Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 7 February 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Dschor, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Alf 10:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nero

Hi, you may wish to know this article is in VfD, this is nothing personal, it is about the article, see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Nero (band). There is a question about whether they are they same band as mentioned on All Music Guide, if they are, please confirm it. Alf 10:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi

How's the article coming on? I see you put in some links, I'll go and tinker with the article a bit. The 'experiencing difficulties' is going to have to go though. Alf 22:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, done, go have a look, and I guessed CD is 2005? - I piped all year links to '200* in music', so if it's 2004, both year dates need changing. Please correct any unintentional errors. I removed a redundant url as it doesn't add to the article content, which is the basic premise for their inclusion. Alf 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject:Fascism

As a neutral party that was asked to step in by another involved party, I request that you please reveal your sources regarding your information presented ont he republican party. Without credible support your information is not of any value and will not adequately contribute to a[REDACTED] article of any sort. In the past[REDACTED] has come under fire for inadequately sourcing its articles, and a result, referencing is taken very seriously for the purpose of validity in this community.--OniOokamiAlfador 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns are appreciated. I do understand that wikipedia's accuracy depends on citation of sources. Misplaced Pages also depends on people acting in a bold manner to initiate the process of article creation and improvement. An article without citations is better than no article at all, particularly if there is an interest in the article that may provide the means to add sources and citations. If you find that any articles I have produced fail to include adequate references, feel free to add the appropriate citations. --Dschor 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to be hostile in any way, I should point out that its usually up to the person making a statment to cite it. In talk pages everything is fine as statement unless a citation is requested, but if you want the information to make it into the article and stay it would be in your best interest to include a citation. The Article without better than no article at all concept only holds true in certain cases. Specifically when that knowledge comes from schooling, and common knowledge. One user adding citations for another user's statements is a reasonably inefficient process as people tend to do research differently, and not everyone has seen the same studies, read the same books, etc. As far as bold initiation is concerned, that is true, however it is an implied responsibility that one must be able to stand by any statements made, and that one should make sure that such statements fall within scope and reason. --Oni Ookami Alfador 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not be contrarian, but I should point out that much of the information that I include in my statements is common knowledge, or comes from basic education. I am not completely fluent in the ways of wikipedia, and hope to be a very helpful and considerate member of this community. I certainly have stood by the statements that I have made, and I do believe that they fall within scope and reason. In an effort to avoid further difficulties, I have added an article specifically devoted to Fascism in the United States, where these issues can be resolved without negatively impacting the broader articles on Fascism, Neo-Fascism, and the GOP. If you still feel that mediation is in order, by all means do request that it be initiated, but please note that I have made little effort to alter the articles in question, and have confined my edits primarily to the talk page(s). I look forward to many fruitful conversations on the topic of Fascism, and hope that no hard feelings will result from my interest in the subject as it relates to the United States. --Dschor 05:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your reverting Fascism (United States) -- don't just revert out of hand. Instead, read what was written and incorporate it to make your article better. Yes, puring sources is bad, but that doesn't mean everything should just go back how it was. - Stlemur 01:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that reverting is not the ideal solution. However, it is the only immediate response to page vandalism of the sort that the article experienced. The article was truncated, and sources for the remaining text were therefore purged. I encourage others to edit the article - but if the only edit made is a wholesale deletion, with minimal commentary, then a revert is called for. There was active editing occuring on this article, and the removal of sources for the remaining paragraphs was not explained - it was clearly an act of vandalism. --Dschor 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A differing opinion, on an article that is still heavily POV, is not vandalism. - Stlemur 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking a large portion of an article, and removing all citations from the remaining article, is an act of vandalism. It does not help to improve the article, and very clearly falls under the definition of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. --Dschor 02:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your statement on Talk:Fascism (United States): I have heard the POV OR claim plenty of times here. The content was well cited, and I would have been happy to add more, but it is fairly difficult for one person to keep up with the pace of developments in this area. I think you overstate matters when you state that the "complete arc of fascism in the United States" exists primarily in my head. I think any reasonable observer who would take a step back and look at the United States from an outside perspective could see the steady progress toward fascism that has been made over the last seventy years. Almost all of the citations have been edited out, along with the content. With such a hostile group of editors collected here, I saw little chance of success for gradual improvement. The only thing holding the examples together is the common movement toward fascism in the United States, which has been accelerated greatly my the current administration. I simply do not have the energy to fight with multiple editors who continually blank, revert and remove anything that I try to add. I will be happy to try again, but I can see that collaborative editing is a joke here. --Dschor 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply here because I don't think that article's talk page is the right place. I think you're being unfair to us; certainly I and many of the other members of Wikiproject Fascism have tried to help, held your hand through every step of the process...and you just don't seem to get it. Yeah, you've cited sources which support your thesis — but you've purposely ignored sources which contradict it and the sources you have cited have, by and large, been non-academic. When you say "any reasonable observer who would take a step back and look at the United States from an outside perspective could see the steady progress toward fascism that has been made over the last seventy years", that only indicates to me that you came to this article with an agenda; if on the other hand you're resolved to reject the vast majority of modern historians' work, on the basis that as they don't agree with your thesis they cannot possibly be reasonable observers, then what you're doing simply isn't compatible with encyclopedic writing.

