User talk:Sluffs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk page access revoked. If you wish to appeal this block you may contact WP:BASC by email or use WP:UTRS. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Please check my U-Roy editing[edit]

Your edits look fine. Thanks. The main improvement that the article needs is the addition of more references - I have several books that will help with this, and will try to get round to it over the next week or so. Some of the claims in the article are slightly dubious, e.g. "Wear you to the ball" being the first rap record in 1969 - really it wasn't a rap record in the sense that we generally understand rap music, and it wasn't even the first Jamaican deejay record, with deejay sides being around for about three years before U-Roy's debut. U-Roy was, however, certainly the first big deejay recording star, and had an original and much-imitated style.--Michig (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

...and here's a formal welcome to the project...

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Michig (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Newbie seeking clarity[edit]

Hi Sluffs - there is nothing wrong with any of your edits to the U-Roy article; in fact, I'm happy to see somebody pay attention to U-Roy's place in the Wiki world. I've been a fan of U-Roy for 30+ years, ever since I heard "Runaway Girl" for the first time.

The edit of mine that you cite refers to the fact that another (anonymous IP) editor wikilinked the phrase "your ace from outer space," so it's redlined (no article) in the text. (The two edits can be examined here: [[1]]).

Even though there will never be a Wiki article about this phrase, my comment was kind of smart-assed, and now that I reflect upon it, probably unnecessary, since it caused you confusion.

Rock-steady, brother, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Good work![edit]

Keep it up! Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bobby Aitken[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg
A tag has been placed on Bobby Aitken requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this was deleted as Bobby Aitken is clearly notable, but I have created a new version of the article. If there's anything from the version that was deleted that can be added, please feel free to do so. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Scale degrees[edit]

In regards to your edit and edit summary: "Edit to point out that the degrees of the scale retain the same names regardless whether the scale is major or minor", what about the subtonic? Hyacinth (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reggae articles[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for all the work you are doing on reggae articles, including adding a lot of infoboxes that I should have put on when I created some of these articles. Keep up the good work!--Michig (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Hey, thanks for your attention to William the Conqueror, hope you had a good read of everything about WP:Vandalism! Mechanical digger (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Christopher Hogwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Classical
John Dowland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Classical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Links have been corrected. Sluffs (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sumo[edit]

Hi Sluffs, thanks for your contribution. I agree with you on your removal of the blue link on Fictional film, but I'm not entirely certain about the removal of the blue link to Israel. I've met several people over the years who directly said either that (a) they've not heard of Israel, or (b) they've heard of it, but don't know its geographic location on the map, and/or don't have a clue as to the country's size or the size of the population or other basic demographics, etc. (However, I'm not sure whether any of these issues are even relevant, because this is an article on Sumo and not on Israel.)

Anyway, this is not a big deal, I'm (mostly) OK with your edit and I'm not going to revert your edit but was curious to hear your thoughts on this. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sluffs, your reply (posted on my user talk page) is informative and helpful. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Monica Hall (music)[edit]

Shouldn't this article be renamed Monica Hall, since there is no article with that name?--Mdy66 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This was on my User page when it should be placed here[edit]

Article on Angada

Hi, I have added the Angad kood or Angad's Jump to this article. When i was in my 5th class i have read about the Angad kood in my Hindi book. This lesson was very interesting to kids as how Angada took the roof with him and I still remember this lesson till today. I tried to find a reference for this on Internet website but could not find the reference. So requesting you to please arrange for a reference for article Angada. Thanks in advance. Premchanda (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rupert Hine 03 (UK Record Producer).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Rupert Hine 03 (UK Record Producer).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Peter Wilson 01 (UK Record Producer).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Wilson 01 (UK Record Producer).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Broonzy[edit]

Thanks for an interesting discussion - and thanks for your edits at Goree Carter (an article I began) as well! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gladstone Mills[edit]

Why did you change Mills's OJ distinction to an OD? The Order of Jamaica is fifth in precedence among the system of honors, while the Order of Distinction is sixth. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Cresix. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:The Beatles that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a comment on my talk page. I agree with Cresix. I really think you should simply disengage from the argument at Talk: The Beatles and allow it to be archived and forgotten - there is no good reason for that discussion, but there are plenty of good reasons why you should continue to contribute positively to articles on reggae and R&B music, etc., on which you clearly have a lot to offer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sluffs. I only commented about Cresix's edit on User talk:Cresix, not any of your edits. Sorry I didn't make it crystal clear before that I actually agree with you that the compilations should be removed from Dekker's page. I'd be happy to "collude" and "scheme" with you too if you're willing to be civil. I posted another suggestion on Talk:Desmond Dekker to keep the conversation on track. Maybe you'd like to start a draft of Desmond Dekker discography in your userspace? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what you posted on Cresix's page:

Hi Cresix! I see you recently posted on User talk Sluffs, but I don't see where you removed any of Sluff's comments from Talk page of The Beatles. Thanks! GoingBatty

Is that my username in that sentence on not? If you are discussing an action that Cresix has imposed on my edits then the discussion between you both is about my editing primarily and is related secondarily to the subsequent Cresix edit. I am the subject and origin of the above. In all honesty I was a bit abrupt with Cresix when he first flagged my Beatles comments on the article talk page and maybe I'm at fault for allowing this article "equality" issue to become distracting for all concerned when I could've quietly achieved my aims. In the end I just don't like your username GoingBatty - too ambiguous, comes across as an insult (your self-deprecation only works if people know you personally), can be a painful reminder to anyone who has undergone any psychiatric treatment (bulimia, kleptomania, self-harm, etc) and worse of all is based on a very human characteristic. Love drives people batty, losing a child to an illness or car accident drives people batty, unfair treatment or false accusations drives people batty, lack of sleep, well you get the idea. You chose a name that describes you (or so you say) but it is a "dangerous" assumption to think any word or deed is not capable of harm. Thats why I chose Sluffs - soft sounding, younger members don't receive a strong message or statement, no misinterpretation because its not a word that exists in any dictionary and unlike your username has no psychological emphasis or self-deprecation. I once called myself a name drawn from Object Oriented Programming on a site but even though I can program in VB and Visual C (only "toy" programs) I eventually came to the conclusion that I was giving the impression that I was an expert programmer so I stopped using it. We all seem to have got off to a bad start and for a time I was thinking about leaving this site but I'm slowly coming around to staying. Also this started from Michig (admin) reverting an edit and I should've taken his edit in "good faith" but I didn't. Mea culpa est.

