Revision as of 16:50, 20 August 2012 editSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 edits →ANI: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:51, 23 August 2012 edit undoTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,347 edits →Topic ban from Zeitgeist movement: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC) | Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Topic ban from Zeitgeist movement == | |||
By , you are topic banned from editing pages on Misplaced Pages related to the Zeitgeist movement to include articles, article talk pages, user and user talk pages, Misplaced Pages space, and all other namespaces. You may not engage other editors on this topic. This topic ban is broad in scope which means that it also includes related 'movements' and biographies of proponents and opponents. The scope of the ban should not be misunderstood to be limited to what I have outlined. You are to avoid any appearance at all of violating this topic ban. If you have questions about the topic ban or wish to appeal, you may contact me on my talk page, as I am an uninvolved admin. I will forward any reasonable questions to the community for consideration. You are strongly advised to reconsider your approach to interaction with the community including taking more care to understand the arguments of those opposed to your opinion. | |||
To quote AndyTheGrump: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
it includes everything he does on Misplaced Pages, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in. And that it specifically includes trying to Wikilawyer around the ban. He has to accept that anything which looks like a ban violation in our opinion, not his will result in an indefinite block. Clearly he will need to have a specific exception for somewhere to ask specific questions relating to the scope of the ban, and should he want to do so, to eventually ask for the ban to be lifted (a sub-page in his user space maybe - or one in the user space of a volunteer admin?), but otherwise, a ban is exactly what it says, and no arguing. And he needs to be aware that regardless of issues relating to TZM advocacy, his behaviour on talk pages has been unacceptable, and that any further verbose screeds of original research and the like, of endless failures to accept clear consensus, and all the rest are likely to also have serious repercussions, regardless of the topic. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
If you have any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--v/r - ]] 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:51, 23 August 2012
Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! IjonTichyIjonTichy, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Misplaced Pages for new editors to ask questions about editing Misplaced Pages, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
April 2012
Your addition to Janine R. Wedel has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. This was the first time I created a new wikipedia article.
- In the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, I re-edited the article and inserted links to the book reviews instead of the original text of the reviews. Again, I appreciate the feedback.
- Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Zeitgeist Movement. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the info.
- Please see my numerous responses to your actions and comments on The Zeitgeist Movement talk page.
- Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The Zeitgeist Movement
It might be good to read about the three-revert rule. It's not obvious how it works, and it's possible to violate it by mistake. Tom Harrison 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Input?
Though we disagree about some things (though maybe not so many as you may think), I'd welcome your perspective at Talk:LaRouche movement. Tom Harrison 00:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my numerous responses to your actions and comments on The Zeitgeist Movement talk page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
So, what the crap are you doing? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Improving the TZM article to prepare it for dispute resolution. Please see the recent (last several days) postings on the talk page of the TZM article for further details. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Technological unemployment
I read this article while it was still the Luddite Fallacy page. I fail to see how the Zeitgeist movement has any bearing here. I just wanted to refer someone to a page that explains the Luddite Fallacy. I'm not sure if these pages should be merged. And Zeitgeist films are hardly credible sources.
Apologies for not following talk page protocol I'm not sure how to add to a discussion. (User:ZombiePriest) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC).
- The three Zeitgeist films (Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) have not been used as sources in the article on Luddite fallacy.
- (As you know, the article on Luddite fallacy is automatically re-directed to Technological unemployment). Looking at the list of references of Technological unemployment, and focusing only on the sub-section regarding The Zeitgeist Movement, I only see references to journal and newspaper articles, and three videos. These three videos are listed below.
- The Zeitgeist Movement seems to believe that technological unemployment is a very serious problem. They seem to reject market-based approaches to the problem of technological unemployment. Instead, they suggest a new kind of a global economy: Resource Based Economy (RBE).
