Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:34, 15 October 2006

Welcome!

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

• 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Esprit15d 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Pls refrain form calling Ian a bigot. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Some kind of mod or something? He is a bigot, im afraid, as nothing else explains his hypocritical/lieing actions, behavior I just proved.

I am an administrator. And stop claiming bogus vandalism on the part of Bretonbanquet.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have my terminology wrong, I guess. Upon reading the interpretation used here, indeed I do. I'm not sure how to describe such behavior than, perhaps annoying or illogical. So, mister moderator, has there been any rulings made on the usage of words such as "best" and "greatest" on things such as sports stars, as it seems to be the crux of the recent issue involving some F-1 racing legends.Ernham 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I try and be as dry as possible. If you go to my userpage you can see I have written a lot of sport bios and they are all very dry. Mainly just a chronological account and some explanation of some statistics. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When I came across the section on schumacher, I actually thought it was fairly well done. But then I looked at some of the other legends of F-1 racing, and all of them had opening paragraphs that included a line similar to "considered by many the greatest driver blah, blah". So I added essentially that exact line to schumacher's first paragraph and was then attacked for it supposedly being "POV", yet these same people claim that the other legendary drivers, all of which are inferior to schumacher statistically, claims of "greatness" are NPOV! It's infuriating. Ernham 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no problem with removing similar meaningless claims from other articles. -- Ian Dalziel 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why the hell did you rever my changes to 2-3 of the people where I merely clipped out the sentence that made those claims. Then even on your reversion you claim that the claim made in the article was actually NPOV! How quickly you change your tune after I busted you for being so "editorially dishonest".Ernham 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made NO changes to your edits in those other articles. -- Ian Dalziel 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not the point, Ian. The point was you were reverting me for trying to remove the exact same claims on other F-1 drivers websites while you were doing the exact opposite on the Schumacher page.Ernham 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

I'd just happened to see POV and so removed it and removed no content, but now you've reverted. "greatness" when applied to define a competitor of any sport tends to be subjective and debatable. On top of that, using superlative means the phrasing should bring it close to fact and backed by acceptance and evidence. Otherwise one is not doing justice to the article. From the discussion above, i gather that you're already in an edit war on this. Not planning to join in myself :-)

On this, yeah if you've seen POV in past drivers pages, the right thing to do is to remove it and not balance the situation by matching it for this is an encyclopedia rather than a set of tribute pages for f1 drivers :) In this regard i suppose replacing the sentence

By the numbers, he is the greatest, most successful Formula One driver ever

with

He is arguably the most successful Formula One driver ever.

would be more apt, as it'd be able to support the claim factually as well as highlight the magnitude of achievement.

You might not be entirely wrong when you argue

If you have the greatest record for just about everything, it makes you the greatest.

The problem however is the phrase greatest record. A more correct yet undiluted sentence would be

If you hold the record for just about everything, it makes you the most successful.

--Su30 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of nonsense. "successful" is just as subjective, with need to be qualified, as "great". Stefi Graf made only like 20 million dollars for her whole tennis carrer. Now modern tennis players make 20 million by the time they have only 5-6 grandslams under their belt. Now when you say successful tennis player, should the answer be the modern player that won far fewer games/granslams but actual won more money? Total circular logic with this since everything would need to be narrowly defined that articls would be nothing but minutia. Sorry. The British and South Americans will just ahve to sulk about the fact the greatest F-1 driver to date was German. That's the real issue here. Nothing but a bunch of jingoist nonsense.

You are mixing two different English words, with very different meanings: successful and great. Schumacher is the most successfull (verifiable fact), but that alone doesn't make him the greatest (unverifiable). What is verifiable is the perception of people about a person, that's why in Juan Manuel Fangio it reads considered by many to be the greatest racing driver in Formula One history; that is also a verifiable fact. Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

