User talk:TenOfAllTrades: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:33, 10 June 2009 editAbd (talk \| contribs)14,259 edits →Your email response to me regarding User:William M. Connolley\|: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:54, 10 June 2009 edit undoTenOfAllTrades (talk \| contribs)Administrators21,283 edits →Your email response to me regarding William M. Connolley: One more thingNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 120:		Line 120:

	TOAT, I sent you an email in an attempt to suggest that you mediate a dispute with ], in the hope that, as someone I expected would be sympathetic to him, you might be able to approach him to help resolve the dispute. Your response was less than satisfactory, and accused me of trying to "manipulate Misplaced Pages processes." I am copying my mail to you here; you requested that further communications with you be on your Talk page; I request permission to reply to your mail here, which would necessitate quoting it. Thanks. My mail to you follows. --] (]) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)		TOAT, I sent you an email in an attempt to suggest that you mediate a dispute with ], in the hope that, as someone I expected would be sympathetic to him, you might be able to approach him to help resolve the dispute. Your response was less than satisfactory, and accused me of trying to "manipulate Misplaced Pages processes." I am copying my mail to you here; you requested that further communications with you be on your Talk page; I request permission to reply to your mail here, which would necessitate quoting it. Thanks. My mail to you follows. --] (]) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
			{{collapse top\|Abd's email}}
	----
	Thanks for your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#GoRight.27s_Follow-up_Questions . I'm looking for someone whom WMC might trust who would, upon becoming informed more fully about the situation, intercede to prevent him from being take to ArbComm over this. The situation is quite as clear to me as was the situation in January with JzG, but there is a difference now: ArbComm advised me to proceed more quickly up the ladder of DR.		Thanks for your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#GoRight.27s_Follow-up_Questions . I'm looking for someone whom WMC might trust who would, upon becoming informed more fully about the situation, intercede to prevent him from being take to ArbComm over this. The situation is quite as clear to me as was the situation in January with JzG, but there is a difference now: ArbComm advised me to proceed more quickly up the ladder of DR.

Line 130:		Line 130:

	One more note: I'm not suggesting that any admin attempt to reverse WMC's ban, that would be wheel-warring. There is process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban, with a proper close, but my judgment is that outcome would be quirky and the process would cause more disruption than it's worth. Misplaced Pages will not fall because I can't edit Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion for a while. The best way for this matter to be resolved with minimal fuss is for WMC to recuse, which, with an unlogged ban, as it stands, effectively undoes it until it's confirmed by another admin. That's my interpretation, anyway. To guarantee minimal fuss, he should lift the ban without prejudice. He can look generous, if he likes. "Okay, I've decided that there is no more need for this ban, and if Abd behaves himself in the future, I won't reinstate it." Thus postponing any need for escalation. I don't escalate moot points. Thanks again. --] (]) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)		One more note: I'm not suggesting that any admin attempt to reverse WMC's ban, that would be wheel-warring. There is process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban, with a proper close, but my judgment is that outcome would be quirky and the process would cause more disruption than it's worth. Misplaced Pages will not fall because I can't edit Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion for a while. The best way for this matter to be resolved with minimal fuss is for WMC to recuse, which, with an unlogged ban, as it stands, effectively undoes it until it's confirmed by another admin. That's my interpretation, anyway. To guarantee minimal fuss, he should lift the ban without prejudice. He can look generous, if he likes. "Okay, I've decided that there is no more need for this ban, and if Abd behaves himself in the future, I won't reinstate it." Thus postponing any need for escalation. I don't escalate moot points. Thanks again. --] (]) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}