- For more details on The Zeitgeist Movement's proposed solutions to technological unemployment, you may want to view the three videos below --- the two RT TV interviews with Peter Joseph as well as the documentary by New Future Media:
- Zeitgeist ideas, Russia Today, Sept. 14, 2011
- Further discussion of Zeitgeist ideas, Russia Today, Dec. 2, 2011
- Short (38 min) documentary on proposed solutions to technological unemployment, New Future Media, April 14, 2012.</ref>
- Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear ZombiePriest and OpenFuture, your comments deserve a response. However, your comments should be posted on the talk page of Technological unemployment, to allow all editors of that page an opportunity to view and respond to your comments. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Misplaced Pages is a community effort; let's use this community component. You may want to copy and paste your comments from this talk page to the Technological unemployment talk page, so that the discussion can continue there. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your work
Hi IjonTichyIjonTichy, Thank you for your work on the TZM article, by the way, I have some userboxes on my page userpage that you may like. you can also use it if you want. ;) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I'll definitely take a look at your userpage. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on Resource-based economy. And yes, I like your userboxes and am now using some of them in my user page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Warning about personal attacks, May 2012
Personal attacks; like accusing several editors of immaturity or laziness are against wikipedia policy and can lead to you getting blocked or banned. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry and I apologize. Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement, Technological unemployment and Resource-based economy. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate on improving future articles. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Translations of foreign-language articles
By the way neither Misplaced Pages:Translation or Misplaced Pages:PAIC apply to your translating a source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi CambridgeBayWeather,
- Are you sure that WP:PAIC#Foreign-language_quotations does not apply to my translating a source? This WP policy says: "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear in translation. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Misplaced Pages), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context). If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate."
- Can you please explain how this policy does not apply to my translating a source?
- As I indicated previously regarding the other WP policy, Misplaced Pages:Translation, yes, I agree it does not apply directly to my translating a source, because WP:Translation is focused on the translation of foreign-language WP articles into the English WP; it does not discuss the translation of foreign-language sources into English. However, as I wrote previously, WP:Translation is the only other WP policy I could find on translations (in addition to WP policy on Foreign-language quotations). WP:Translation even encourages students to work on translating foreign-language WP articles into English as student projects. (However, as I said before, translating foreign-language WP articles is not the same as translating foreign-language sources.) In other words, from both WP policy on foreign-language translations and WP:Translation, it seems that WP policies call for the community to assume good faith in its editors when it comes to translations from foreign languages into English.
- Are you indicating that my conclusion that WP calls for assuming good faith in WP editors when it comes to translations is incorrect? Could you please explain.
- As I wrote previously, I currently don't see a problem with using a WP talk page as the physical location to store the translation. (If I'm wrong on this, please let me know.) One of the editors on the talk page of resource-based economy repeatedly claimed that because I've stored the translation on a WP talk page, then the translation is a WP article, and WP articles cannot be used as sources. I explained in response that storing a (translation) of a source on a WP talk page does not turn the source into a WP article, and that the only issue of importance is the reliability and quality of the source (and verifiability, etc.), not the source's physical storage location. Again, if WP policies indicate that I'm wrong on this, could you please explain?
- I'm puzzled. If both WP policies above don't apply to my translating a source, then which WP policy does apply?
- I'm relatively new to WP and thus am relying on much more experienced and savvy users, like yourself, to provide necessary guidance and insights.
- Thank you for your work and for providing feedback, and I look forward to hearing from you soon; at the present time, I would like to continue to move this article to WP:ANEW.
- (Any feedback/ insights that you may be able to provide on WP:ANEW in general and WP:ANEW in particular for resource-based economy would also be greatly appreciated.)
- Warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it the WP:PATC is discussing quotations in an article and not the translation of a source. Also I think that posting that translation is a copyright violation, I'm just going to look into it. Non English sources may be used as a reference. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that translating is a copyright violation. See Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive 7#Can translations of works be used without violating copyright? CambridgeBayWeather (talk)
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll remove the full translations from the talk page of resource-based economy, the talk page of Peter Joseph, and the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.
- It seems that based on WP policy on Foreign-language quotations), I can still use the original (foreign-language) sources to support my WP article edits, as long as I provide translations of quotations of the specific (foreign-language) sentences or paragraphs I'm using in support of my WP edits? Is that a correct assumption? (Of course, I understand that I'll also need to fully abide by the other requirements of the WP policy such as explicitly distinguishing quotations that are translations from those that are not, indicating the original source of a translation and the original language, and providing a reference to the original, untranslated text.)
- I'm grateful for your feedback, insights and guidance. I'm learning a lot from you.
- Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The information you want is at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research#Translations and transcriptions. SO It appears that unless you are using a quote in the body of the article you don't need the translation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks CambridgeBayWeather. Yes, I studied and re-studied both of these WP policies several times before I began the process of citing and quoting from the two Hebrew sources on RBE ...
- Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The information you want is at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research#Translations and transcriptions. SO It appears that unless you are using a quote in the body of the article you don't need the translation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that translating is a copyright violation. See Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive 7#Can translations of works be used without violating copyright? CambridgeBayWeather (talk)
- As far as I understand it the WP:PATC is discussing quotations in an article and not the translation of a source. Also I think that posting that translation is a copyright violation, I'm just going to look into it. Non English sources may be used as a reference. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring.
One of the basic principles of Misplaced Pages is that we don't know who you are, and what you know and if what you say is true or not. And that goes for everyone. That means we all have equal amounts of say, and we all have to listen to each other and approach the topics with out eyes and ears open. We also need to understand that quite often we are simply wrong. I am wrong, you are wrong. We have to listen to what everybody else is saying, or we will run into a wall with our edits, and get nowhere. If we don't listen to others, they will not listen.
The articles on TZM and TVP and related topics all suck, and Misplaced Pages badly needs more expertise on the subject.
Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement, Technological unemployment and Resource-based economy. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate with you in the future. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to WP:DRN, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. This is helpful. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)
Too long; didn't read (section)
One of my favorite sections from WP: Too long; didn't read:
Maintain civility
Sometimes a person might feel that a reader's decision to pointedly mention this essay during a discussion is dismissive and rude. Therefore, courteous editors might, as an alternative to citing WP:TLDR, create a section on the longwinded editor's talk page and politely ask them to write more concisely.
A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an (necessarily or unnecessarily) wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity.
Outline of automation
Dear Transhumanist, is it OK to add a section titled 'Social movements' to Outline of automation? The Technocracy Movement, The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project all advocate for applying semi- or fully automatic systems to provide for all human needs - for example in food growth and production which will take care that no one would go hungry, in automatic construction, transportation, healthcare, etc ... In the view of these 3 movements, automated labor should be perfected and implemented on a mass scale globally, eliminating all mundane jobs that insult human capacity when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively, freeing humans to do more creative work (and/or less work). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. Yes, all improvements are welcome. I look forward to seeing your contributions. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Great! I've added the section. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nicely done. You inspired me to add annotations. Please take a look and make any corrections or completions needed. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nice job Transhumanist. One correction -- the Technocracy Movement seem to still be active, they apparently have a well-maintained website.
- Your work inspired me to add more to the outline (when I have time in the next few weeks/ months). Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nicely done. You inspired me to add annotations. Please take a look and make any corrections or completions needed. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Great! I've added the section. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Refactoring
Ijon, you no doubt mean well, but you shouldn't refactor your own comments at WP:DRN after others have responded to them. See WP:REDACT. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bbb23. I was not aware it was not proper, and I was not aware of WP:REDACT. I will study the policy and abide by it. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Article about Zeitgeist movement
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post on my talkpage page. I've been off line for a while. WP email does not allow attachments, so if you want the article from the Journal of Contemporary Religion, you need to send me an email via the wikipedia email system and then I will reply to it with the article. You can send me an email from my user page by clicking "email this user". --Slp1 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Translation
Dear User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, I would like to ask you if you can translate the article Israel Tsvaygenbaum from English to Hebrew. Thank you. Sincerely, Boxes12 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Misplaced Pages's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)
Done. Thank you for the survey. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
czesc
