Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 1 March 2007

Talk Archive:

• 2004 and January to March 2005
• April and May 2005
• June 2005
• July 2005
• August and September 2005
• October and November 2005
• December 2005 to February 2006
• March to May 2006
• June to August 2006
• September and October 2006

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moral obligation

Hello. I have no argument with you opposing my RfA on the basis of your opinion on my question at the Reference Desk - that is entirely your right. However, if i may point out two things. Firstly, that the situation i'm referring to is not actually one that i am involved in personally. I used the first person as a proxy for the individual involved in the transaction as it was easier to recount (rather than "my friend..."). I appreciate that is misleading, but i didn't envisage the question would turn into a referendum on my morals based on, what for me personally, is only a hypothetical situation. However, it is true that i concur with their moral take on the situation, thus that probably doesn't invalidate your concerns.

My second comment is a request. I would ask that if you are going to quote my comments made on the RD to my RfA, then could you do me the courtasy of recounting my position in full? You appear to have replaced what, in my opinion, is the moral crux of the situation with "...": specifically the qualifier " I have no intention of trying to actively avoid paying the agreed fee, but" prior to "i really don't see why i should go out of my way to help a business". Thank you, both for taking an interest in my RfA and for your input to RD. Rockpocket 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to alter the sense of your remarks, only to condense them so as not to take up too much space on the RfA. (The use of ellipses to denote removed text is, of course, a very standard editorial practice.) I linked to both the full Ref Desk discussion as well as to specific diffs of your comments so that other individuals would be able to independently verify my statements (or argue with them, as the case may be).

For what it's worth, I read the 'moral crux' of the situation as the passage that I did quote—you feel no obligation to draw attention to the oversight, and imply that it's all right to do so since it's a large and faceless corporation. While it is somewhat reassuring that you affirmed a desire not to engage in active deception, that's really beside the point. If you feel that I have misrepresented your position, please feel free to comment as appropriate on the RfA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but accept you have not purposely tried to misrepresent me. Its no big deal though. If individuals are interested they can, as you say, read more in the links you provided.

I guess I was more concerned that with the suggestion at RfA that is a "real life" ethical situation I am currently engaging in, rather than a hypothetical debate for me personally (which is the premise on which I was commenting at RD). I'm aware that this is impression i gave with my question, but i didn't consider that relevent, or that such a question may end up as evidence regarding my personal morality at RfA. That said, i appreciate, your opinion of my moral fibre does not depend on whether the situation is real or not, but i'm sure you can understand I would rather disclose fully the situation. Now i have done that, i'm currently happy to stand by my moral position and, if the consensus deems that such reasoning is innapropriate for an administrator, then its perhaps best that my RfA does not succeed. I must say, having considered myself quite a moral person, your comments have given me some food for thought. Challanging one's values is always a good thing, i think and i'll certainly muse over it further. Best. Rockpocket 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Rebecca Wilson

You deleted Rebecca Wilson (content was: '{{del}}Rebecca Wilson played by Kelly in 1994 Barney video: (Barney Live! in New York City)') I found an IMDb listing for this person at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1959858/ If you think that this is an adequate proof of notability, could you please restore the article and add the IMDb reference? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it was nearly completely free of content, and a grammatical train wreck to boot. (The sentence in the deletion log is the entire article.) I have serious doubts about whether appearing as a dancer (not even a speaking role?) in a Barney video clears any kind of notability threshold. Nevertheless, I'm going on vacation in about ten minutes, so if you can actually put together a decent stub – and you feel that this person is worth the effort – I'm not going to come back in two weeks and nuke it.

Out of curiosity, how did you even come across that deletion? Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across a deletion of Rebecca wilson (different capitalization) and while trying to see if that one was salvageable, checked to see if there was an article with the correct capitalization. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi TenOfAllTrades. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I regret that I was unable to earn your support at this time, but I respect that you took the time to fully research my contributions and gave due consideration to your comments. I'm afraid I can't promise I'll change my moral perspective, but I can assure you I'll continue to provide full reasoning for any decision I make here at WP, with the aim of bettering the project. You can be assured I have taken your comments seriously and will bear them in mind in future. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Ten,

I was just checking up on some old friends, feeling sad over all the good friends who are no longer with us on Misplaced Pages, and I wanted to stop and say how happy it makes me that you're still here, doing good work. Whether you know it or not, my trips down Wiki-Memory-Lane often cause me to think of you, and that makes me smile. Have a great day! Essjay (Talk) 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

Are you still thinking you wouldn't have time to be on the Arbitration Committee? Your not running is still a noticeable absence this year, I think. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Nevertheless, I'm still not in a position to devote an appropriate amount of time to the job. (I'm a graduate student, and I'm hoping to crank out a couple of papers in the next six months or so. Things are going to be crazy, and the last thing I need is an excuse not to be writing.) In any case, I haven't even been able to stay on top of the article work I've been hoping to do. If all goes well over the next year, I'll probably be willing and able to stand come next December. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a pity you won't be joining us. (But I understand: last thing I need myself is an excuse not to study, but of course here I am...) In any case:

Hear hear! Essjay (Talk) 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Font?

How about like this?__Seadog 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Four net votes

I've posted this to the thread on RfAr talk, but in case you don't see it there, a link to a relevant discussion (in the context of the first rejected case in which this was the deciding factor) is here. You'll see my comments (my view is the same as yours) and those of two of the arbitrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup, help needed

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Policy Problem

Hey, I applaud your efforts at trying to spotlight the problems with the policy, and especially your approach to it. It really seems like no one is paying attention (not least of which is ArbCom itself). Wholly not an entity I want to piss off, and this is high-profile enough that I worry about staining my wiki-reputation, HOWEVER... do you think this is worthy of an RfC or village pump query? The scope seems such that it will affect all of wikipedia, and so such a significant change (in my mind) seems to need extraordinary consideration. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the last discussion of this issue, I think this could profitably be brought up again once the new arbitrators are selected in a couple of weeks. I have a couple of other nits in the arbitration policy I plan to raise at the same time as well. I think an RfC or village pump discussion would not draw widespread comment (most users don't think about these issues until the user is involved in a case) and in any event the newly constituted ArbCom should be invited to review the matter first. (Apologies to 10oAT for intruding here.) Newyorkbrad 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LC Unblock

