| Revision as of 19:10, 20 July 2005 editUthar Wynn 01 (talk | contribs)156 edits →PETA: source← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 20 July 2005 edit undoUthar Wynn 01 (talk | contribs)156 edits archived earlier talkNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Please don't add to the intro that PETA is a quasi-terrorist group unless you can attribute it to an authoritative, non-partisan source. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Three revert rule == | |||
| {{3RR2}} --] | ] 21:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I came here to warn you about the three revert rule too.. I see Viriditas has done that already. Please remember the policy on no original research - neologisms are specifically excluded from Misplaced Pages. One or two passing comments on a blog are not evidence that a term is widely-used, either. For a similar dispute, see the discussion about the use of the term "santorum" in the ] and ] articles. ] 21:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, Uthar. You seem to be fairly new, so you may not be aware that a partial revert counts as a revert under the 3RR policy. It may not be immediately obvious, but if you spend a little time browsing here , and perhaps peep at some of the archives, you'll see that there are many cases where people are blocked for bringing ''part'' of a page (even though not the ''whole'' page) back to a previous state. Otherwise, anyone could get round the rule by adding an extra comma to a different paragraph. I'm not going to report you on this occasion, as it seems from one of your edit summaries that you didn't know a partial revert didn't count, but if you keep it up, you're almost certain to be get blocked. Not really worth it, is it? Regards. ] 22:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| I have just seen your vandalism of ]. This is a warning that further such actions are likely to lead to your being blocked. ] 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==User-page vandalism== | |||
| {{test5}} ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Why not my own user page? == | |||
| Only place I can post is User talk:Uthar Wynn 01. Why can't I edit User:Uthar Wynn 01 too? Makes little sense to me... --] 22:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == About the whole "schaivo" thing == | |||
| (meant to be posted on the schaivo talk page, but then I went and got myself blocked) | |||
| Ok, I give up. Just so you know, I didn't invent the first 2 uses of "schaivo" as a term, someone I know did, but I admit that the word isn't exactly widespread (even though it is legitimate slang among a limited group). I've had my fun with the veggie lady article, now I'll leave it alone unless I find something genuinely useful to add. | |||
| To Veriditas, sorry for defacing your user page to potray you as a ] ] ]. Just got frustrated with your persistence and your insistence that I cite my sources. Next to none of the slang entries on Misplaced Pages "cite their sources", and yet no one complains about those. Hoevever, I do admit that my contribution on the usage of "schaivo" as a term was not exactly necessary and was mainly there for humorous and sarcastic effect, and you were right to remove it. I still disagree with your reasoning, however. "Cite your sources" has become an applicable complaint to such a wide swath of Misplaced Pages that its usage as a reason to remove an article is little better than "I don't like it". | |||
| To GordonWattsDotCom, my name, ] is the name of the master of the Sith Academy on ] in ]. I'm going to get around to creating a genuine user page at some point with links to my sites (heres one right now:http://utharwynn.deviantart.com/) and other info. Glad someone enjoyed my schaivo contribution. | |||
| Got myself a 24-hour block for this stuff. --] 19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh joy. Seems I was confused about how the block system works. Apparently, the IP block resets its timer back to the full 24 hours every time you attempt to edit a page. That means even though my "user block" expired already by my reckoning, my "IP block" now has 23-something hours to go since I accidentally tried to edit my own user page a few minutes ago. ''"Oh no, we'd better punish him for trying to do something theres no chance in heck he will be able to do (the IP adress is already blocked!)"'' Made even more absurd by the fact that I "attempted to edit" my ''own user page''. I have some really "colorful" words I could use to describe this policy, but I think I'll just drop it. --] 19:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't get the impression that I support you or that I think you shouldn't have been blocked, but if your attempted edit of your user page really was due to a misunderstanding, why not go to SlimVirgin's page, click the "E-mail this user" link on the left, apologize for your vandalism, and ask to be unblocked? Of course, SlimVirgin would be under no obligation to unblock you, but he/she might choose to do so if the violation of the 24-hour period really was a mistake, especially since, I think, the vandalism was a first offence. ] 19:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've already done that, just waiting for a reply at this point. I didn't realize attempting to edit would result in a block renewal, that really seems like a ridiculous policy. --] 20:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your edits to ]== | |||