Now, I'll say here that in broad strokes I agree with you: I think there has been, since Reagan at least, a fascistic bent in the Republican Party's policies. But it isn't enough for you or both of us to believe that; it has to be a serious, reasonably mainstream idea within the academic community; that means historians and sociologists, not editorial writers. If you're going to say that the historians and sociologists aren't worth listening to, then we run into a problem again, because the overarching consensus here is that peer-reviewing communities are the only reliable sources.

Anyway, from the outset I've been assuming good faith in editing on your part and I'd hoped you'd been assuming it on mine. If that's something you can't do, then maybe you should back away from this page for awhile; work on others with more contributors, get a better feel for what's POV and what's not. Don't hesitate to ask for help. But if you come with an axe to grind, then don't be surprised when the people who are working for neutrality and objectivity remove what you've written without a second thought. --Stlemur 13:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Has Misplaced Pages dropped all pretense of NPOV? (copied from Dschor's user page)

Or is "NPOV" the same thing as what the mainstream media calls "objectivity"- extreme leftist lunacy thinly disguised as mainstream thought? That article has no place on a serious website, period. --User:WinOne4TheGipper 00:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for vandalism to my User page.
  • Sorry. I won't do it again.
    • This is much better.
• This continues the theme of vandalism that you began at the Fascism (United States) page.
  • Ah, yes, the page that clearly violates NPOV and reads like half of the monkeys working on Shakespeare's works took a bit of time to do satire.
    • Yes, we do appreciate satire. Glad to see you are contributing to the task. Ee ee oo oo. Ah, yes. Where were we?
• If you wish to make a comment, the discussion page is the appropriate location.
  • Done.
    • That wasn't so hard.
• NPOV means a consensus should be sought - not that the 'Gipper' always gets to have it his way.
  • Ah, yes. "Consensus". Also known as "Call the other guy a fascist because I can't win an argument".

Has Misplaced Pages dropped all pretense of NPOV?

• • • Fascist used as a slur was covered in the article. Fascist used as a descriptive term is perfectly appropriate. 'Consensus' still confusing? Oh, well.
• You may consider the mainstream media to be leftist loonies, while I consider them to be right-wing tools.
  • Of course you do.
  • Damn those right wing tools that tried to fraudulently influence an election with forged memos. Oh, wait.
    • Right wing tools that enable government fraud and fraudulent elections. Those tools. Did you miss something?
• Regardless, editing should seek to improve articles, not to blank them - this is considered vandalism. As is your edit to this page.
  • I did improve the article by removing the moonbat droppings. Please refrain from posting them again. As I understand it, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a mainstream website. If you ever feel the need to spread that kind of nonsense, you always have DU, but I'm sure you know about that site already.
    • You did vandalize the article by removing the citations, references, and a large portion of the content. They have been restored, and more citations, references and content added as well. Feel free to add more - but please refrain from removing articles and blanking pages based on your own POV. You can keep the moonbat droppings, friend. --Dschor 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dschor)

Carlo Giuseppe Testore

Do you have any evidence this guy exists? Without the fluff about being fantastic it contained, there's not really much left to assert his notability. The article needs sources to avoid being deleted. - Mgm| 12:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This guy has been dead for a long time, but there is plenty of evidence of his existence, even on Misplaced Pages itself. His notability is unquestionable if you take a look at the luthier article, or are familiar with the double bass. Not a speedy - just a stub. --Dschor 12:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dead Guy Ale