Sluffs (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My comment to Cresix was about the template used on your page - more of a technical discussion. I posted it there because I didn't understand why Cresix chose to use that template. I could have posted it here, but I wanted that conversation was between Cresix and me, since it was about Cresix's edit, not yours.
I'm sorry my username bothers you, but it's just a nickname - nothing more. I appreciate that that you took the time to detail why it bothers you, but I hope you are willing to assume good faith that I meant no ill will when I impulsively chose it three years ago. Names are tricky things - some people could be offended by certain nicknames for "Richard", or by certain definitions of "sluff".
If you're willing to overlook my username, I'm still willing to work with you on the Dekker article, because I believe in the underlying equality argument you're trying to make. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I just found out you are an American scout master. On that basis I'd better stop this discussion in case you tie me up in "knots". lol

Best of luck shaping the young minds and hearts of those put into your care especially with regards to your self-declared "going batty" state of mind.

Sluffs (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Trying to teach 10 eight-year-olds how to tie knots? That drives me batty!  :-). All the best - GB (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're doing a great job helping others to learn and grow as people. I do believe that all cultures have some form of social and informal education for their children that includes males who are not related by blood. I personally don't wish to have any influence on other people's children in a direct and personal manner but I'm happy to improve Wikipedia so that it becomes a good source for others. You say you had an impulsive moment three years ago and chose a self-deprecating username so lets hope that in your role as scout master that you have less impulsive moments and that any expression of self-deprecation in front of your charges is followed by a lengthy lesson on why its essential to make sure that choosing a self-deprecating username (or nickname) must be avoided so that it cannot be misconstrued by strangers as a statement of your belief about others. A bit like if I as a non-caucasian member had chosen the username "StupidDarkie" in a self-deprecating reference to myself which obviously has a grain of truth as shown by the fact that I've now wasted three days discussing Wikipedia with a man who has spent a long time administering to the psychological and emotional needs of 10 year olds.

Sluffs (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

you have your facts wrong[edit]

re your edit summary [2] - one does not need to be an admin to archive a discussion. one merely needs to note that the content of the discussion has veered severely off the topic of edits to the article to which the talk page is attached and have the feeling that it is not bearing back.

My archiving was merely my applying what two of the other editors had already stated or implied. User: Indopug "This thread should really be removed. As it states right at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article." Most of the stuff here has little to do with this article; it seems to be about problems an editor had at another article" and User: Going Batty: Sluffs, the top of this page states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article."

I suggest you read WP:TPG (particularly "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." (emph added - and note it does not say "are subject to archival by administrators") and WP:NOTFORUM.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have added to the closure and to the above "if anyone still has specific comments about proposed edits to the The Beatles article , please feel free to unarchive and continue that focused discussion" . and that was my mistake.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

red pen of doom[edit]

thanks sluffs for talking sense and you are very correct, and finally someone who doesn't talk all smart and stuff all like the Wikipedia guidelines and stuff .

Personal attacks[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Cresix. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


Also please read WP:HUSH. If you continue to message me on my talk page for no other reason than to make attacks, you will be explaining yourself at WP:ANI or getting a block for failing to do so. Cresix (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

For general readers I went to Cresix's talk page to leave a message and found that GoingBatty (see above) had one of his impulsive moments and had chosen to leave a message for Cresix to do with a Cresix imposed tag on my Beatles talk page comments. So I left this on his talk page:

"What are you guys - a triumvirate. Lets see - if we make GoingBatty into Crassus, Cresix into Pompey and Grymmhe into Ceasar - then split the kingdom of Wikipedia into three distinct areas of control then I imagine you'll all be happy. Whats that Aesop fable about the wolf and sheep - something about how we can never change our nature. I accuse you all of colluding and scheming in a group against editors that don't fit into your perception of what makes a good Wikipedia editor. Disgusting behaviour on a site thats open to all and cowardly to boot that you are discussing and congratulating each other on actions to my edits without informing me."

"Gutless"

Please use the revision history of this page to view the apology to Cresix that was in this space but has now been withdrawn (see below)

Sluffs (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

if you continue to focus your edits on your views of contributors and not on article content, you are going to be headed quickly towards a block. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so - the above is just another false expression of your belief that you can impose "doom" upon anyone you wish.

Sluffs (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidently I was wrong about no communication between GoingBatty and Cresix:

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

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

I withdraw my apology to Cresix and have also removed the text (see above) that detailed the apology and the reason it was given. A visit to the above links will show that GoingBatty and Cresix are discussing action against me and that GoingBatty has been advised not to follow Cresix's plan by another Wikipedia editor. To all concerned please do accept my apology for anything that may be misinterpreted as anything other than the normal "cut and thrust" of debate as found in the UK parliament between the leaders of the respective UK parties at Prime Minister's Question time. I am a product of my culture as well as my own personal experiences.

Sluffs (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If those comments are aimed at me as well, I accept your apology. But please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - accusing someone of being a racist, and akin to a Nazi sympathiser, is going a bit over the top, beyond even what is acceptable in the House of Commons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Sluffs, as I tried to explain before, the post I made on Cresix's talk page (and Cresix's response on my talk page) was discussing the suitability of Cresix's edits, not about the edits you made. GoingBatty (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To Ghmyrtle (who is referring to some comments I made on his talk page about the villagers near the concentration camps): I was actually talking about how people behave in an ambiguous moral situation. But this isn't about that - I was just saying that most people (like the villagers near the concentration camps) can find justification for their behaviour (thats why the Aesop fable - the Wolf and Lamb specifically though some of the other Wolf are of interest).

