User talk:GusChiggins21: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 09:36, 29 December 2007 editSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,314 edits →Request unblocking: query← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:09, 29 December 2007 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk \| contribs)30,771 edits →Request unblocking: What a waste of the community's time.Next edit →
Line 160:		Line 160:
	{{unblock\|1 week block was excessive, blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with me, edits were on a page with poorly sourced material about a living person}}		{{unblock\|1 week block was excessive, blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with me, edits were on a page with poorly sourced material about a living person}}
	:I agree that the block length was excessive and that it was bad form by Raul to block you in conjunction with . However, I am concerned that you still appear to consider your ] on ] to be justified. Can you give us a concrete indication that you understand the problem and an assurance that you will stop such edit-warring if unblocked? ] (]) 09:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)		:I agree that the block length was excessive and that it was bad form by Raul to block you in conjunction with . However, I am concerned that you still appear to consider your ] on ] to be justified. Can you give us a concrete indication that you understand the problem and an assurance that you will stop such edit-warring if unblocked? ] (]) 09:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
			::I don't agree with you Sandstein. In fact, an RfC needs to be filed against this editor, since his behavior is not useful to the project. Why do you waste your time with editors like this? Did you not read his edit warring at ]? Raul was getting tired of the ] editing. And when Raul's block was brought up to AN/I, there was substantial support. Let this user rot in Misplaced Pages Hell for the full length of time. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:09, 29 December 2007

Welcome!

Hello, GusChiggins21, 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:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome. Sting_au | Talk 10:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pitch blackjack, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

covered by Blackjack article

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ZacBowling 13:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lacrosse231nodefense.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Lacrosse231nodefense.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lacrosse132offense.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Lacrosse132offense.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

Image copyright problem with Image:Lacrosse222offense.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Lacrosse222offense.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Gus - I noticed this edit summary. May I request that you tone things down a little bit? Edit warring is against wikipedia policy, and if you engage in it you will be blocked. I don't have the time to evaluate and contribute to the discussion regarding the content of the article, but regardless of who is correct, edit warring is harmful. --best, kevin 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gus - It takes two to edit war. Regardless of who started it, edit warring is harmful. Try working on a compromise on the talk page. Once there is consensus for a particular wording, then it should be put onto the main page. Thanks! --best, kevin 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Italics

Titles of books don't belong in quotation marks. They should be italicized. You can italicize something by adding two apostrophes before and after the words you want italicized. (This is an apostrophe: ' .) Thanks! Rray (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Dennis McCallum

A tag has been placed on Dennis McCallum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

   ==Notability of Dennis McCallum==

AfD nomination of Dennis McCallum

I have nominated Dennis McCallum, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dennis McCallum. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Philippe | Talk 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit warring

Your enthusiasm for your point of view is understandable, but please understand that this is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Personal attacks and edit warring don't encourage collaboration or improve articles.

Accusing me of spamming is a personal attack. Accusing me of deliberately "messing up" your articles is also a personal attack.

Reverting my edits to the references of an article by replacing them with lower quality links is edit warring.

I'm asking you to cease the personal attacks and cease edit warring. Your editing privileges here can be blocked for both behaviors. I'd rather work it out with you reasonably here on your talk page, but I can and will ask an administrator to intervene if this behavior continues. I've made over 4000 edits here to hundreds of articles, and I'm pretty transparent about my identity in the real world. Were I really a spammer, I would have made far fewer edits to a far smaller range of articles, and I'd be a lot more anonymous about my identity than using my first initial and last name. :)

Anyway, thanks for your time. Rray (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page:

I don't like you, and you don't like me, so quit following me around and fucking up good articles, claiming that you're doing wikipedia a service by enforcing reliability, and constantly claiming that I just must not understand wikipedia policies. I understand them, and you clearly don't enforce them the same way with people that you don't like. So I'd appreciate if you didn't follow me around here, editing articles that you know nothing about, and linking to policies that don't support your edits, as if it somehow lends you the moral high ground. LEAVE ME ALONE

Please understand that I'm not following you around, I don't dislike you, and I don't damage good articles. I have a degree in Literature, so my copyediting skills are excellent. My repeated requests that you try to understand policies here have been polite and reasonable. I'm not interested in moral high ground. My only goal here is to improve the quality of the articles in the encyclopedia.

You have no authority to tell me not to edit any articles here; I have an interest and knowledge related to gambling-related topics, so I'll continue to edit them.

I've asked you before to stop with the personal attacks and the edit warring. Now I'm asking you to be civil. Using profanity and shouting by typing in all caps on my talk page isn't civil. Rray (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

Cutting out sections of all of someone's articles because you consider them a "bad editor" who "doesn't understand wikipedia policies" is completely inappropriate.

