and any other reader’s – attention to his failure to provide any diffs to support his very specific personal attacks on me. Deleting this information from the thread serves to bolster his false claim to have provided the diffs.

The MO here: unsupported statement(s)/attack; refuting argument(s) ignored; diversions created; waters muddied with random diffs or WP policies that do not address the issue at hand; refuting arguments deleted where possible; original unsupported statement/attack reasserted as if it has been supported; dissenting view denigrated and, where possible, deleted as "vandalism". Writegeist (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WG has interpolated material with which I disagree, and which is clearly self-serving for hinself. Collect (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How tedious. As is clear, I have not "interpolated" any material (interpolate: 1: to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter 2: to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation). I have copied and pasted the thread exactly as it unfolded. I have not altered it in any way. In fact I have undone two alterations made to the thread by Collect: I restored two posts that he deleted, apparently to bolster his false claims and accusation. I have added some observation and analysis after, and completely separate from, the text of the thread.

Collect, you have shown that you've come here to peddle more distortions and innuendo. That behaviour is not welcome here. If you wish to respond to my post here (i.e. of the thread that you altered to support your unfounded personal attack, which you still fail to support with any diffs despite my numerous requests), please do so in the appropriate section of your RfC's discussion page. Fyi I shall summarily delete any future posts you make here, regardless of their content. Writegeist (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Buster Baiting

@Editor:WG. Thank you for providing a place for Collect to rant. Since much of the above is about me, I am surprised that Collect has not visited my talk page. Don't mis-understand...he is NOT welcome at my Talk Page either.

He is well aware that you and I, along with dozens of other editors, spent months together at Talk:Sarah. We read each others edits and agreed or disagreed. Some made us laugh...some brought us to tears of frustration. Editors:Factchecker and GreekParadise, even Editors:Ferrylodge and Freid, earned my respect, if not for their tactics, at least for their presentation. This is true of MOST of the editors envolved at SARA.

Collect is not on my list of editors that I refer to as WikiFriends. His loss.--Buster7 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Baffling

If you want to know how I truly feel, I feel that the whole RfC is laughable. If Collect acted as he did at Drudge and Fascism elsewhere I can see some ppl getting a bit upset. However, to say he's doing far more harm than good to the project is ridiculous. If those who called the RfC had problems they could discussed them rather than launching a grand jury style investigation into every misdeed that Collect has allegedly participated in. They chose to sling accusations, and demand that Collect change his behavior or else. I don't think there are many people that would respond well to comments like these: [14], [15], [16]. This whole affair has been conducted poorly from start to finish to even characterize one side or the other as "right" is impossible. (Sorry for the long-winded explanation, I just felt it necessary to explain where I'm coming from) Keeping that in mind this statement by Brendan: SO WE ARE CLEAR... COLLECT, THIS IS ABOUT YOU is not right and indeed representative of why the RfC is flawed. The RfC isn't about one editor. It's about multiple editors trying to reach an agreement and convince one side or maybe even the other to change their ways. That's not going to happen here. Perhaps I was taking him out of context, but the idea that Collect is supposed to just take these accusations (more than one of which is just as flawed or worse than the ones he presents) and not get frustrated or lash out is a crock. Do I excuse his behavior? No, but I don't really the others as innocent either. Soxwon (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I may come off as a bit, err..., passionate at times. I think what got me into this was Ikip's accusing me of being Collect's meatpuppet/tag team partner at Conservatism, as well as mis-representing the actions at DR and Fascism. Soxwon (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I probably would have lost interest, or at least not have been quite as passionate if Ikip hadn't made that charge. Soxwon (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Retraction please, Collect

Collect, I have been patient with your personal attacks on me. I have merely noted them, protested them, refuted them and once, IIRC, made a request for you to withdraw them which you ignored. I have made allowances: the stress of your RfC/U; the interactions at Sarah Palin long ago; my long-ago rude remarks to other editors etc., etc. I have given you the benefit of every possible doubt, and hoped that you might simply give up these unwarranted attacks of your own volition.

Now you produce this post [17] -- the latest in your string of unsubstantiated accusations of sock- and meatpuppetry -- which clearly insinuates that user:Brendan19 is my sockpuppet. So it seems that these gratuitous personal attacks will very likely continue unless something is done to stop them.

Hitherto, as I said, I’ve resisted taking steps beyond protesting and refuting your numerous and ongoing accusations. Now, for the last time, I ask you to post a retraction to your Talk page. Writegeist (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your threats are duly noted. I have earnestly sought to make no personal attacks on you, and apologize if you feel that the statements are personal attacks. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation....Collect takes zero responsibility for making personal attacks. His apology is for something you are doing....(feeling)....rather than something he is doing...(attacking).... Sound familiar? BTW...Happy Mothers Day....(Thats code for "Happy Mothers Day")--Buster7 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not a retraction; a waste of space. "Happy Mothers Day" Ha ha! :~) Writegeist (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One more before closing time

I hope you don't mind my post re:Collect's RfC. I referred to you as a Wikifriend there. I hope you don't mind that either.

"I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months".....an anonomous editor.

