User talk:Dsmith1usa

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Dsmith1usa! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- LittleOldMe 10:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thank you Dsmith1usa 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politico-media complex

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Politico-media complex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Politico-media complex. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with a long time ago with the help of other editors, such as Colonies Chris Dsmith1usa 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sister contributions"?

What is the justification for italicizing a non-titular term in the introduction of an article? If you're looking for consistency, de-italicize the sister contributions. Robert K S 14:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Thanks. Read-up a couple of punctuation books. Dsmith1usa 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful

One of my favourite reference books, Stenton and Lees' "Who's Who of British MPs", observes in its foreword that "to have 'contested' a seat is, by gentlemanly omission, to have been unsuccessful". Sam Blacketer 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about you, in your kite flying, on an analytical connection between the word 'candidate' and failure. I've responded to this red-herring (at length) elsewhere Dsmith1usa 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Trying to do better. Dsmith1usa 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel

SB

I'm sorry to keep on at you over this but your edits are still not entirely consonant with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any communication between the subject of the article and yourself is almost by definition bound to be "original research". The fact that Natascha Engel may support electoral reform (for which we need a citable source) does not contradict or go against the fact that she has not broken the Labour whip, so conjoining them and suggesting that they are connected is problematic.

As far as the list goes, your use of the present tense is very odd. The action which is important is the placing of the name on the list by its author, which took place at a set point in the past, not the fact that it remains there. The list is not supposed to be one which is continuously updated. It is as odd as seeing it written that Lord so-and-so owns 40 hides of cattle as recorded in the Domesday book: the Domesday book still exists but it was a record of things as they existed in 1086. Sam Blacketer 09:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DS

Um, remember when I came along to the Village Pump? (and met you, Block and Gallowglass, for my sins) I was asking for advice on putting some of the personal correspondence in the public domain in order that it COULD BE USED IN CITATIONS. One Night Gyr gave the only halfway decent practical advice on this matter:

If she publishes them herself on a website, or you post them on a blog, then you can cite them, but it's still only as reliable as the source you're citing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Night Gyr Dsmith1usa 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as conjunctions are concerned, as ever, Sam you seek to 'pull the mote out of someone else's eye, while ignoring the beam in your own.' (Matthew 7:1-5 [Judging Others]). Your conjunction presented a clear implication between vote reform and being found in Murdoch's good graces being yet another classic case of you, Sam, tripping up over your 'holier than thou' shoelaces' viz:

Supporting electoral reform, Engel's name was included on a list of 15 up and coming Labour MPs compiled for News Corporation in 2007.

I broke off the antecedent and just shoved it where there was something to do with vote reform. The fact that she supports a thorogoing reform (Commons as well as Lords - I know this from the correspondence I've had with her) while the Government only tinkers with the Lords exhibits some dissonance. Yes, it needed better wording, but then, Sam, repairing your damage takes time - it took me a couple of weeks of staring at what you've thrown together before I realized that you were out by an entire year on a date transcription. Anyway, it stands on its own by now, so I don't really care.

Engel is still alive, the list still exists - it's all in the present - the (simple) third person present tense of 'to be' is 'is' the last time I checked.

The Conqueror, when the Domesday Book was commissioned, was alive and he wanted to know how much he was worth after stiffing the Saxons. He asked, *in 1086*, 'How much *am* I worth?' The composers answered, *in 1086*, 'Sire, you *are* worth [a lot of moolah].' See, ask the right questions and you get the right answer. It only looks strange if you think the Domesday Book pertains to *now*. You don't think that, Sam, do you?

This last, btw IMHO reminds me of your fairy story construction around the connotations of the word 'candidate.'

My regards to Block - hope he gets better, soon (it's all that trotting over bridges and questionable consortings with goats that does it y'know ;-) Dsmith1usa 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SB/DS

I'm afraid a lot of that text is really irrelevant to the issue of improving the Natascha Engel article, ...

Well, it would be wouldn't it Sam?

...and some of it appears to border on no personal attacks territory. Remember, please, that what this is about is not some game of one-upmanship; ...

Then the likes of you, Block and Gallowglass should avoid turning it into one, viz. Block's transparent allusion to trolls:

I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff.

...and your earlier condescending attitude to me on 'opinion' v 'fact':

I hope we don't have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "fact" and what is "opinion".

...it is about producing the best quality encyclopaedia article possible.