As for the GoingBatty thing: What happened was GoingBatty joined in on a discussion on the Beatles talk page and seconded Cresix. This is not an unusual thing as the site is driven by editors communicating. The thing is that I don't really know if GoingBatty was genuinely joining in or was doing his scout master bit. GoingBatty wants to promote civility, rule following and group action (three qualities that earn you a scout badge as well) as stated in Wikpedia policies. I have pointed out throughout my membership that this is a caucasian majority site and as the Klu Klux Klan have demonstrated that these three qualities are also the most frequently cited accusations for the punishment of non-caucasians: group action against non-causcasians that have broken the rules or rattled the sensitive nature of caucasian civility. I must remind people that Rosa Parks - a lady who's solitary decision to say "no" to a caucasian (many caucasians I believe) who asked her to sit in the "coloured" section of an American bus - led to a fundmental shift in American policy. Rosa Parks had broken a caucasian "majority" rule and the civility code that accompanies it and to show that things had changed for the better by then - the Klu Klux Klan did use to tar and feather and hang people who had been freed decades earlier by the constitution for rule breaking and civility code violations. Progress is always slow. At the moment my main issue is to remove the term "black" (see Broonzy Talk Page) and replace it with the term "African-American". According to Wikipedia policy the term is in common use and therefore is acceptable. This is the same rubbish spouted at Rosa Parks - please be civil and follow the rules because they have been decided by a majority and she made the decision to challenge the validity of the rules. Ghmyrtle undid some of my changes of the term "black" yet still mentioned that as it was accepted policy to use the word and that non-caucasians should not read into to it any deliberate racist overtones. I'm with Rosa Parks - its good to challenge things. Now this is the important bit - if you look I've been sharp with my language. It is my experience that breaking with caucasian civility is always the forerunner to the accusation that one is being a protagonist - Rosa Parks used a "sharp" word - she said "no". I have deliberately sought to say "no and to sometimes be confrontational especially in regards to equal treatment of articles. I would like to see the term "African-American" used more often yet when I exercise my editors rights to edit I am reverted on the basis that the Caucasian majority say the term "black" is acceptable. It may be that when any person is in the flow of fast speech and thought that they grab the easiest terms available but as I pointed out before this is an encyclopedia (not a census - see Broonzy talk page) and that "progressive" and "conservative" factions will collide. I deny Ghmyrtle his "middle-ground" stand on the issue (see all related talk pages - yep we're all on one. lol) and ask him to fall into the "no" or "yes" camp rather than excuse it on the basis that it is undesirable but a reality of policy. I deny GoingBatty his right to "scout master" me - if he wants to administer "scout" ideals of behaviour to younger members then thats his business and I would advise that if he is to rally young men to his flag by inquiring ever so civilly about their edits against me that he at least admit that it is his nature to perceive civility and rules are related to group actions. Personally I would have rather kept RedPenOfDoom, Cresix and others out of the discussion the three of us are having (there should be four but Michig admin is discussing matters with me on his talk page in a rather slower fashion). I will be "sharp" in my language and many people who may read this may imagine that the I have applied uncalled for "pressure" against younger members - if I have then accept that sometimes I am apt to remove from discussions any secondary factors that may not understand that we are actually discussing race, culture and politics using Wikipedia as a mirror for our own beliefs - though as is to be expected we see ourselves first and foremost.

Like Rosa Parks I decline your offer of my position within the your scheme of things and when you all decide to not condone in any article the use of the term "black" when "African American" will suffice (excepting refs, etc) and to make it policy then we'll move onto some other areas for improvements I have in mind. Please note that I'm mainly interested in "balancing" the language to more specific modern technical terms.

Sluffs (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Per the above messages. You should really listen to them; they are trying to help you. If you persist in your uncollegiate attitude, and continue making personal attacks, you will be blocked. Your choice. KillerChihuahua 23:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Old news mate. A game really and its not my choice of game. I just go along with it until they get what they want, usually some sort of justification for something or other they perceive to be important. A bit late but interesting timing from you anyway and I've moved on. Best of luck.

Sluffs (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If I'd been on sooner, you would have gotten the message sooner - and this is old news if you're ceasing the attacks, which I hope you are. The rest of your post is a bit obscure to me; not sure what you're suggesting. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There's plenty of scope of positive contribs with zero attacks. Good, you've moved on. Hope you'll be going great guns now. All the best. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC).

The post shouldn't be obscure to anyone. Once in a while editors get drawn into policy and personal opinion debates. GoingBatty seconded a Cresix request on the Beatles page to have a section I'd written archived. I still hold that this was not a genuine editor decision based on the article or Wikipedia policies but was a "scout master" action designed to offer support to the user Cresix. Its a bit like enhancing one's reputation through solicitation of other's opinions when what one is really asking is "can I influence this situation". Its also akin to living with someone who reads your mail under the pretense that they mistakenly thought it was for them (wishful thinking at the best of times). GoingBatty didn't second Cresix for any other reason than self-justification of his own beliefs under the premise that the "babes in toyland" editors somehow (in his own mind) needs his personal help to face the rigours of a life full of unruly non-scouts (editors). As for "attacks" on others - I tend not to allow others to decide these things for me - sorry about that just the way I am. I would like you all to know that I practice equality in all my battles and can proudly say that I've argued with coloured people as much as caucasian people. lol

Sluffs (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving on up...[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Little Richard, though I'm not sure that's the best place for them, and I'd prefer not to be called "caucasian" which I associate with antiquated attitudes. But anyway... the main difficulty at that article has been keeping the non-neutral edits by User:Smoovedogg under control. I tend to leave the tidying up there to User:BrothaTimothy as much as possible. I'm sure no-one would object to you making WP:NPOV edits there (as indeed I wouldn't have objected to many of your edits at Broonzy - the problem was that one or two of your edits were not accurate, as I think you accepted, and I reverted you en bloc, where with hindsight I should perhaps have been more careful). Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I think we all know where we stand on matters. The way is forward. Thanks

Sluffs (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this list, that User:Hillbillyholiday81 - who has just written an article on Lord Flea - has found. Plenty of redlinks there that need to be worked on - I'll make a start when I can. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

lol. No I'll decline your kind offer. Got enough corporeal and non-corporeal matters to deal with at the moment. Still nice of you to think of me.