Had the redactor in question expressed this sentiment I could nurture conciliation. We saw NO hint of it!--Buster7 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind your post at all, and neither do I mind the Wikifriend reference, as (1) it reflects the fact that we have a cordial editing relationship here and (2) I consider us both friends of the Wiki project -- another meaning that's implicit in the term. I agree it's sad that not even a scintilla of the cited sentiment has been expressed. While its absence is all too predictable in light of so much past performance, it's also tiresome to have the prediction confirmed over and over again by the resolute refusal to reform. However I like to think that one or two admins may be keeping watch. . .

If so, they will see that little, if anything, has changed. E.g. the persistent attacks about sockpuppetry. And e.g. also here. Incidentally it looks like Manticore has a good handle on the shenanigans there. :~) Thank you for dropping by! Writegeist (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers........

..........--Buster7 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Thanks. I do what I can but I'm not going to fight a dozen paid staffers and their army of clones. :) But I'll do what I can.

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that deletion attempt, Write. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I know you'd do the same for me . . . Writegeist (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NOT Republican Red

		The Red Barnstar
		Roses are red...so is this star. We are all so lucky, that you are who you are. Your adult playfulness is refreshing. Its like a classy Burlesque show. When added to you insightfulness and perception of situations it is a pleasure to observe.--Buster7 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović problems again

I noticed you had recently reverted some vandalism at Darko Trifunović. Could you please take a look at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović? I think we need to get this issue sorted for good. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that DT is responsible for the IP vandalism. I've raised the matter at WP:AE#Darko Trifunovic. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin Quote

"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done."

— George Carlin

Thank you Buster! I'll pass it on to my mother, she's a great Carlin fan. Belated thanks also for that gorgeous red barn star and the kind thoughts. Back at ya! (Careful, we're in danger of High Fives now.) I just heard news that SP is resigning from her hugely important job of looking out of the window to warn the Amairkins of any clapped-out old Russian bombers trying to trundle in over the tundra and under the radar. Apparently she wants to make a play for the even more important post (yes, it seems there is one) of 'Great Republican Decider You Betcha' in 2012. Not being a great decider myself I'm not sure whether this move is extremely funny or deeply scary. Both? Some of our old friends at the article will already be in danger of stroking out from excitement at the prospect of the sainted, unblinking Sarah buying a few truckloads of cheesy new Neiman Marcus outfits, reopening Gitmo and sending Katie Curic there. Take care. Writegeist (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Can I get your input at User:Buster7/Incivility
  • Also, suggest you take a look at WP:Civility/Poll
    • Interesting...[18]
      • Will coincidences never cease!!!! [19] I once owned a Chevy Vega (hot little #)...and, then, LessVHTY, a great admin shows up.

Haha, you're a brave man to make a public admission of ever owning a Chevy Vega :~) . But hey, I had two Trabants . . . I will check out your Incivility thoughts; also the poll. Been away and just got back, so catching up. Apropos of nothing: Owner to dog: "Sit!" Dog to owner: "Oh - bad news?" Writegeist (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Threat from Long Island IP

I'm gonna tell you something mister. I can't wait to get to the conference. Hopefully there's gonna be some changes. YOU are hurting this site. Just wait.71.167.61.206 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Long Island IP, as you can see I have created a new section for the post which you had appended to the George Carlin section above. When you post about a new subject, always start a new section. Meanwhile I urge you to step away from the computer and take what looks to be a much-needed rest. Writegeist (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob (and Co.?)

Hi, Writegeist. I'm having a little trouble parsing the message you left me; can't tell if I'm under- or over-thinking. Obviously VVB still doesn't get it. There's an added new twist in the sudden appearance of 71.167.61.206 (talk · contribs), who left you a threat (as I type this it's ↑just above↑), did a very VVB-like revert with no edit summary of Chevrolet Vega (thus reinstating POV material, ungrammatical text, overly-long captions, forced thumb sizes, spelling errors and other deliciousness), and made a couple of VVB-like edits to (surprise!) Talk:Straight-four engine. I did a quick IP2location check; can you guess where 71.167.61.206 resolves to? Right: Long Island. A lot of people live there…including Vegavairbob. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Writegeist. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! The Four Deuces (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well deserved! Writegeist (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh

Hi, Writegeist. Take a look here and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

…and especially here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"And lo, as it was written so it hath come to pass: Vega, who did scorn the warnings of the children of Wikipedia, nay and of the elders also, did go forth and dwell with the tribe of Sock, and wert banished from ye House of LessHeardvanU . . ." Writegeist (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Toss one sock in the dryer, another pops right up… —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Farmer? Writegeist (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinkin'. Not quite clear on how exactly to expand the existing SPI, but it looks like I need to enter Vegavairbob in the field that requests CheckUser. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks right (not that I have a clue), the way you've done it. Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Writegeist!

It's nice to hear from you again. While we've often had opposing viewpoints in the past, I've always enjoyed your special brand of humor and insight from a different point of view. Not just serving as a break in the monotony, your good humor is always laced with "something to think about" for the rest of us, and I thank you for that. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth! Warm greetings. A pleasure to have your company for a moment or two at my humble talk page! I must say I enjoyed our exchanges, and have reason to be grateful for your sporting generosity where others took a more censorious view.