Which is why I originally opened up to *collaboration* at the Village Pump ... remember? and to find a mechanism, if possible, to put the 'horse's mouth' online and also overcome some of MY concerns on subjectivity. I've made this point now, several times - to you and others. Only Night Gyr (above) seemed to respond to the point in question.

In order to do that we need verifiable sources for what is in the article. Do you have or can you point to a verifiable source for Natascha Engel's support for electoral reform?

Oh, dear ... we've come full circle - it's precisely the question I asked at the Pump. I put seven questions to Engel, after her election, to elicit otherwise unknown information on her stance on vote reform, through Iraq/Iran to climate change. She answered in some detail. It is unlikely that this information is available anywhere else, especially since Engel has suddenly discovered an aversion to writing things down on anything remotely controversial and that may have an adverse effect on her planned climb up the greasy pole.

Now, I've got written permission from her to make available, freely, these answers to these questions and I came along to ask, politely, what may be done. Night Gyr has made a suggestion - I have a colleague who has a complete copy of the correspondence and a personal blog too. They could be written-up, independently, there. They could be written-up at the meta-level here (at the discussion page) and I'm happy to send 'original' hard-copy to others to contribute to 'verifiability.'

Unless this source links it to a dissent from the Labour Party, joining together the views of Natascha Engel on electoral reform with voting behaviour should be avoided because they are unconnected. ("Born in Illinois, he was a keen golfer" implies a connection between being born in Illinois and enjoying golf). Sam Blacketer 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Sam, I discussed this above. I said it could have been worded better and I was referring to her nominal dissidence on vote reform:

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/1534#divisions

...on the tinkering around with the Lords.

If you have more definite information on this matter, then please give it.

Please stop waving Wikipedia rule books in my face: I don't do personal abuse but when somebody starts out on a re-write by an unwarranted connection between Brown and Engel's career path and then, variously, to lecture me on the analyicity of 'candidate,' what Joe Public will make of a misrepresention of a particularly important hypothetical, transcribes a date out by a year and raises a Clintonian type question on 'is,' then I feel at liberty to get irritated and take the Michael.

On 'is', btw., to take it to its inevitable conclusion, if you insist on 'was' then you have to either cite the death of Engel or the destruction of the list - perhaps that may include the death of Murdoch too since the list was put together for his edification and I'm sure the names are noted in his head. Can you cite any of these? No, I didn't think so. (But I've put up a citation mark, for good measure;-)

Sam, if your approach is aimed at, '...producing the best quality encyclopaedia article possible...' then it seems to me that Wikipedia has more problems than I thought. Dsmith1usa 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been interested in any games of "one-upmanship" and I'm not going to change that policy now, save to wonder why it is that whenever you respond, at least half of your response seems to be taken up with utter irrelevancies. The letters which you have from Natascha Engel are unsuitable for use on Wikipedia because they are not verifiable. I cannot go to the library and request them to check that what they say is what you report them as saying. This does not mean I doubt your word on it, it just means that some information is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article and among that is the content of private correspondence unless published. This may be part of the Wikipedia rules but this is hardly a criticism.

While you may feel that the connection between Gordon Brown and Natascha Engel is "unwarranted", we know newspaper sources which take a different view. It is entirely reasonable for the article to summarise this view. I do not follow the reductio ad absurdam argument on "is" because the way the article is worded is entirely consistent with the general approach that biographical articles describing the history of notable people normally stay in the past tense. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realised there was one thing which you raised to which I did not respond. The Publicwhip does not list instances on which MPs broke the whip, but instances on which the MP voted on another side to the majority of their party. The Lords reform votes were declared 'free votes' and so voting against the majority does not count as a dissenting vote from the whip. To connect Engel's support for electoral reform (if it can be included) with her dissidence would first need to establish that the vote would be whipped, which is speculative, and that the Labour whip would be to oppose. Sam Blacketer 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These 'mistakes' which you claim I am making are really nothing of the sort. They are your misunderstandings which you don't seem inclined to want to think about in any other than a very simplistic way. So, for instance, I pointed out that one would hardly write "Joe Bloggs contested the election" when Bloggs won. One would write instead "Joe Bloggs was elected" because that was the more important fact. You persist in regarding this as some kind of gaffe. It is not; it is just a comment on how to write an informative article.