\

I've destroyed the argument with logic. You've whined at me with non-sequiturs. Come back with logic or go away. Successful and great are equally subjective and ambiguous.Ernham 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I trully don't follow you. You are the one saying that Schumacher is the best because he won the most championships and so on. This is not subjective, he won 7, the others less, he won more, he is more successful in winning F1 championships than any other driver. I really don't understand your logic nor what do you mean with "I've destroyed the argument with logic". Greatt, in the sence of being the best driver is subjective; you could ask yoursefl how yould Schumacher do with another car, how would have Fangio done in F1 had he born 40 years later, thus it is subjective. On the other hand people's perception can be sourced. Mariano(t/c) 10:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not explaining it again. It's very, very simple logic. You yourself just qualified successful in order to use it, you said "he is more successful***in winning***...." You understand now? We could go through and say he had the greatest amount of X, the greatest amount of Y, the greatest time in this, that, these and those. But that is the ridiculous minutia I was talking about. The reality is, he is in the #1 spot on almost every measurement that is used to judge performance in his sport. That is near universal greatnes, period. No one else has achieved such even in their own era. Schumacher has simply dominated the sport like no one ever has and probably never will. That's reality. I'm not dancing around the truth just to save the egos of some jingoist bigots, sorry.

Ernham, I dont want to delve into the pointless question of somebody being german/british. With the word meaning you've to see the context too.. atleast most people do. "successful" applied to a sportsperson is rather concrete. Your argument is based on your own (rather wrong) assumption of success being related with prize money.. Sporting success is measured in titles/wins. Fangio was the most successful until Schumacher passed him.. One say that there is no POV there, and mind you he might say that knowing the championships in 02, 04 can hardly count on merit even given the kind of peculiar sport f1 is.. But still he say that attribute to his sporting success.. If you dont take it, try saying michael was the most successful f1 driver and provide sufficient references.. You wont find ppl removing off those.. nyway without reason there is no collaboration.. and with the flaming i guess, an IP editor will be able to solve this better.. --Su30 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, The following comments from Marianocecowski explains better

You are mixing two different English words, with very different meanings: successful and great. Schumacher is the most successfull (verifiable fact), but that alone doesn't make him the greatest (unverifiable). What is verifiable is the perception of people about a person, that's why in Juan Manuel Fangio it reads considered by many to be the greatest racing driver in Formula One history; that is also a verifiable fact. Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

--Su30 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice

There are rules against reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hours (see:WP:3RR). Violating such rules might lead to blocking. Also, please be civil in your edits and avoid personal attacks. Mariano(t/c) 10:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we need an admin/moderator to deal with this then. Limiting reversion just lets someone use multiple ISPs to revert all day long. A very poor choice of rules IMO.

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Ian Dalziel 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I plan to. I don't have a lot of patience when it comes to dealing with people that will not debate/discuss rationally and logically. It is unlike me to resolve to ad hominem, but that s the ony place i could go for a reason that some people would be so dishonest and hypocritical in their attempts to defame and/or diminish someone else only to build up their own ego in some way, by proxy or through a fellowcountry man or whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

Please, stop being agressive in your answers, using words such as dishonest and hypocritical can be considered a personal attack, specially when we are trying to be compehensive with you. Have you considered you might not be right if more than one user is trying to reason with you? Mariano(t/c) 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Statetments are not persons; de facto, they can never be "personally" attacked. I tire of these whiny exchanges. Good-bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

Reported on WP:AN/3RR. -- Ian Dalziel 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound like a little child. Why don't you switch back to your other IP(s) and revert my revert again? Unlike you, I'm not resolving dishonesty and foul play. You and your ilk are in the wrong, and I'm not going to put up with bigotry and intellectual dishonesty if I have any say in it.

I have never made any edits other than under my own User Id. If you are interested in intellectual honesty why won't you discuss your edits instead of resorting to personal abuse? -- Ian Dalziel 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

ahhh, yes. I'm going to believe the guy who claims that calling Fangio and several other F-1 racing legends as "the greatest" is NPOV, but doing the same for Schumacher, the only guy that has been PROVEN to be the greatest driver, is somehow POV. Get your ridiculous shenanigans out of here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

