Misplaced Pages

User talk:Likebox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:52, 30 September 2009 editClosedmouth (talk | contribs)148,166 edits →WP:AN3: decline← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:12, 21 May 2024 edit undoMaestrofin (talk | contribs)146 edits →Indefinitely blocked: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
(306 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box|search=yes|auto=yes}}
==The trials of Everett==
Don't bother, I'm gone.
This might bring you some relief from some of the more sterile and unrewarding work here:


==Dude==
* Stefano Osnaghi, Fabio Freitas, Olival Freire Jr, , ''Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics'' 40(2009)97–123. A study of the painful three-way relationship between ], ] and ] and how this affected the early development of the many-worlds theory.
Dude...i came late.
Much love. You are awesome.
-De Ferns Hans, Martha's Vineyard <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


--] <sup>]</sup> 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
:I must admit that the MWI has become a lot more mainstream that I ever thought possible. Perhaps the internet has made us all smarter, although I'll really believe the world's getting smarter when we develop AI. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)--] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
--] <sup>]</sup> 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


In response to , I've removed the vote for two reasons. One, Brews ohare is specifically banned from posting in Misplaced Pages space. That is a decision of ArbCom. Regardless of our feelings about the decision, nobody has the authority to override that decision. Two, Brews Ohare's comments already exist, in struck form, between support votes 148 and 149. Your posting replicated his posting. Thank you, --] (]) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
==Edit Warring==


== Brews ==
You have violated ]. I will be reporting this to where ever this gets reported; I'll leave a link once I figure that out. My requests are common and reasonable please just cite and attribute what currently appears to be OR and SYNTH.--] (]) 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:Furthermore any administrator can see that you have been making some questionable personal comments. I'm well qualified to review quantum mechanic, anything I don't know I can learn quickly. I will admit I know very little about quantum mysticism but I don't find that a problem when trying to distinguish mysticism form mechanics. I won't be going away and you will have to do better than citing a whole book to indicate your hypothetical question isn't OR.--] (]) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::I've reported both of us for edit warring ]. Maybe this will result in some outside opinions.--] (]) 03:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Guy's suggestion that you be banned from commenting on Brews is phrased tactlessly and disrespectfully. I understand your frustrations in this unfortunate situation, but as an outsider I was myself very nearly put off from trying to disentangle the threads and making my hopefully constructive suggestion regarding Brews. This was due to your (and a few others') frustrated but unhelpful contributions to the discussion. Unfortunately, I believe that the atmosphere you are contributing to encourages facile "solutions" like Ryan's, which are not fair but just strive to limit disruption any way possible. With that in mind, regardless of your frustration, would you consider voluntarily disengaging from the discussion for a few weeks? I don't think my own suggestion is brilliant in any way (nor as a non-admin could I in any way enforce it), but unless you disengage I don't see anything happening other than most noninvolved observers scrolling through to the next thread, leaving it to one of the hardline enforcers to just "clean up the mess" and eventually archive it. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Wikiquette alerts==
Hello, Likebox. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you have been involved. The discussion is about your activities at ] further information can be found at ]. Thank you.--] (]) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


== Motion ==
: In a similar vein, an edit summary like is really beyond the pale. The Misplaced Pages policy forbidding ] applies everywhere, even edit summaries. Please try to remain civil while ] grinds its course. - ] <small>(])</small> 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Likebox, this is to let you know that I have proposed a restriction on you commenting or advocating for Brews ohare, amongst other things. You may find the motion at ]. ] (]) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:: Fair enough - thanks for the reply. I basically stopped editing that article when I remembered that those sorts of discussions frustrate me outside of the occasional historical aside. The article is without a doubt in better shape now than it was two or three years ago. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:And I have moved your comments to a new discussion section. ''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,'' ] (]) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


== Arbitration motion regarding ] ==
== You're invited... ==
{| class="infobox" style="width:250px"
|-
| ]
|''']'''
<br/>Next: ''']'''
<br/>Last: ]
<br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;</span>
|}
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to ] activities, review the recent ''''']''''', plan for the next stages of projects like ''''']''''' and ''''']''''', and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the ]).


