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.
What is your association with ''The New York Times''? Are you employed there? Do you know people who work there? Is that why you're fighting so hard to remove anything that sheds a bad light on them in regards to the Holocaust? If so, that is a COI. Are you also working with PhGustuf in order to control the ] article? Both your edits appear to look that way to me. I want the truth so just be honest with me. ] ] 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What is your association with ''The New York Times''? Are you employed there? Do you know people who work there? Is that why you're fighting so hard to remove anything that sheds a bad light on them in regards to the Holocaust? If so, that is a COI. Are you also working with PhGustuf in order to control the ] article? Both your edits appear to look that way to me. I want the truth so just be honest with me. ] ] 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
: Not now or ever worked for he new york times. Never communicated with PHgustaf in any other forum than that talk page (or other public forums on wikipedia). Isn't their a biography of a footballer's girlfriend or a wrestlemania article that could benefit from you special talents? Why not run along and do that? Seems more your speed. Finally, future allegations without proof will result in action against you by me.] (]) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:01, 3 June 2010
You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
In yet another Clint Catalyst/buzznet related dispute today, User:Swancookie rather gratuitously impugned your good faith and insinuated anti-"LGBT" bias. Being fed up with the series of hit=and-run SPAs (named and unnamed) who attack rather than discuss, I've raised the incident at WP:AN/I. I doubt you want any more involvement with this tarpit (who would?), but I thought you should be alerted to the situation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record- I NEVER insinuated an anti-"LGBT" bias!
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that's a complete lie.
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Template:Z9
I decided to do this since you chose to ignore the ongoing attempt to resolve this at ANI (which you had been alerted to) and reverted anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|I contest this block since I did not go over 3rr, am well aware of that line and certainly would never exceed it. While I understand that edit warring blocks may be issued for less, I have 3 reverts in my life at that article (of course all today) and no one, except the guy who edit warred beyond 3rr, said anything to me about it. That someone is having arguments with other editors at AN/I is irrelevant to the course of normal editing (particularly enforcing WP:RS. There is no requirement that i participate at An/i or that i allow the "right version" of an article to persist because another editor is making complaints at An/I and is edit warring beyond what the bright red line.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
After some thought, I have decided to unblock. While I am bothered by your reluctance to accept responsibility, you have agreed not to perpetuate this edit war. Since a block isn't punitive, I am going to go ahead and unblock since further disruption seems unlikely. However, I kinda ask you to not revert through good faith attempts to resolve a situation through discussion in the future. Ignoring such attempts only increases the level of conflict. The 'wrong version' of an article existing for a day or two is preferable to an edit war. Sometimes one needs to be the 'better person' and let the other side 'win' temporarily.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I will let another admin review this, but 3rr is not the definition of edit warring - it is an example of it. Reverting despite knowing a good faith attempt to resolve the situation is underway is, IMO, edit warring and can only perpetuate the problem. Who notified you of said discussion is irrelevant.
I take no position as to which version is "correct" and will happily unblock myself if you agree not to revert again until the ANI thread is resolved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going anywhere near that page again -- but you've behaved horribly onesidedly, fella. No warning, no violation of editing rules, the RS thread established pretty clear advice that the blog should not be excepted from policy and .... I get blocked? You're enabling religious POV pushers (i love the bit in that article about the "proof that the rebbe is the messiah" and here you are enforcing "collegial" editing). Please spare me any advice on this page in future. Don't respect you, don't want it from you. Ciao.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I blocked you because you were the first person to perpetuate the edit war after being alerted of the ANI thread. I can only speak for myself, by I most certainly don't have a POV and am not attempting to help any side.