It seems that you and I think alike (see my comment, edit conflicted with yours, on the Friday talk page). Thanks for stepping in. Let's hope it all calms down now. --Dweller 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another word of thanks from me for taking a balanced view. I will try hard not to let you down 8-)--Light current 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My Talkpage

• Hey, thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my talk page. I have a small favour to ask though, would you be able to roll back this and this so they don't appear in the edit history? Thanks. -- Chabuk 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion:  ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup of my userpage, I suspect the user was intending to go on another vandalism spree and wanted to delete my test links. Agathoclea 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent spammers

TenOfAllTrades,

I have a weblog that has the largest amount of information on surety bonds. The 'surety bond' page in wiki had a link to the blog for quite some time. As of recent another webmaster continuously changes the url address (no anchor text). Since their website is commercial the link is then removed. This is unfortunate as I try to change it back now and then, but sometimes it gets deleted before I correct it. I would re-create the link, but do not want to be mistaken for a spammer as well.

What to do?

Thanks, Webmaster - Surety Bond Blog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.34.220 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Frankly, I don't see the encyclopedic value of the blog—it's seldom updated, and its purpose is to drive traffic to JW Surety bonds. While I'm sure that your company enjoys the Google PageRank and the direct link from Misplaced Pages, I don't think it's worthwhile for Misplaced Pages. Besides, I'm tired of you and your competitor warring over the link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. If you were to search for information on suretyship online you will find that the blog is the most informative source on the subject. I guess it is difficult to judge these things w/o knowing the industry. The blog use to be updated more often, but the surety bond industry does not have changes. Would you make the same argument for a historic site?

It is discouraging to lose a great link due to a competitors tactics, as the link benefited myself and the rest of the Wiki community. By handling all spammers in this manor, Wiki will only be able to provide generic links that have little value to visitors.

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Misplaced Pages Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Desk "Odd Nausea" meta comments

I removed the following metacomments today from the aforementioned ref desk page because they are talking about your response rather than answering the original question. I felt that your response was a reasonable one and that the comment from Ike bordered on incivility:Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• "::Hey Ten - If you don't have anything concrete to add, why write anything at all? ike9898 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ten. Just say 'Go to a Doctor, it sounds serious'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that was a little bit unnecessary yourself ike. His reply was fine. X (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"

I did this per the rule someone stated that comments about comments should be on the Ref Desk Talk Page page or on the editor's talk page, not on the public side of the reference desk. If Ike, Hagermanbot and Mac Davis feel strongly that they are an answer to the original question, and if the consensus on the Ref Desk Talk page agrees, then I apologize and they can certainly be moved back. Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not my comments; I have no comment. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You have the patience of a saint. Thank you. Friday (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

"(The particular straw that broke the camel's back was his threat to report Willmcw to the FBI and have him prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act for adding Sarfatti's date of birth to Sarfatti's biography.)" This is a complete fabrication. It's ridiculous. Where did you get this from - Calton (talk · contribs)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.162.87 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry about the edit, I should have hit "preview" first, but I was in a bit of a rush. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with 2 socks

Thanks you for dealing with these 2 socks (RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon). :) These belongs to Bonaparte of course, so there is no question. As for the RfC, just for information, it is copypasted from a one that is one year old, so it is abusive. -- Grafikm 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Refdesk

Note that Hipocrite's proposal is being reverted off the page for some reason. Please keep an eye out. (Radiant) 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• True, but then what do you propose we do? His behavior is not conductive to the functioning of the refdesk. (Radiant) 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I recieved your email and took appropriate action thereon. My good faith action was promptly jumped on as a way to weaken my position - review my talk page. I have stopped "discussing" with people that are acting in bad faith. I suggest that you consider taking strong adminstrative action against people who are not here to WP:ENC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Balducci levitation, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Block

I put a three-hour block on your bot; do you have a script running to restart it periodically? It doesn't seem to be turned off. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no script starting the bot periodically. It should stop running whenever it detects a block (it always has in the past). It did sotp once you implemented your three-hour block. It is possible that someone else set it running after the first block (the bot can be set running by anybody). The bot is now withdrawn and will nt be runn again. Thank you for your patience. - PocklingtonDan 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC on StuRat and THB here. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

your Jack Sarfatti comment re: Patriot Act

Hi, I know Jack and I see no evidence for the truth of your remark about Jack and the Patriot Act. It makes you and Wiki look silly. Jack is well known as a satirist and he confirmed my suspicion that anything he may have said along those lines was meant as a joke and that should have been obvious. Also he denies making any stink about his birthday. That was his brother Michael Sarfatti not Jack himself. Best wishes. K. Caffe Trieste, North Beach, SF. I attended Jack's talk last night at Henry Dakin's Pacific Heights home. You may be interested in http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.49.144 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Your RD thoughts

Hi TenOfAllTrades. I greatly appreciate this approach, got it printed out, and will study it on my way home with the phone turned off. ---Sluzzelin 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lol, it's a welcome reason. ---Sluzzelin 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I must congratulate you on your RD guideline proposal: well written, easy to understand etc. I think its a good alternative starting point but I think some of the specifics (like how to deal with deletions etc) from the original (StuRats) version need to be incorporated to make it more practical.

When I recover more fully from my recent period of chastisement I shall apply my thoughts to this task 8-)--Light current 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RD response to Light current - a friendly note

TenOfAllTrades - I know you have been trying hard to find common ground in the current debate over RD best practice, and you obviously know that the RD is a sensitive and rather hostile environment at the moment, and you are familiar with Light current's behaviour and background. So I was surprised to see your sarcastic response to LC's question Being fat or grossly overweight on the Misc RD. It could give the impression that you might be trying to provoke LC when he has only just returned from his lengthy (and punitive) block. Would you perhaps consider rewording your response to give it a more neutral, less humorous tone ? Or maybe move it to a less public place ? We all need to be very, very careful about what we post on the RDs at the moment, in case it is misused or misinterpreted. Gandalf61 11:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch ... well, that puts me in my place. I seem to have touched a nerve - I'm really sorry about that. Gandalf61 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben RfA

TenOfAllTrades, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of the additional tools; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RD bold move

In the interest of moving this along I have moved EVERYTHING, including your draft, to one page. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk --Justanother 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another editor took umbrage at my bold move and has further obfuscated the issue by again moving everything to the main RD space. Please see User talk:Ned Wilbury#ALL?? and Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk for a discussion of my reasoning. We could probably use your help now in untangling this. --Justanother 17:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And to add to the pot, hipocrite moved everything again and introduced the confusion of Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guidelines vs. Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline. Is it a problem? I don't know. I thought initially that if I did a standard move and standard merge that the histories and talk pages would be taken care of by others. Now it is tangled. My only real point is let's get going again and get this done. I don't care about the details of where we do it either. I just saw that drafts belong in talk space. --Justanother 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New nobots template - replacement for opt-in or not?