Per a <span class="plainlinks"></span> at ]:
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
<blockquote>


#] is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of ] (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Misplaced Pages/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. ] is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at ].
#], ], ], and ] are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on ], broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.
</blockquote>


''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,'' ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our ].<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</small>


:''']'''
== Re: Quantum mysticism ==


== Blocked ==
I'll take a look and give my opinion later today. ] (]) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


was most probably trolling, but the restriction was quite clear - don't discuss Brews ohare. Your post to my talk page was merely an attempt to antagonise the situation and test administrators willingness to act on the motion, so have 24 hours off. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 22:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Urgh. I tried reading the talk page back-and-forth but got lost. If you could provide diffs of the disputed article content I would be happy to weigh in.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


:: No--- you see, I am just an ''opposite'' sort of person, which means that I always do the opposite of what people tell me to do! So the ''only'' thing I will ever talk about is Brews ohare from this point on. That and, also, I don't like you very much, and ArbCom members have a low intelligence.] (]) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
== waiting ==


== Howdy fuckers ==
While you are waiting for a response, would you care to collaborate on ]? <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey, guys, Brews OHARE! I won't stop talking about BREWS OHARE! It's like TOURETTE's SYNDROME! Wow, you're going to have to block me forever and ever and ever. Gosh, folks, BREWS OHARE. I LOVE THAT GUY.] (]) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
== Quantum mysticism ==


:: You know what I was thinking about this? I was thinking BREWS OHARE! Wouldn't it be great if he could chip in!] (]) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Your recent reversion to the ] article with accusations of vandalism is not acceptable. You have been edit warring to maintain your version of the article for too long. I have undone your recent reversions and any further edit-warring of that nature will result in a block. Now work with the other editors, assume good faith and discuss your concerns. ] (]) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


:::: Wow, you need to block me here too, to stop me from TALKING ABOUT BREWS OHARE (which I ''most assuredly'' promise you will be the ''only'' thing I will ever talk about here from here til eternity).] (]) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
== Wikiquette ==


You're giving them what they want. prove to them they are worng. It's the only way anyone can win right now. ] (]) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments like "because your prose sounds illiterate to my ears" and "since you guys don't like what I write" are completely uncalled for. They do nothing to advance the article or your point. Please read ever edit thoroughly before blasting another editor with personal comments. As I'm sure you know its best not to take the work of other editors personally.--] (]) 02:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:"Your prose sounds illiterate to my ears" is a statement of opinion about the prose in the article, not about the person. Similarly, "you guys don't like what I write" is also a statement about likelihood of reversion/deletion, not so much about the people. Neither should be construed as a personal comment: e.g. "You are an illiterate!", or "You hate me!", they are only blunt assessments of the situation.


:: I don't give a shit what "they" want--- I don't want "them" to have the benefit of my participation on Misplaced Pages, and I want it to be on the record that they banned me for talking about Brews ohare, which I will continue to do until they ban me.] (]) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
:I did read the new text, and it's full of philosophy jargon, which I find imprecise, illiterate, and obscure. Philosophy jargon certainly wasn't how Wigner, Everett, or even Dennett phrased it, and I don't know how it helps. On the other hand, this material seems to be leeching into the philosophy department, whether I like it or not, and that may mean that I will have to get used to their infernal language! Well, what can you do. Thanks for the warning.Likebox (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
::"Your prose sounds illiterate to my ears" is counter productive opinion to state and is easily misconstrued as a personal comment. I'm amazed that you would object to some common pedestrian philosophical terminology. In contrast the way you use the term "wavefunction" in a nonstandard and loosely defined in the ] section. While the use of might be the correct according to some QM interpretation it does do not reflect the most common usage of the term "wavefunction". Wavefunction are generally not actively applied to everything instead the description is reserved for "particles" that have measurable "]" through experiments like a ]. Without a doubt you can prove this wrong but I'm only pointing out the most common use in many fields and popular literature.--] (]) 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