Siemasz, Ijonie, jak leci? Co slychac od Tarantogi? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Staszek, how are you? I hope you are doing well. I've enjoyed reading almost all of Lem's books over the last 3-4 months or so. I've just finished The Futurological Congress and made a minor contribution to the WP article. Lem is definitely one of the very best authors I've read in my lifetime. I've enjoyed his books very much, they are very important books, serious and funny at the same time, and I wish I've read them much earlier in my life. On the other hand, if I would have read them when I was younger, I would not have fully appreciated them then, because for me at least, I'm able to appreciate Lem's work much better now, after accumulating some personal life experiences, etc ... Is your WP user name Staszek after the main character in Hospital of the Transfiguration? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
Regarding climate change (global warming) as “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” (Stern Review) in the Naomi Klein article, please see Talk:Criticism of capitalism#Market failure paragraph. Misplaced Pages:A nice cup of tea and a sit down may be of interest too. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I posted a comment. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
June 2012
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ijon, I second OpenFuture's warning and have commented at WP:DRN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fair warning OF and Bbb23. Please note I've already apologized to Andy. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fair warning OF and Bbb23. Please note I've already apologized to Andy. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Doing an endless series of attacking and then apologizing does not cut it IjonTichyIjonTichy. Being insulting and then praising, over and over, is still disruption and attacking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Believing in good faith that you violated WP policies (followed by explaining in public why you did not) is not normally defined as an attack or an insult on WP. It is normally considered strictly an editorial dispute, not an attack nor an insult. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have no idea when others are telling you that you are attacking others. I see. Must be a communication breakdown. The consensus is that you are attacking others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but calling it an "endless series" is a bit too much IMO. He has done it a couple of times. IjonTichyIjonTichy: You need to stop getting angry, and stop taking arguments personally. Criticizing TZM is not a personal attack on you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- A couple means two. I think not. Good luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to xkcd, it's a fun read. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- A couple means two. I think not. Good luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but calling it an "endless series" is a bit too much IMO. He has done it a couple of times. IjonTichyIjonTichy: You need to stop getting angry, and stop taking arguments personally. Criticizing TZM is not a personal attack on you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- You have no idea when others are telling you that you are attacking others. I see. Must be a communication breakdown. The consensus is that you are attacking others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Believing in good faith that you violated WP policies (followed by explaining in public why you did not) is not normally defined as an attack or an insult on WP. It is normally considered strictly an editorial dispute, not an attack nor an insult. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Doing an endless series of attacking and then apologizing does not cut it IjonTichyIjonTichy. Being insulting and then praising, over and over, is still disruption and attacking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
See Also discussion
I don't know who you have posted the message about the See Also discussion, but if you didn't post to everyone, it's called canvassing, and is frowned upon. The best place to post something like this would be on the dispute resolution discussion, rather than on individual editor's talk pages, so that everyone with a vested interest can participate. VanIsaacWS 23:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have no intention of influencing the outcome of the discussion towards any one side of the debate. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Attacking
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- You display incredible audacity in accusing me of attacking you, when it is you who has been obsessively, repeatedly, relentlessly attacking me. See wp:Boomerang. Please do all editors (including yourself) a favor and develop some awareness and WP:COMPETENCY. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion, try to focus on the subject of an article and not editors, and your opinions of them. The name calling things automatically are a non starter Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree we should focus on the subject and not on editor. But you need to stop wasting people's time with a discussion of user's own pages, because all editors are able to read user pages and don't need you to mollycoddle and shepherd them. I firmly believe you are responsible for initiating the attacking, and I'm only responding in kind to your attacks. Furthermore, you fully supported AndyTheGrump in his wholly erroneous, misguided attack on TZM and on a subset of Misplaced Pages editors. You are only motivated by good faith and are only driven by a strong desire to help and improve wikipedia. But perhaps your desire is too strong and you are too emotionally involved in this article, because your edits and comments are not productive to the development of the article. And you continue to attack me for mistakes I made as a newbie, among many other ways, all un-justified, that you continue to attack me. You finally removed the mention of RBE in the article, and thus credit and praise to you for finally listening to me, after you wasted many, many hours of my, your, and everybody else's time in attacking me for explaining, beginning several months ago, why the term RBE should be removed. But you agreed with Andy on everything else, regretfully, and contribued several comments offensive to other editors and to the subject of the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion, try to focus on the subject of an article and not editors, and your opinions of them. The name calling things automatically are a non starter Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
3RR - edit warring