Thank you for your comments during PocKleanBot's recent bot RFA. I'm (manually! no spamming! :-P ) contacting the bot operators and admins who commented on the bot's RFA to find out what their position would be to running the bot obeying the new nobots template but not using opt-in. Would this be acceptable to you or not? I think the nobots template is a great idea and I wish it had been introduced years ago and was more widespread. The only problem I can see running the bot this way is that there's going to be a whole lot of people out there who haven't heard of the nobots template and a few of those more violently opposed to bots adding a message to their tlak page will doubtless get irate just like last time. I would be interested in hearing your comments. - PocklingtonDan 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Ten!

I'd just like to say, good work at removing the prognosis comments at the reference desk for Shampoo Swallowing. Misplaced Pages should NOT be an emergency help desk. I've seen forums go way downhill because they've allowed posters to talk about suicide more than objectively. That's all :) Xhin 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove other people's comments from the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good removal. But put this on ten's talk page not here. --froth 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'm sorry, what? This is his talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Petition for everyone to be nice to each other on the Ref Desk in the New Year

We hold that things have been unnecessarily nasty on the Reference Desk and its related talk pages recently. Mistakes have been made.

We call on editors of good faith and good will to attempt to mend fences and build bridges in the new year.

We wish everyone a happy holiday season and a merry Christmas.

We urge everyone to have a happy and productive 2007.

The following editors endorse this position.

• -TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC) No need to be nice to ignorable trolls - just ignore them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Friday (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Petition to POV-fork an entirely new wiki-encyclopedia to be called "Nicepedia" where all the articles are NPOV and all the editors are kind and caring human beings, sensitive to each other's positions. Happy Holidays --Justanother 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Petition to point out that that's wikipedia (it's supposed to be anyway) --froth 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the above mean that all the endorsees are actually going to try to be more restrained in their activities in the new year and try not to upset so many people?--Light current 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not, if you look at Hipcorite's next two posts after endorsing the above. Very unpleasant. Gandalf61 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I notice hes also just deleted the pettion on Fridays talk page. 8-(--Light current 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is because he has one more week before 2007. Think that deletion of the petition will get him blocked? The other deletion was justified. --Justanother 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Striking comments not because I think I am one of the "utter dicks" but because this is Ten's house. --Justanother 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Way too full of turkey, gravy, roll, butter, sweet potato pie, mashed potatos with more gravy, green bean/mushroom casserole with onions and fruit salad to have much patience with people squabbling like 7 year olds in the back seat of a car on a long trip. "He touched me! "He put his foot in my side of the floor!" He said 'NEENER' to me!" If I hear ANY MORE COMMOTION LIKE THE PREVIOUS I'm turning this Misplaced Pages around. Edison 00:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Petition to act based on consensus, not unilaterally, in the new year. StuRat 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing

Would anyone who has opted to be an utter dick in his or her remarks above consider striking or withdrawing them in light of the purpose of the petition? If you want to take cheap shots at one another, do it on someone else's talk page. For the record, I endorse Edison's statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistancy

I see lots of other people on RD making "medical" comments no better or no worse than StuRat's. Why don't you delete their comments, as well? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Because they aren't on his hit list. StuRat 02:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, thanks for dropping by to comment. To answer your question, I haven't been editing anything for the last few days, and I'll probably only be online sporadically over the next little while. (See my note below, next to the red wine glass.)

Before my break, I removed comments offering medical diagnosis and advice for another thread dealing with an emergent medical problem. I described the situation in detail on the RD talk page; I don't have time at the moment to dig out the thread. (Those comments were made by Vranek and Bowlhover.) At the time, there was no objection made, and it didn't precipitate any edit warring or handwringing.

A few days later I removed a comment by StuRat, for similar reasons. That time, the shit hit the fan (pardon the expression). I haven't removed any further comments because I haven't been online or reading the Desks since then. I sincerely hope that the interested parties have hammered out some kind of resolution to how medical advice should be handled while I've been away.

As to StuRat's comment about a 'hit list', I can only say that such a comment doesn't make sense—unless he believes I have some sort of vindictive grudge against Bowlhover and Vranek. (For the record, I think they're both reasonable and helpful editors, and I applaud their calm, rational, and reasoned replies and responses to my removal of their comments.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hey Ten, just dropping by to say Merry Christmas, old friend. Hope everything is going well for you! Essjay (Talk) 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seasonal Goodwill

Very much, how I like to see things done. Cookies for all.

--Santa on Sleigh 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been away

Hello all! Just got back from Christmas with the family and I'm full of turkey, stuffing, and cheer.

Sorry I haven't been replying here, but I've been away from the Internet for the last four days or so. I'll probably be away quite a bit over the next handful of days, too. I'm working my way through answering questions on my talk page now; but it's a busy time of year. If I've missed something urgent, you can try to ping me here or by email; I'm not ignoring anyone deliberately but I can't guarantee that I'll be back on top of every discussion thread for a while.

If you're waiting for me and I'm not around, help yourself to a glass of wine, or dig some leftover egg nog out of the fridge. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How to disagree on the Ref Desk

Note that I disagreed with your statement Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#retrovirus_and_telomerase:

"Having telomerase active in all the body's cells is apt to significantly increase the risk of cancer."

However, rather than telling you to either list sources or retract that statement, I merely added my reasons for disagreement, and allowed the OP to decide. This is how I think disagreements should be handled. StuRat 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, you seem to be bringing a fight you had with someone else to me. When have I told you to list your sources – though you really should – even when you're mistaken?