As I stated above : "I have no problem with removing similar meaningless claims from other articles". I think any statement that one driver is greater than another of a different era is pointless cruft. I do think "considered by many" is more acceptable than presenting it as a statement of fact, but I'd sooner see all the articles without any such assertion. Please quote any such "quote" from me? These accusations are not only deeply offensive, but you seem to be making them up as you go along. -- Ian Dalziel 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of the removals of 'greatest' (12:56 today) came from me (user:4u1e) not from Ian. I'm editing from someone else's terminal at present, so I can't log in (my password is stored elsewhere). My logic is the same as everyone else's - 'success' is measurable in concrete achievements (wins, points), 'greatness' includes 'influence' 'legacy', 'fame' and many other such nebulous concepts. Your observation that several other drivers' articles say that they are 'greatest' (Fangio, Senna are I guess the major candidates) rather undermines the argument that anyone can be declare unequivocally 'greatest'. Cheers. 4u1e

Can you succeed at being great at something? Indeed. Uh-oh. Major logic complication here. The problem results from the both being eaully ambiguous and dependant on being qualified to be completely understood and debated. In this case, we are looking at "the greatest driver". Using statistics and the standard measures by which greatness is gauged in F-1, it become rather elementary in mathematically proving who the greatest is. it's been done, at least twice now: BBC sports and christopher Hilton(well-known biographer of racing legends). The answer was the same for both: Schumacher. The reality is, though, you guys just don't like the answer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

Please sign your answers. You seam not to understand the difference between success and greatness; perhaps that's the root of the hole problem. Nobody denies that Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver, that is a fact. Saying that he is the greatest is subjective. Finally, saying that people consider a driver to be the best is not subjective if it can be sourced, in the best case with a general poll or equivalent. Mariano(t/c) 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What are "the standard measures by which greatness is gauged in F-1"? I don't believe there is any such thing - many consider Stirling Moss, who never won a championship, to be the greatest ever. -- Ian Dalziel 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know the standard measures by which drivers are gauged in F-1 racing, what the hell are you even doing editing F-1 related wikies?? Ridiculous. essentially no one thinks Stirling was the greatest ever, not even the biased as always English public. Even this BBC poll shows it(Schumacher first, Senna second, just like every poll I've ever seen on the matter): http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3168114.stm?display=1

Ernham 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Standard measures by which *greatness* is gauged? I don't think so. -- Ian Dalziel 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fastest laps, pole positions, passing ability, wind/rain driving ability, wins/placing, and many more. Michael Jordan is agreed by most to have been the greatest basketball player of his era, but he was not the best three point shorter, nor the best passer or shot blocker. But he was sitll the greatest. In the case of Schumacher, he dominates almost every stat there is. Period. The fans(polls) say Schumacher was/is the best and tbe statistics back them up. It doesn't get any more solid of a lock on being called the "greatest" than that. Now stop with your nonesense, all of you. Grow up. Ernham 14:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get the point. We are not trying to define who is the best pilot, that would be subjective. Yet it is undeniable that some people consider Fangio as the greatest, while others consider Senna, and some others Schumacher. Mariano(t/c) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for personal attacks and going over the 3 revert rule as well as general edit warring. When you return please discuss any proposed changes on the relevant talk pages in a calm and civil manner. Thank you. JoshuaZ 15:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no speaking in a civil manner with people that have no understanding of basic logic and proceed to repeatedly lie and be bigots. Nice to see you are so even handed, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernham (talk • contribs)

Michael Schumacher

You cannot say Michael Schumacher is solely responsible for turning Ferrari around. I've provided a reference but it shouldn't be needed. I'm happy to say that Ferrari couldn't have done it without Schumacher but any reasonable person would admit that its rediculous to say that without Brawn's tactical brain and Byrne's design Schumacher could have been so successful. Just because its a Schumacher article doesn't mean you can't mention this important fact. Mark83 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement that "schumacher is often credited with turning ferrari around" does not at all insinuate that Schumacher was the sole reason for ferrari turning into a winning team. I'm sorry you have a problem with reality and do not understand English, logic, and/or reality. Please stop your vandalization of the Schumacher wiki.