Incidentally of late I seem to have quite lost the knack of getting blocked. Lack of protein in the diet, I reckon.

You and I evidently have a common interest in flying fighters, and I much enjoyed your piece on dogfighting. I had an uncle who died (still in his teens) in his Hurricane in the WW2 Malta campaign. More prosaic, as an erstwhile ultralight pilot myself I've always found it poignant that in the slow-moving melées of 30 or 40 aircraft which were not uncommon in WW1 the greatest dangers were from (1) bumping into someone and (2) stalling near the ground.

Anyway, a very pleasant surprise bumping into you here, and thank you for your kind words. I look forward to meeting again in the skies over another WP article! Writegeist (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fighter planes, swords, and lasers are some of my big interests. Does it show that I grew up a Star Wars fan?

There is an interesting quote from the Red Baron in his book, where he describes the mid-air collision that killed Boelke, "Suddenly I noticed an unnatural movement of the two German flying machines. Immediately I thought: Collision. I had not yet seen a collision in the air. I had imagined that it would look quite different. In reality, what happened was not a collision. The two machines merely touched one another. However, if two machines go at the tremendous pace of flying machines, the slightest contact has the effect of a violent concussion." It's an interesting autobiography, at http://www.richthofen.com/ .

Aside from that, a few planes, such as the Sopwith Camel, had a rotating engine that created a huge amount of gyroscopic force. This caused the plane to move 90^o off of the stick movement. (eg: to turn right the pilot would push forward on the stick, and to dive the stick would have to be moved to the left.) More pilots were killed during take off in these planes than in combat.

I look forward to seeing you around wikiland, Writegeist. Keep your pitch up and rudder straight! Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bless you for birthday wishes (with flaming candles:)

Birthday wishes (and kind words re diffs) much appreciated.

• re diffs etc: Without your plot twist (re CIV), the "story" would not have been half as interesting ... or clear. :) I.E., if not for your comment, hard to imagine that "interesting" topic at AN would have appeared. :)

• re legal writing (must be sonnetized:) Oh, and if you missed it, I composed a sonnet about the resolution posted here. :)

• Big picture: This is a great little study (a few days span in the context of current events wrangling) ... which illuminates a lot of issues, and hence worth my pausing to extract the juice from it ... and a much better story because of your unexpected comment ... which helped structure the story beautifully. etc etc :)

Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I had second thoughts and withdrew. I found I just didn't feel comfortable as part of something quite so, well, worthy. (And I have a deeply ingrained Groucho Marxist aversion to clubs.) But I appreciate the worthiness of those who are made of sterner stuff. Needless to say I dread the question from my future grandchildren: "What did you do in the Great Wikipedia Dramaout, gramps?" Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Debt

Thank you! I am indeed indebted to you for your tweaking of that Barnstar. If my humble self can ever assist you in any way, please just let me know. Thanks again and happy editing, Doc Tropics 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help and it gave me a good laugh. :~) Writegeist (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosher Ham Sandwich-

Awhile back, amidst other documentation, you left ""...wittily redolent of John Stonehouse's attempted vanishing act"". A visit to that page shows a photo from "Private Eye" with the caption Missing Member Held.................. My question----->Is it possible to hold a missing member? --Buster7 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not unless you're Lorena Bobbitt. On the other, er, hand I believe it is possible to hold a policeman's ball once a year. But only if you're very, very brave. Incidentally I just checked out the sainted fishwife after a long time away. It's even more hilarious now than I'd dared hope -- an object lesson in the long-term comic benefits of giving the fans total freedom to do her entirely their own way. Articles like that are so much more fun when they're funny. And the main picture is a hoot to boot! Writegeist (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Zaklopaca

Thanks for the message, Writegeist. I'm afraid I'm a Facebook-phobic, so I'm grateful for the reference. I've seen other pictures about the burial of the remains from the mass grave but I'd not seen that moving compilation before. Nida who posted it I assume to be the same person as NIDa who commented at Srebrenica Genocide Blog, correcting the author about the age of the youngest victim, a little girl who wasn't five years old, but three - she was NIDa's cousin. There were another nine children among the victims. The Zaklopaca killings are among the atrocities that Radovan Karadzic was charged with.

I try to be as honest as I know because basically the reality speaks for itself. It doesn't need any trickery or embellishment. My big problem is that after years and years of dealing with the misrepresentations and denials, I do occasionally lose my temper. Fortunately in a way, not so in others, the ICJ judgment in 2007 ended a lot of the "chaff" deployment. Unfortunately Karadzic's upcoming trial seems to have resulted in a new apologist effort.