== More Brews!! ==
::MY 2 cents: Likebox, your writing is difficult to read - it is too technical, assumes too much knowledge - I think this is why the latest edit to the introduction is generally considered an impovement. ] (]) 12:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Ohare, ohare! Oh where the Brews ohare is the Brews ohare?!! Why Brews.] (]) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
== Dennett ==


== March 2010 ==
It appears that Stanford's page on indicate that Dennett is among the vocal opposition to thought experiments. As he mentions in his reflection on "where am I?" the entire story can be considered an incoherent ramble with no philosophical value. This conclusion is consistent with the rest of Dennett's work.--] (]) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
<div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a , the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
:Considering you've expressed a desire to continue trolling over this, it likely won't be too hard to get this bumped up to indef. ] 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


:: I appreciate it.] (]) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
== Warnings regarding the Quantum Mysticism Page ==

:: Please try to do it before expiry--- because it is annoying to have to troll every 24 hours.] (]) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

== Indefinitely blocked ==

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked you as you've stated your intention clearly that you're going to carry on breaking the arbitration sanction against you. Should you decide that you're willing to work within the sanction, then put up an unblock request. Should you decide on doing that however and subsequently go on to break it further, you'll be reblocked for an indefinite period again. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Don't worry--- I will never ask to be unblocked. I think ArbCom members have a low intelligence, and I do not like you very much.] (]) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, in case I didn't make it clear above, when you've had chance to calm down and think about things, create and unblock request or send me an email and I'll unblock you if you decide you're going to work within the restriction. Indefinite does not have to equal infinite in this situation. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 09:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: I don't think you really get the concept of "never".

:::: This isn't about emotions, it's about something else, something called ''ethics''. I calmly and rationally believe that ArbCom are ''bad people'', and I calmly believe that one must not cooperate with their likes, even when cooperation simply means doing nothing. Like all agents of Satan, they are ignorant dupes with worn out souls, who refuse to distinguish right from wrong, and act as a collective to immunize themselves from individual responsibility. Like the nail which pierces your foot, or the rain which annoys you by falling on your head--- it's pointless to get angry--- a creature without a soul is just an inanimate object.] (]) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Are you serious about thinking thatArbCom members are agents of Satan? ] (]) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::: It's a metaphor. You don't need to act with self-aware evil to be an "agent of Satan", just an administratively minded person with no feeling for the bigger picture, you know, the banality of evil and all that.] (]) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ryan, the arbcom ruling said a maximum block of one week, yet you have blocked Likebox indefinitely. Why is that? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:: It's so that I don't have to go around violating my sanctions every week to have the block extended. I have no intention of complying, not now, not ever.] (]) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Your probably not around anymore but im just checking in just Incase you’re around ] (]) 08:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::Likebox made his intention very much clear that he was going to disrupt the project and disregard the sanction. There has been a commitment to carry on violating the rules, which just about always results in an indefinite block. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Yet banning someone from even debating an Arbcom matter could hardly be caiculated to enrage someone more, could it? Just because the result was inevitable does not make it just. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages is concerned with building an encyclopedia. Likebox has stated clearly that he's not here to build one, he's here to disrupt. Let's not shed tears for losing trolls. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

==A question==
I wonder if you good look at and comment? Seems to imply that photons can pass through a blocking filter. (I'll copy your comments into my talk page if that helps.)--] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I like you Michael, but I cannot contribute to this project in good conscience. I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror.] (]) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:I kinda thought you might say that, and I'm very sorry to hear it. Your input will be sorely missed.--] <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

== NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Saturday, May 22 ==
{| class="infobox" style="width:250px"
|-
| ]
|''']'''
<br/>Next: ''']'''
<br/>Last: ]
<br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:80%;">•</span>&nbsp;</span>
|}
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to ] activities, review the recent ''''']''''', plan for the next stages of projects like ''''']''''' and ''''']''''', and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the ]).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at ].