Sluffs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'll leave you alone if you'd rather, but I respect what you do, and know that your efforts here are valuable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The value is only to me. You should read Aristotle's essay on friendship - gets rid of the wishy-washy notions about such matters as to what it is that we actually gain from relationships with non-relations (GoingBatty take note for greater minds than you have thought about why we choose to instruct and befriend).

16:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My removal of allbrazilianmusic.com[edit]

I've removed about 40 or so of these links from the External Links section of articles and from the main body where they were sometimes present as references - I thought I had a year ago and checked my edit history to see if that was the case but couldn't find it. Maybe I spotted it a year ago but didn't do anything. I've used the words "fake site used to generate revenue". I chose that edit description based on the date that some of the links had been placed - 2009 is one given. I find in incredulous to say the least that the site if genuine hadn't populated its artist and genre sections in the four years hence.

I did notice that some of the links went to a UOL site and address with biographies of the artists. I did ponder whether the site had been ported over to a new address with all the biographies but even if it had there was no reason for the old address links to exist. It wasn't a site full of adverts just one Amazon ad. With many articles being visited by thousands of people monthly even the one advert could generate a small sum. I wouldn't mind as few hundred pounds a year for running an address that costs fifteen pounds a year.

I've used strong language in the edit description not only to alert the editors involved in the articles but also to deter anyone (including the owner of the site) from restoring the links. Whatever the reason for the lack of information at allbrazilianmusic.com it still was absolutely irrelevant to all the articles.

Since more people are likely to read my Talk Page in the future I thought it would be better here than on my User Page in case the issue arises for other editors.

Live long and prosper but not at the expense of the our time please.

Sluffs (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian Hip Hop[edit]

Can you please use the "Show preview" button and make all your changes in the article at once instead of keep saving a thousand times? Thanks, Crash Overclock (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

GG adjustments[edit]

Hi Sluffs, nice editing. I agree with reversion to more positive angle on films that lost money. Only one was a b.o. "failure", one lost money because studio had to start film over so costs went over budget (but G was a hit), and the 3d lost only a smidgen. I agree that "box office hits" is better than "sensation." The challenge has always been to convey what an unprecedented sensation she was. Think I know a way to add this, though maybe you think it's already clear in the article. your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "the impact of her acting and screen presence upon the public quickly established her reputation as one of Hollywood's greatest actresses" - and I suppose you could add "Garbo would go on to become the biggest box-office draw during the 1920s and 1930s and an icon of the Silent and Classic movies".

Sluffs (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Love the first sentence but second statement would need citation, even though you are undoubtedly right. Or I could say, "one of the biggest box-office draws of the...." I don't think I'd need to cite that.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users and for personal attacks, as you did at User talk:GoingBatty and Talk:Brazilian hip hop. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bgwhite (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

lol. Only just spotted this. One week late. Never mind. Of no interest to me and will have no affect upon me.

Sluffs (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Soul music[edit]

Hi Sluffs. I've left you a message at Talk:Soul music, and I hope we can progress this in a collaborative way. I see you've edited the opening sentence of the article. Can I respectfully suggest that it might be easier for other editors to see where you're coming from if you were to edit the substance of the article itself first (based on your sources), and then edit the introduction, to summarise it? Sentences like - "The genre was exported across the world leaving an indelible mark not only on the early music of the Beatles but also on the music of Africa" - are simply of less encyclopedic value than what was there before, and don't naturally emerge from cited sources. Do we really need to mention the Beatles so prominently? - I hope not as they are barely relevant to the subject of the article. Please be assured that I really don't want to get into any form of battle over this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Message received and understood! I may edit your edits, but I'm sure we can work it out... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No we can't. I added the Beatles to show the music had crossed into Europe - if I had a French band, Spanish band or German band then that would've been added to highlight the transatlantic journey the music took. The US speaks English and England is the nearest country to it that speaks English (I don't include Canada since that is part of the continent). The difference between this issue and the old "Ob Li Da Ob Li Do" issue is that they actually covered Please Mr Postman and other soul songs like Twist and Shout. That is a world of difference from creating a pastiche like the so-called punk song "Ca Plane Pour Moi". I'm going to choose an article from the four and a half million here and I'm going to make sure you have never applied an edit or talk page post to it. Then I'm marking it as "I can concentrate without interruption by Ghmyrtle".

Don't take it personally though - its just my method of working and my choice.

cheers

Sluffs (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My 2c. I'm with Ghmyrtle on this one. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think - like the Barry Ulanov article - I will never touch that article again. My interests are wide enough to avoid conflict and arguments with other editors and from now on I will be doing a pre-edit history check and will leave evidence on the Talk Page of the article I'm interested in, before I start to work on it, to show that certain editors that I have supposedly "upset" are not involved at that current time. If they have been previously involved I will detail when and to what depth and will presume that is the state of play as far as their interest goes. This may surprise you but I'm not here to argue with others. I like to write and read - that's all.

Sluffs (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Only warning[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You were rightly blocked for personal insults: even bots have feelings, and if they don't, their operators do. The charge that someone was using a bot making a routine edit to a talk page in order to stalk you is ludicrous; your commentary on User talk:Bgwhite added only more insult. Please refrain. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the biggest complaints on this site is that articles need to be finished. Have you ever heard the saying "too many chiefs and not enough Indians". Hundreds of editors here are involved in so called maintenance tasks and other things. These editors rarely edit in a way that adds meaningful content. Sometimes I feel as though a small minority or editors here do the bulk of the real work while the rest sit on a hill like generals checking the state of play while rarely staring the enemy in the white's of their eyes. Eventually BattyBot operated by GoingBatty, which is at approximately 350,000 edits, may reach a 1,000,000 - that gives him coverage of over a quarter of the existing articles (at the current figures) of which none he would have added meaningful content to. That is power because he can then claim rights beyond his actual "meaningful" contribution for which no one can dispute. Bots need to be time limited or have a ceiling imposed otherwise its becomes a "weapon of presence". To illustrate further - if a million statues of GoingBatty were erected throughout the UK then surely the general population would consider him to have some importance and rights that go beyond theirs - after all they don't even have one statue. This is why BattyBot needs to be limited - anyway I will always believe that he chose his username to reflect something (as we all do). He said it was self-deprecating - I say he's lying and that it was and is a "control name" directed towards his own sense of sanity and his belief that others not of his ilk are a bit batty. I'm an atheist but even I wouldn't say that praying to an non-existent God is a sign of insanity though in any other circumstances falling down on your knees, mumbling that you are in communication with some imaginary being, would result in you being placed in the lunatic asylum.