Cinema C seems to have been honestly motivated, just not as well informed as he might have been. Opbeith (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have created the Čemerno massacre article, which is one of the few massacres of Serbs during the Bosnian war currently described on Wikipedia. I understand that most of the massacres were against Bosniaks, but I always think of the uninformed reader - if he or she is to stumble upon the Bosnian war template, that person should not get the impression that only Serbs and Croats were committing atrocities. There is currently not a single massacre against Croats in Bosnia described on Wikipedia. The Bosniak forces (not to mention the Mujahedeen who came in their aid) were not "angels" in this war. --Cinéma C 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Čemerno massacre

Thanks for the message. I'm afraid I won't be able to help any time soon - I'm going on holiday in a few hours' time - but the massacre was certainly a real event (see this contemporary NY Times article). I'll see what I can do when I get back, since I should have time then to look at more archival news sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[[20]] I'm never sure which is secret---> the balls or the policemen. Any Ideas?--Buster7 (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings to you and yours

--Buster7 (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Writegeist! Long time no see. I hope this holiday season brings you much joy and happiness. Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Zaereth! Good to hear from you, and hope you'll have a very happy and prosperous 2010. Writegeist (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Secret Policeman’s Third Ball

The third ball was held March 26-29,1987. I'm not sure where the other balls were held....or for how long.--Buster7 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Buster! Just how many balls does this secret policeman possess? Or to put it another way, how many secret balls does this policeman possess? Here's hoping 2010 brings you happiness, prosperity, and a flak jacket (for visits to the temple talk page of the Palinites). Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Palinites

As the effort to canonize our beloved "Maid of the North" continues I am perplexed at my inability to see the halo. Your good tidings and well wishes are returned in kind.--Buster7 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can relax. All is well. I had a quick look and I'm pretty sure halo-polishing has been restored to its former highly energetic level at Eskimo Nell's talk page. The Russians report that once again they can clearly see the golden glow when they squint into The Sainted One's back yard. It might be fake tan of course but let's AGF. Oh joy. Writegeist (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And additional hilarious developments now at the "Controversies Section" section of The Sainted One's talk, where one Bonewah has furiously accused me of having accused one Malke (who argued for a controversies section in Obama but against one in Palin, lol) of some kind of relationship with a hippopotamus. Oh my ribs. Gotta love the Palinites! :~) Writegeist (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking of The Sainted One's champions, this [21] will amuse you when you see whose advice the sysop is seeking re. a block. :~) Writegeist (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

very keen

Let me tell you something...with the amount of time I spend making some of these car articles worthy of this site with no gratitude whatsoever, the last thing I need is to waste time reading your comments. (Vegavairbob (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Siege of Sarajevo gallery

Hello,

The gallery in the article was quite large and Wikipedia policy re. galleries is that they be appropriately used. I created a Commons gallery of the exact same images, all of which are already on Commons, and linked to it, so those images are still available as they were on the article. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In the External links section you will see a template that says "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Siege of Sarajevo". --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 07:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

email

check it.Malke2010 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I shall delete it without reading. I have no interest in any concealed communication with you. Anything you want to say, say it here in the open; or if it's a reply to my post at Sarah Palin talk, please reply there. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Username

Just wanted you to know that I think yours is awesome.--~TPW 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How kind. Thank you, it feels good to be appreciated. But I have to say, usernames don't come any more awesome than True Pagan Warrior! Writegeist (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee. A username is a combination of inspiration and availability, and this one took some balancing to get right!--~TPW 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought you would like to be informed.[[22]] All's well, I hope. wwAs--Buster7 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Way back when you had a discussion with SBJohnny about a sockpuppet accusation that a so-called editor was making about you. I think Lars got involved. Do you recall the result and can you share the info? That same editor is making false claims on other pages regarding editors that were involved in an RfC a while back. wwAs--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings good Sir, and I hope all is well. I dimly recollect a user from the prehistoric Palinite era making repeated tendentious accusations of socking. I've checked the fossil record. The only imprint I can find that remotely resembles what I have in mind is here: [23] . I'm hugely surprised of course to learn that the user referenced in the linked dialogue is repeating the same behaviour. Anyway, here's hoping the link is of some use. Writegeist (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Thanks, this will really help. 842U (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, kudos to you for a great job on The Art of Racing in the Rain. Writegeist (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Imagine how surprised I was to see that one of the turkeys had returned just in time for Thanksgiving Day. Best to you and yours.Buster7 (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that distinctly toxic old bird. Long past its cull-by date, surely? Sorry to acknowledge your kind wishes so tardily (I have only just seen your message). Nevertheless they are strongly reciprocated. Keep up the good work! I have all but given up. Writegeist (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

creative writing

In a flurry of thought, I've come up with a flow of words. A combination of Seal Skin Oil and Human Tears. I can't find the right article to use them in. Any ideas? The start of a haiku, perhaps?...Buster7 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A combination of seak-skin oil and human tears,

dripping from isolated bridges paid for by peers,

pursuing popularity or tragedy, whichever rears

itself from the tundra...Buster Seven Talk 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Writegeist. You have new messages at AndyTheGrump's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays, my friend! Buster Seven Talk 08:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

'Tis the Season...