I'm afraid it is simply not possible for you to upload scans of a letter you have privately received from Natascha Engel to act as a source. That is quite clearly original research: your own work to try to discover a fact is not suitable material for an encyclopaedia. Indeed, even if you could put the letter into the public domain somehow, I doubt it would be acceptable for you to write about it because of conflict of interest concerns. There simply is no way that private correspondence is ever going to be an acceptable source for this information. What might be acceptable? Newspaper articles, magazine articles, books by or about Natascha Engel, publications of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, almost anything that is someone else looking at the situation and describing what they have found.

Your examples of present tense usage from the article are all ongoing situations: Engel's political career is ongoing, she can still speak foreign languages, her marriage is continuing etc. Her inclusion on a list is something that happened at a set point in the past. Sam Blacketer 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being placed on a list is something that happened at a set point in the past, unless it was the case that the list was continually updated. In this case, there is no indication that this was the case. Meanwhile, please read and understand the no personal attacks policy as you are breaking it. Sam Blacketer 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Note that a {{uw-npa2}} was left here by Sam Blacketer 14:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC). I am removing it as a bad faith report, an abuse of process by leaving a purely retaliatory warning. Sam Blacketer has not identified any personal attacks which I have made. I have, on the contrary, *been* attacked almost from minute one (after asking for HELP, even) - although the attacks tried to come under the radar:

I hope we don't have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "fact" and what is "opinion".

Absolute condescension after I'd identified myself as a (vulnerable) Wikipedia 'newbie.'

Earlier I'd expressed concerns, politely recognized other editors (Block/Blacketer):

Um. I'm guessing the MP and article is Natascha Engel. Looking at the article I think you may have some problems with original research and the neutral point of view. That's just my opinion on the article. Steve block Talk 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. As for your concerns, I have them myself. One Sam Blacketer has added a tag to the article, which is fair enough. I reply to the concerns on the talk page.

This state of affairs degenerated when, for example, Blacketer tries to tell the world that being a 'candidate' automatically implies failure. A 'Wiki editor' trying to assert as truth something that is *demonstrably* false! Gentlemen's (particularly politicos) agreements do not a dictionary/encyclopaedic definition make:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmith1usa#Unsuccessful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel#Why_it_is_not_necessary_to_say_.27unsuccessful.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel#Why_it_is_necessary_to_say_.27unsuccesful.27

Later, I'm accused of arguing for arguments sake - implying that the points that are drawn out are really of no concern or 'irrelevant.' (I don't know about others, but I think the Truth should be of concern - especially in a world as dangerous as the one we're living in, right now.)

Oh, you wanted a pointless debate...(etc. etc.)... But thank you for playing. I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff. have fun with your friends and be careful of the traffic. Steve block Talk 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A hoplessly ill-disguised allusion to me 'being a troll.' (Aside, for the record, Block has recently taken a voluntary reprise - classing himself as Wikibonked [whatever that means]).

And then more of the same from Blackter:

I've never been interested in any games of "one-upmanship" [see below] and I'm not going to change that policy now, save to wonder why it is that whenever you respond, at least half of your response seems to be taken up with *utter irrelevancies*.

So, there is an attempt to, 'dismiss' me, rather like an unruly child that has found a teacher talking about something (that the child has discovered for itself, the 'teacher' knows nothing about, yet tries to 'bluff' the way forward - I have *personal* experience of this most wonderful (in the sense of 'setting one free' [as child]) experience). I've found, in Blacketer, an echo of Mrs. Bull (one of my elementary teachers, much loved, by me, regardless) on a question of biplanes and monoplanes.

And yet, to the last I've tried to be and been patient with him (Blacketer), especially to avoid further controversial exchange:

...I was trying to stay out of extended discussions with you - it's always hard to know where to start on your analyses - and [I try to] leave a sufficiency in the article history,... Dsmith1usa 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've tried to look through the murk:

You're probably a really good guy. etc. etc.

...beyond the time which I would normally have given up.

Again, the Ethic of reciprocity/Golden Rule

This could go on forever - this is not about "one-upmanship" it's about "double standards," which I have a particularly strong aversion to (since it also at the root of much of the world's conflict, right now) ... See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Blacketer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmith1usa

Dsmith1usa 10:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wary as I am to intrude, firstly I should say that you have been editing since October 2006, and I since December 2006, so it is slightly odd that you should claim the protection due to a new editor. I will identify some personal attacks from you: "do you enjoy being obtuse?", "please GO AWAY and bother other people with fairy stories", "I smell a distinct whiff of charlatanism". I do not believe that you can identify any edits from me that comment on you as a person. Sam Blacketer 11:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock?