I never said you were a "bad editor". I said you've made some bad edits. Big difference.

It's entirely possible that you do understand Misplaced Pages policies here, but I prefer to assume that you don't understand them rather than assume you're deliberately ignoring them. Rray (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I've asked you to stop being uncivil and making personal attacks, you've:

used profanity on my talk page
shouted at me on my talk page
called me obnoxious
told me you didn't like me
and accused me of starting an edit war.

I've asked for help at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:GusChiggins21. It's considered appropriate to advise you that I've done so, which is why I'm leaving you this message. If that doesn't work, I'll ask for administrative help. Rray (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Behe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. OrangeMarlin 07:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am asking you nicely. Try to slow down and learn the rules of Misplaced Pages and behave in a WP:CIVIL fashion. Continuing to act like a jerk will end up in administrative action being taken against you, and your editing privelges restricted. Is this what your goal is? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

For continued disruptive editing, I have blocked you for one week. Raul654 (talk)

On what grounds? For adding a fact tag to an article, where there is no citation for a statement? I made good faith edits, which other disagreed with, and then reverted without cause. I discussed them on the talk page, rephrased them, and tried to gain consensus. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Six reversions on Michael Behe in 24 hours is more than sufficient reason. An essentially single purpose account dedicated to adding tags on every sentence in articles on evolution confirms the necessity.Kww (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding fact tags is certainly not disruptive editing, especially when it is improperly sourced material about a living person, see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong policy. See WP:POINT. Jim62sch 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Behe's ideas" are at the heart of post-1996 "intelligent design", and your attempt to set the two apart looks like mere sophistry, if not mere creation. Ask nicely on the talk page and in time the article can be focussed more precisely on sources making specific reference to Behe's ideas, but edit warring and other disruptive editing impedes the process and damages your credibility, rather than achieving your aims. .... dave souza, talk 11:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request unblocking

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GusChiggins21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits were not disruptive

Decline reason:

Not yet. You're still pretty wound up - understandably so. I think a week was much too harsh, but I think you should wait at least 24 hours before unblocking. For this reason, I'm declining this request, but without prejudice to any future requests you may make 24 hours from now. — Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2007 (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.

There was improperly sourced material about a living person Michael Behe which I tried to challenge, and change the phrasing of the statement to more accurately reflect the sources given. I had even had a tag reverted, claiming that adding the tag was disruptive. I discussed the changes on the talk page Talk:Michael Behe. Please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons.

I find this block to be inappropriate as well. Raul was engaged in an edit war with this user; Raul has previous placed at least 3 or 4 blocks related to the matter of creationism and global warming as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The other side was edit warring, too. Hardly seems right to me to block only one side. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No one else violated 3RR, and certainly did not perform 6 reversions. His baseless reliance on BLP shows a lack of comprehension of policy as well.Kww (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that other people's references to policy are "baseless" without explaining why you think they are baseless isn't going to help anything. Improperly sourced material about living people needs to be cited or deleted. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The material was not contentious, and the immunity from 3RR only applies if the information is derogatory, which the material you were arguing about was not.Kww (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. When you explain your problems, then we can come to consensus, and stop the edit wars. I did not revert that page 3 times. I tried to re-phrase the section several different ways, and those edits were all reverted by other users. The issue of the statement not being supported by it's sources (which are about Behe's work, but do not claim consensus about Behe's work) has not been resolved. GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Miscounted by 1.