In this particular instance the statement follows reasonably from the previous material (which, unlike any of your response, is wikilinked to material which includes detailed sources). In any case, it's qualified with 'is apt to', as it would be a tad unethical to actually perform the experiment to confirm the point absolutely.

Please don't lecture me on how to handle disagreements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this message was meant for SCZenz, and is in relation to user talk:StuRat#Elephant graveyards. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose the remark makes more sense in that context. Still, truly outstanding chutzpah to lecture me about handing disagreements civilly given his remark a couple of sections up on this very page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New StuRat RfC - use of the term 'deletionist'

For those who would like to comment on the appropriateness of lumping other editors under pejorative labels like 'deletionist', your comment is sought at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/StuRat 2. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of someone else certifying this? Can I certify it and incorporate my outside response into the lead of the RfC? It would be a shame to lose this RfC since I am getting the sense it might lead to a contructive discussion. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No.

I am done playing games with him and his ilk. If you cannot get him to stop playing games, I see no reason to take your warning seriously. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going away for 2 days to give you a chance to see if you can redirect his endless creativity into not trying to test limits. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start spending some of your 48 hours on dealing with the users causing the problems, as opposed to the users who you think might be overzealous in fixing them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have failed miserably, I look forward to an apology and retraction on my talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, there's no call for such hostility. We're all doing our best. Friday (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"If you don't stop calling him a 'troll' or engaging in other personal attacks on him or other editors (trolls or not) I will resort to blocks for persistent incivility." Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you and Light current both engaging in personal attacks requires an apology from me. As it stands now, I intend to block either one of you if you engage in futher gross incivility. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you wont. Feel free to prove me wrong any time. You can start with, oh, this, or perhaps this or possibly this or maybe this? No - you will not block him for persistent gross incivility. You will coddle him in the hopes that he will become responsible. But he will not. I, apparently, am not permitted to WP:SPADE, because he is protected due to not crossing the line - he's never been on the right side of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the remarks for which I issued his warning? If you think I'm being too lax with him or too severe with you, then take it to WP:AN/I. There are other admins, and I'm not the only one with a block button. You're not in a good position to be asking me to be more liberal with issuing incivility blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

/ Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can tell there is a concerted effort being made to get blocked. In this way they can continue with the us against them argument that has been prevalent from the begining od the ref desk dispute. Is Steve Summit (talk · contribs) an admin? I suggest he deals with it so it does not allow THB to polarise the issue even more. David D. (Talk) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AN/I. There would be a conflict of interest if I blocked THB, because he's been so opposed to my recent opinions on RD reform. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked THB to reconsider his use of the term. I've never had a direct interaction with him before and, should he continue using such language, am content to deal with him without a COI. Rockpocket 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to IRC so the RD Administrator Guild won't be accused of being a cabal. -THB 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I have been working with Friday, TenOfAllTrades, hipocrite and Rockpocket to suppress the creativity of other innocent users in wikipedia. Otherwise, I can only asume you are being intentionally disruptive with a goal to antagonise the situation further. Whether this is wilfully or you're just naive i do not know. David D. (Talk) 13:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#TenOfAllTrades' response

I am thinking of propagating your 8 points (along with some of mine at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#"on Holy Wars, and a plea for peace") to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/guidelines, as a prelude to making sure they're well-reflected in / incorporating them into the evolving RD guidelines. Would you object? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi there and sorry to bother you about this but I am slowly getting backed into a corner by this editor and now he is enlisting others to assist him with his conspiracy vendetta against me. I see that you have dealt with this other user NuclearUmpf before for exactly the same issue. my userid is Mobile 01 and am being victimised by User:Travb, please look at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 and User talk:Travb/m. I have tried to communicate with this user but he just deletes my messages from his user talk page. I replaced them but still they got deleted, He then got one of his associates to message his talk page to tell me I was not allowed to put messages there if the user did not want them and I would be reported for vandalism. This user was NuclearUmpf. I see from his talk page that you have had dealings with this user before on exactly the same issue and am wondering if you could take a look at the whole thing for me if you have time.

Copied from talk page NuclearUmpf

I have blocked you for 48 hours for either falsely accusing editors with whom you are in a dispute of socking and conspiracy, or for participating in an obnoxious conspiracy (take your pick from ), and for being just generally and deliberately obtuse and unrepentant when confronted with it .

Please, just stop it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And this also copied from talk page NuclearUmpf showing that he is a known associate of user Travb.

Maybe you took my stories of alienating both your allies and non-allies to heart. (Bad move if you are--I think a true Machiavellian would never be as stupid as I have been alienating everyone)

Anyway, keep surprising me, it is entertaining. :) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of alliances, I decided to just state my opinion on the matter as it relates to Misplaced Pages, no agendas. This includes no lies or miscommunications etc. --NuclearZer0 12:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, continue to surprise me. I still owe you a barnstar. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate any assistance you can offer if you have time to look into this. Best Regards. Mobile 01 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, this matter is being discussed at WP:AN/I, and getting lots of attention there. Please don't try to recruit me into an edit war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks much on your information on the radiation request it really gave me the information i was looking for =) 100 times the leathal dose to acctually feel the effects in real time wow i am really curious about the issue and well i wish there was a way to feel the effects without dieing but well i guess unless someone writes their experinces here while being in contact with the substance i guess we wont know for sure what exactly happens =( one more question that i dont belive i saw in the article what is the range of radiation? is it always imminate distance or can you be like a mile away from it and still get posioned? Maverick423 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your very kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support on my recent RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion, but your comments were appreciated. Jakew 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok.

I mean, it's all fine and dandy for you, Wizardry Dragon and HighBC to be waiving the "be civil, damn you, be civil to the trolls" at me, but it seems you missed a step. And to think that the autoblocker would have saved me 24 hours of further trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ten. Happy New Year. Would you please help me out with an admin/editor question? If I am having trouble with another user and think that they might need a bit more forceful warning as to their inappropriate behavior than I, as an ordinary user here, can give; in that case is it considered appropriate to ask an admin directly to take a look at the situation or should it always go on one of the admin notice boards? Reason I ask is that I have seen both methods used but I don't know the etiquette of the former. Thanks. --Justanother 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My reply is on my page. Thanks. --Justanother 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Autism

Hello TenOfAllGrades From your interaction with the Autism article in the recent past I infer you wish to see that it complies with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines as do I.