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 213.249.162.132 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Regarding this comment:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to "Warning" (...warning, Danger, Dsmith1usa ... with fond remembrances of episodes of Lost in (Web/Wiki)Space ... and yes, I'm no relative of "Dr. Smith" - Zach Smith ;-)

Oh, dear Jossi. I thought you were better than this.

I've had problems with Block and his style of editing before:

On pointless debate

Kinda 'shoot first and argue later.'

Doesn't appear as though I'm alone. Some (that 'weasel word' again) others appear to have similar difficulties with him:

Blockstuff

onwards, for example.

I think I've demonstrated several times my good faith in being willing to cooperate in article improvements, including working forward from your 'baseline' on PMC.

I'm only human though and I don't take to being force-fed, 'I interpret the rules to suit me, when convenient and invent definitions to suit,' type of tripe by the Blocks and Blacketers of this world.

I'm also very suspicious of editors that are ostentatious about all the hard work they may have done and all the countries that they may have travelled to - under whatever hard circumstances. This, to me smacks of every possibility of being on the receiving end of an 'argument from authority.'

Looks as though Block takes you as a hero already ('per Jossi' etc. etc. ...)

Regards Dsmith1usa 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final NPA warning

Dsmith, you are continuing to turn the discussion on Talk:Politico-media complex into a personal vendetta against User:Steve block, despite repeated warnings. Your behavior there is highly inappropriate, it violates WP:NPA in several places, and you are very close to being reported to the Admin Noticeboard for your disruptive behavior. There are far more appropriate ways to discuss the article content, and there are more appropriate dispute resolution processes and forums in which to bring up your concerns if the other editor refuses to talk to you directly. But attacking the other user in the way that you have (especially in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politico-media_complex&diff=148036262&oldid=148035310 this diff) is not the way to do it.

I made a good-faith effort to help you both work together and resolve this dispute, but it appears that you are not willing to mediate. Therefore, there is nothing more I personally can do, except to refer you to a stronger form of dispute resolution and/or to the attention of an administrator, who can make a better judgement on application of policies than I can.

One last tip: Please be careful when adding comments to other User Talk pages. You ended up messing up my signature in a reply to an unrelated thread when you added your comment to me. Don't know if it was accidental or deliberate - just be aware of that for future reference. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMC mediation

This is my reply to the PMC mediation message on my Talk page. Copied here for your convenience. :)

Hi Dsmith. If you are not interested in disputing things in the article, then why are you continuing to call out Steve block in the article talk page in the manner you have? There are plenty of ways to discuss article content without attacking the other editor. You said:

Well, as you saw fit to edit Block ... it's back to your original now (all your work) ... well, we're back again. // It's like Groundhog Day innit my dear Block?

This is phrased as a personal attack against "Block". This is highly critical of Block's editing methods, and it appears to assume bad faith. It does not even address what you think is wrong with the article - just that you disagree with his version. If you're genuinely interested in improving your criticism, try something like this:

I see that the article has gone back to its previous form. I disagree with X and Y (call out specific diffs if you want). Here's what I think should be there instead: Z. etc.

This keeps the discussion neutral, free of personal references and attacks, and it allows for real discussion about the content. What's there on the page right now, though, is a bunch of personal diatribes against "Block" and very little actual content discussion. THAT is why I have criticized and warned you about WP:NPA. And I said that you appeared not to be interested in mediation because, even after trying to facilitate discussion between you two, inviting you to participate in WP:WQA, etc., you continued to post the same sorts of inflammatory comments in the article talk page. You also called me out in the same talk page in writing a very lengthy response, which I personally felt was inappropriate to have there. I would not have taken issue with the content of your response had it been on either my or your Talk page, but such a discussion does not belong in an article talk.

Hope this helps clarify my position. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

Legal threats

Sections copied from User talk:Steve block - jc37 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmnn ... I'm 'in trouble' am I? (And what 'kind' of 'trouble' would that be, KieferSkunk.) To intimate to somebody, in the UK, that they are 'in trouble,' outside of being taken into the justice system for a charged offense, is taken, itself, to be 'threatening behavior' - a chargable offense (criminal) ('N which may result in the taking into custody those that do the 'threaten(ing).'