			:Frankly, no. I do not give you permission to use my talk page as yet another forum for your interminable wikilawyering, soapboxing, and rambling. In your confrontation with JzG, you wasted six months of dozens of editors' time, including members of ArbCom who have better things to do. In the remedies in that case, the ArbCom did not overturn any of JzG's actions, and they did not choose to desysop JzG: ]. Further, they didn't come ''close'' to it. The lone Arbitrator who commented on your overblown and ridiculous proposal that he be desysopped (]) noted that it was "Excessive and unwarranted". For some reason, you've chosen to repeatedly refer to this case as evidence that JzG escaped desysopping by the skin of his teeth.
			:Worse still, you've attempted to use this misinterpreted case as a blunt (and broken) tool to try to badger WMC into lifting your well-deserved ban from ] and ]. You've alternately attempted to bully and cajole other editors on and off wiki into getting WMC to overturn his call here, because apparently "the process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban...would cause more disruption than it's worth." I'm sorry, but I can't help but read that as, "because it won't give you the outcome that you want". You're threatening to skip straight to Arbitration - based on a non-precedent - because you don't trust any of the proper community venues not to tell you to quit the lawyerly walls of text. Your oh-so-generous offers to WMC to let him keep his bit if he lets you resume your WP:OWNership of ] demonstrates a painful lack of self-awareness.
			:This is now the third time I've given you the same advice — put down the rulebook, and demonstrate through successful mediation (mediation which you had already agreed would be worthwhile!) that you can work effectively with other editors. With that evidence in hand, there's little doubt in my mind that WMC would be willing to lift your ban.
			:Stop wasting my time now, please. You are not welcome to use my talk page as yet another forum to repeat your threats and distortions. If you have any issues about my conduct, please proceed to the next step at ]; don't raise this topic again here. You're not resolving a dispute by continuing to contact me; you're simply playing to the crowd. ](]) 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:54, 10 June 2009

Talk archives
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 November 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to January 2008 February 2008 to November 2008 December 2008 to February 2009

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The question you removed

It seems to me that she wrote "can anyone put in simple terms what osseous stucurs and soft tissue uptake, and osteo blasic lesions mean", she was asking for clarification, not advice. I fear that the medical advice discussion in talk may be causing us to see medical advice requests where none may be. – Clockwork Soul 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posting your opinions in talk page section titles

You must be well aware of the guideline this violates, yet you intentionally continue to violate it. Why ? StuRat (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind the intrusion. Stu, I'd like to know why you think it's so important that this guideline be maintained on the reference desk talk page. How will it improve the refdesk? I've left a message before on your talk page regarding this and I still don't know how the reference desk is harmed when the thread discussing a medremoval has a title saying that the question seeks "medical advice". Your continued editting and debating regarding this inconsequential matter is far more disruptive and gets close to a violation of WP:POINT. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you find editors, like Ten, intentionally choosing biased titles to be "disruptive and close to a violation of WP:POINT" ? It's very much the same reason we don't say things like "the murderer is going on trial today". There should be no presumption of guilt. Wouldn't you consider it disruptive if we posted titles like "Improper removal by Ten of non-medical advice Q" ? StuRat (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find editors who fiddle with, whine about, lecture over, and argue incessantly on minor semantics in section headers to be "disruptive and close to a violation of WP:POINT", really. Scoot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not find it disruptive. When someone posts a new section on a talk page, the title is part of their post, and it is entirely reasonable that their post express their opinions. You've even been known to do this yourself on occasion, as here for example. Do you think that the refdesk talkpage operates by different rules on this? Algebraist 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find that "Article improvements needed" header to be my opinion only, please feel free to change it. I have no objection, and the policy clearly states that you can change it in such cases. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat's continued insistence on owning section headers strikes me as petulant. I've asked him to stop that before, with no useful results. Friday (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't own it. Anyone who wants to change a heading to be neutral can do so. Or, even better, the authors of the titles can actually attempt to make them neutral to begin with, rather than intentionally pushing their own opinions. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten, you haven't answered me. Why do you insist on putting your own opinion is talk page section titles ? StuRat (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, you're wasting my time, your time, and the time of all the nice people up above who have told you to stop beating the dead horse. Any further posts on this topic I will judge to be deliberate harrassment.

If you're interested in formal dispute resolution, I hereby declare that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. If you think that further discussion this issue is a worthwhile use of anyone's time, then take it to AN/I — but for your own benefit I strongly urge you to read our article on de minimis non curat lex first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Need your help with dispute resolution/RfC

I see in the past you were involved in a dispute resolution/RfC with User:Duke53 here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Duke53 I have tried to interact with the editor to work towards resolution, but this is clearly at an impasse. I would appreciate your help here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Duke53_2. Thanks Hoopsphanatic (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice and First aid