I am writing to you about an edit to the introduction section of Autism made by Q0 (whom I believe to be a valuable contributor) and I have no wish to get into a edit war with that person). In my opinion, the altered text presents problems (see my rationale in the discussion section on the 'Introduction').

Q0's edit may only be a minor change from one POV, however it reads as a bit amateurish and clumsy (possibly written in a rush as we are wont to do, a matter of style which may or may not be a POV). It is also an alteration of published fact from the reputable sources cited. I have proposed a change to carry the factual original statement to acknowledge the balance that may be needed --which is absolutely ethical in science to be sure. I readily concede that the DSM and the ICD do represent a theoretical perspective, which must be questioned to remain scientific.

There is also the issue of POV versus NPOV. Science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary, is still riddled with POV and much of the debate can be rendered as simply politics. The original Introduction statement in Autism can be considered POV but ironically has been altered to another POV. Technically we may only be able to be fair by providing a balance. My POV anyway.

If you have time and you are interested, take a look and give us some objective feedback. Ta. Malangthon 02:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the MFD

I would strongly support an RFCU of the user who nominated the reference desks. My innter hypocrite would bet 10-1 that it's some who is watching my recent contributions and is concerned that I will take this live. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have made the request: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser#ParK_Ragnor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Thanks for letting me know. You may not be aware, because he removed the notice, but I extended THB's block to one week earlier today; thus I'm not particularly worried about him disrupting Misplaced Pages in the immediate future, and we can hope that Light current will have settled down by then. These two (and to some degree others) have formed a self-reaffirming club that apparently allows them to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong... except.... if they really thought they were right and we were wrong, wouldn't they file a request for comment or a note on the administrators' noticeboard? -- SCZenz 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not real sure what to make of any of this, but, if either of these two get blocked for the same kind of behavior again, I'd be inclined to say they've exhausted the community's patience. Friday (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's perhaps possible to exhaust the community's patience even when blocked. Friday (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected THB's page for the rest of his block, to keep him out of trouble and to keep me from having to watch whether he continues editing others' comments there. When he comes back, we'll see. The situation with Light current is a bit more complicated in some ways; each offense is certainly smaller. -- SCZenz 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would seem that THB may have a dynamic IP; hopefully he will shortly calm down and realizing that swearing at people "anonymously" is not going to improve his situation here. (Sorry to turn your talk page into a clearing house for information on all this, Ten!) -- SCZenz 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully support THB's block. Personally I probably wouldn't have blocked LC for that particular transgression. However, I would have engaged in discussion with him about it and - I'm absolutely convinced - that would have led to escalated tension from him, which would have ended up in a block anyway as he lost his temper. Thats the pattern that we have seen again and again, and so there is a strong argument for blocking early to prevent the inevitable disruption that will follow. I also agree that, since there are no signs of lessons being learnt, they are coming close to exhausting the community's patience. I would be for a very clear and explicit explanation to them that that is the situation they find themselves in, and give them one last opportunity to take that on board. Rockpocket 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was any doubt, you have my support on this. David D. (Talk) 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Predictably enough, LC has started namecalling again. This edit summary anfter being warned about this edit , was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, and earned him an extension to his block. If anyone thinks this is harsh, or is brave enough to try and rehabilitate then feel free to unblock. Rockpocket 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You were right

I knew you were right as soon as you said it, and this response illustrates your point rather well. -- SCZenz 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf

I notice that you've had prior dealings with NuclearUmpf, so I thought I should request your help in dealing with his current disruptive behavior. As you may know, NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 again resumed disruptive edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages.

In doing so, he has also falsely-cited a "25-2" poll which he knows is the result of vote-stacking. Two different administrators have declared that poll to be entirely invalid. . To my thinking-- citing a poll you know to be the result of vote-stacking is just as bad as actually engaging in the practice. Worse, in fact, because he's been warned repeatedly the poll was invalid, but continues to cite it.

(I have also posted about this matter at Arbitration Enforcment)

Anything you can do to help stop these behaviors would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 12:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You would be best to post requests like this to the admin's noticeboard, at WP:AN/I. I don't have the time to police him myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

I would prefer that you didn't remove messages from my talk page. Everyking 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is; it was posted there because I've been reverting them. But that's irrevelant. I prefer to decide myself whether or not to remove messages on my talk page. I had already seen that and had decided to let it remain. Everyking 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And some context for those following at home—I rate somewhere below a persistent vandal on Everyking's talk page: . Ah well. No good deed goes unpunished and all that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo help

I appreciate your comments about the photo I posted and conflicting copyright info. How do I go back and make sure its correct information? Boston24 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boston24 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Attention seeking?

copied from talk scz for info--Light current 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW my Q on the RD about whether its better without me is a genuine one prompted by attacks from a few admins (mostly). Te fact that you cant see that reflects more on your minds than on mine. The purpose of the experiment was to test feeling of whether I should recuse myself altogether from the Rds. So in one respect it is attention seeking, but only to guage editors opinions of my contributions to RDs. I said I was goung to undertake the experiment and even asked to be selectively blocked from the RDs. The experiment has concluded. Im awaiting comments on the results. So far they are inconclusive. If the majority of editors feel the Rds would be better without me, Im prepared to give up editing there. I cant say fairer thasn that can I?--Light current 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Straight and narrow

If you wish to discuss my welfare on your own or someone elsess talk page, that is up to you. But please dont post it on AN/I under my complaint about Friday. Its not on topic- is it? Taenks!--Light current 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely on topic. Your post is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Friday stalking me?--Light current 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see!. You think its a trick. Its not--Light current 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades

Hey TenOfAllTrades,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

thx for the revert, 10

thx for the revert of the vandalism on my archive, 10 of all Trades... --GordonWatts 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

notices for afds

I see you are an admin. Were you acting in an offical capacity when you posted about this? I am very careful to tailor notices to WP:CANVASS and do not believe I am doing anything improper. Notice and and opportunity to be heard is basic to any fair process. The work these editors did, including the histories, may be destroyed as a result of the AfD. They are entitled to comment if they want. They can't if they don't know. Please explain your problem with this. Edivorce 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'm sorry but I don't agree with you at all.