Another year goes by... Happy Crimble! Fcreid (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hey Writegeist, sorry I missed you at Christmas, but I was rushed to get out of town. I hope it was a good one. I just wanted to wish you a great new year. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A Dry Sense of Humor

I protest the pro-Palin protectors "polishers" pharmacists whose pleasure it is to pummel and prevent any perceived protaganist or non-pro-Palin pretender or pompous plagarist from polluting, profaning or otherwise proliferating any preposterous procrastinations to promote purile and provocative pronouncements over the protestations of said prudent patriots whose sole purpose is to proceed, protect, and proliferate a poised progression toward a state of purity and perfection at the Sara Palin article and here.

• In a fit of pique I wrote the above and attached it to Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin.

I admit that using "pro-Palin protectors" may have been a bit harsh. I should have remembered how sensitive some editors can be. But, I had searched for another 'P' word (a prerequisite) that might fit. I promise...I really did! I found peasants but I didnt think that would work. Pheasants came to mind. Same with peddlers, pedestrians, players, philistines, pharisees, phonies, ponies, and pietist's. Now, granted, I should have assumed good faith and worked at soothing my ill will. But, I admit my hostility got the better of me and I continued my search. I settled on "pharmacists". I don't see how anyone can be offended by being called a pharmacist. It is a noble profession. As a side-bar, I'm concerned that the members of the Save Sara Committee have lost their sense of humor. As a consolation, tho, I hope other editors got a laugh chuckle from my indulgence. Have a good day.Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin

Thanks for your message. I think you're right that the article will be seen for what it is by most people, I'm annoyed at myself for getting involved . Still, live and learn. Sayerslle (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@Writegeist. I seemed to have stepped on Sayerslle toes and sensitivity and he is upset with me. I probably shouldn't care and just keep moving forward. But, the oddest thing happened. He communicated with you and gave me an opening. Can you tell him what a wonderful, honest, friendly, humorous, _______________ (fill in the blank) AGF editor I am. (Easy on the sarcasm). Thanks.Buster Seven Talk 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Mon message, You know...I thought exactly that...in training, ready for the diploma. I was gonna tell ""don't be such a prude"..I but feered fer me nuts. And from such a "young-un no less! Defend Us From the Protectors for Their Cause is Righteous.

WP:CIVILITY

[24] This wasn't acceptable. Please read WP:CIVILITY.Jasper Deng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

According to a report issued last Monday, WP does not need this right now, although it is possible that it may be worth considering at some point in the future. The report implies that it may take quite a while for something to be done about this and that it could be years before some action is revisited. Setting aside the countless practical obstacles and the prohibitive expense, WE (Wikipedia Editors) just don't know enough about this to justify the time and expense to move forward at the present time. This should be entirely out of the question for now. It is also widely agreed that this will have to take a backseat to more pressing issues that WE can actually wrap our heads around and try to do something about. I'm sure you realize that editors in nearly every field, including economics, entertainment, pharmocology, Randian philosophy, macrobiotic nutrition, finance, robotics, oncology and animal husbandry concurred with the report, saying that the worst course of action would be to enter into this without being fully and completely prepared for the inevitable. However, contrary to the growing communal consensus, there is a small but vocal minority that has come out in favor of getting this underway ASAP. The consensus seems to be that now is not the time and WE are just not ready for this yet. WE should all approach this with extreme caution knowing full well the historic examples of veteran editors who are not optimistic about this being an option in the foreseeable future. As a fellow veteran editor, I hope you concur and see that not is not the time or the place to answer any questions about it altogether. Anything less would lead to problems that are just to frank and WE may be getting ahead of ourselves by even talking about it. Cheers! Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still hold fast to the above. Nothing has changed. While it may still be a fact, there are editors that opine for exactly the opposite course of action. Their freedom should in no way be restricted nor should any avenue of potential success be closed to them. As all editors know, should they consider it, the winds of change are always at the door. But it is up to a relatively minute few (admins) as to whether the knock on the door is answered. I would suggest, as I said, holding fast to the way things are. Granted that change is inevitable but there is no reason to embrace it. Or to reject it. While there may growing community consensus for what is stated, there is just as much community consensus for the complementary stand. Hopefully, dialougue will continue among those interested and the commotion will not endanger the structure. Buster Seven Talk 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Friendship Barnstar
		For your most excellent efforts in friendship towards your fellow Wikipedians, User:Buster7 would like to award you the Barnstar of Friendship. (note: This is one of the very first, and original, "Friendship Barnstar" to be awarded)

Why, thank you good Sir. You seem to know something about me that I don't :~) . But coming as it does from a veteran and gentlemanly Wikipedian who would never be so vulgar or vain as to seek admindinghy let alone full-blown adminship, the compliment is much appreciated. On another matter: it occurs to me that it makes no discernible difference whether officious juveniles consign their tiny crown jewels to commodious boxers or overly tight briefs. Either way they tend to be shrill. Writegeist (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I could not have said it better!Buster Seven Talk 06:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes

Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk

I just created this. I know. It's surprisingly civilized and decent. I don't know whats come over me. I almost sent it to User:'you-know-who'. I resisted but I'm not sure for how long. Maybe its something in the tea I've been drinking. Its made in Alaska, distributed in Nebraska, and marketed by a couple of guys known as "the Koch Brothers". It's remarkably addictive but I think my brain is shrinking. Or...Maybe my cranium is enlarging!Buster Seven Talk 08:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For Giving Your Two Cents Worth

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth alot more than it seems. But, more important is what you do with the other 98 cents. Thanks for giving yours and providing some insight into The Wondeful World of Sarah. BTW, don't get used to all these accolades and banners and whatnot. I just needed someones talk page to practice on. Just kidding, of course. You're #1 in my book...of course my book is an empty sketchpad, TC. ~!Buster Seven Talk

OK! I'm Guilty! Here's the Truth. This "two cent" banner was actually a bribe. I'd like to know your two cents at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users. Thanks. TRA!Buster Seven Talk 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks: Images of notable Bosniaks for the Template:Bosniaks infobox

Please, join the discussion.