I always knew this site was weak in structure. If GoingBatty and Bgwhite want be editors then let them add meaningful content. By assigning bots and the right to block or ban permanently or temporarily without time restrictions you create conditions that are counter-productive to the democratic process. The President of the US is limited to three terms in office and bots should be limited to one year for non-administrators and administrators should also be limited in tenure to two years to make sure they don't become "block-ban" addicts. You've allowed a small group including this idiot scout master to assume a permanent right to range across everything here.

Sluffs (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • "That is power because he can then claim rights beyond his actual "meaningful" contribution for which no one can dispute." Simply put, no. That's nonsense. Also, we're not a democracy, like it or not. The process by which admins get elected may be flawed, but not for the reasons you bring up, and at any rate it is the process that we have. We have policies and guidelines that allow the community to give certain rights to certain users, and in this case Bgwhite and I have been given the right to block editors for behavior deemed unacceptable. That is a power not to be exercised lightly, and you have the right to protest and/or appeal, but you may not do so using personal insults or sneers, for instance, which is why for instance I changed the heading of this section. You claim you're here to write articles? Write articles. I'm here for the same reason, and you are welcome to gauge if I've done anything meaningful here in terms of content contributions. But whether in your opinion I have or not, I still have been given the mandate to help stop disruption, and that is what I will do if I have to. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have heard "we're not a democracy" time and time again on so many sites from admin. Never complain about Prism or any other intrusion into your life then. Maybe its time we all sat down and enforced democratic practices for all users of sites. Rights and democracy are not separate issues and I am saddened by your response and my wariness of you is now heightened. Denial of the right to free speech in whatever form it takes is anathema to the individual who values his rights. Disgusting that power resides in the hands of those who can say brazenly to their fellow men "we're not a democracy".

Sluffs (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sluffs: It's quite simple really. This is a massive collaborative project. We're here to work on an encyclopaedia. You might find some of the points at WP:NOT of use - including the "not a democracy" one - but it all boils down to, we're working together. Hurling insults at each other gets in the way of that; as does bureaucratic red tape. Yes, we have admins, sadly. Yes, the admins (of whom I am also one) are chosen in a messy and imperfectly democratic fashion not terribly related to the production of content. But it is what it is; it's fun when we can all work together, but it's not a carefully constructed political system, it's a collaboration with guidelines. There are a range of essays about aspects of Wikipedia, expressing varying viewpoints. Maybe you'd like to write one, but I think first you should read a few. They're interesting food for thought, because this is in many ways a new experiment. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Plus--why would you think this is a free-speech zone? You can choose to not be here, and no one will follow you anywhere. Besides your government of course. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks/threats (even if not in earnest). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Writ Keeper  21:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
As the template above says, I've blocked you for 72 hours for your comments on Drmies's talk page. As far as democracy goes, Drmies is right; this is not a democracy, it's a privately-run website, and there is no such thing as a absolute right of freedom of speech here. But that's not why you're blocked; you're blocked because, in this edit, you say that Drmies should be beheaded. I can only assume you meant this metaphorically, not literally, but even if that is so, it is well outside any (imo) reasonable bounds of acceptable behavior. I came to this page to tell you to retract the (even if unintended) threat, but it turns out that this ain't your first time at the rodeo. Not cool at all. Writ Keeper  21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Bob Marley, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your personal opinion of various nationalities is not appropriate anywhere on wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of One month for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
For personal attack not only on user User talk:Writ Keeper, but also defamatory statements against a group of people at Talk:Bob Marley. You make note of User:Drmies Dutch heritage, who you have been at odds with, then your next edit is to make defamatory statements about the Dutch at Talk:Bob Marley. You have been unable to have a conversation on a talk page without making demeaning, harassing or trolling comments. Bgwhite (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sluffs (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