First why can't I do this for articles over 4 weeks old if user:Jayden54Bot can do the same thing for < 4 week articles? Surely an article that that has survived months without an AfD may have more merit than one AfD sooner closed.

Second, I don't enjoy doing this. It's a pain in the butt and I feel it ought to be the responsibility of the person initiating the AfD. If there are a lot on editors whose work is threatened it is only right they are inconvenienced. It will serve to deter frivolous deletions. Second best would be to automate the task with a bot, but I don't possess the skills to do that.

Third, your point that editors watchlist articles is not correct. Ordinary editor simply do not (maybe admins with 10k's of edits do). Besides that's like asking people to keep dropping into the court house to see if anyones sue them. That is just not how notice works.

Fourth, if I didn't notify everybody I would be violating WP:CANVASS. I am not notifying my peeps. Nor am I notifying strangers to the article. I'm notifying everyone who edited the article to be fair. Note that I notify those likely to support AfD as well. Note also that when the "Delete" folks punitively nominated another article on the other end of the political spectrum in the Progressive Bloggers AfD, I notified those users to. Clearly I am even-handed.

Fifth, the burden on "uninterested" users is trivial while the interest of concerned editors in participating in discussion is paramount. I understand that you may be responding to complaint, probably from one of the Delete oriented people who received notice, but possibly from a editor that was just annoyed. One editor that is notified and is able to participate is more important. From my experience many notified users are grateful, articles are improved, and the hard work of the editors is salvaged by giving this type of notice.

Sixth, I am careful not to give the impression that AfD is voting, but make it clear it is discussion.

Please advise me of the possible consequences of not limiting my conduct according to your directions. I do not mean any disrespect here, I just need to consider the best way to give this matter full consideration. Also please advise me or what recourse I can take if I choice to abide by your directions pending some sort of review. My understanding is that AN/I is the correct place to further pursue this. Do you have any other ideas? Please let me know.

Warm RegardsEdivorce 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't say you have overstepped your authority. If anything I had some difficulty determining if you were using your authority. I am not trying to get away with anything. I'm only trying to assure fair process for articles that might be deleted and the editors whose work is threatened. I doubt if Village Pump or Help Desk would result in useful guidance. I don't think your abusive. Just wrong. I do not think what you directed would be agreed upon by all other admins, or that it supported by the policies or even just plain fair play. You might be correct about Jayden54Bot, however. There is some ambiguity in its advanced description. It doesn't change my argument. It just makes Jayden54bot less useful. I guess I'll sleep on it. Warm Regards.Edivorce 05:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Can you do something about this if it continues? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It continues. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of AN/I Item

Hello TenOfAllTrades. I have posted a item on AN/I concerning our discussions on 02.14.07Edivorce 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

request for review

HI, I know you're a busy admin, but I'm bringing this problem to you as as result of your established experience with the subject. User:A.J.A. (whose incivility you dealt with in October) has been involved in a long-running tendentious editing content dispute over at Mike Huckabee. Both myself(my political views are my own) and a self-declared Republican, User:ai.kefu, have been lobbying (pardon the pun), to keep in a section of Criticism regarding the West Memphis 3, and Huckabee's involvements, or lack thereof. A.J.A. initially objected on grounds of NPOV, where he announced his biases, and lack of citation. The section was reworked and citations found. He then engaged in removals citing lack of notability. ai.kefu wrote a lengthy reply on the hucakbee talk page, and A.J.A.'s response was to 'dismiss it', in his own words. He maintains a version of the article on his own talk page in which much of the criticism is conspicuously absent, User:A.J.A./Tohu&Bohu/Huckabee, and it appears he has no intentions of ever standing down on this, no matter what sources, style of writing, or what-have-you is done. Please advise? ThuranX 18:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification AN/I Discussion

Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Edivorce 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heya

Not sure if you seen this on the WP:CN about GordonWatts, but I submitted an answer to your opinion of "quality of Gordon's writing".

"Of what I have read, and I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on the Schiavo subject only what I seen on CNN. But, of what I have read of Gordon's writing, his writing appears to be VERY well written and explains things at detail. Much better than anything I can write. My personal opinion is that is does improve the articles that he works on. Writing as articulate as Gordon's is something I would like to see more of here. Again, this is just my opinion on the quality of his writing per TenOfAllTrades (I ain't getting in the debate outside that)."

Just one editor's opinion:) Have a Good Sunday....SVRTVDude 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You have said in a couple sentences what we have all tried to say in a couple paragraphs to Calton. I have tried to say those exact words but I always end up writing an entire book in the process. Again, thanks....back to the radio and TV stations. Hope ya have a good week....SVRTVDude 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton posted this on the WP:CN board and I think this goes to your "poking" someone "with a stick until" they "overreact" thing....."Butch, it's what you're good at". Now there is no way that he was trying to say anything else than "Bitch, it's what you're good at" and that is completely inappropriate. Just bringing that to your attention. - SVRTVDude 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put myself on a self-imposed wikibreak and will just be added pages (radio pages for Winchester and Harrisonburg, VA...among others). I will add to talk pages (like I did with Firsfron's to explain my actions but in three short sentences or less.

By the way, I didn't remove the template I added to Calton's talk page cause I figured either I would get yelled at for removing it or Calton would do it for me (as he always does). Rock on....SVRTVDude 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove other editors' remarks from user talk pages

Please don't do this again.

If you check the archive of his talk page, you'll see that I (and another editor) have already asked him to cease and desist, and explained to him why his complaint directed at Calton was in error.