Hey, i saw you just made the article Dead Guy Ale, I've categorized it, but otherwise it looked good. Since your edit summary said: "hoping this is okay - my first beer article", i thought you might like two pointers: 1) You marked your edit as minor, it is not. Minor edits are for small style corrections, typos, spaces etc. a new article is never minor. Sometimes an edit of only one word can be considered major. You were humble, that was not necessary. 2) New articles are hard to notice if they are not categorized, it is good policy to always categorize an article. The best way is probably to find a similar article and use that category. If you're not sure of a category, use a more general category and mark it as a stub. Hope this helps :) Siebren 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And i just see you already noticed :) Siebren

Thanks

Thanks. Kevin baas 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This User is Ranked #420 on the List of Misplaced Pages Editors!

Congratulations. Whether intentional or not, you are in a favored position. Well done. Thanks for all your inspiration, as well! --Dschor 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! However I am no folowing you, whats this ranking based on? :0 --Cool Cat 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rank is based on total number of edits - and you seem to be prolific. See Misplaced Pages:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. --Dschor 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh that. Last time I checked that I had about 1200 edits... man time does fly... --Cool Cat 10:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes and fair use images

Certainly. The point is that userboxes are not used on encyclopedia articles. Use of copyrighted images under the fair use provision of US law tends to require an educational, critical, etc. usage of the image. "Illustrative" purposes are not permissible. Our use of images in userboxes does not fall under the fair use provision of US law. Rob Church 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These images are logos, and as such they are considered fair use for identification purposes. It seems unlikely that there would be any objections. --Dschor 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Such uses are not fair use under that provision of United States law. Please go and read up on it. Meantime, I'd like to see a valid fair use rationale for the use of that image on Template:User rogue. Rob Church 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of fair use does not seem to fit with the definition given at Misplaced Pages:Logos, where such use is specifically allowed. --Dschor 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me state it again. It is a user box. It is not being used for the purposes of encyclopedic merit and we cannot claim to use such images under the fair use provision of US law. Mere illustrative purposes, which is what this is, are not acceptable. Regardless, I'm entitled to ask to see a fair use rationale if you're going to claim fair use. Rob Church 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's right, we can't use fairuse images on logos. As such I have reverted several of the templates back to the versions without fairuse images and I had to entirely delete the rogue nation image since without usage in the article we can't claim fairuse on it and therefore can't have it up. Jtkiefer ---- 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And as per your statement here, I'd strongly advise against it since blatantly ignoring[REDACTED] rules will most likely end in you being blocked from editing. Jtkiefer ---- 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not targetting any particular userboxes in general but we cannot have fairuse images in fair use since fair use only applies to academic style use (i.e. Misplaced Pages articles) or critical commentary use, or of course parody. userboxes and templates in general for that matter don't fall under any of those criteria so we can't claim fairuse for those usages and thus it would be a copyright violation for us to use them. Jtkiefer ---- 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that anybody ignore the rules. Userboxes serve a purpose that falls within the scope of fair use. In what way would using these logos constitute a violation of copyright? --Dschor 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because whether you believe it or not userboxes do not fall under fair use in terms of image usage. Jtkiefer ---- 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

btw, you're right yellow is much more appetizing then the grey that was previously there on the User sushi template. Jtkiefer ---- 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User ACLU

Will be it ok if I replace the icon you have for this template, that you created, with a PD photo of the Statue of Liberty (which, is also featured in the ACLU logo)? Zach 00:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded the icon, how is it now? Zach 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Humor

Image:Aibonkago.jpg

This image is listed as fair use. I'm afaraid it is against policy to have fair use images in the user namespace. Could you remove it please?Geni 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I am blocking you for 24 hours for personal attacksL re Template:User support Kelly Martin2. It is not acceptable to call another user a fascist. --Doc 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to conclude that you failed to note that Kelly describes herself as a "grammar fascist" in the opening of her own User page. Please remove this block - it is not a personal attack to quote a self-description from her user page. --Dschor 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't review Kelly's userpage. Calling someone a fascist is not on, period. (How people self-describe is another matter.) Further, you didn’t 'quote' Kelly, you created a 'bumper-sticker', using wikipedia’s public template space, designed to parody and publicly demean another user. That is not what Wikimedia’s resources are for. If you want to debate Kelly's actions, there are places WP:RfC to do that. This is not the way.