Both you and Debasser are at precisely 3 reverts so neither has violated 3RR. The difference between the two of you isn't who is right and who is wrong about the article (the consensus appears to be that he is wrong), but that he is at least attempting to resolve the situation through discussion and you are just reverting. If you can't understand the difference than I am going to have to abstain from unblocking and let an uninvolved admin decide. Sorry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no interest in your justifications, and I don't really care if i'm unblocked (though you're shifting the goalposts now, it's ok. I understand you're not unblocking me because you're feeling shirty and dissed, not because i failed to say "i'm not going anywhere near that page again.") I understand you're not going to actually interpret or understand policy and that you prefer to be a hall-monitor. Tis a pity.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually the "standard" unblock conditions are 1) an understanding of what caused the block and 2) an agreement not to do it again. You have clearly done part 2, but IMO not part one. That is partially my fault for not stating this requirement upfront, and I acknowledge that. The fact that you keep placing the blame on other people (first Debasser, now me) and not admitting fault is why I am hesitant to unblock. Perhaps I am wrong - another admin will decide that - but I am not trying to be unreasonable. (And yes, mild attacks on me don't help your case.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Look. I don't care to help my case with you. You intervened foolishly in this instance, and punitively, and presumably to make yourself feel more powerful. I'm Ok with that -- i know that comes with the territory here. I don't want you to acknowledge anything -- as i don't acknowledge that there's particularly anything wrong with reverting unreliable sourcing from the encyclopedia without going over 3rr -- particularly when the policy is so clear cut (as it is in this instance). Your insistance on not learning about the edits at hand and rewarding that hysterical little fellow who is creating the AN/I drama is precisely against the interests of the enecyclopedia. I know you don't understand this -- I know you probably never well. But as long as you insist on returning here i'll try to make it a teaching moment for you. Your choice.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it will help your case with anybody, but that isn't the point... You are welcome to think otherwise, but I always listen to anyone who thinks I am wrong. And yes, I will admit it when I realize I am mistaken. So if you have anything else to say that might make me a better admin, I will listen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure i've got advice. Don't be an enabler for nationalist/religious/political POV pushers as you are now -- it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia and the editing environemnt (and, obviously, makes you a poor admin). Actually look at and try to understand the substance of issues at hand. Finally, don't hand out punitive blocks, and be even-handed when intervening in disputes. Also remember the onus is on inclusion, not the other way, when the quality of a source is in question (and anyone with a brain knows a pdf hosted at a defunct website with a strong pov is not a reliable source for anything.) Any more advice needed, my door is always open.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I decided to grant the request since I implied you only needed to say you'd stop, which you did. (See full comments above.) I thank you for the advice, but must disagree here. The responsibility of an admin is not to decide who is "right", but rather to stop the conflict in as efficient and fair way as possible. I made a judgment call that the best way to do that was by blocking you since you had made a revert which (to me) indicated you were going to continue to war for your preferred version despite good faith attempts being made by others to resolve the conflict without further reverts. Obviously you disagree with my judgment. However, the block was never intended to be punitive, nor should be be viewed as any kind of endorsement of text or the other side's behavior. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If nobody minds me chiming in, isn't the pressure of including something in an article on the one who wants it in, not the one who wants it out. Debasser needs to show how that source is valid, and since it is a violation of WP:RS, he is the one who needs to earn consensus. Consensus needs to be to include it rather than exclude it. We don't ignore a policy just because something is being "worked out" on ANI (if that's what you can call it). Grsz00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You are correct about policy. However, being right is not sufficient justification to edit war. Again, reverting without attempting to participate in the resolution discussion is not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
...Peace...
.. I will try to improve my English writing skills...Kindly excuse some of the comments by my "supporters" at my RFA. They are not intentional -- TinuCherian - 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, i think their comments are intentional. But I appreciate you're a polite fellow, and don't hold you responsible for their actions. I know only one way to express my opinion -- honestly and directly. The nom is for the same reason -- having looked at that article, i worry that you don't understand how to apply notability. None of this means i wish you ill. As it is, your adminship will pass. Take your responsbilities seriously.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sure you may not like me at the best ( atleast as of now). But regardless of the outcome of my RFA, I wish to collabrate with you on wikipedia in future. Kindly let me know if I can be of any help to you anytime. And my deepest personal apologies, if someone made any unfair comments to you related to me and your stand on the RFA. Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a huge fan but like the book and started that article. Redford played Gatsby in the 1974 film and that's Reford in the poster illustrating the film article. Best. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Dan Murphy ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings.
Hi.
Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.
If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.