[Statutes to be appended. But funny enough, can't get 'threatening' laws on-line. N'mind, I've got the law books anyway. You will have (criminal) statute.]

I have to say that I'm not thrilled with the above comments. Perhaps I am misreading them, but they would seem to be along the lines of legal threats. In any case, I welcome clarification. - jc37 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobodys 'thrilled' by it, but I don't take kindly, after all this episode, to being informed of my 'being in trouble' for what there are never ever answers to. Am I in Guantamo Bay?

I'll be looking-up criminal statute law, to remind myself, on the issues and consequences of 'threatening behavior' and suggesting to folks that they are 'in trouble' in the jurisdiction of the United KIngdom.

It will be plugged-in to what was written earlier, and duplicated here tomorrow.

Are you another Block/Blacketer/Block/KieferSkunk - Jc37?

Dsmith1usa 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While under other circumstances I might be flattered by being compared to Steve block (I'm not sure I've met the others you've mentioned), somehow I don't think that was your intention by the comment. In any case, I'm me, which, I think, is enough.

Anyway, I currently am not commenting on your apparent supercillious behaviour, but rather this (and other similar comments):

"I'll be looking-up criminal statute law, to remind myself, on the issues and consequences of 'threatening behavior' and suggesting to folks that they are 'in trouble' in the jurisdiction of the United KIngdom."

You may consider this a warning: If you continue to make such legal threats, you may be blocked by any administrator for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats.

Whatever content dispute you may be involved in is trivial by comparison. - jc37 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Order Act (1986)

Having gone back to my law books and found the Act I was thinking of, especially 4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress (but the whole Act makes for interesting reading).

I said I would document the law in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom in this area. And I have.

Sooo..., on the strength of this, and my previous contributions, I encouraged all to leave this all behind because it seems, to me at least, that everything that has gone on here - on BOTH sides of the matter - could put generations of lawyers kids through school and college.

Now, I will NOT respond to anymore 'provocation' from other 'participants' apart from making these observations (working backwards):

You may consider this a warning: If you continue to make such legal threats, you may be blocked by any administrator for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats.

Reminding someone of the existence of enforceable criminal law statutes is NOT a threat. High Wiki administrators, in my experience, are forever ready to wave Wiki 'guidelines' in contributors faces, especially newbies. You need to look at it 'in the same spirit.'

Whatever content dispute you may be involved in is trivial by comparison. - jc37 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmith1usa"

However, this IS a 'threat.' This is along the lines that 'you ARE in trouble' ... and (by God;-) 'I/we' can make it all the more 'worse' for you. Simply put: you want me to be 'fearful' for what may 'happen' to me. Again, you need to consider, carefully, the earlier cited Act.

I don't resort to using Old English or foreign languages to make a point. :P — KieferSkunk (talk)

It's an attempt at being smart in Middle English (ME), KS, and it's not from me.

I'm really quite annoyed that you seem bent on continuing to harass Block ...

Asserting to the 'Wiki audience' that 'I'm not really sure what the issue was,...' when a simple check back on these trails could show to anybody that really wants to know what was 'up' is simple 'bad faith.' Seems to be a way of life for some. Guess who wrote?

I have no idea what this point is relating to, ...

who then goes on to try to 'enlighten' us all on 'the point (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel) - all this 'bad faith' goes someway back.

That is why I said I felt harassed ...

You appear to moan a lot and keep muttering something about RFAs - a foreign language to me BTW, but I don't see any words directly as I (Dmsith1usa) am harassing you. You decided to join in the controversy. You are free to disengage anytime if it feels as though it's 'all getting on top of you.'

... and now apparently to Jc37, and I agree with Jc37 that they look to be in the form of veiled legal threats, or at least in the form of personal menacing.

Again, you need to study the Act and read, again what I have written earlier. Citing statutes, reminding folks that they, too (shock, horror) may be crossing (criminal) bounds that had not even entered their minds is not, per se, even a 'veiled legal threat.'

As for personal 'menacing' (again, attempting to induce 'fear') then again you need to keep the Act in mind:

... before you get yourself in further trouble.

...and then consider the impact of first implicitly implying that an individual is 'in trouble' (non-specific) and then that, in the face of a strong pursuit of the 'truth' of the matter that 'they' are going to be in even 'more trouble'

I can hear Stalin, now ... 'That's my boy...;-)

Since this started as a diatribe against Steve block, it's probably most appropriate that he be the one to file it. If that is deemed to be unhelpful, it can lead to stronger forms of mediation, including binding arbitration.