Hello

First off, thank you for your thoughtful message; I appreciate the time taken, and the gesture. I guess the sticking point for me is that when I started on the RDs, the prohibition was on regulated advice of any kind, be it legal, medical, or animal-related (veterinarial?) and that's always been my rule of thumb. First aid, by its very nature, is not regulated advice; it's designed to be taught by and used by ordinary laypeople. When we switched the header information at the top of the desks a few months ago, that phrasing changed as part of an attempt to make the header a bit more inviting, but the old rule of thumb has stuck with me because it seems pointless to worry about advice that's not regulated in any way in the real world. For example, we do not hesitate to give advice pertaining to replacing computer hardware or high-pressure lighting fixtures (despite the possibility of shock), or on social/dating advice (despite the various ugly possibilities, however unlikely) and I've never had a problem with any of them because none of that knowledge is regulated. FWIW, I find this situation doubly-puzzling because I tend to favour a liberal interpretation of the removal procedure, though I don't bother to raise the subject much because it's all been hashed over so many times before. Anyway, thanks again for your input; I'll abide by whatever we end up deciding, though if history tells me anything, it's that nothing will actually get decided. :-/ Matt Deres (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Loomis

Hello Ten. I received a short, and very to the point, email from Loomis51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) requesting his talk page be unprotected (for reasons unspecified). Since you protected his page, I figured I would refer it to you. Rockpocket 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mine was equally abrupt. I'll leave it to your judgment. Rockpocket 05:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Magic Template up for Deletion

Hi Ten, as you were one of the principles behind the discussion leading to the creation of the Magic Template, I wanted to let you know that it is currently up for deletion.---I'm Spartacus! 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Loomis51

Hello TenOfAllTrades. Loomis51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Want to leave

I want to leave wikipedia, but every time I try people leave messages on my talk page and stuff, like I'm on a piece of string for this site. I'm sick of feeling like a f=====g fish. What can I do?Carrolljon (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You win

I can no longer cope with your, and you cronies', deliberate and persistent harassment of editors who disagree with your highly idiosyncratic interpretation of guidelines, and with your ownership of the RefDesks. I have therefore removed the desks from my watchlist, and shall not be contributing to them for until I feel better able to cope. I shall not be watchlisting this page, as your insolent and abusive responses to other editors who question your disruptive behaviour are too upsetting to me. I do not expect, nor do I want, any reply. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical questions on the refdesk

Hello Kainaw, TenOfAllTrades and Scray,

Please take a look at this thread, along with my response on SteveBaker's talk page , and my response and Tango's answer on Tango's talk page. I'm asking the three of you directly instead of raising the issue directly on the refdesk's talk page, because I feel the discussions there on such matters lately have been rather predictable and unproductive. Your opinions would be greatly valued. If two of the three of you feel that the OP is asking for medical advice, I'll remove it myself, with a note on the refdesk talk page. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, --NorwegianBlue 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was naïve of me not to move this to the talk page in the first place, the meta-discussion started building up on the refdesk itself. I've moved the meta-discussion now. Your opinion will be greatly appreciated on the refdesk talk page, instead of on mine as I initially suggested. Thanks. --NorwegianBlue 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Misplaced Pages – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Misplaced Pages's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Annoying behavior by desk puppets

See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User:Taxa. I am asking for your advice, as you spent (or wasted?) I don't know how many hours and cups of coffee collecting and categorizing puppets of another refdesk friend. Is it worth the effort? If so, I don't ~~care~~ mind doing this, but it will take some time. On the one hand I prefer ignoring, on the other hand I'm tired of seeing excellent contributors fall for his faux-naiveté, sophistry, and general mean-spiritedness. Thoughts? (Either here or at WT:RD, whichever you find more appropriate). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my actions. I will apologise to Arthur Rubin and say yes he was right to call my contribution that Inflation is always bad for the economy nonsense.

Here are the facts of this silly matter:

1. I changed the Inflation article to read that inflation IS and not only CAN BE bad for the economy. Arthur Rubin reverted that and stated it is NONSENSE.

2. I left this message on his talk page: Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as not to use insulting language like nonsense as you recently did on the Inflation article.

3. He responded that the truth is sometimes insulting.

4. I deleted my first comment on his talk page and left a second that I will call him Mr Nonsense from now on.

I was being polite to Arthur Rubin. He carried on insulting me. I do not see you reprimanding him. Then I tried to put an end to the event with a joke. You do not accept that. Now show us that you are fair: Go and threaten Arthur Rubin with a banning order for stating that my contribution is NONSENSE. Or is fairness not a Misplaced Pages value. Or can I now freely tell contributors here on Misplaced Pages their contributions are NONSENSE when I do not agree with them?