Yes it does. Your personal attacks and the other conversations on your talk page speak volumes about your credibility. Mark83 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I make no personal attacks, only logically assumptions. And I won't tolerate the vanadlism of living persons. Ernham 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To prove my grasp of English, which you argued I don't understand - The above should read "logical assumptions" and "vandalism". "Most winning" is bad grammar and I cannot revert it due to the 3RR (I believe you're familiar with it)! What exactly is your objection to saying that as well as Schumacher being an excellent driver Ferrari's success was down to his team as well, particularly Brawn's pit wall strategy and the design of the car. As impressive a man as he is I don't think he has a degree in engineering. I did exactly what is expected of a good editor, I provided a statement, with a reference and you reverted to your own version simply out of intransigence. You will not find a single other editor who would describe my edits as vandalism. Mark83 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ahd introduced your "spin" on the matter before i fixed the ridiculous skeleton of a sub-section that was there previously, then perhaps I'd be less adversarial. But your attmpt currently seems to be little more than to water down Schuamcher's accomplishments, as opposed to any attempt to make the wiki better or what have you. In reality, the wiki is about schuamcher and the statement I said is true. Your statement about the others, especially about todt is also true, but it belongs in the wikis for each of those individuals. Again, this is michael schumacher's wiki. Your addition comes ever so close to the line of superfluity in a wiki that already goes to great lengths to diminsh Schuamcher's accomplishments. and yes, *I* describe your edits as vandalism because you have a record continuing to deface the wiki of a living person, being completely ignorant of the evolution of the article and merely in an attempt to defame schumacher through various means.(stop correcting your damn spelling mistakes so i can respond, too. Yes, I know you can't spell very well.) Ernham 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't correct a spelling mistake, I added another sentence to my comment. There is nothing wrong with my spelling. There is something wrong with you losing your temper and continuing personal attacks. Mark83 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

in any event, I'm done talking with you on my talk page. This should have been brought up on the Schumacher page. Present your arguemts there formally.Ernham 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "I actually don't mind this version, but "one of" needs to go" - then why did you waste both our time by arguing? Mark83 15:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Something called compromise. Get out of my talk page alreadyErnham 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you know the meaning of the word compromise. You stubbornly reverted for over two hours and it was only when a third party agreed with me that you suddenly "compromised". You went from describing my contribution as "close to the line of superfluity" to "I actually don't mind this version". Mark83 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence Quotient

Fine, but you will see that what you count as my first revert is in fact an edit. And you have done just as many, so if I get my editing rights revoked for some time, so will you. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.--Ramdrake 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was partial reversion of material I wrote, which makes it a reversion. Ernham 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham, there are a few things you seem to have some trouble grasping:

1)An edit that removes part of your addition and rephrases another part is *NOT* a revert, unless it brings the article back verbatim to some previous version (any version). It's just an edit.

2)An edit done in good faith, even in the midst of a revert war, is *NEVER* vandalism. It can be revert warring, but cannot be called vandalism, just because the edits undo one of your edits and you think it's wrong. I would suggest you make more efforts in assuming good faith

3)In your denunciation of my actions at WP:AN/3RR, the admin *did* ask you to supply diffs, as opposed to versions. After 10 days, you failed to supply the requested diffs, so the case was closed. It was not dereliction of duty on the part of the admin, but just your failure to respond which caused the case to fail to be even considered on its merits.

4)That's just a suggestion, but I think your attitude could gain in being less bellicose than it is now, or sooner or later, you might find yourself blocked from Misplaced Pages editing for longer and longer stretches. You have already garnered 3 block in just over a month; that's a considerable amount.

That being said, that's all I had as comments. Good day!--Ramdrake 13:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than my first block, the rest have been total bull, by an admin that shouldn't even be the admin at a messageboard let alone at wikipedia, where there is much more need to be free of bias. Almost everything you said is wrong. Obviously you never bothered to read what a reversion actually is. If i write " Peanuts are good food. Everyone should have a cup of peantus day" And you remove "peanuts are good food", leaving the other. You have reverted the material partially. It's still a reversion. This is a very simple logical deduction from the rule stating that the reversion does not have to be the same material. If it were the case as you suggest, there would be no need for that stipulation. Vandalism is vandalism. I know exactly what it is. And what the hell am I supposed to make of the garbage he spat out? Not diffs? Judging from his own talk page it seems as if he expects everyone to be an admin themselves to even deal with him on any level, lingo or otherwise. He never responded to me in any capacity whatsoever.Ernham 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on Intelligence quotient

Regarding your comments made on Intelligence quotient:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Ramdrake 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR rule report