No, I suspect that even Block has the good sense to leave all this alone, now.

Such a process could potentially lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, and furthermore it is quite a spectacle. I'm not sure if you really want that sort of attention directed at yourself.

Again, crude attempts to, induce 'fear' and, again, I refer you to the Act.

As for being a 'spectacle' ... your 'innocence' is touching. I've been, as you may say, made a 'spectacle' before, under different circumstances. Funnily enough, after such 'setbacks' I do seem to end-up absorbing the experience, amoebic like, 'n growing stronger.

Now, y'all have nice lives ... it's been real ...

Dsmith1usa 10:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're going away, Dsmith? If you're still around, I'd really like for you to explain in one small paragraph (not this drawn-out mess of one-line responses to other people's comments taken out of context) what you hope to accomplish by posting all of this. As it is, your insistence on posting this stuff about "Public Order" and UK laws is likely a violation of WP:LEGAL, so as far as I'm concerned, you're way over the line now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it strikes me that ALL of this could have been avoided if you'd simply taken down the personal attacks on the article page like you were asked to do. Instead, you insisted on keeping a long diatribe going against a user, thoroughly violating WP:NPA multiple times, and now you want everyone else to just pretend that nothing ever happened. I'm sorry, Dsmith, but citing laws that have no jurisdiction internationally, much less in terms of Wikipedia policy, is not the way to resolve disputes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uuummm ... breaking my own determination. But this will NOT stand...

I suspected that you're of the kind that don't have the sense to leave well alone. You do get yourself, uninvited, but full of 'good intentions (road to Hell etc. etc.), and then muck-up things even more don't'cha. You, KS, have a track record on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KieferSkunk#Disruptions_at_Integral

...you're way over the line now.

So, again the threats ... So what is your intention? As you appear to insist on escalating, I have to calculate, possibly, if your ego is not able to overcome [and 'insanity' is the plead for that unfortunate ex-Shuttle crew member, who, in her obsession, drove - in adult diapers crossed my glorious and God given land ...on t'other side'd pond ... in confrontation with some Shuttle driver], ... violence. (To geographically locate me, to my address, is minutes work - for those of us, 'in the know' - Netwise.)

And so ... on the statutes, as far as I can see, you continue in the breaking UK law. And then, LOL, you assert ...

....now you want everyone else to just pretend that nothing ever happened.

Ahem, KS, it may have escaped your notice ... and I suspect your notice is easily escaped when it suits you ... that when others say they 'know nothing,' it's me that's done the reminding ...

Thanks for your efforts here. I'm not really sure what the issue was...

I respond ...

Then you lie!!!

You go back enough on this and the grief you have delivered to the origination of all of this sh*t in the face of an original offering ... Wiki archived ... to cooperate.

Oh, BTW, you asserted KS ...

I will be referring this dispute to a more appropriate forum, and will no longer be involved in the dispute myself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See the date my dear KS? And what's the date now?

Suggests to me that one should go easy on talk of making 'spectacles.' (BTW I've had very good service from Specsavers. I recommend them;-)

Now, back to the usual programming ...

Dsmith1usa 09:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite impressed by your ability to take my comments way out of context, Dsmith.

If you're wondering why I haven't taken action against you yet, it's simply because I'm not an admin, and I don't spend all day on Wikipedia, contrary to popular belief. I do have better things to do with my time than to keep arguing with you, especially when you've made it clear that you believe you can do no wrong and that it's everyone else who has the problem. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statute (as promised)

My final, final (!) response to KeiferSkunk et. al.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmith1usa#Public_Order_Act_.281986.29

Dsmith1usa 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I think the above is enough to block you. However, Since I've noticed that so far your contributions for the last month have been solely to three user talk pages, the gist of which is that you "claim" that you're leaving Wikipedia, I won't bother with the block at this time. That said, if you return to continue in the same fashion again, I (or any other admin) may immediately block you for the reasons I warned you of above. - jc37 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put-up or Shut-up (followed by a great yawn)

You write:

Thanks for the notice.

Yes, well. It's a matter of courtesy ... building brotherood .., and inter-subjectivity - that's code BTW for Wkiki attempts at 'good faith.'

I've noticed that so far your contributions for the last month have been solely to three user talk pages ...