You are right in your defense of Arthur Rubin: It is better for me to be insulted here on Misplaced Pages than to try and stop the effects of an insult by means of a joke. You are 100% right: I should just have taken the insult quietly.

I apologise for my actions. I will apologise to Arthur Rubin and say yes he was right to call my contribution that Inflation is always bad for the economy NONSENSE.PennySeven (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seigenthaler controversy/your essay

I made this change as there's suggestion I'm aware of that the editor was a friend of Seigenthaler. You may have been confused by the fact that 1) The editor did it as a prank on a friend of his (I'm not sure if the details were ever revealed) 2) A friend of Seigenthaler discovered the vandalism and made Seigenthaler aware of it. Read the article for further details. Normally I wouldn't edit an essay in userspace without permission but I felt this serious enough to correct on the spot per WP:BLP (yes I appreciate the irony in this case but I'm serious here and not trying to be ironic or joking) Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your email response to me regarding William M. Connolley

TOAT, I sent you an email in an attempt to suggest that you mediate a dispute with William M. Connolley, in the hope that, as someone I expected would be sympathetic to him, you might be able to approach him to help resolve the dispute. Your response was less than satisfactory, and accused me of trying to "manipulate Misplaced Pages processes." I am copying my mail to you here; you requested that further communications with you be on your Talk page; I request permission to reply to your mail here, which would necessitate quoting it. Thanks. My mail to you follows. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd's email
Thanks for your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#GoRight.27s_Follow-up_Questions . I'm looking for someone whom WMC might trust who would, upon becoming informed more fully about the situation, intercede to prevent him from being take to ArbComm over this. The situation is quite as clear to me as was the situation in January with JzG, but there is a difference now: ArbComm advised me to proceed more quickly up the ladder of DR. I follow DR using minimal disruption, and this is why I acted to close the AN/I discussion over the alleged vote alterations, instead of turning it into a complaint about WMC. That discussion wasn't relevant to this ban. And I'm not planning on taking this to a noticeboard, because it will generate much heat and little light. There is now a basis for an RfC, but there are factions aligned, and RfC is unlikely to resolve the issue, so this might be a straight-to-ArbComm case. I don't think I'll lose, ToAT, but you are certainly free to disagree. Many expected me to be banned as a result of RfAr/Abd and Jzg, but I was more commended than even troutslapped, as I read it. Maybe I'm biased. There is some background you might not be aware of. I don't want to distract you from your work, so I'm not sending it to you now, but I could. I'm trying to confine discussion to a few people who might be able to resolve this, most of it is off-wiki. A few words from the right editor to WMC might resolve this whole thing with no more fuss. WMC's action had the appearance of improving things, but, if you were to look at the full evidence, I think you would conclude otherwise. If you think you might be able to help, let me know. I tried to do this with JzG, though possibly less effectively. He didn't get desysopped, but that's because he played his last get-out-of-jail-free card, and was put on a short leash, as one admin said to me, and he's completely stopped editing, unfortunately. I have no personal opinion as to whether or not WMC's admin bit is a net asset or net liability to the project, I've seen evidence for both, though, and, fortunately, the decision will not be up to me. But the hazard to his bit could be quickly averted, and if the feared disruption appears at Talk Cold fusion, and I were the cause of it, any admin could restore the ban or block me if necessary. Thanks for considering the situation. One more note: I'm not suggesting that any admin attempt to reverse WMC's ban, that would be wheel-warring. There is process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban, with a proper close, but my judgment is that outcome would be quirky and the process would cause more disruption than it's worth. Misplaced Pages will not fall because I can't edit Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion for a while. The best way for this matter to be resolved with minimal fuss is for WMC to recuse, which, with an unlogged ban, as it stands, effectively undoes it until it's confirmed by another admin. That's my interpretation, anyway. To guarantee minimal fuss, he should lift the ban without prejudice. He can look generous, if he likes. "Okay, I've decided that there is no more need for this ban, and if Abd behaves himself in the future, I won't reinstate it." Thus postponing any need for escalation. I don't escalate moot points. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd's email

Thanks for your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#GoRight.27s_Follow-up_Questions . I'm looking for someone whom WMC might trust who would, upon becoming informed more fully about the situation, intercede to prevent him from being take to ArbComm over this. The situation is quite as clear to me as was the situation in January with JzG, but there is a difference now: ArbComm advised me to proceed more quickly up the ladder of DR.