Hi. The reason your edit to the 3RR rule page didn't appear was you added it to the "Copy-paste-edit this for a new report" section at the bottom of the page. I've tidied it up for you. Please calm down, I see you've got another warning for personal attacks and you've just said "sign your name or stay out of my talk" in an edit summary. There is no justification for that. You've been known to forget to add your signature, it's a simple mistake. Mark83 23:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was quite obvious the person who wrote was trying to sound like they had some kind of authority here at wikipedia. I don't take kindly to people trying to push me around. It wasn't signed to maintain some kind of msytery to it. Thanks, btw.Ernham 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1) It was signed all of 3 minutes after leaving the message and 2) you removed the warning after it was signed. So your explanation doesn't hold, as I will refrain from qualifying it any further. And to boot, the message was a standard boilerplate warning, not intended to impress anyone. Nobody here is trying to push you around, but they may be tempted to push back when you shove them - as you've done today.--Ramdrake 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy actually thinks me calling a bunch of op-ed sounding studies "trash" is a personal attack. Maybe i could see that if you wrote them all...heh. Just keep digging yourself deeper, Ramdrake Ernham 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Actually, calling those studies "trash" is merely uncivil. Calling my neuroscience Ph.D. a degree in BS is a personal attack.--Ramdrake 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I clarified immediately what that meant. Figured you wouldn't get the sarcasm. Then you claimed calling your trash "studies" trash was a personal attack. Oh, bother. There I go again.Ernham 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reversal of personal attacks and uncivility at Intelligence quotient

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Ramdrake 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

I've blocked you for 3h for incivility William M. Connolley 07:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please state, for the record, specific instance of supposed "incivility". Further, you might want to respond to the 3RR complaint i filed against use Ramdrake, the one it seems you handled nearly as flippantly as this instance of "incivility".Ernham 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for what specific instance William M. Connolley blocked you, but below are a few instances. What aren't personal attacks are certainly uncivil.

• - "Satire" is not an acceptable excuse.
• (edit summary)
• Directed at me: "stop correcting your damn spelling mistakes so i can respond, too. Yes, I know you can't spell very well.)"
• Directed at me: "I'm sorry you have a problem with reality and do not understand English, logic, and/or reality."
• (edit summary)
• (edit summary)

Another issue; Removing other people's comments and then criticising others for removing your comments (even when they are acting according to Misplaced Pages policy. Mark83 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, I have a wiki stalker. hate schumacher and the truth that much, huh? I did not ask for your opinion. I was speaking with the adminstrator. Do not be so rude. also about your comment that I removed your comments here. That's not true. i responded to the first comment you left and then you added more to your comment while i was answering the first comment. somehow the one that got saved was my original responce to the comment before you added additional material, the little bit that no one would consider your actions vandalism or what not. And like I said, this does not belong on my talk page; it belongs on the respective page, particularly in that incident. Find a new hobby, too. Ernham 20:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Another personal attack for the list! You asked the question, I was just trying to help out. As for "hating" Schumacher, you're confusing "hate" with the aim of NPOV. As for removing my comment due to an edit conflict - You're right, I did add that after the original comment. However when such a situaton arises the sofware draws it to your attention "someone has edited this page since..." You must have chosen not to save my comment. And me refuting the allegation of vandalism very much belonged on your talk page. Stop the personal attacks and I'll pay less attention. Regards. Mark83 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tennis Masters Madrid

There is no need to place reference to where a tournament used to be held in Roger Federer's article. The Stuttgart refernce beleings in the Tennis Masters Madrid article, not in Roger Federer's!