Regards, --Wustenfuchs 12:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What?

Did not understand your post on my talk page. Are you talking about the Barnstar? 842U (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. It refers to your post at Chevrolet Vega talk: "The article no longer conforms to anything close to Wikipedia standards; nor has it been created in the spirit of cooperation that is a prerequisite of Wikipedia. It is an exercise in puffery, one the astute reader can easily discern." Writegeist (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks!842U (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Chevrolet Vega

This is to notify you that an RfC has been opened regarding proposed edits in Chevrolet Vega. The discussion is located here.

You star, thanks. You can work out the "For" statement via talk pages, or just be BOLD and work it out iteratively.

My thoughts are that in these respects, the Vega article should be significantly edited: it should reflect clearly the Vega's legacy, it's role in the US auto industry and it's marred track record. It should be considerably more concise. It should rely less on fan trivia and less than transparent sources. And it should include less of one editors photographs, personal vehicles and promo photos from General Motors. That's the basic thrust for me. 842U (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

re Gwen Gale

An admin appears to avoid English and some unaddressed issues, including some ugly attacks. If interested.75.150.245.61 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, although it's a little vague. Writegeist (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Missed you!

-* Fcreid (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

I never had any doubts about TLAM. But the way for him to prove he is not MN is fairly simple - show that he is someone else. TFD (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and I think you made a good call. But if, just supposing IF, he is in fact TLAM, how would he go about proving that? I remember my anxiety when another user made a loathsome and totally cynical accusation (never withdrawn) against me of socking, obviously to try to get me blocked/banned just because I had the temerity to disagree with him over something; and my wondering how, if I had to, I could prove I wasn't. Writegeist (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Users should not make accusations outside SPI. In your case checkuser would have cleared you unless you happened to have a similar system and live in the same town. But assuming you lived in Wiltshire and were accused of being mark nutley, you could provide your name, address and phone number to a checkuser. TFD (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TFD. However apparently it isn't that simple in the case of TLAM. When the admin said TLAM should be able to prove his/her innocence and I asked how, the admin refused to say, citing top-level national security issues that mere peons such as you and I are not important enough to know or clever enough to understand on the grounds that it would mean "publicly announcing a blow-by-blow checklist for how to evade blocks and run multiple accounts without being detected." By this token, giving name and address and phone number -- which obviously wouldn't help TLAM to evade the block or sock undetected -- is apparently not an acceptable way for TLAM to prove his/her innocence. Incidentally I do wish we had fewer admins whose replies reek of defensiveness and immature authoritarianism when they are asked to explain something. Writegeist (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not want to explain to nutley how to evade checkuser. This is someone who actually paid money for an OP service to evade a block. He is free to ask ARBCOM to review the decision and they can review all the evidence. But if TLAM is not Mark Nutley, then all he has to do is prove who he is. You could for example send me your name, address and telephone number, and I could check this against the telephone book and call you. TFD (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that I didn't ask the admin for any information that would help anyone evade block or CU. (It was the admin himself who, for reasons known only to him, chose to misrepresent my question that way, using it as a pretext to resolutely withhold the helpful answer that you have now posted twice.) I simply asked how an innocent subject of an SPI could proved they were innocent (the admin having said that innocence would make this possible). While your solution is obviously apt -- unless the user is ex-directory (as I always was when I lived in England) -- the admin did not suggest it. Instead he seems to have taken my question as an opportunity to remind me of his Very Big And Important Job in maintaining the project's security (I'm so impressed), and to digress into irrelevant talk of checklists to help people evade blocks and CUs, and the dire danger that lies therein, and how their provision is outside his remit.