user Drmies used foul language in a discussion about me on his Talk Page. His words were: "fucking bullshit paranoia of the dumb kind". It light of his role as admin and the young age of many members here I took exception and replied "try to refrain from swearing in the future". I believe that he deliberately/inadvertently inflamed the situation and that this block is a result of my response to his atrocious language which is doubly amplified by the fact that he proclaims to be an adult. We need to ban swearing by administrators. I would also like to point out that Bgwhite (who was involved in the conversation with Drmies where the "fucking bullshit paranoia of the dumb kind" words were stated) who initiated the block did so on the basis of my Bob Marley Talk Page post which he claims has a connection to the discussion with Drmies. I had been editing the Bob Marley article before any of this arose and the removal of the image was something I had wanted to do before this situation arose. My edit history will prove that I spend four to eight weeks almost exclusively working on one article. I offer this as proof that my decision to remove the wax image of Bob Marley had already been decided before any of this issue arose. I would also like to point out that my reference to his nationality was a genuine attempt to show Drmies that I had visited Holland and understood a bit more about his country and culture than he may think he understands about my country and culture. Hence my objection to him swearing in English when many young children from my country and other countries like America, Australia and Canada are raised by their parents to not use or avoid as best the use of the F word. If anyone is guilty here of cultural infringement or cultural insults then it is Drmies. I have also pointed out on the Talk Page of Writ Keeper that after searching his edit history I came across the use of the F word directed against other users. In light of Writ Keeper's own promotion of himself as the youngest admin here I pointed out on his Talk Page that swearing on a site populated by young members was not a sign of wisdom. I hereby propose that these actions do not constitute a reason for banning me for one month and that any responsible adult would object to the F word whether it was directed against them (as in the case of the Drmies statement about me) or directed against others (as displayed in the edit history of Writ Keeper). I also offer my edit history as proof that I have never used the F word in any edit description or post throughout the years I have been editing. In summary - I have not been blocked because of the Bob Marley Talk Page post - I've been blocked because of the previous Talk Page discussions where Drmies, Bgwhite and others discussed my "fucking bullshit paranoia of the dumb kind". Sluffs (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After seeing your post at drmies talk page yesterday I looked a bit more into your editing history and found that you make a very regular habit of attacking users in your talk page posts. Your actions are proof that swearing is not necessary to be extremely rude to others. This post in and of itself is enough, and there are many more. Practically every time you post on a talk page you make some backhanded accusation regarding the morals of some user you disagree with and their upbringing. It is repugnant and extremely nasty and if you don't commit to stop acting in this matter in the very near future you are going to find yourself kicked off entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sluffs (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I request that an administrator who is not involved in the discussions on Drmies page be asked to review my unblock request. Beeblebrox is already involved in the discussion at Drmies Talk Page. Wikipedia appeal rules state that an administrator who is independent of the issue will review the request. Beeblebrox is not independent of the issue and should not be allowed to review this unblock request. Here are Beeblebrox's exact word from Drmies Talk Page: (talk page stalker)You're funny. I have seen drmies converse with an Englishman in person, and they understood each other perfectly well. . Your statement that such language is not really used by English persons is complete horseshit. If you would like to be blocked again, by all means keep up this foolish behavior. Otherwise I strongly suggest youy let it go. In summary: Beeblebrox by his own admission knows Drmies personally outside of Wikipedia and is already engaged in this issue. I request that an independent administrator be assigned to review my unblock request. Sluffs (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have got your way, because I am "an administrator who is not involved in the discussions on Drmies page". In fact, i didn't even know of your existence until I came to review your unblock request. Having looked through your editing history, I have seen more than enough justification for the block. You appear to think that you are so obviously always RIGHT, and anyone who is stupid enough to disagree with you so utterly beneath contempt, that you do not need to extend courtesy or consideration to editors that you don't see eye to eye with. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Actually I met him at Wikimania so I don't really know him outside of this context.. Doesn't make me an involved admin. Perhaps you should try examining your own unacceptable actions and addressing the actual reasons you were blocked instead of blaming others or projecting your own issues onto them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Sluffs, take a look at WP:BATTLEGROUND. I can tell you now, there is no chance that you will be unblocked early if there is any indication that you will maintain your previous habits of taunting the administrators who blocked you. When you resume editing, presumably in a month, you should have no interaction with Bgwhite, Drmies, Writ Keeper, or Beeblebrox. Should you do so, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. Ryan Vesey 17:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

lol. Taunting administrators am I? No that's not what happened. I was trying to write articles by myself on a site that is a collaborative endeavor. I managed to do so quite successfully for a time being but I am a realist and I knew that the ethos of the site would ensnare me into engaging with others. I used to play guitar in a jamming duo with a friend. As a duo we would go to Art Centers and Bars to play. I used to sneak off to play sometimes by myself for one reason only - I wanted to play the solo classical pieces in my repertoire. Life is communal but there are times when doing it solo makes far more sense. I felt that way about certain articles and my edit history shows that its when I strayed onto articles like Bob Marley, Soul Music and other popular articles that the conflicts arose. Are you sure its me and not the subjects I went near? lol

No hard feelings. Life is too short. I've learned quite a bit about certain subjects and have no regrets about my time here. I'll do my own permanent block just to save everyone time. lol

Sluffs (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Sluffs - I don't know if you want my moral support, but I'm happy to give it anyway. I don't always agree with your arguments (and I know you don't always agree with mine), but I find you to be an excellent and conscientious content editor, who will be missed here. Hopefully you'll be back sooner rather than later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC) PS: If you, or any admin, wants me to elaborate, leave me a message on my talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to refrain in the future from engaging in caustic sarcasm about some very obvious personality projections from other editors. Though in true English fashion I will carry on doing the "Dads Army" thing about myself. Must be cultural. Captain Mainwaring: "You stupid boy".
I certainly have been. lol
Sluffs (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You know pulling the "culture card" is nothing new here. You are hardly the first user to try and claim that some cultural difference gives you the right to behave in ways that would otherwise be unacceptable. We have lots and lots of Brits editing here, and the vast majority of them manage to get along just fine without constantly engaging in personal attacks, ethnic slurs, and baseless accusations regarding other users' upbringing. I wouldn't expect anyone to go along with pretending your armchair psychology nonsense is anything but a cheap excuse to deliberately insult other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

lol. Its alright. I knew that this was coming. I knew that this would be the end result when I joined. I wake up happy and I smile most days. I was aiming for ten complete articles and then I was going to do something else but five will do:

  • Ernest Ranglin
  • Prince Buster
  • Albert Collins
  • Brazilian Hip Hop
  • The Clovers

I was looking at another year or so but two years, working almost full time (the research I undertook was far more time consuming than most people realise) and sometimes pulling a seven day week, is fine. The funny thing about people is that the person we all know best is ourselves. I still hold that all administrators should be banned from swearing. Oh bloody hell I did it again - spoke my mind. lol

Sluffs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

For someone who presumes to tell others what they can and cannot say you seem oddly unaware of the line between "speaking your mind" and "acting like a jerk." One of them is fine, the other is not. You lucked out this time in that Bg was nice enough to just kick you out for a little while. You would do well not to expect such leniency again if you continue with this problematic behavior after the block expires.
And waving your content contributions around and playing the victim is another move we've seen from chronically rude users in the past so it is also nothing new or astounding. Content contribuions are great but they are not an excuse to attack your fellow editors, as many a user with a far bigger "trophy shelf" than you have found out. If you can't engage in discussion without casting baseless aspersions on your fellow editors you are not suited for a collaborative project of this nature, but Wikipedians are usually in favor of giving second chances to users who actually commit to change.
The choice is yours, and always has been. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing. I'm very happy being me thank you very much. Not such thing as baseless aspersions. Writing exposes ones inner self and every charge brought against me has a grain of truth and every charge I brought against others has a grain of truth. So you want to give me a second chance do you - how kind your majesty. Shall I expect my pardon in the post or shall I come to your castle. lol