In your mind, do you consider me to be of 'troll/goatness?' On one of our colleagues:

But thank you for playing. I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff. have fun with your friends and be careful of the traffic. Steve block Talk 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Go figure (on the smart asses.)

Dsmith1usa 12:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stalin, really excellent work on, whatever ...

Readers, like Patrick80639, perhaps need to consider ... well, we 'know' don't we Jc37?

ROTFL

Dsmith1usa 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "we" don't.

But that aside, in reading the section above this one, you almost sound as if you wish to be blocked. (The apparently puerile "baiting", for example.) Is that your intention? - jc37 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jc, it's really not worth trying to reason with this guy. I've already tried several times, but all he keeps doing is putting up this really elaborate prose that basically amounts to "I know you are but what am I?" It's very trollish, and I fully support any RFC/U or other action you or any other admin might take in this case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Assert Your Case; Please Do...

You write:

But that aside, in reading the section above this one, you almost sound as if you wish to be blocked.

I am not afraid, as you administrators appear to want us to be, in FEAR. I have found you to be, and I'm not suprized, to be in Chomskyen, 'NAKED.'

You are without clothes and, truth is, YOU, are afraid.

See, Truth ... terror ...

Dsmith1usa 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my records

Dispute with Dsmith1usa

Hi Jc. Just wanted to leave you a quick comment regarding the dispute with User:Dsmith1usa.

Frankly, it's really not worth trying to reason with this guy. I've already tried several times, but all he keeps doing is putting up this really elaborate prose that basically amounts to "I know you are but what am I?" It's very trollish, and I fully support any RFC/U or other action you or any other admin might take in this case. I haven't followed up on it myself because, frankly, I've had better things to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, ignoring is probably the best course of action in this case so far. And thanks for your perspective on this. I've been doing some reading of my own, and am seeing a bit of a pattern. In any case, perhaps he will actually be true to his word an leave Wikipedia this time. We'll see. - jc37 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ignoring is probably the best course of action in these cases so far.

Y'all know ... I've been doing some reading of my own, and am seeing a bit of a pattern. In any case, perhaps 'they' will actually be true to their word. Again (sigh):

I will be referring this dispute to a more appropriate forum, and will no longer be involved in the dispute myself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

...and leave this 'dispute' - as I keep asking - alone this time. We'll see.

But you won't leave it will ya? I don't think its in your nature.

If you're still around, I'd really like for you to explain in one small paragraph... that's called 'egging it on' KS.

'n I take this as code for 'inconvenient truth:'

(not this drawn-out mess of one-line responses to other people's comments taken out of context).

You, remarkably, when you came on the scene, posed as a 'mediator,' as far as I can see. There are others, outside of me, have asserted that you can pour the equivalent of gas on fires. I have reminded you of this, earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KieferSkunk#Disruptions_at_Integral

Later, this year, in November, Friends [1] over the UK are meeting in seminars on 'Building Harmony.' You would be most welcome to join us. Perhaps you may see the world as not quite like you appear to want to view it.

Apologies if you find the language 'elaborate.' I call it 'reasoning' and, trust me, I find it just as difficult to reason with y'all ... being partial to Truth m'self.

Now ... am I ... finally ... dismissed ...?

'gards ...

Dsmith1usa 09:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, wholeheartedly, trolls and goats should be ignored

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KieferSkunk#Dispute_with_Dsmith1usa

Again, Stalin would be proud of you. You like censorship, don't'cha.

Dsmith1usa 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above was posted to my talk page) - jc37 11:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Well, based on the warnings above concerning WP:LEGAL, and repeated requests by others on several user talk pages, including this one, and at Talk:Politico-media complex (among others), for you to stop with the personal attacks, and other apparent trolling, you are now indefinitely blocked.

I found this post by User:Steve block to be the most useful set of concerns:

That's helpful. Have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and see if you've got anything that will help solve the issue. As for the personal attacks, Wikipedia:No personal attacks might prove helpful. All the best, Steve block Talk 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once you demonstrate that you understand at least the above listed guidelines and policies, and show you will abide by them, I have no problem with another administrator unblocking you. - jc37 11:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh deary, deary me. Woe is come unto me. My life is over ;-)

ROTFL. Knew at least one of you couldn't resist.

Well, you've helped me join that illustrious crowd of those unafraid to speak Truth to, ahem, er ... 'authority.'

Look up the word Cadmean and contemplate Jc37.

Dsmith1usa 11:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]