| Please stop adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages. I note that you have already been blocked for vandalism. This is your last warning.-] 03:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :(you replied on my talk page) Please refrain from indiscriminate reversions and discuss why you think my contributions are not appropriate on the talk page. I do not believe my edits contained any factual inaccuracies and I would appreciate it if you would not classify my edits as vandalism so readily, you really should make justification before allegations of this nature. | |||
| ::I think it's pretty clear to any reasonable person that what you are adding is nonsense.-] 03:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have blocked you for 48 hours for persistently adding nonsense to ]. I also note that you have tried to avoid the block by editing anonymously. Please take the time out to consider whether you can make useful contributions to Misplaced Pages.-] 03:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It's pretty obvious you blocked me as a result of a personal vendetta. In my final edit on the schaivo article I made a revert that removed every single one of my edits and with a description including the phrase "please don't ban me". Explain the delay between this final Schaivo edit and you blocking me, it really seems like the reason you blocked me is because I got on your nerves. --] 03:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::...''It's pretty obvious you blocked me as a result of a personal vendetta''. I think you need to consult a good dictionary, so you can find out the real meanings of "obvious", "personal", and "vendetta". Also, you look up "vandalism" while you're at it. --] | ] 04:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You were told not to add nonsense to the article. You then did so, apparently believing yourself to be logged out. If you wanted to avoid the block, perhaps you could have found a more appropriate course of action, such as making sensible edits. As for the personal vendetta: when have I ever encountered you before, apart from your adding of slang to this same article (which I didn't revert)?-] 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Fine. I just wish you could have made it 24 hours instead of 48. It seems kind of excessive to me, given that I have a history of useful edits. --] 04:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If you agree that your edits which led to the block were inappropriate, and promise to behave in future, I'll reduce the block to 24 hours.-] 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I do admit that my edits were a form of vandalism. I'm going to stay away from the Schaivo article from now on, that's the only article I've ever vandalized and I assure you it will be the last.--] 06:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Your block has been changed to expire 21 hours from now.-] 06:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==RFC on SlimVirgin== | ==RFC on SlimVirgin== | ||
| I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going . ] 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going . ] 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:14, 20 July 2005
RFC on SlimVirgin
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Mediator request
You're not invited to the Mediation on the Terry Schiavo article. It's not a "sign-up" thing. Please avoid editing there. You are welcome at talk:Terry Schiavo, though.
Uncle Ed of the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee, 00:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to think that merely because you're an admin you have total leave to tell everyone what they should or should not do and where they can or cannot post, and that you have the right to generally just do as you please and be as discourteous as you like to anyone who doesn't want to play your games. I haven't violated any official wikipedia policy, if I'm raining on your parade by participating in Mediation, that's just too bad. --Uthar Wynn 01 01:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, you're not invited to my Talk Page. It's not a "sign-up" thing. Please avoid editing here. --Uthar Wynn 01 01:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you slimvirgin-ing Uncle Ed? If so, please be less arrogant. 4.250.132.22 12:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Behave
You wrote: "rv, mikkalai stop being an immature dick". Behave yourself! You know better. (P.S. Read Duckecho's personal page and its discussion page. I knew the Gordan was a XXXXX but I had no idea! 4.250.132.22 12:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, mikkalai is an immature dick. I'm not going to apologize for accurately describing the absolute worst wikipedia admin I can think of.