No, it's rather important actually because of possible court differences for posterity.Ernham 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Clark

Hello. Just some friendly advice. I know that the edits by the socks are very annoying, but please don't stoop to their level by allowing them to bait you into making potentially innapropriate edit summaries. Thanks --After Midnight 03:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya, just adding a bit of humor. Nothing else works with that guy, it seems.Ernham 03:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Regarding this edit: Please do not call other editors vandals when they have not vandalized. This is considered a personal attack. If you continue to personally attack other editors, you will be blocked. Thank you.--§hanel 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He did in fact vandalize the page. He repeatedly clipped out huge sections of important information, giving no explanation for doing so Ernham 04:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

By your own edit summary you admit that the sentence suggests Schumacher is somehow responsible for the number of German drivers in F1. "It's a statement of fact that supports the position that Schumacher popularized the sport in Germany" While I agree 110% that Schumacher is responsible for the popularity of F1 in Germany, I don't agree with the suggestion that he is in some way responsible for the number of German drivers in F1. Might I draw your attention to the fact that you have removed the information three times. Also despite countless requests to stop personal attacks you have persisted and attacked me (here) and calling for another user to be banned constitutes a personal attack (). Mark83 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you again. Do you actually think that there is no correlation between the popularity of a sport in a given country and the amount of participation of that sport that country partakes in? Of course they are correlated, and no sane person would debate such. And I didn't call for him to be banned, I said --I-- think he should be banned. I'm beginning to think you should be, too. Call the thought police. btw, Removing cited info and/or cites while giving no reason is in fact vandalism, pal. Ernham 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop calling me a vandal. Each of my edits had a detailed edit summary. I did not remove cited information - Schumacher's role in the number of other German drivers is not cited at present. And I note you accused me of violating the three revert rule in one of your edit summaries. In removed it once as a normal edit. You then removed it four times, me three. Mark83 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Did three. One was repairing your overt vandalism. Try reading cites in the future, preferably before you delete them. Oh, and wiki-stalking is rather rude. Ernham 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore the last sentence. Please stop calling me a vandal. Vandalism is defined as "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." I object in the strongest possible terms to any suggestion that I have vandalised any page. Please consider withdrawing your many remarks (talk page and edit summaries) calling me a vandal. The cite was in the wrong place. It backs up the "fringe sport" sentence but does not back up the assertion that R. Schumacher and Heidfeld are in F1 because of Schumacher's success. You reverted four times and the issue has already been raised by another editor at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Mark83 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. You remove a cite and then say you thought the cite was for something else, yet you ask for the very cite for the "something else" later in the edit history. When the ruse is up, suddenly you are ignorant of everything you just did. Your edits and summaries, taken in context, clearly detail your only interest was in messing up the wikiErnham 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You have refused to withdraw the comments and continued to accuse me of vandalism and bad faith. You tell people in edit summaries to take their issues to talk pages and then abuse them. Therefore I see no reason for continuing the discussion. Mark83 12:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the talk page, as we had a little discussion on the whole popularity thing. For some odd reason you felt adamant enough to vandalize that portion of the wiki, yet not defend your position in the talk forum? Assuming your bumbling edits were indeed in "good faith", it doesn't quite square, does it? Your actions, and lack thereof, clearly demonstrate you have little desire to make that wiki any better, quite the contrary, it seems. Ernham 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Associated Press