Certain WP admins tend to respond with a defensive, belittling, self-aggrandizing reply when a post that focuses more on the substance of the question and less on their own importance could actually be quite useful. Fortunately there are still a few admins here who consistently interact in a way that doesn't lead me to think they must be about 12 years old. Anyway, thank you for the solution the admin could so easily have offered. But didn't. I trust TLAM knows enough (I'm pretty sure he does...) to put it into practice if he's innocent (I'm pretty sure he isn't...). And I'll bear it in mind if ever another slimy accusation of socking is leveled at me. Writegeist (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The implications of this may interest you. Check the editors whose intersections are listed, then consider the poster's use of the first-person pronoun. Quite a slip. Writegeist (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I rather like the title of the section. And that the host of the thread dropped the hot potato, which has now reappeared at TLAM's talk, where it is currently being skewered. Writegeist (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

8/9 Contributions

How dare you take it upon yourself to make these changes. Have you passed them by the Even If Its True We Will Find A Way To Exclude It Committee? I have not bothered to take the time to fully examine your recent changes but, based on your past history, I am sure you have something subversive in mind. "light rewording....and greater clarity." Really??? TRA...Buster Seven Talk

Sincere apologies, it's true that the changes were subversive, because the source for the changes was entirely the WP SP article, which of course is notoriously unreliable. Also true, I failed to follow the procedure in WP:WHY-WRITEGEIST-MUST-NOT-BE-ALLOWED-TO-EDIT-THE-SAINTED-SARAH, which is to say the non-procedure protocol. And I completely forgot to run it by the Even If It's True We Will Find A Way To Exclude It Committee, or even the Especially If It's True We Will Find A Way To Exclude It Committee.

User:BZBody is surely about to drag it onto the WP co-founder's talk page, where BZBody will complain that it infringes WP:COATRACK, WP:HATRACK, WP:TIERACK, WP:SHOERACK, WP:NICERACK, WP:TORTURERACK, WP:RACKANDPINIONSTEERING and WP:CRACKRACK, and my clean rack record will be forever besmirched. Woe is me! Writegeist (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Thanks for your note. I wonder what our "attitudes" are supposed to be.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I took no part in the discussions and expressed no views on the outcome - clearly a reprehensible attitude. And you, equally deplorable, are guilty of unshakable equanimity in your interactions there regardless of provocation. Apparently, displaying no attitude is evidence of an undesirable attitude. Writegeist (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Murder_of_James_Craig_Anderson#Requested_move

Since you voted "keep" in the AfD, and what the AfD meant is in discussion, I though I would let you know about it Talk:Murder_of_James_Craig_Anderson#Requested_move.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 05:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Math and Will Beback

Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications

I'm putting this here because the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. This is about something else.

If I've misunderstood any of the posts I refer to below, please let me know. I would like to be wrong here.

The talk page's Page Protected section originally just provided two informative links. No further input was required. Nevertheless an argumentative dialogue has ensued in which one user appears to have made misleading claims. As the claims disparage another user, and as one of them appears to contradict clearly stated WP policy, they need to be corrected:

A user refers to a "clearly written requirement that a warning be posted about any 3RR complaint"[25]. (At the EW board, the same user notes he was given no warning of the (disparaged editor's) impending submission concerning him, and again claims that a warning is "a requirement"[26]. )

However, with respect to 3RR submissions to the EW board, WP:EW (the policy that covers 3RR) states: "A warning is not required..." (I can't find any instance in WP:EW where this is countermanded. If you can find one, either there or in some other policy document, please post it. And if it's something else entirely that "a warning is not required" for, or if the words "a warning is not required" in fact mean "a warning is required" - anything, it seems, is possible on Wikipedia - I'd welcome an explanation.)

Another post incorrectly cites the pilloried user's 3rr violation as the reason why the article was protected. In fact it was protected because of edit-warring by multiple users, and to protect against further disruption until consensus or compromise is reached. Writegeist (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've been getting a hostile "feel" from Collect for some time. I didn't like that dialogue especially because there seemed to be no reason for it - I'd just posted the links to the noticeboard page to let people know why the article was protected. Are you aware that another editor asked for Wikiquette help with Collect, phrasing it exactly the way I feel "It would be helpful if another user could engage Collect and perhaps convince him that there are some aspects of his recent conduct that require slight modification." Would it be possible to add a note to that section of the noticeboard? Yonmei (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the tone and the needless aggression can be extremely tiresome (your patience and equanimity in the face of gratuitously unpleasant responses is remarkable). I wouldn't be surprised if admins are already taking note. When users whose style of communication is snide, pompous, obnoxious and demeaning are left to their own devices they eventually tend to overstep the line so habitually, and so egregiously, that they get blocked. Writegeist (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism

TFD is an incisive, knowledgeable, productive and constructive editor who values - and demonstrates - intellectual rigour above ideology, and who has already made valuable contributions to the project's talk page. The reactions of certain other editors give cause for concern about WP:OWNership issues, and imply a strategy to gag and/or drive off an editor who is not, as Thatcher might have put it, "one of us." The admonishments, and the wholly unwarranted accusation of trolling (an egregious personal attack) are inappropriate, and far from conducive to a collegial editing environment. They would be best deleted or struck. If anyone seriously thinks an editor is being disruptive, take it to the appropriate forum (which isn't the project's talk page). Put up or shut up. Writegeist (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: he's a good editor. But it appears he may not play well with others. 1 question: have you read the talk page archives? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have watched the page since the project's inception and followed the relevant discussions. Writegeist (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Writegeist's view on this. --Kleinzach 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Troll (internet): a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

I found these with a glance at the archives and the MFD:

1. "merge them all into a politics project"[27] -- his suggestion would've resulted in the elimination of WPConservatism
2. "there is no reason for a project [conservatism to exist]"[28]
3. "Sounds good. We can eject Reagan and Thatcher"[29] -- extremely divisive
4. "Supporters of the Conservative Party may consider it offensive that we are grouping them with Sarah Palin"[30] -- creating a wedge between British & Americans
5. "an airhead American politician"[31] -- inflamatory remark referring to Palin

These 5 clear examples of trolling should satisfy you. They establish a pattern. Let me know if you need more examples. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No. This is trolling.