I was willing to lift your block, if you had indicated some willingness to desist from such actions in future. But your posting of the above template (in edit conflict with this) does not give me much hope that you will do so. --Doc 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot could not see the content of the deleted template, this sounds like a very long bow to stretch indeed. As I was once famously berated for pointing out in an uncivil manner, there exist many many groups for whom self-ascribed labels are acceptable while the application of that label by an outsider is not. Futher, I'd imagine that she was laughing when she wrote that. The spirit does count for something. brenneman 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my user page used to say "grammar nazi", but I changed it because someone I respect asked me to on the grounds that "nazi" is, or can be, offensive. "Grammar fascist" doesn't quite have the same cachet, but it will have to do. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is not a template, it is a subst of a template. The original version linked to her comment directly. There is no intent to demean or to parody Kelly. I was in the process of debating her actions, and the actions of those who support her. I feel that so long as there is a template of support for her, there should be a template that holds the opposing viewpoint. You may take note that the template never appeared on my user page. Please do lift the block, and my apologies to Kelly if this template is offensive to her. Frankly, I am somewhat amused that this would provide an excuse to block my account. I posted the example here in order to provide some small amount of context for others to understand the situation. My concern is with fairness. Please assume good faith - I found this amusing, and I am sure that there are others who feel the same. --Dschor 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked you - on condition that you do not create any more attack templates. Please do not be amused at this - understand that what you find funny others may not, and may construe as personal attacks. Please be more careful in future. --Doc 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not plan on making any more templates that refer to individual wikipedians. I do appreciate your unblocking my account, although that action does not appear to have been completed. Please post an update when the block is no longer active. Thanks. --Dschor 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did unblock you earlier - but you had also tripped the autoblocker. I have reset it now, so you shoul be OK. Let me know if there is a problem. --Doc 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too

Nice to meet you too.

And yes, being God is the absolute man.