I've got to log out now because I'm a third of the way through a book on English grammar (truth) and I've got some other online stuff I'm doing. Its been fine here - please read the post above. No hard feelings and thanks for the deep insights and the overwhelming concern that you have shown. lol

Sluffs (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion[edit]

Hi Sluffs. I've closed up the discussion at the village pump. You were asked above by Ryan Vessey to avoid Drmies on-wiki and whilst I don't doubt your good intentions with the discussion, repeated mentions of Drmies could be seen to be unhelpful or stoking a dispute that should have ended two months back. I'm not going to take any action as long as you agree to drop the dispute with Drmies and return to the productive editing you have done in the past. Nick (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It was nothing to do with Drmies. The idea I suggested was on my mind before the ban. Drmies comment just prompted me to consider proposing the idea. I will keep editing because in the end if history has shown us one thing is that access to good writing raises educational standards for all those that are interested in learning (myself included). I can see that this site has reached a point of consensus dictatorship. When Marx and Engels took their ideas to the first International one of the objections to their system was that a dictatorship of the majority was just as dangerous as a dictatorship of a small ruling minority. I think this site is proving to me time and time again how when given power people become drunk on it - forming groups and alliances that in the end resembles the worst forms of human governance. Its simple if you use your power to dismiss other peoples opinions or to bury their objections then you may as well go and join all the other dictators.

Before I say this I'm going to make sure that no one person thinks this is because of them or directed at them. I have said from the beginning that this site has a weakness in its implementation that allows those with an agenda to join with the aim of promoting their political beliefs about race and culture. I deny you that right and until you adopt sensible practices such as the one I proposed about admin swearing then I will never believe that you are true encyclopedia editors for there is no professional encyclopedia (Britannica or otherwise) where contributors swear. As far as online sites go those that are professionally compiled (the Perseus project, Gutenberg, etc) also have no editors or contributors who swear. I advise all who join this site to be aware that many people here that claim to have a masters degree or a professional qualification may be lying and that we may be dealing with extremists. My proposal about admin not swearing was logical, has precedence in professional encyclopedias, was educationally sound, was aimed at reducing conflict, and was aimed at helping beginners to develop the correct writing skills. Some of the reactions I got to the proposal was shockingly indicative of those who have no real desire to improve this site. One of the editors below even has the audacity to say we would need hard evidence in a discussion loaded with an abundance of hard evidence.

Here is the discussion in full from the Village Pump (idea lab):

Banning administrators from using the word "fuck" and all derivatives[edit]

I'm going to wrap up this discussion whilst it remains good natured. The original poster was cautioned to avoid Drmies on-wiki and really shouldn't be discussing them at length here in this discussion. Nick (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I find it incredulous that Administrators are allowed to use the word "fuck" (or any other form of the word) when addressing or discussing other editors on this site. If any group of people are responsible for upholding the high standards of civil behavior on this site then it is surely Admin. Considering that Administrators regularly implement bans on users for uncivil behavior towards others then surely they themselves should be subject to restrictions on the use of offensive language.

Here is some text written by me (see my Talk Page for the full post) that includes an example from an Administrator called Drmies (he deleted the post on his Talk Page so I copied the offensive words to my Talk Page to allow a visible copy to exist):

user Drmies used foul language in a discussion about me on his Talk Page. His words were: "fucking bullshit paranoia of the dumb kind". In light of his role as admin and the young age of many members here I took exception and replied "try to refrain from swearing in the future"

I would like to propose that a guideline or policy be implemented that will ban Admin from using "fuck" or any derivatives. The word is English and is found throughout the English speaking world. However if you were a pupil at any English school (including the US, Australia and Canada) and were subjected to a teacher using such language it wouldn't be long before that teacher would be facing a disciplinary action or even dismissal. Below is a list of reasons for implementing an Admin ban on the use of the word "fuck" and any derivatives:

  • It sets a standard of behavior for Administrators with regards to foul language.
  • It avoids cross cultural offense (Drmies is Dutch so English is not his first language and I doubt he really understands the force implied by "fuck").
  • It allows Admin to legitimately enforce bans on editors who are uncivil without any counter-claim against them for the same behavior.
  • It would make life easier for all parents, teachers and other parties involved in the raising of young adults in English first language countries where the word is generally discouraged with regards to public use.
  • It would show that Administrators here, regardless of where they are from, are aware that use of the word or derivatives in the UK, US, Australia or Canada especially in situations that could be further inflamed could result in an arrest e.g. it is banned at UK football grounds for that exact reason.
  • Funding or raising funds from individuals and institutions may be helped by this ban since the reason to donate it usually based on positive feelings about the mission that one is donating to. If Oxfam opened every campaign with the slogan "We can defeat fucking poverty" we may commend them for "stressing" the point but we would surely doubt the standing of the person who thought that was a good idea which by extension we would then apply to the whole organization.
  • Its a simple but highly effective action to implement.
  • It is a word originating from the body or bodily action (e.g. piss off, shit head, cunt, prick) - as you can see the physical aspects of such terms gives them their force but that force is always felt more keenly by UK, US, Australian and Canadian citizens then say someone like Drmies who is from Holland (no doubt the Dutch have their own terms).
  • It is a standard that once imposed on Admin can then be easily ported over as a general guide line for all editors especially with regards to edit descriptions and Talk Page posts thereby reducing conflict, edit wars and the need for Admin to implement bans based on such uncivil behavior.