- And as far as Gordon is concerned, he can go f**k himself. I've had it with the Terri Schaivo article - when delusional, arrogant whackos like Gordon are given the same degree of respect as people like Duckecho, nothing will ever get done. The Terri Schaivo mediation is a joke, perhaps there would be some chance of coming to some sort of compromise if they IP banned Gordon's ass so he couldn't participate, but no, its going to go on forever because of one lunatic with an agenda. Uncle Ed is a ineffective time-waster who couldn't resolve the Schaivo conflict if his life depended on it, he's a total fraud and I won't apologize for insulting him either. --Uthar Wynn 01 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not "slim-virgining" Ed, when Fuel invited me to join in an RFC on SlimVirgin, I declined. Some people may disagree, but I think slimvirgin is a decent, well-intentioned, basically rational admin who may not be perfect, but is certainly not the power-mad, abusive person people have potrayed her as. Even though we are on opposite "sides" of the Schaivo dispute, I don't have anything against her personally.
I don't really think Uncle Ed has bad intentions either, but he's a total joke and he's just wasting everybody's time. Even though he probably doesn't realize it, all he does on the Schaivo Mediation is play pointless little games that never accomplish anything and only keep the conflict going. Until obnoxious nut jobs like Gordon are taken out of the picture, the Mediation is completely pointless and FuelWagon is wasting his time and energy participating in it - he's not going to get anywhere (Ed will see to that). It won't matter how many good points he makes, whatever compromises he offers, Gordon and his buddies are not going to rest until the Schaivo article is full of half-baked lies and POV distortions. --Uthar Wynn 01 16:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Uthar, take this as from someone who knows: do not let another editor's behaviour, no matter how attrocious it is, get you banned. A phyrric victory is no victory. You're job as an individual editor is to bring your individual opinion to an article as to what will make it better. If you let the opinion of another editor, no matter how moronic, get you banned, then you are not doing your job. If enough clear thinking editors work on an article together, they should be able to come to a version that represents the truth of the matter, despite the best efforts of the POV pushers. You will have to decide if it is more important that wikipedia articles represent the truth and you swallow a bit of your pride or if you allow your emotions to win out and wikipedia to lose because the POV pushers win. These are your choices. There are no alternatives. Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system makes it easy to spot people who curse and ban them, but it is difficult to establish something more subjective like the intentional insertion of a bad/POV edit. If you want to fight bad edits, you will have to find a way to vent without breaking the personal attack rules. Otherwise, if someone pushes a POV edit into an article, and you swear at them, then they can report you for swearing and you'll get blocked, and you'll report them for POV editing, and nothing much of consequence will be done. These are you choices: stop your personal attacks or let polite POV pushers win. choose.
FuelWagon 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
PETA
Hi Uthar, could you say why you changed "terrorist threat" to "terrorist organization," when I think the source says the former? Or did I misread the reference? SlimVirgin 18:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Both phrasings are used in the source, the "terrorist organization" one is extracted from another sentence. The DHS guy uses the phrase "that doesn’t de-emphasize our interest in *other* domestic terror groups" right after talking about the ALF/ELF which definitely means that they consider ALF/ELF to be "domestic terror groups" aka "terrorist organizations". It's an indirect quote, but the implication is unquestionable.
- So yeah. It's kind of convoluted. Which phrasing to use is really a matter of choice, both phrasings (the previous one and mine) are, literally speaking, accurate to the source, I chose "classified as terrorist organizations" because "described as terrorist threats" could imply that ALF/ELF aren't groups organized for the express purpose of carrying out terrorist activities (contrary to the DHS view I mean, i'm trying to stay true to the DHS meaning), and/or that it's just a description from a certain DHS person, as opposed to official DHS policy. I think the "terrorist threats" phrasing has too mild a connotation when compared to the implication of the DHS, that these are "terrorist groups" and their members are "terrorists".
- To sum it up, I changed the phrasing because while the "terrorist threats" phrasing is literally accurate to the source, I think the "terrorist organizations" phrasing is both literally accurate and more accurate to the tone of the source.