DrIdiot 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

{{User oppose Kelly Martin}}

I am disappointed that you created this template (and only hours after being unblocked for your last template and saying "I do not plan on making any more templates that refer to individual wikipedians."). Creating these templates is uncivil and disruptive. Given your history of creating this templates and refusal to stop, I am blocking you for an 8 hours. Please don't do this anymore. This sort of negative campaigning and attacking users is simply not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was responding to accusations that I created a personal attack, and stating that I did not plan on making any templates attacking individual Wikipedians. I'm afraid that I did not see any harm in creating a userbox that simply stated my personal position on a matter relating to the wikipedia. Apparently professing an opinion on another wikipedian is forbidden, regardless of tone and tenor? I am frustrated that I have been blocked, and these templates deleted, apparently without discussion. Once again, I apologize if anyone was offended, but I must say that I feel it is perfectly appropriate to express opposition to the ArbComm nomination of another wikipedian through userbox. Oh well. I guess I was wrong - apparently personal opinion is not allowed in user space if it involves templates. It looks like subst is all we can do. --Dschor 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you are so fond of quoting people back at them, what you said (just two paragraphs above) was I do not plan on making any more templates that refer to individual wikipedians. --Doc 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I acted inappropriately in this matter. I will leave a fuller explanation of my motives and thoughts tomorrow or earlier if I get time. Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. Yes, that quote is correct. I was responding to your condition for unblocking, which was to refrain from creating attack templates. I think we had a disagreement about what exactly constitutes an attack template. At the time, I had no plans to create any templates about individual wikipedians, but I changed my mind. I learned that from the fantastic example set by the administrators on wikipedia, you know.  ;-) I do think this has been very educational - now I am aware that there is no warning given by admins. Good day. --Dschor 11:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient, Dschor. Wikipedians are traditionally given wide latitude over what they create in their userspace, although of course they are not totally unrestricted. Most people will refrain from negative comments in general, and it is generally considered to be in poor taste to make disparaging remarks about a specific Misplaced Pages editor—you'll rarely see it done. As long as it does not cross the line into personal attacks, though, it is for the most part acceptable, as long as it stays in the person's userspace. Material in the Misplaced Pages-wide Template: space is another matter altogether. These are not under the control of a specific user but are part of the project as a whole. I personally dislike templates which exist to criticize or disparage their subject, whether it be a religion, a person, or a language. I would vote to delete any such templates; while users may still write about such matters on their user pages, they should not be creating templates for such matters, in my opinion. However, the specific matter in this case is creating a template criticizing another Misplaced Pages editor, and it really is inappropriate. I understand that you didn't see the harm, but it really is harmful; please don't do it again. You can express your personal opinion but please keep it in your personal space; don't create other pages to express your opinion. It is not the expression of the opinion that is problematic, but the creation of templates to do so. I assume the remark about lack of warning refers to prior blocks, since you had already been blocked for this, been unblocked and agreed not to create these sorts of templates, and then created one again. In general, I am reluctant to use blocks; this is one of my more controversial ones. Recognizing that, I immediately posted on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack templates to ensure that I had not acted inappropriately. The feedback was largely supportive. Nevertheless, perhaps I erred in moving to block so quickly, even for a short duration; my motivation was that discussion had seemed to fail. However, I will try to be better about reaching an understanding rather than outright block. If you feel I have not behaved properly or wish to further discuss these matters, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your humility in recognizing that there is room for disagreement in such matters. I think the block was somewhat premature, but I can see that you feel very strongly that it was needed. In the future, a polite warning will probably be sufficient. I understand that creating a template that refers to a specific admin is probably not a good idea in general, but under the circumstances it seemed to be a very appropriate response. I will be sure to consider my actions more carefully in the future. I personally do not see the harm in such templates, particularly as part of a larger debate on the purpose of templates re: userboxes. I was troubled that while I was blocked, the admin in question took the opportunity to edit my user page, and failed to revert upon my explicit request. I think such action is far more troubling than the template that I created, particularly in light of the circumstances. I think that you did the best you could be expected to do, and I hope you will consider making first contact in some other manner in the future - it is no fun to be introduced to an administrator by having them block your account. I still feel that the template I created was not an attack template, but simply an expression of opinion. Thanks for your explanation and I hope our next interaction is more constructive. --Dschor 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Just amazing to me that rather than follow proper process for deletion, two admins have taken it upon themselves to ban me without proper cause. Rather than allow me to defend my position at the appropriate deletion page, I am denied any opportunity to contribute to the ongoing discussion, and relegated to my user page. Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, Doc and now Knowledge Seeker all seem bent on enforcing very broad administrative rights. This is actually proving that the criticism they find so offensive is true - they are acting in a fascist, cabalist manner, and disrupting the normal functioning of the wiki. User blocking and page deletion continue to be abused, and there is nothing that the average wikipedian can do about it. I will not leave, though - I am having too much fun being the thorn in their paw. The block will pass, and I will continue to represent free speech and free thought on the wikipedia, in defiance of the cabal. --Dschor 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh get a grip - stop trying to be a free-speech martyr. Kelly deleted some stuff, it was promptly restored - big deal. The RfC made the point that folks don't agree - now move on. This is not censorship, there are RfC's, RfA's, discussions, votes and elections and 100 ways to have your view on how[REDACTED] should develop. But you are intent on courting controversy and making this about one individual. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - not your personal playground to have a go at those you disagree with. I thought the block that I imposed and lifted might have encouraged you to stop. Actually Tony, Snowspinner, Kelly and myself agree on just about nothing, except perhaps that your behaviour is tragic.

About the only thing that Tony, Snowspinner, and myself agree on is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Beyond that, we have pretty strong disagreements at times. I haven't argued with Doc enough to know how much we disagree on things, but I bet we all agree on the encyclopedia thing. So, what's Misplaced Pages to you? Is it an encyclopedia, or a virtual web community? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you like me to create this?

This user thinks Dschor should never be an admin and will encourgae others to vote to oppose him.

--Doc 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 700 admins - if one abuses their power, one of the other 700 will reverse that action. If none do, then all 700 agree. Obviously a Cabal of 700? Or alternatively, everyone agrees with their common sense.--Doc 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no abuse of power. There was a use of power. The people who are screaming "abuse of power" merely don't understand that Misplaced Pages is not a rule-driven hierarchical system, but is instead a project to write an encyclopedia. See also Raul654's and JamesF's rejection comments over at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F6.2F2.2F0.29; a careful examination of their words may help you to achieve wikienlightmentment. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I love it - maybe you actually do have a sense of humor. Too bad you can't abide mine. This never has been about Kelly, or about userboxes - it is about abuse of administrative power. Something that seems to be an ongoing problem. --Dschor 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This user is probably too sensible to be an admin, and will encourage others to be sensible as well.