Sluffs (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Firstly , I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge of the word in Western Europe. From the early 16th century, it is of of Germanic origin, it compares with Swedish focka, Dutch fokkelen, and German ficken. In particular, most people in the Netherlands of my generation and younger are practically bilingual and of all the non-British European nations, they speak English best.
Of course it's inadmissible on Wikipedia for all the reasons you state, but you would have to come up with some very hard evidence to convince the community that it demonstrates a pattern of usage of significant frequency by admins to obtain support for such an idea. It's probably best to treat such instances on a case-by-case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • tl;dr but WP:FUCK the title of this posting. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Context is obviously lost given you did not link the relevant discussion, but "fucking bullshit paranoia of the dumb kind" looks to me like a comment - albeit strongly worded - about content you have added rather than an attack on you personally. Also, I pity any nation that would arrest someone for saying the word "fuck". At any rate, it is ridiculous to suggest that only one class of editor should be banned from using a word rather than all, but it is doubly ridiculous to ban it at all. Oppose. Resolute 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Devil's advocate -- so, could admins not discuss Fucking, Austria? Granted, admins should probably adhere to a certain level of decorum, but censorship of certain words is not the correct path, in my opinion. Chris857 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ignoring whether banning the use of any one word (and its deriviates) is desirable or not. Either it should be a ban for all users or none as a general policy. -- KTC (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't fucking censored. Nick (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • ya mothafuckin' right. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • can i now say the "n" word? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

All I can say about this proposal is: what the fuck? --cyclopiaspeak! 15:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • "it is banned at UK football grounds"[citation needed] NebY (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Heck no. Word tests just encourage people to be abusive in more hurtful ways. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This idea has its heart in the right place. While profanity is not forbidden, there is a general consensus that it is discouraged and reserved for exceptional circumstances. Everyday editors are not going to be discouraged if they see the guardians of Wikipedia throwing profanity around willy-nilly. And it's the same with loaded Wikipedia-speak words, too. pbp 17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • [Sorry Nick: I edit-conflicted with you, and this took me a while to type up. Thanks.] I did ask an administrator beforehand if I could speak freely, and was given permission. FWIW, what led to it was this comment--the accusation that User:GoingBatty was operating a bot which was hounding Sluffs. Yes, for real. Kind of like the NSA. Sluffs goes on to troll Bgwhite's talk page (who had blocked them for harassment related to the Going Batty accusation), is reverted by NE Ent (and if NE Ent removes a talk page comment, it's worth removing), restores it, is reverted by me, and on and on. They ended up getting blocked and blocked and blocked again--the first time because they wanted my head cut off. A valid question is, was it indeed "fucking bullshit paranoia"? I think the answer is yes. Should I have used those words? Maybe. Is profanity sometimes uttered in response to boneheaded remarks and accusations, and an absolute refusal to discuss things rationally? Absofuckinglutely. A quick look at the user page of the editor in question indicates that I'm not the first one to see problems here, and I guess I won't be the last: right now, it's TheOldJacobite's turn, in relation to odd edits exemplified by this one. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sluffs (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Secret account 19:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Really [3]? It's clear you are not here to build an encyclopedia. You were warned and blocked before to avoid Drmies talk page, and you still done and you just came back from a one month ban for this same behavior. Enough is enough, Wikipedia is not your battleground. Secret account 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sluffs (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I made a proposal to do with Admin setting a good example and it was strictly about one swear word. I provided some evidence using a conversation that Drmies had with some other editors about me. At what point did my proposal become disruptive, harassment or trolling. Are you seriously telling me that I have no right to make a proposal at the Village Pump (idea lab) and to then preserve the conversation here at MY talk page. Is there anywhere on this site where I can make a suggestion or observation? What is it that you want from me? Would you like me not to make any observations or proposals and to just edit articles in silence even when others revert my edits or disagree me. I don't think the standard of writing in articles will be improved if you drive away the most determined writers. Intelligence is a curse not a bonus. Intelligence doesn't make life easier it makes life more difficult. I would ask (though I imagine this is the end of my editing here though I will say it has been imposed on me and is not my choice) that this block be removed for the simple reason that it is a block designed to silence and has nothing to do with harassment, disruption or trolling.

Decline reason:

Reading through your history and the blocking admin's comments, I don't think this block has anything really to do with your Village Pump proposal itself. It has to do with your history of speaking very aggressively, sometimes with violent overtones, to and about other users. Now, I've gone through your recent contributions while reviewing this block, and my impression is that most of the time you speak very calmly and respectfully, but that every now and then you get very upset and let loose with some rhetoric about how horrible another user is. That part is the problem here - making a failed proposal, even one that people find silly, isn't blockworthy. But, in the course of that proposal, poking another user by name when you've been asked to disengage after making some quite alarmingly violence-tinged statements about them...well, that makes it look like you're putting as much value on re-attacking the other user as you are on your proposal. I think what we need to see here is a commitment from you to moderate your occasional tendency toward belittling and being aggressive toward other users. Even if you feel you're right and they're so, so, so wrong, or even if you feel like everyone else is lining up to make life hard for you, you need to still speak to and about other users with at least a modicum of respect. Even if you think the other person has been rude or aggressive to you first, you still aren't justified in hitting back the way you habitually have. Responding to bad language with bad behavior only perpetuates the badness. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Sluffs (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. It was a joke since obviously I have no intention of removing Drmies head. Still believe what you want. Everyone has that right - hopefully. Anyway since the indefinite ban in not for infinity but I imagine it will go on for more than one month I'll skip out of here. Such a shame really because I was getting stuck into the Bob Marley article - oh well wait another decade and I'm sure someone else will find the time and inclination to turn it into to a real encyclopedia article. You guys don't want a top quality encyclopedia anyway because that would mean allowing people with strong opinions in and that is actually counter to the ethos of this site. So go ahead provide access to knowledge for free but as many of you know its not a knowledge based on truths more half-facts and misrepresentations - a bit like the accusation of my intended violence towards Drmies. I disagree that I responded to bad language with bad behavior at the Village Punp (idea lab) as the post above proves. Also how can I disengage with Admin - that doesn't make sense - they are Admin. I tell you what I challenge anyone in the world to go to their job and disengage in communication with their managers. Get it. lol

PS. There's a book called The Meaning of Everything by Simon Winchester detailing the history of a similar endeavor. One day someone is going to write a book about Wikipedia - should be interesting to say the least.

Sluffs (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)