The Zeitgeist Movement - WP:3RR warning - Youreallycan 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
DRN
Hi Ebe123, you wrote "There is a ArbCom request for Youreallycan, so this should be referred there." I'm not familiar with ArbCom. I read everything on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee and I don't understand how this relates to the DRN you closed. Where can I find the ArbCom request for YRC? How is the ArbCom request related to the DRN? Is the ArbCom going to make a decision related to YRC, and how is that going to affect the DRN? (If you could answer on my user talk page it would be great.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Arbcom can make decisions on it, and here's the link Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. The DRN and ArbCom are both to resolve disputes, but arbcom does it by making binding desisions, while DRN makes consensus finding easier. The ArbCom desision will not affect DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Ebe123. Your response is most helpful. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ebe123 may misunderstand Arbcom; they action on long term conduct issues and explicitly do not address content problems. So any content discussions should be resolved in the relevant forums. If there is a user conduct issue associated with the content dispute then this might be relevant to any arbcom case - but addressing the content issue should take priority. --Errant 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- For me, the dispute seemed to be attached to conduct. And I was not ignoring the request. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ebe123, Prioryman wrote that following discussions between him, YRC and Anthonyhcole, it seems that a solution has been worked out. Where can I find these discussions? I could not find them at the archive. (Kindly please respond on my own talk page.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy that a solution has been found, and you may search the archives (there's a search box on WP:DRN). Please do not edit it though. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ebe123, Prioryman wrote that following discussions between him, YRC and Anthonyhcole, it seems that a solution has been worked out. Where can I find these discussions? I could not find them at the archive. (Kindly please respond on my own talk page.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"Prt YRC & the block evader ATG (TW)"
Should have been, "Per YRC & the block evader ATG" YRC - YouReallyCan ATG - Andythegrump. Both are experienced editors with a very good eye for editing, so if both of them were reverting you then you need to take it to the talk page rather than editwar. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I will respond to your comment on the talk page of the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
BLP
Unless these people are dead I recommend you self revert right now. And I am not at all happy with the way you got around the Examiner being on the blacklist. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I firmly believe you are responsible for initiating the attacking, and I'm only responding in kind to your attacks. Furthermore, you fully supported AndyTheGrump in his wholly erroneous, misguided attack on TZM and on a subset of Misplaced Pages editors. You are only motivated by good faith and are only driven by a strong desire to help and improve wikipedia. But perhaps your desire is too strong and you are too emotionally involved in this article, because your edits and comments are not productive to the development of the article. And you continue to attack me for mistakes I made as a newbie, among many other ways, all un-justified, that you continue to attack me. Credit and praise to you for disagreeing with Andy on his labeling TZM, and several WP editors, as members of a cult. But you agreed with him on everything else, regretfully. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
My userpage
Glad you like them, but there is no story about them. I just went through the category of featured images at commons for images with a 800 × 600 pixels size. Then, I made them random (You get 1 chance per 163 for 1 specific image). The list of images is at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ebe123/images&action=edit . ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban from Zeitgeist movement
By consensus of the community, you are topic banned from editing pages on Misplaced Pages related to the Zeitgeist movement to include articles, article talk pages, user and user talk pages, Misplaced Pages space, and all other namespaces. You may not engage other editors on this topic. This topic ban is broad in scope which means that it also includes related 'movements' and biographies of proponents and opponents. The scope of the ban should not be misunderstood to be limited to what I have outlined. You are to avoid any appearance at all of violating this topic ban. If you have questions about the topic ban or wish to appeal, you may contact me on my talk page, as I am an uninvolved admin. I will forward any reasonable questions to the community for consideration. You are strongly advised to reconsider your approach to interaction with the community including taking more care to understand the arguments of those opposed to your opinion.
To quote AndyTheGrump:
it includes everything he does on Misplaced Pages, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in. And that it specifically includes trying to Wikilawyer around the ban. He has to accept that anything which looks like a ban violation in our opinion, not his will result in an indefinite block. Clearly he will need to have a specific exception for somewhere to ask specific questions relating to the scope of the ban, and should he want to do so, to eventually ask for the ban to be lifted (a sub-page in his user space maybe - or one in the user space of a volunteer admin?), but otherwise, a ban is exactly what it says, and no arguing. And he needs to be aware that regardless of issues relating to TZM advocacy, his behaviour on talk pages has been unacceptable, and that any further verbose screeds of original research and the like, of endless failures to accept clear consensus, and all the rest are likely to also have serious repercussions, regardless of the topic.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)