As far as the 700 admins, it is true that one admin will reverse the action of another at times - unfortunately I have seen a series of administrators abuse their power, even as other admins were reversing them and attempting to foster open dialogue. Sadly, even when it is clear that some wrong has been done, the administrative response is to attempt to hide the problem, rather than to resolve the underlying issues. This is Wiki becoming a cabal, based on administrators doing what they feel is best for themselves, rather than what is best for all. Simple, really. A natural human response, but as you say, tragic. --Dschor 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all agree that[REDACTED] is an encyclopedia. I think that goes without saying. It is also an organization that needs principles to continue to thrive. --Dschor 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that the administrator in question has made an edit to my user page without my consent. Nice to kick a guy when he's blocked. I'm just a little bit disturbed at what this says about the wiki. --Dschor 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you honor your own words, Kelly:

"I have, after much thought, decided not to seek a full term as Arbitrator, and will further be resigning my adminship at the end of my current term. This is due to my increasing frustration with the general governance of the project, an issue I hoped to be able to do something to fix, but which is apparently broken beyond my ability to help. I hope that others will step up and fix the problems, but I don't have the energy to do it right now." Kelly Martin Revision as of 17:32, 11 November 2005

Just a thought. --Dschor 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were still blocked, not that that should matter. Perhaps you should be a bit less touchy. There is no rule that prohibits editing someone else's user page (you will note that someone edited mine today, and I didn't throw a fit about it). I've already explained myself on the issue above on my candidate's question page (which I assume you have at least glanced at, since you added a question to it). Kelly Martin (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Since I am blocked, I would appreciate if someone would remove the reference to Kelly Martin in my Travel Brag sheet, as her assertion is completely erroneous. CoolCat had the idea well before Kelly. I do think she is making this more personal than it ought to be. Bad admin, down! --Dschor 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I shan't argue the point with you, but as I recall, Cool Cat took it from me (as he has many other little things). He even asked me if he could before he did. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

I've reverted as you requested.

I've asked for several of the parties involved to have a good think about what they've been up to, but I'd encourage you to do the same.

The creation of the "oppose" template strayed close to violating WP:POINT. This is not mitigated by the fact that those who created the "support" template were clearly violating it, and spilling the WP:BEANS at the same time.

So, they've acted like idiots. (Not Doc, by the way. While he did push the edge a bit, he was calm and responsive and you had gone over the line there.) The best thing would be for you to not act like an idiot, too. Yeah, they should know better... but so should you. You didn't just get off the boat, you know.

In future, try to make your point with less WP:POINT, ok? The fact that you managed to rile up one of the calmest, most reasonable admins we've got is not a good sign. Things are pretty heated right now, and everyone should be trying to decrease tensions, rather than adding fuel to the fire.

So, can I ask you to not sink the boot into anyone for a couple of days, no matter how much they deserve it?

brenneman 02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to restrain myself. I am curious - is it Doc who you consider one of the calmest, most reasonable admins we've got? He surely seems the only likely candidate here. I do appreciate the revert, though. I just have to wonder what kind of administrator would choose to respond by adding erroneous information to another user's user page. There really was no need. I don't begrudge giving credit where credit is due, but a simple look at the history of Kelly's page was immensely informative. I guess I have learned something about resisting the cabal - resistance is futile. That doesn't mean that I won't stand up for myself, though. Now that I know that admins have the right to play fast and loose with the rules, I will simply have to learn which admins have some respect for policy and procedure, and let them know when I am being squeezed. This sure has been fun, though. I can't think of a better reason to be blocked than as a martyr to free speech and expression on the wikipedia. Thanks for all the excitement. --Dschor 11:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that if your goal here is to be a "martyr for free speech", then you are not here to edit the encyclopedia and should be banned. Perhaps you should consider finding a different hobby. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that if your goal here is to disrupt the normal functioning of the encyclopedia, then you are not here to edit the encyclopedia and should be banned. Perhaps you should consider finding a different hobby. I am quite happy to edit the encyclopedia, thanks. --Dschor 22:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your continued provocative edits

Mate, I've been giving a hard time to other people who continue to mix it up. Is there any way that I can convince you to spend some time doing something useful? I've looked over your last few hundred contributions and you've made two in mainspace in the last week.