To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our ].<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)</small>
Stop injecting debate on quantum mechanics into an article about mysticism. Do not inject weasel words and do not revert good faith edits to remove them and have a clear point of view. This is borderline vandalism. You have been warned by another editor regarding your actions on the article. I have written walls of text explaining the rationales behind the changes. Doing ] is violating wikipedia policy and would not look well for you. You have dominated the editing of that page and refused much of the work of other editors and/or provided massive resistance and you are defending the subject matter in an unnatural perspective and worse, you are off-topic. Your debate and edits belong elsewhere, not in an article about quantum mysticism. Please do not make this turn into something more than it has to be. Accept that the page is about quantum mysticism and not a debate on the interpretations of quantum mechanics. You also personally attacked me on the talk page and I am citing that warning as well. --] ] 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


== September 2009 == == Hey ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:Quantum mysticism|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


I am appealing the sanctions on our gagg order. I haven't included you at this point since you have appeares to have walked away from the madness. If you would like to be included though please email me and I'll add you to the case and see about unblocking as it wouldn't be nec anyways. ] (]) 04:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
== Do not edit my user page!!! ==


==] (2nd annual)==
You edited my user page! I think you know that is unacceptable! You are supposed to respond to me on my talk page or yours. I have half a mind to report that! --] ] 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Our 2nd annual ''']''' has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at ].
: I have rolled it back. I do not appreciate you editing my user page, at all! --] ] 02:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. '''''' here. And sign up ]. All are invited!<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)</small>
== ] ==


== Notification of Arbitration Ammendment request to re-advocacy-ban you ==
In case you weren't notified, see . ] (]) 17:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


I have filed a request to ammend the Speed of light arbitration case to reimpose the advocacy ban on you and other users. See: ]
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ]{{#if:|&#32;at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|] (]) 01:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)}}</div>{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> 72 hours - 4th block ] (]) 01:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1= 3RR?? What is this insanity? There wasn't even 1 R! All the edits were original modifications, with new text, to completely new versions. The other editor wasn't even unhappy about most of the edits. Some third party reported it for no reason. Did you look at the edit history? The "warning" cited on the 3rr page was written a month ago. This is the most absurd block I have ever seen, and it is just harassment pure and simple. I ask you to fuck off.|decline=Your language didn't instill much confidence in me about unblocking you, but your last sentence was the deal breaker. Please review ] and let us know when you're ready to calmly appeal your block. ] (]) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)}}


== ] ==
{{unblock reviewed|1= Sorry, it occurs to me that you might have no idea what was going on. This was the strangest event I have ever been a part of. I was editing ] with mild, non-confrontational disputes with OMCV and another user, involving many complex edits, and good work by all, and suddenly out of the blue, without notification, nothing, I'm blocked! The person reporting me for violating 3RR is a person I have never heard of and had no dispute with, and the edits in question were not reverts, and were not thought of as reverts by any party involved in discussion. This is absurd, and I am freaked out. What is this nonsense? I looked at the 3RR report page: the edits cited there are normal pedestrian edits. The "warning" cited there is an old message related to something completely different ( I was reverting some stuff on the same page with OMCV, but we mostly worked out our differences without any problems). The talk page was full of useful discussion, and I have no idea who reported me with such a ridiculous report and why. ] (]) 03:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)|decline=I'm sorry if you're confused. The report clearly illustrates four occurrences of reversions on your part. Two of them explicitly say "undid" in the summary, one says "restore", and one clearly removes a tag placed a few edits before by another editor. The requirement for warnings is usually to assist those who are not familiar with our edit warring policies. As these seem to have been brought to your attention many times before, including three previous blocks related to the topic, I'm not sure it's necessary to read it out to you again. Your civility in the previous requests is deplorable, and I can't reasonably question this block if I feel you're simply going to return to the activity that lead to it. ] ] 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)}}


Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
{{unblock reviewed|1= The reason I did several actions which removed material separately was for clarity of discussion. Both me and the other person made about 15 edits in a row each, and some were good, and others not so good. So I went through them one by one, rolling back the ones that were not so great, with a short comment, as did lightbound. If any of these reverts became a war, rather than the usual bold-revert then we talked about them on the talk page. It's just that both of us made so many edits quickly that there were a lot of completely separate issues going on at the same time. It is important to understand that the "undid" and "roll-back" were for tag insertion and moving sentences, they were not deleting content or introducing content. This was pedestrian editing of the most mundane sort. This wasn't an edit war, there was no incivility, and there was no serious content dispute. Neither were there any three reverts or bolds which were about the same issue. Most of these things were tag additions that the other editor didn't understand, some were moving sentences, and each was bringing up a point which had never been brought up before. We were talking about some mostly trivial stuff--- a tag or the location of some text, which have little bearing on content, and did not in any way constitute an "edit war" (believe me, I know what that is). I don't know who brought this up, but it was not an involved party. The review process has been superficial at best: look at the edit history for goodness sakes. Also, just to add, the article has been improving, and all editors agree that the contributions on all sides have been in good faith, and constructive. If I have had a faulty interpretation of 3RR, it would be nice to know, so I don't run afoul of this policy. I thought it applied to edit wars, not to phases of heavy editing.|decline=You're not blocked. ] (]) 04:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_2&oldid=812113507 -->

Latest revision as of 08:12, 21 May 2024


Archives

1


Don't bother, I'm gone.

Dude

Dude...i came late. Much love. You are awesome. -De Ferns Hans, Martha's Vineyard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.56.31 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/RfC

In response to this edit of yours, I've removed the vote for two reasons. One, Brews ohare is specifically banned from posting in Misplaced Pages space. That is a decision of ArbCom. Regardless of our feelings about the decision, nobody has the authority to override that decision. Two, Brews Ohare's comments already exist, in struck form, between support votes 148 and 149. Your posting replicated his posting. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews

Guy's suggestion that you be banned from commenting on Brews is phrased tactlessly and disrespectfully. I understand your frustrations in this unfortunate situation, but as an outsider I was myself very nearly put off from trying to disentangle the threads and making my hopefully constructive suggestion regarding Brews. This was due to your (and a few others') frustrated but unhelpful contributions to the discussion. Unfortunately, I believe that the atmosphere you are contributing to encourages facile "solutions" like Ryan's, which are not fair but just strive to limit disruption any way possible. With that in mind, regardless of your frustration, would you consider voluntarily disengaging from the discussion for a few weeks? I don't think my own suggestion is brilliant in any way (nor as a non-admin could I in any way enforce it), but unless you disengage I don't see anything happening other than most noninvolved observers scrolling through to the next thread, leaving it to one of the hardline enforcers to just "clean up the mess" and eventually archive it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Hi Likebox, this is to let you know that I have proposed a restriction on you commenting or advocating for Brews ohare, amongst other things. You may find the motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have moved your comments to a new discussion section. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

  1. Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Misplaced Pages/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
  2. Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Blocked

This was most probably trolling, but the restriction was quite clear - don't discuss Brews ohare. Your post to my talk page was merely an attempt to antagonise the situation and test administrators willingness to act on the motion, so have 24 hours off. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No--- you see, I am just an opposite sort of person, which means that I always do the opposite of what people tell me to do! So the only thing I will ever talk about is Brews ohare from this point on. That and, also, I don't like you very much, and ArbCom members have a low intelligence.Likebox (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy fuckers