Kww (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That would apply in a normal case. But see exceptions in Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. You are allowed to remove poorly sourced contentious material about living persons. That statement was poorly sourced. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguing the same point out of order gets confusing. Responding to But see exceptions in Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, the problem is that the material is not contentious, even if you believe it to have been poorly sourced.Kww (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we agreed then that it was poorly sourced? I'm afraid I just don't agree with you about it not being contentious. To me, claiming that the whole scientific community disagrees with one person's theory is quite a stretch. It seems to be arguing the anti-ID POV. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It was well supported in the article, even though restructuring the citations wouldn't hurt. You also need to read WP:FRINGE more carefully. ID isn't science, the consensus is that it isn't science, and Misplaced Pages editors are obliged not to treat it as science. It falls under Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific. The anti-ID POV is the neutral POV.Kww (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree that ID is not accepted by the scientific community. But the statement said "Behe's views about ID" weren't accepted by consensus, and that scientific consensus was that his views were pseudoscience. That is a specific thing: a claim of consensus. A claim of consensus needs to have a citation that explicitly mentions consensus. There were citations of consensus about ID, and citations criticizing Behe, but not a claim of consensus in regard to the criticism of Behe. See Talk:Dice control "claims of consensus" where I was arguing the opposite side of this issue. I eventually had to recant, and allow a position which I believed to be true to be stated only as "one man's opinion", because I could not find a specific claim of consensus regarding the specific statement. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are not reverts. They are all attempts to find a wording we can agree with, which is wikipedia policy during edit wars: Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please study WP:3RR until you understand that all of those edits count as reverts against the 3RR policy. Actually, if I was in a vindictive mood, I would argue that a few more of them would count, but if you don't understand that at least these edits were reverts, then unblocking you would be short-lived, at best.Kww (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Evil Spartan, you ought to watch yourself. Baseless commentary and personal attacks like that will likely do you no good. OrangeMarlin 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to you because it supports your edit war, in which I was the only person taking any constructive steps. You and your supporters, such as Filll are the only ones engaging in personal attacks, and you have had multiple complaints about it Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a war of words with you, because, trust me, it will not go well for you at this point. My supporters would include Raul, with whom I've traded maybe two words in over a year? And as for the complaints? Well, let's see, I've never been blocked, I've never been banned, and nearly everyone who's whined about me has been blocked or banned. Now, that might be a lesson for you. Not that I'm protected or anything, it's just that I know what I'm doing, and I know how to follow rules. I NEVER engage in personal attacks, I NEVER engage in violations of 3RR, etc. And finally, I NEVER claim I believe in evolution. OrangeMarlin 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are implying that you, and your views have official protection at wikipedia, and that people who cross you will be banned. What you're saying about personal attacks is clearly untrue; you've called me a "creationist attack dog" multiple times, and you may have implicitly threatened another user. In fact, I also think you accused that user of being a creationist, and he supports evolution as well. If you can get away with that, then wikipedia is not what it claims to be. We shall see. It's obvious that you're narrow minded, and believe that I am a fundy creationist just because I don't blindly accept the biased articles in the ID project. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You read whatever the hell you want. I specifically said, and I'm wasting time repeating myself, "not that I'm protected or anything", because I'm not. No, what I do is recognize POV-warriors, and I push hard to have them stop their behavior. You are a fundie (at least spell it right) creationist. I don't actually care, because there are a HUGE number that edit here and try to make the project work, as I have helped build articles that I find totally obnoxious, but we strive for a neutral POV. Oh, calling me narrow-minded is a personal attack on me.OrangeMarlin 08:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm not allowed to, with quite sufficient evidence, call you narrow minded. But you can call me names, and make false statements about me, such as calling me a fundie creationist? Don't write on my talk page any more. 08:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Gus, you evidently have a lot to learn about policy, starting with WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. It seems that you think in good faith that "neutrality" means giving credence to creationist and fundamentalist Christian arguments, please take the time to come to terms with NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Excessive use of tags, especially when you've obviously failed to check whether the point in question is supported by references cited in the paragraph, violates WP:POINT and you'll find it much more effective if you can politely and patiently discuss the arguments you raise on the article talk page, taking advice from more experienced editors and accepting that you may be wrong. Well cited reason will win arguments, edit warring won't. .. dave souza, talk 11:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already shown how your claims that I violate these policies, which I'm actually upholding against disruptive editors such as you and your friends, are completely false. So, we can't talk about creationism on pages about creationism? Even though 85-90% of Americans, don't agree with the POV supported in the article? And even though the article you're defending contains improperly sourced material about a living person? And even though you and your supporters make untrue statements, and personal attacks? Pretty much all the ID, creation, and evolution articles are a biased joke, written by editors who seem to feel a need to protect their theory from "evil creationists". Let the facts speak for themselves, and don't think you're doing anyone a service by blocking people who want neutral articles. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support unblocking. Gus has edited in good faith only. It is rather the opposing side that is disruptive by setting out to trap user after user. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request unblocking

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

GusChiggins21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1 week block was excessive, blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with me, edits were on a page with poorly sourced material about a living person

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=1 week block was excessive, blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with me, edits were on a page with poorly sourced material about a living person |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=1 week block was excessive, blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with me, edits were on a page with poorly sourced material about a living person |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=1 week block was excessive, blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with me, edits were on a page with poorly sourced material about a living person |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I agree that the block length was excessive and that it was bad form by Raul to block you in conjunction with reverting a non-vandalistic edit of yours. However, I am concerned that you still appear to consider your edit warring on Michael Behe to be justified. Can you give us a concrete indication that you understand the problem and an assurance that you will stop such edit-warring if unblocked? Sandstein (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Sandstein. In fact, an RfC needs to be filed against this editor, since his behavior is not useful to the project. Why do you waste your time with editors like this? Did you not read his edit warring at Objections to evolution? Raul was getting tired of the tendentious editing. And when Raul's block was brought up to AN/I, there was substantial support. Let this user rot in Misplaced Pages Hell for the full length of time. OrangeMarlin 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:

Requests for unblock