Just ignore everything else and go and do some wiki-work for a little while. You'll feel better, you'll attract less heat, and you will also give anyone who wants to criticise you a bit less of a stick to whack you with.

brenneman 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks as always for the useful advice. I am afraid I have been a little sidetracked by real life, and by the frenzy of deletionism. Since I returned to the wiki after the New Year, there has been a constant supply of AfD, TfD and adminicruft. I must admit I am a bit off track - it is hard to concentrate when every time I take a look at my user page something is on the chopping block. Hopefully wikipedians will refrain from counterfactual edits to my user page - and I can get back to the articles I was working on before all of this started. For now, I am off to bed to prepare for a little snowboarding tomorrow. I have to admit, Kelly has been a ton of fun, though. --Dschor 09:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Nice way to take the pile-on in stride. :) --Interiot 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullying

Regarding Gmaxwell, you're not the only one he's doing it too. I'm getting it from him too, not because of a user box, but because of an image on my page. Please don't think that all admins are like this, because they very definitely are not. I hope the experience won't give you a negative view of us. Cheers, SlimVirgin 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I like to think that I can avoid confusing the actions of one or two administrators with the whole crew. I believe that most of the admins are very dedicated, and take their role very seriously, and that there are times when everybody makes mistakes. Most of the time, admins on[REDACTED] seem to be responsible and well-respected members of the editing staff, but there are times when this can be overshadowed by the foolishness of a few rogues. I trust that the[REDACTED] will do fine in spite of this, and that those admins who are more responsible and considerate will step in to moderate any foolishness that does occur. It's comforting in some small way to know that I am not the only victim, although it also troubling to think that this sort of behavior is not as rare as it could be. Fare thee well. --Dschor 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User page stuff

You had a message saying you'd reserve the right to presume that edits to your user page without permission were vandalism. Sorry, but that's not on. There are many reasons why another editor may need to edit your user page, it's part of Misplaced Pages.

Secondly, while your stated opposition to Kelly Martin was probably okay, the allegation that she is a member of some Cabal is an attack and we don't allow personal attacks. I've removed it for now; please feel free to restore minus the attack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a message asking politely that wikipedians who wish to edit my user page clear their contributions with me. I reserve the right to presume vandalism, particularly when the sole intent of the editor is to remove material that they find personally objectionable. You may need to edit my page, but you do not need to remove my personal opinions from my user space. There is no allegation that Kelly is a member of a cabal - she herself is the one who claims to love the cabal. You are once again proving that it is a good idea to Beware the cabal. Leave my user page alone, and go edit an article or something, instead of bothering me. I have the right to express my opinion here, within the bounds of civility. You are trying my patience with your uncivil edits, and are approaching WP:DICK status. If you don't have something useful to add, stop editing. --Dschor 10:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst Tony Sidaway is usually a good editor, he does have a habit of back patting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi Dschor. I found my own user page being vandalised as well, especially after I quit on Christmas Day (I have made a handful of edits since, but I'm not really here, and I am not looking at my talk page). The main sets of vandalism were being done by someone who had been WikiStalking me, who was the very reason why I quit. Check out the history if you like. Thankfully in my case nobody objected too much to me getting rid of them, although I did have to compromise a bit. I think that that is the answer. I mean technically they can edit your user page, as technically it is no different to an article page. However, you are allowed to assume ownership over your own user page (and subpages) and hence other user edits should only be to remove vandalism, personal attacks and other offences against Misplaced Pages policy. I noticed that a couple of people were incorrectly quoting policy to justify editing your page. Obviously stating that you oppose Kelly Martin for ArbCom is not a personal attack. However, perhaps you should not include "Beware the Cabal". Take a look at User:FuelWagon or User:AI for a way to present such things that are considered to be acceptable.