As I already said, I have followed the project's discussions. Please don't post - at least not here - any more "troll" smears about TFD. The attitude you convey at the project's talk page tends towards downright nastiness when contributions that raise valid points present you with intellectual challenges and expose the fact that the project is not yet fully thought out. (I'll spare you my thoughts on your posts in the wake of the MfD.) There's no shame in the thinking behind the project being less than fully formed - it's in its infancy. But your reaction to having its shortcomings pointed out is a real shame (for you), because your hostility doesn't bode well for the project's future. It seems that being challenged makes you uncomfortable, and you take offence. Your instinct, it seems, is to reach for the ad hominems, and to complain (btw I note you don't have the balls to take your complaints to a noticeboard), e.g. about TFD driving wedges between Brits and Americans etc. (In fact, to take just that point alone, it's a racing certainty that Conservative Party supporters will find it offensive to be grouped with Palin, as anyone familiar with British politics would know.)

And now you are pursuing the same smear tactics here. Please stop.

I respectfully suggest it would better serve the project if you focus more on your behaviour and less on TFD's. And also if you read WP:OWN, and learn more about "Conservatism". Then you'll be ready to knuckle down to some genuine, properly inclusive collaboration - without which the project will founder, and your regrettable and wholly unwarranted post-MfD triumphalism will look even sillier and uglier. Oops, sorry, I was going to spare you that! Writegeist (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record I was directed here, and then challenged to "put up or shut up." I obliged. FYI I am not the only editor who takes issue with TFD's behavior, admittedly the most vocal, and other editors characterize his behavior as trolling. Your "note" is inaccurate: I did report TFD to a noticeboard... 2 days ago I reported him to ANI for his Palin insult. Since you expressed interest in my genitalia, my testicles are quite huge. Some might say humongous. In any event I act in the best interest of the project. Always. If I need to report behavior to a noticeboard I will not hesitate.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your testicular fortitude! I'm appropriately awed, and I sincerely apologize for the underestimation. I note that your super-ballsy thread at ANI was closed without a single post in support of your accusation, which was variously deemed "not actionable", "not libel", "not even close", "not actionable", and "neither libelous, nor . . . offensive". (Never mind, it's hugely - one might almost say humongously - in your favour that you were not directed to WP:DICK.) Furthermore, your posts at the project talk page contradict the claim that you always act in the best interest of the project - but apparently you can't see that. Similarly, and evidently, you just don't get it where "trolling" is concerned: here as at ANI, you have failed to put up any evidence that validates your accusation, which remains nothing better than a gratuitous personal attack. Time to shut up now (on that subject, at least). Good luck with the project. Writegeist (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a great sense of humor! Something sorely lacking around here. I appreciate your sincerity, even though we don't see eye to eye. Thanks and good luck to you, too. TTFN – Lionel ^(talk) 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You too Lionel - I enjoy your dry humour. Therefore may I commend this splendid publication to you? It is produced expressly for the delectation of the fortunate few among us who are blessed with gargantuan gentlemen's appurtenances and an appreciation of coarse tweed. Indeed Mrs. Writegeist always remembers to give me a copy of The Chap at Christmas, so that I may keep abreast of the latest advances in male grooming, sock suspenders and tweed headgear. The Chap, I find, is the gift that most elegantly complements the tube of Badcock and Gusset Extra-Firm Moustache Wax which Mrs. W. tucks into my Christmas stocking. Quite the rascal after a brace of Christmas Eve eggnogs, she deftly conceals it under a large pouch of Madame Veronika's Hand-Rubbed Latvian Reserve Old Shag tobacco for my trusty briar.

Rest assured, a warm welcome and a hot toddy (sadly not to be confused with a hot totty - one of the curses of this being a family encyclopaedia) always await you here. Writegeist (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Vega

Nice work on Chevrolet Vega. We did have a pop at improving it earlier in the year, but one especially problematic editor turned it into the mother-of-all-edit-wars so a lot of us lost the will to carry on. See the article's talk page archive (which may even help you if you are suffering from insomnia or constipation). Luckily that person seems to have disappeared off the radar so now is probably a good time to get the article sorted out. Your changes are a very welcome start. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Biker, thank you; good to hear from you. Ah, Bob. Yes. I remember. Even trying to fix the lead was like trying to start a Vega in winter. Maybe others will pitch in now and perform aditional lyposuction... Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not fret

Someone wails that Nutley was "hounded". Come on. He was filleted---by a much sharper editor---after he carelessly outed one of his own socks. And then he threw it away, irreparably damaged. But let's not fret. Surely he'll soon take a break (from the book he says he's writing) to show off some smart new socks again? I like to think the book is about farming. Writegeist (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)