While I am disappointed that he hasn't taken the opportunity to correct his remarks, it is often seen as overtly hostile to simply blank another editor's remarks from a talk page. Doing so accompanied by a rude edit summary ('rv strange message') is unnecessarily inflammatory. If Orangemonster2k1 engages in behaviour that seems to be stalking or harrassment, I will block him; in the meantime, please don't stir him up by deleting his comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear TenOfAllTrades,

I have asked user:Orangemonster2k1 to leave user:Calton alone on several occasions. While it may seem overtly hostile to remove another editor's comments from a talk page, this user has been asked again and again to stop leaving messages on that talk page; at some point, it becomes harassment. As the Orangemonster account was originally only a vandalism-only account, I have extended a great deal of faith that this user would reform; however, there are limits. Since you were not aware of the entire situation, you didn't understand why I reverted. Please don't leave messages on my talk page indicating that I'm being unnecessarily inflamatory or rude when I have actually gone out of my way to try to reform this user and assume a little good faith. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, whoa...this is MY fault...you all don't need to be arguing over something that I did. OK? Thanks.

First, Firsfron, I appericate your help and your faith in me...and I have apologized already to WPQuidditch for my vandalism in the past. I have since, obviously, corrected that. I am working on some pages as we speak, so I will be adding to my adds and edits here.

TenOfAllTrades, you are right, I should have deleted it myself. That is on me.

I am taking responsibility for my end of things and I know I take things too far and get a little too upset on here. I don't mean to and for that I apologize. I am only here to update radio and TV stations (and anything else that I have knowledge to). I help out when I see vandalism happening and I revert and post it on the WP:AIV board. I want to help, I want to edit...if it were not for the KXGN page, I am quite certain that Calton and I would never have crossed paths. I could kick myself for even editing that damned page. Of the editors that I have had problems with, I have made attempts to patch things up with all of them, including Calton. User:A Man In Black and User:Metros232 and I would get into edit wars and and go back and forth at each other. AMIB and I were working together (which I thought was awesome) on the KXGN when I came across Calton. Metros232 apologized for a mistake revert on my user page. I personally didn't expect him to and I thought it was cool that he did. So, I do my best to get along with everyone. I hate damned arguing. But, when my Aspergers kicks in, I HAVE to have my side heard, not saying that is excuse by any streach, but that is part of why I do what I do.

I like it here (good place to find out cool info about stuff) and would like to stay, but my adds and edits have suffered because of Calton, half the reason, even after I and RSPeer submitted the RfC, I tried to talk to Calton one-on-one and try to explain myself and have even gone as far as to apologize...didn't work. I honestly tried. Yeah, the "language" template thing was a bit much, ya got me there, but in my mind, I was just correcting him on his language and meant nothing rude by it. It "Bob" said something rude that like on a page, I would say the same thing...it was not to encite a response.

I am not a bad guy and I am, as my userpage says, am a reformed vandal (got slapped in the head for that), I update radio and TV pages, and hate arguing. I don't want to have problems with you two...and I sure as hell don't want you two arguing over something stupid I did...OK? Rock on....SVRTVDude 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is completely taken, Ten. I did find Orange's continuing insistence to leave warnings on user:Calton's talk page strange (especially after the incident seemingly cooled down and the two were no longer editing the same pages), but a different edit summary might have proved more helpful. I was just irritated that the situation was flaring up again again. I agree the editors involved in the dispute need to just go their separate ways, and have been trying to get them to just stop the dispute and move on. Anyway, thanks for your note. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, TenOfAllTrades, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. You said you thought I looked like "a good one"; I hope that my conduct as an admin will confirm your assessment. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

jeff.

It's widely considered poor form to edit the user_talk of other users. It is especially inadvisable to use the rollback tool, as this leaves no descriptive edit summary, and most cumulatively questionable to use it to remove warnings issued for cause in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy on personal attacks and civility.

All of the above aside, I understand that you're probably trying to help out a friend here, but I urge you not to let your desire to do so interfere with your vision of what's best for the project. Right here, right now, can you in good faith say that Jeff's response to the editor who filed the RfC which I certified was not a personal attack?

I assume good faith, and consequently believe you mean well. Please, please, consider the above.

Thank you for working to improve Misplaced Pages. I look forward to interacting with you in the future! :)

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-22 06:16Z

That's no more threatening than any standard template which mentions the possibility of blockage or other adverse action for inappropriate conduct. Vandals don't get to remove their warning templates, and as far as I can tell, neither do users who engage in personal attacks. If you have policy to the contrary, I encourage you to produce it. If you can, I'll concede mea culpa.

Expressing a partisan view while stating your neutrality doesn't make you neutral, and reverting an editor seeking to conceal a warning for cause in re. an ongoing matter is hardly edit-warring.

Thank you for your interest in this situation, and for working to keep Misplaced Pages functional and calm.

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-22 07:03Z

As it turns out, you're correct about userpage warning policy. I freely admit that my warning to Jeff in that particular interaction was unfounded and wrong. You were, in fact, correct to revert, although an edit summary would have been helpful to everyone.

Thanks for helping me learn something new.

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-22 07:29Z

Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I assure you that your perception of me is correct! Frankly, it felt like a big kick to the head that several of my peers had basically said that I couldn't be trusted with admin tools, given the obvious care and passion for the project that I felt I had demonstrated over the past year. I really appreciate that you are willing to judge me on what I have done, and not on my apparent lack of participation in XFD debates. Thanks again, Andrwsc 17:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Methyl_Orange.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Methyl_Orange.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the note - I didn't know about that. Rama's arrow 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mission Earth

Don't revert pages and talk pages without even leaving a comment. Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms 207.67.84.171 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the above editor for personal attacks on User talk:David Gerard and on suspicion that it is a sock or proxy account for a banned editor. The discussion thread is here. Comments are invited. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am neither a sock nor a proxy. I am not a banned user. The changes I made were valid, and you're abusing your power. My beef with David Gerard should be addressed on his talk page, where it belongs. 207.67.84.171 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

Your comments, were, respectively, bad misinterpretation, wrong, and false -- especially the last. Musical Linguist's prior reputation doesn't excuse her ridiculous, bad-faith, wildly out-of-proportion, and occasionally outright false attacks on me. It's "incivil" to defend myself? It's "incivil" to answer her baseless charges and her attempt to deflect attention from and excuse Gordon's continued and continual bad behavior? Her bad-faith mindreading of my motivations and her paperback psychology analysis of my state of mind is somehow excusable -- why? She -- falsely -- calls me a liar and that's a-okay? She insults me, but hey, so what? Is any gainsaying of what she says automatically "incivil" and blockworthy or am I required to mumble "yes, your grace" and tug my forelock every time she speaks? --Calton | Talk 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FISHING