Your topic ban is appropriate. That you are dissatisfied with the answers given as to why you were banned and don't want to deal with your own behavior is unfortunate, but something i can't help you with. I have no interest in circular discussions that are irrelevant to the topic. Edit elsewhere for a few months and then maybe see if you can get the ban lifted, is my advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Fellow called me a liar. I'll make a fool out of him every time he does that. He's headed for arbcom if his friends can't muzzle him.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If his behavior bothers you, bring it up on his talk page or somewhere that matters. Take the high road. Fighting back at AfD is just going to cause a "no consensus" closure. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Bali ultimate, please do not needle AN in deletion discussions, as you did here. I'm specifically talking about "denying" his request for more time, a request that anyone with your experience in AFD knows is directed at the closing administrator. Also, mocking his "sincerely" in various discussions: I recognize that he's been doing it for months and that DGG has counseled him against it, but "Why are you wasting so many man hours trying to force unencyclopedic content into wikipedia! Sincerely, and with great affection for a fellow editor." is just plain mean.--Chaser2 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Turnabout is fair play son. He learned nothing from his RFC. He's a disingenuous, MMORPG game player, who confounds the normal process here and who'll be off to arbcom shortly if he doesn't shape up. The problem is all his.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale11:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I cannot even BEGIN to imagine the haters and trolls scrabbling all over that page. I'm almost afraid to even look at the history. --King Öomie22:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks for stepping in at AN/I. I figured anything I posted there would only escalate his conflict with me. Jayjg 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I was a little dissapointed, though -- I expect a little more rhetorical skill out of a rebbe with a 140+ IQ. I guess all that deference takes the edge off.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(saw the edit summaries ;( mellow, please, you're both friends of mine. Tensions are high and I urge a lot of calm. Bali was just telling me to go eat well — or else ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Just so I'm sure you know; Rlevse is an Arb. He's going to be part of the next motion. Don't poke the nice arbs with a stick, ok? Sincerely,Jack Merridew05:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And just so i'm sure you know: I don't care. It's not supposed to matter. The same standards apply to everyone. I appreciate the advice -- but if one can't call an "arb" a "hall monitor" without having a bunch of me too fools rounded up on some chat room to form a mob to protect the honor of one of their own (or one of their potential future "sponsors") from such a vicious, vexatious personal attack (how do they stand up to the abuse?) then i have no place here? These are the same simps that tolerate vicious BLP violations enduring not for hours or minutes but for years. These are the people who make this the most tedious (yet strangely engrossing -- I'm guilty) MMORPG of all time. At this point, I'm toast here anyway. My values and wikipedias values are not aligned. So who's feelings am i meant to protect? They're on the same course as the german version, but with a much slower burn and a much higher drama qoutient. Long live the kind! In all honesty, i think they've got five years left yet (first mover status and all that. Could be longer. Who knows?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I really doesn't matter. "Civility" is one of the policies that makes a great weapon; this is one of the great schisms in this project. Some people go off on and damn word and some don't give a flying-fuck. Getting someone dinged on salty language is wiki-war 101. If you direct raw emotion at someone, you're very, very at risk. There are, of course, back channels; twisty mazes, all alike. They guy's you are snapping at are not the problem. Please focus on who the problems really are; and no, not all the problems are people. The very nature of the wiki has structural flaws and the soup of conflicting policies and guidelines is a direct result of all the players being able to edit the rules. The issues that are fucking this project up are understood; it's implementing solutions that's proving difficult. I have been here over five years and know far more about the wiki then most editors. I've left before; shit, I left last week. You know I resigned an adminship on another project? I got it back, too. So, *mellow*. Go read my ANI post about my occasional sig; I'll paste you a copy
re the below; *I* have no issue with the dialogue Bali and I were having on my talk page. This is all spill over from the toxic environment on my unban review talk page and the heat there all originates with Ikip. Please remove this block; and Bali you need to not be snapping at Rlevse — unwind that ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
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).
Apparently, i've been blocked for using language with a friend that neither he nor i found offensive? Do i have this right? My conversations with Jack Merridew were perfectly cordial, he certainly had no problems. If it was about something else, please be more specific? That was the only thing i received warnings for (however misquided and unwelcome). Truly puzzled.
Decline reason:
If you felt Rlevse was misunderstanding your comments, there was an appropriate way to mention that, and an inappropriate one. The appropriate way would have been along the lines of "It wasn't my intention to offend, I was joking with Jack and I believe he knows this". You chose the derogatory, inappropriate method. That, along with other very incivil comments I'm seeing, got you blocked. Hersfold04:29, 2 December 2009 (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.