I follow DR using minimal disruption, and this is why I acted to close the AN/I discussion over the alleged vote alterations, instead of turning it into a complaint about WMC. That discussion wasn't relevant to this ban. And I'm not planning on taking this to a noticeboard, because it will generate much heat and little light. There is now a basis for an RfC, but there are factions aligned, and RfC is unlikely to resolve the issue, so this might be a straight-to-ArbComm case. I don't think I'll lose, ToAT, but you are certainly free to disagree. Many expected me to be banned as a result of RfAr/Abd and Jzg, but I was more commended than even troutslapped, as I read it. Maybe I'm biased.

There is some background you might not be aware of. I don't want to distract you from your work, so I'm not sending it to you now, but I could. I'm trying to confine discussion to a few people who might be able to resolve this, most of it is off-wiki. A few words from the right editor to WMC might resolve this whole thing with no more fuss. WMC's action had the appearance of improving things, but, if you were to look at the full evidence, I think you would conclude otherwise. If you think you might be able to help, let me know.

I tried to do this with JzG, though possibly less effectively. He didn't get desysopped, but that's because he played his last get-out-of-jail-free card, and was put on a short leash, as one admin said to me, and he's completely stopped editing, unfortunately. I have no personal opinion as to whether or not WMC's admin bit is a net asset or net liability to the project, I've seen evidence for both, though, and, fortunately, the decision will not be up to me. But the hazard to his bit could be quickly averted, and if the feared disruption appears at Talk Cold fusion, and I were the cause of it, any admin could restore the ban or block me if necessary. Thanks for considering the situation.

One more note: I'm not suggesting that any admin attempt to reverse WMC's ban, that would be wheel-warring. There is process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban, with a proper close, but my judgment is that outcome would be quirky and the process would cause more disruption than it's worth. Misplaced Pages will not fall because I can't edit Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion for a while. The best way for this matter to be resolved with minimal fuss is for WMC to recuse, which, with an unlogged ban, as it stands, effectively undoes it until it's confirmed by another admin. That's my interpretation, anyway. To guarantee minimal fuss, he should lift the ban without prejudice. He can look generous, if he likes. "Okay, I've decided that there is no more need for this ban, and if Abd behaves himself in the future, I won't reinstate it." Thus postponing any need for escalation. I don't escalate moot points. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no. I do not give you permission to use my talk page as yet another forum for your interminable wikilawyering, soapboxing, and rambling. In your confrontation with JzG, you wasted six months of dozens of editors' time, including members of ArbCom who have better things to do. In the remedies in that case, the ArbCom did not overturn any of JzG's actions, and they did not choose to desysop JzG: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG#Remedies. Further, they didn't come close to it. The lone Arbitrator who commented on your overblown and ridiculous proposal that he be desysopped (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop#JzG desysopped) noted that it was "Excessive and unwarranted". For some reason, you've chosen to repeatedly refer to this case as evidence that JzG escaped desysopping by the skin of his teeth.

Worse still, you've attempted to use this misinterpreted case as a blunt (and broken) tool to try to badger WMC into lifting your well-deserved ban from Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. You've alternately attempted to bully and cajole other editors on and off wiki into getting WMC to overturn his call here, because apparently "the process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban...would cause more disruption than it's worth." I'm sorry, but I can't help but read that as, "because it won't give you the outcome that you want". You're threatening to skip straight to Arbitration - based on a non-precedent - because you don't trust any of the proper community venues not to tell you to quit the lawyerly walls of text. Your oh-so-generous offers to WMC to let him keep his bit if he lets you resume your WP:OWNership of Talk:Cold fusion demonstrates a painful lack of self-awareness.

This is now the third time I've given you the same advice — put down the rulebook, and demonstrate through successful mediation (mediation which you had already agreed would be worthwhile!) that you can work effectively with other editors. With that evidence in hand, there's little doubt in my mind that WMC would be willing to lift your ban.

Stop wasting my time now, please. You are not welcome to use my talk page as yet another forum to repeat your threats and distortions. If you have any issues about my conduct, please proceed to the next step at WP:DR; don't raise this topic again here. You're not resolving a dispute by continuing to contact me; you're simply playing to the crowd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)