My apologies - you are correct, although I'm not sure AP is really the most authoritative source regarding the FIA's intentions. Please try and be polite when editing Misplaced Pages though - we're all (well, mostly all!) trying to improve the articles. Cheers. 4u1e.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Well, that's twice now that you have grossly abused your powers, and, at the very same time, been derelict in your duties as an admin.Ernham 02:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies for having to put this bit of a screed here, but unfortunately it seems my only resolve, sans posting this on the admin notice board, which I'm not even sure is the proper route -- or if there even is a proper route for that matter(I will post it there as well). According to what I've read, only other administrators keep a proverbial "eye on each other", so to speak. As it is, William M. Connolley has repeatedly abused his powers as an admin, as well as being completely derelict in his duty of using those very same powers. The first incident I had with William M. Connolley involved a 3RRV report I had filed on Ramdrake, who had broken the 3RR. In fact, he had broken it twice in as many hours. The reverts were rather obvious and there was no confusion over whether or not he made the reverts, yet William M. Connolley chose not to enforce the wikipedia rules for either infraction. Further, he actually blocks me for several hours on the grounds of "incivility". He explains nothing, discusses nothing. His comments were incredibly terse, his actions equally arbitrary. The supposed "incivility" I can only guess was related to a comment where I had sarcastically inferred that it was very odd that someone with a PhD in biological science would repeatedly cite anthropologists and other "social scientists" on matters that were completely in the domain of biological science itself! Very, very odd indeed, almost comically so. I immediately clarified the statement in case it was taken wrongly, and Ramdrake himself said he had not taken offense to that comment; instead, he had taken offense to the fact that I called several of his cites "garbage studies that were written like op-ed pieces"(some of them weren't even studies, but were in fact opinion pieces). Ramdrake later changes his mind, however, and cares more about the sarcastic commnet I made about his selection of studies. In any event, Ramdrake violates the 3RR --twice-- but is not punished, and I get my editing priviliges suspended for calling op-ed pieces "trash/garbage". In a more recent encounter with William M. Connolley, we had a user vandalize, whether intentionally or not(you must forgive me: I am not a mind reader), the Michael Schumacher wiki. I reverted three times, and repaired the overt vandalism once. Another admin trying to stem the resultant edit war created a talk page section regarding the situation, but, curiously, Mark83 refused to take part, despite the fact he was so adamant about the issue to begin with that it had driven him to vanadlize the page, later claiming his vandalism was the result of ignorance, not maliciousness. Mark83 has a history of vandalizing that schumacher wiki, however, so it was hardly a shock to me he would be back at his old tricks. Apparently, he had not bothered to read the cites he was busy deleting -- go figure. Then he demands to see the cites when he had just got done deleting the very cite he was clamoring for! Then I get a message on my talk page from Mark83, a "neener-neener"-like message detailing that I had been reported on the 3RR board. Interestingly, the person reporting me was not Mark83, but was instead Muchness, someone with absolutely no connection to the Michael Schumacher wiki. He has never contributed to the wiki as far as I can see. The net result of this indcident? --I-- got suspended, for an entire 24 hours, too. On top of that, Mark83, the only one that actually violated the 3RR, received no punishment. Apparently, William M. Connolley isn't quite sure if reverting four times vioated the 3RR. He is sure, however, that reverting 3 times is. Ridiculous. This is twice in a row William M. Connolley has been derelict in his duties as an admin and twice he has abused his powers. I'm at a loss in rationalizing the behavior of William M. Connolley, but it makes me very curious if he has had such a history with other persons. I have datailed these events purely for posteriy, and I surely hope this gross negligence and misuse of power is not at all representative of his normal admin functions, as I'd hope wikipedia would have no room for such persons as administrators.Ernham 05:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 13 2006 to Michael_Schumacher

Ernham (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

regarding the edits in question, I did not make 4 reverts. I fixed a vandlization attempt and reverted 3 times, not 4. Was it vanadlism? The user deleted a vital cite for a paragraph, giving no reason for the deletion of the cite. Immediately after, he then asks for the very cite he himself deleted and then tried to pretend like it didn't exist. he has a history of similar vandal-like shenanigans

Decline reason:

Block has already expired. -- Rich Farmbrough, 20:32 14 October 2006 (GMT). 20:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request for comment

I've asked the Misplaced Pages community to comment on your edits, in particular what have been judged by several users to be personal attacks. You may want to respond to this RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ernham. Mark83 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I'm not the most friendly editor

You get what you give. After being repeatedly abused by biased adminstrators, I have little compunction to act any other way. Just to give an example of the wanton abuse, I will step by step demonstrate a recent event regarding Mark83. Sadly for wikipedia, this has been more the rule than the exception.

I had originally added new material to the wiki:

"Schumacher is credited with popularising Formula One in Germany, where it had little following and was generally considered a fringe sport. Today, not only is the sport itself much more popular in Germany, but three of the current top ten drivers in the drivers' championship are German: more than any other nationality."

a cite was included to an article that completely substantiated the the increase in general popularity in Germany. Then Mark83 changed it to this:

"Schumacher is credited with popularizing Formula One in Germany, where it had little following and was generally considered a fringe sport."

So he reverts most of what I wrote, which is one thing, but the main problem I had was that he didn't bother to read the cite he removed. The cite he removed substantiated at least partially the paragraph; the other part of the paragraph did not really require a cite as it's so easily verifiable. In short, he vandalized the wiki. As per the definition of wiki-vandalism:

. . .defined as changing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information . . .