Hey, guys, Brews OHARE! I won't stop talking about BREWS OHARE! It's like TOURETTE's SYNDROME! Wow, you're going to have to block me forever and ever and ever. Gosh, folks, BREWS OHARE. I LOVE THAT GUY.Likebox (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what I was thinking about this? I was thinking BREWS OHARE! Wouldn't it be great if he could chip in!Likebox (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you need to block me here too, to stop me from TALKING ABOUT BREWS OHARE (which I most assuredly promise you will be the only thing I will ever talk about here from here til eternity).Likebox (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're giving them what they want. prove to them they are worng. It's the only way anyone can win right now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a shit what "they" want--- I don't want "them" to have the benefit of my participation on Misplaced Pages, and I want it to be on the record that they banned me for talking about Brews ohare, which I will continue to do until they ban me.Likebox (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More Brews!!

Ohare, ohare! Oh where the Brews ohare is the Brews ohare?!! Why Brews.Likebox (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. AniMate 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Considering you've expressed a desire to continue trolling over this, it likely won't be too hard to get this bumped up to indef. AniMate 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate it.Likebox (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Please try to do it before expiry--- because it is annoying to have to troll every 24 hours.Likebox (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked you as you've stated your intention clearly that you're going to carry on breaking the arbitration sanction against you. Should you decide that you're willing to work within the sanction, then put up an unblock request. Should you decide on doing that however and subsequently go on to break it further, you'll be reblocked for an indefinite period again. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry--- I will never ask to be unblocked. I think ArbCom members have a low intelligence, and I do not like you very much.Likebox (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, in case I didn't make it clear above, when you've had chance to calm down and think about things, create and unblock request or send me an email and I'll unblock you if you decide you're going to work within the restriction. Indefinite does not have to equal infinite in this situation. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you really get the concept of "never".
This isn't about emotions, it's about something else, something called ethics. I calmly and rationally believe that ArbCom are bad people, and I calmly believe that one must not cooperate with their likes, even when cooperation simply means doing nothing. Like all agents of Satan, they are ignorant dupes with worn out souls, who refuse to distinguish right from wrong, and act as a collective to immunize themselves from individual responsibility. Like the nail which pierces your foot, or the rain which annoys you by falling on your head--- it's pointless to get angry--- a creature without a soul is just an inanimate object.Likebox (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious about thinking thatArbCom members are agents of Satan? Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a metaphor. You don't need to act with self-aware evil to be an "agent of Satan", just an administratively minded person with no feeling for the bigger picture, you know, the banality of evil and all that.Likebox (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, the arbcom ruling said a maximum block of one week, yet you have blocked Likebox indefinitely. Why is that? --Michael C. Price 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's so that I don't have to go around violating my sanctions every week to have the block extended. I have no intention of complying, not now, not ever.Likebox (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Your probably not around anymore but im just checking in just Incase you’re around Maestrofin (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Likebox made his intention very much clear that he was going to disrupt the project and disregard the sanction. There has been a commitment to carry on violating the rules, which just about always results in an indefinite block. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yet banning someone from even debating an Arbcom matter could hardly be caiculated to enrage someone more, could it? Just because the result was inevitable does not make it just. --Michael C. Price 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is concerned with building an encyclopedia. Likebox has stated clearly that he's not here to build one, he's here to disrupt. Let's not shed tears for losing trolls. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A question

I wonder if you good look at and comment? Seems to imply that photons can pass through a blocking filter. (I'll copy your comments into my talk page if that helps.)--Michael C. Price 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I like you Michael, but I cannot contribute to this project in good conscience. I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror.Likebox (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I kinda thought you might say that, and I'm very sorry to hear it. Your input will be sorely missed.--Michael C. Price 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Misplaced Pages Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I am appealing the sanctions on our gagg order. I haven't included you at this point since you have appeares to have walked away from the madness. If you would like to be included though please email me and I'll add you to the case and see about unblocking as it wouldn't be nec anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Ammendment request to re-advocacy-ban you

I have filed a request to ammend the Speed of light arbitration case to reimpose the advocacy ban on you and other users. See: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Speed_of_light

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!