Nice. :) Mangojuice 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments about Calton and Gordon

Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your note. I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your request to describe actions (with context) but not ascribe motives, or to "make comments that can be interpreted as mindreading". I presume you are referring to this post, which is the only one I made, though I also posted on the ArbCom page, at the Community noticeboard, and at Gordon's page — all about the same matter. I described what happened — that Calton abused him, sneered at him, reverted him with popups (which should be kept for vandalism reverts, called him Gordy boy, accused him falsely of lying. I made absolutely no implication about Calton's motives. Nor would I wish to do so. I don't know why he treats Gordon that way. I simply know that he does, and I find it very objectionable. Calton has said, in the post above this one, that my charges are "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", and "occasionally outright false". Let's have a look at some of these charges, one by one, and see if any of them can justly be called "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", or "outright false".

1. I said that Calton called him Gordy boy.
2. I said that Calton falsely accused him of "sneaking in" something, and of lying. (They're diffs to show that he made the accusation. I'll provide diffs to show it was false below.)
3. I said that Calton put "revert not-very-bright troll" in an edit summary.
4. I said that Calton reverted Gordon with popups.
5. I said that Calton abused and belittled him, and shouted at him )(with capitals).
6. I said that Calton posted a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon.
7. I say now that Calton gloated when Gordon was blocked.

Okay, I think I've shown that Calton did call him Gordy-boy, did call him a "not-very-bright troll", did shout at him, abuse him, and belittle him, and did accuse Gordon of trying to sneak in a link and of lying. What I have not shown is that his accusation of Gordon trying to sneak in a link and of lying was false. So, let's have a look.

Let's imagine that User:A wants the Pope Benedict article to have a link arguing that the pope was a Nazi, and User:B wants the article not to have such a link. If the link is not in the article, and someone makes several changes, one of which is to remove the link, and User:A reverts all of those changes, right back to your last version, explaining in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, in that case, User:A's edit will involve restoring the link. His edit will show in the diff as being identical to yours. It will not be an attempt to sneak in the link, but one of the results of the edit will be that the link is there again.

However, if the link is not in the article, and another user makes several changes, and User:A opens your last version from the history, opens the edit box, inserts the link, writes in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, and presses save, the diff will show that his version is identical to yours, except that it has the link in it. In that case, it will be an attempt to "sneak it in", and it will be a lie to deny it. Is that what happened here?

The link was added to the article on 3 January, by Zenger, not by Gordon. It is not a link to Gordon's site, but is to a site that he approves of. (Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.)

On 28 January, User:71.141.252.50 made a lot of edits, including one which inserted a link to the North Country Gazette. (Keep in mind that it's not Gordon's site, though it's one he likes, and that Calton doesn't. I have to agree with Calton on that.) On 29 January, Superm401 reverted to last version by Nut-meg. Then Gordon reverted , saying that he was reverting to the last version from 71.141.252.50. If Calton is correct in saying that Gordon was "sneaking in" the link (his "umpteenth attempt" to sneak it it), then the diff will show that Gordon's version is idential to the anons except that it has the link in it. So, here is the diff. You can see for yourself. Gordon said he was reverting to the 71.141.252.50 version. And he was. The versions are identical.

Now, Calton says in his post above that I have called him a liar. I have never called him that. Nor have I even accused him of lying. I have said, and I say again, that he made a false accusation against Gordon. I do not speculate as to his motives. He accused Gordon of attempting to sneak in the link, and of dishonesty, and told him not to lie. If you look at those diffs, I'm sure you'll agree that he did say all those things to Gordon. I hope that if you look at my arguments above, you will agree that reverting to another user's version, which happens to have a link you approve of, while stating in the edit summary that you are reverting to that version is not sneaking or dishonest, and that in that case, Calton's accusations against Gordon were false. (Of course, it's more than possible that Gordon was quite happy to be restoring to a version that had that link, but that does not justify the accusations that Calton made.)

If you can show me that Gordon did lie, and that Calton was justified in accusing him of "dishonesty" or "sneaking", or that any of the things I said that Calton did to Gordon (reverting him with popups, calling him Gordy boy, calling him a not-very-bright troll, shouting at him), he did not, in fact, do, then of course, I'll withdraw it. I repeat that I am not aware of having stated any opinion as to his motives, and I do not intend to do so. If you think I have done so, then please feel free to show me where.

As I sincerely believe that Gordon's behaviour is in part due to his being upset by Calton's behaviour towards him, and as I believe that Calton made false accusations, and as I believe that a judgment from the community which does not take these things into account would be unjust, I think it would be irresponsible for me to refrain from stating these matters clearly, on the grounds that Calton would be "very upset". I don't know if he's upset or not. It's obvious he's angry, but he has a record of being angry when people question his right to abuse problem editors. I can supply further details, if you wish. I do not believe that anything I said was unfair, and I don't believe that I have been aggressive about it. Certainly, I feel very calm :-), even though Calton has accused me on your page of "bad-faith" "attacks", and has questioned my motives for trying to partially defend Gordon. I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have worded my post more carefully. But I cannot accept that it would be right not to point out how badly Calton has behaved in this matter, just because it might upset him. One might just as easily say that Gordon's behaviour should not be discussed because it might upset him. Both editors have behaved badly, and it would be utterly inappropriate for the community discuss Gordon without mentioning the abuse that he has received. I believe that I am one of at least five administrators who have criticized Calton's behaviour to Gordon. For the record, the other four are yourself, Proto, Marskell, and Sarah Ewart. Anyway, although I disagree with you, I appreciate that you're trying to calm things down, and also to be fair to Gordon. Cheers. Musical Linguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you may be thinking "Oh no, I post a brief paragraph to Ann, and I get back a dissertation! This reminds me of Gordon!" Don't think of all this as a response to you. I think that sooner or later, this matter will have to be investigated more fully, and therefore, I've spent some time sourcing my statements and finding links, etc. So I'm sorry to inflict it all on you! The noticeboard has been archived. And I won't be around much in the next few days. I just want it all down somewhere, for the record. Musical Linguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)