As for your talk page, I was getting a lot of threats and harassment on there, and was deleting things and then having the deletions reverted constantly and not a single person would do anything (which was why I left, because I mean if you get nothing but threats what's the point in being here?) But I have been advised that you are allowed to remove things from your user talk page.

There is a discussion about this on the Administrator's Noticeboard by the way, and you might want to comment. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dschor_claims_that_all_third_party_edits_to_his_user_page_are_vandalism

You probably should comment there. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black's user page

Please don't vandalise this again. If it happens again, you'll be blocked for 24 hours. Ambi 12:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to a more informative version of the user page. If the user considers it to be vandalism, I would expect him to contact me. What is your stake in this? I believe that the edit I reverted to was factual, and followed the instructions of the user given at the top of the page. --Dschor 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User allow fairuse

Please do not recreate content that has been deleted as a result of a TfD discussion. If you disagree with the result, please use Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not noticed that the vote was closed. Seems like the results were too close to call, IMHO. I have requested a deletion review as you have suggested. Thanks for letting me know. --Dschor 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologise if I came across as overly harsh in the message above. JYolkowski // talk 15:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone| 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Be careful

I just got banned for daring to support Mistress Selina Kyle. You might be next. Just pull your head in a bit there. Thankfully I have quit already so I don't care (and, momentarily at least, they seem to have forgotten to ban my IP address). But you might not be so lucky. Beware of User:Ambi, User:Kelly Martin, User:SlimVirgin, User:Snowspinner and User:Sean Black. Perhaps it was my suggestion to get them all de-sysopped that got me banned? Who knows. Just be careful. I didn't even get any warning, and zero evidence was presented. Just be real careful. Zordrac

Thanks for the warning, it is much appreciated. I experienced a block (2 actually) and believe I have learned my lesson. Your list is hardly complete, as there are a number of other admins who feel similarly. Admins don't like to be de-sysopped, it is probably their greatest fear. Hope your ban is overturned! --Dschor 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubbish! Admins most fear stupidity screwing up this encyclopedia. --Doc 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your perspective is certainly appreciated, Doc. It is quite unlikely that stupidity will screw up this encyclopedia - and if it does, it will be the stupidity of administrators, not your average wikipedians. I would be surprised if there are many admins who would support a time limit on administrative service, though. I personally think term limits for admins would probably be a good idea, but I can't see how this could happen with our current administrators pulling the strings. I am glad that there are some administrators who understand that they serve the encyclopedia, rather than the reverse. --Dschor 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cease trolling

Edit summaries such as "Don't be a WP:DICK, please" in such circumstances are trolling. Doc's edits are wholly justified, and wikistalking him and kvetching about it won't help the encyclopædia at all. Please don't continue with such comments. If you do so, sadly I will feel forced to block you for a short while to help you calm down.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked I'm blocking you for six hours for trolling an general disruption. You have been continually edit waring on a closed and archived RfC with off-topic discussion of an Arbcom decision (if you have complaints about Arbcom, take it up with them). You then created Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/Protected, a cut-paste violation of the GFDL and a clear attempt to game the system. Look, just knock it off, come back in 6 hours and behave. --Doc 13:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is a decent way to reward me for trying to keep the wiki in wikipedia. The ArbCom decision is hardly off-topic, and the "edit war" you refer to was simply an attempt to preserve comments made by other users in good faith. Trolling and general disruption are not valid criteria for blocking, and I never exceeded three reverts. --Dschor 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously not a good idea to create a redirect at List of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole. You may disagree with his policies, I certainly do, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. I saw that this kind of behaviour had you blocked in the past, so please stop it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a little overzealous in fixing red links. My bad. Concerns have been noted, thanks. --Dschor 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

Hello Dschor. May I ask why you thought it appropriate to replace comments by a banned user which had been removed per policy? --cj | talk 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the comments were germane to the discussion, and that edits made in good faith to an RfC should be preserved. Rather than paraphrase the comments, I decided a direct quote was the best way to maintain the integrity of the discussion. I may have been out of line, and if so, I apologize. If you feel that the comments should be removed, please let me know. --Dschor 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

{{User pedo}} blocked

You are blocked for 3 hours for recreating this template. Given all the crap people have had to deal with about this, we don't need any more disruption related to people recreating it after Jimbo already speedy deleted it. Please think about what would be a more productive course of action to take when you return from your block. --Ryan Delaney 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)