It then becomes a bit of a revert war. I stopped at three, knowing at least one of my edits was a legitmate rectification of what was clearly vandalous behavior. Mark83, however, goes over the limit. Reverting a total of four times.

The admin dealing with the situation says this in the admin board dealing with the supposed 3RRV: "Definitely 3RR from E; I don't see any vandalism. M has 4 identical edits but its not clear the first is a rv. 24h for E."

Note that I "definitely" violated the 3RR. Fixing 1-2 overt vanadlism attempts and reverting 2-3 times somehow constituted 4 reverts -- definitely. Uh, huh. He doesn't see any vandalism? Hmmm? Has he ever bothered to read the edit exchange, the wiki definition of vanadlism, or both? He sees "4 identical edits" which is another way of saying Mark83 violated 3RR, but he takes no action. Apparently he has never read the rules on what a reversion actually is. As I've stated before, it's a simple logical deduction that if the rule stipulates "the reversions in a 3RRV do not have to be of the same material" that a partial reversion is still a reversion nonetheless. I dare say there is a tremendous bias in dealing with me or there is an equally tremendous vacuum of knowledge of the rules that this admin has exhibited. And this is not the first time. Such scenarios have become the rule here for me, as opposed to the exception. Now you now why mytact is often in abbeyance. It simply doesn't matter what I do here. It's a kangaroo court through and through, on almost every level I've seenErnham 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part two

Not more than a few weeks ago, I had an incident with Ramdrake. I made a caveat-like paragraph regarding the arguments raised by Stephen J. Gould in Mismeasure of Man. Basically, modern science, by useage of the MRI, has completely debunked all of the arguments Gould had proposed in relation to the correlations between brain size and race, IQ and brain size, and thus IQ and race, along with citing several studies that throughly demonstrated it. Ramdrake deleted most of it, and rewrote a section of it. An edit war ensued. Ramdrake violates the 3RR. Then he has the temerity to revert my comments in the discussion section! FIVE times no less! Twice he clearly broke the 3RR (as a side note there should be some rules against editing other users' comments in the talk pages). The talk page was basically angry screeds written by Ramdrake, who seemed to have no interest in debating the contentious material actually involved in the edit war. No. Instead, he wanted to totally debate about all the various aspects in general regarding IQ-- race--brain size. He wanted to argue, basically, just argue. At one point he brags that he has PhD in a biological science(in neuroscience no less), right after saying that filling lead shot in a cranium will give you nearly as accurate a measurement of brain size as an MRI! A biologist with a PhD in Neuroscience claims this, despite the fact that the amount of cerebral-spinal fluid varies to a much greater degree than brain size does! A Neuroscientist would know that;in fact, he would die laughing to death after reading that comment. After that ridiculous comment, Ramdrake proceeds to provide a dozen or so cites. The cites are all related to those aforementioned general issues, but they are not at all related to the contentious matters in the edit war. Let me charcterize the actual studies: 100% were irrelevant, 50%-75% of them were actually op-ed pieces of zero worth even if they weren't already irrelevant. I stated that the cites were garbage and were written like op-ed pieces. I then sarcastically inferred how odd it was that someone with a degree in biological science would resolve to posting a bunch of op-ed pieces from social scientists when the matters being debated in the edit war were entirely in the domain of biological science. Again, he claims he has a PhD in Neuroscience. The comment I made was something like "yeah, right. You have a degree in BS and you continue to cite garbage op-ed pieces by social scientists? Uh huh." He claims it was a personal attack, and upon reading the first part, I thought it was related to my the phrase "degree in BS" comment, so I immediately corrected any possible misinterpretation and clearly stated what I meant in my sarcastic remark. He says that wasn't what he took offense to. No. He took offense to the fact that I called his irrelevant, op-ed, social scientist cites as "garbage". I report him for violating the 3RR, which he did twice. The result? I'm the one that gets my editing privileges suspended, on the grounds of supposed "incivility". The double violator of the 3RR goes scot free. This is the exact same admin that dealt with the above case in "Why I'm not the most friendly editor(part one above)".Ernham 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

I read your spiel at WP:AN and was wondering if you could provide diffs of said disputes. If you can, and if what you say is true, you could open an RFC against those who broke the 3RR rule and then blocked you. --172.198.40.82 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)