Outside of the unblock requesst -- please explain how my interactions with Jack Merridew led to this. If it was with someone else, please be specific. And really, if it was over Jack's and my banter, I expect grovelling from the hall monitors involved. I'd love to know what harmed person complained about this, or what harm to the project was being prevented here.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it was for comments directed at others (as per my diffs). An example being an edit directed at Rlevse with the edit summary: "i have no differnences with jack. Least not today. You really have zero clue here. It's the culture, i suppose." Tiptoety04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And what horrible offense is the block over my comment to Rlevese preventing? He ignorantly thought i was taunting jack, when i was bantering with him. He posted here warning me. I told him his warning was silly and suggested he speak to the person he imagined i was offending. And you're protetcting wikipedia how, here? You're convincing me to go away and never come back? You're protecting Rlevese, how? From being told that his ignorant comments were unwarranted? Explain how this is a useful and acceptable flexing of admin muscle?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
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).
So let me understand this: I'm being blocked because i failed to show proper deference to rlevse when he ignorantly, and completely innapropriately (on the facts of the case -- i wasn't being unpleasant to Jack) called Relvse a "hall monitor" and said he "had no clue" in edit summaries explaining my friendly banter with Jack and inviting Rlevse to check in with Jack before warning me again? The mind boggles. Is there some greater offense on offer here? I'll be honest: I didn't offend Jack, and if admins can't handle being called "hall monitors" when they fail to look at the context of friendly banter, then, well, I really don't belong here full stop. If this is the behavior y'all are seeking to modify, then, well, indef me now baby.
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.
Please stop trying to sugar coat it, look at all the diffs I provided under the block template. This is not just about you calling Rlevse a "hall monitor" and I think you know that. Tiptoety04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Then spell it out. I won't break under the shame. What, exactly and precisely, is the problem? Some other interaction? Let's hear it.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Yes, being outright rude towards Rlevse was part of it. I've have given the same warning if I'd seen the "idiot fucker" comment, as I expect would any passerby. That you in fact weren't trying to insult him does not excuse a holier-than-thou attitude towards the person who misunderstood. Theseedits also are nothing other than blatant trolling. Your "sugar coating", as Tip appropriately calls this, is not helping your case to be unblocked. Hersfold04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
So, hersfold -- It's about me pointing out earlier today that Ikip was on a 130+ edit crusade to try to get somebody else blocked is why I'm now blocked. So it's a disruption block? My pointing out that hounding is the real reason? And not the current reason? It's all so confusing? What, precisely, was i blocked for and what harm was the block (current or future) the block preventing? The blocking administrator certainly hasn't been clear. Yours is one opinion, i still don't have a solid one though. If it's disruption to point out that someone posts 130 times to a discussion page in which there name was not involved (until they inserted themselves) i'd love to understand why pointing out 15 or fewer times that they were hounding someone was. Anyone else?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The "I didn't hear that" game isn't going to help either. I just told you why you were blocked. Rank incivility and trolling. The block is obviously placed to stop them, although I must say it's not doing a terribly good job at the moment. Hersfold04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Which difs? As you can tell i'm not interested in toucing my forelock for the likes of you. What trolling, precisely? What rank incvivility precisely? I'm listening. I might learn something (but bowing down before information? Of course not). What 1 or 2 or 3 diffs (your choice) led to this block?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already pointed them out. Try reading my posts. I'm tired of repeating myself, and I'm going to go do something more productive now. Hersfold05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
← Bali; you need to mellow. I have *no* issue with our dialogue and appreciate your support over on that other talk page. You need to take a step back here and say you'll chill a bit and not bite the arbs and clerks. Don't you disappear for months, again, ok. It all sorts in time. Cheers, Jack Merridew05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Bali, take Jack's advice. This could have all been avoided had you taken more care in choosing your words. Also, no one wants you to leave the project and I hope this block does not do that. Take some time off, then come back rejuvenated. Cheers, Tiptoety05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Your self-righteous advice, in the service of the passive-aggresive culture here, is of no value to me. I called an "arbitrator" (my god! I'm shocked the lord hasn't had my head yet) a "hall monitor" for acting in rank ignorance. And now y'all are schooling. I get it. Players of rank are to be treated with kid gloves, their vassels are to be given 130+ edits worth of rope. And being mildy intemperate in an edit summary on ones own talk page? Fatal. Who started this? You did Tiptoey, your crocodile tears here not withstanding. You still have not any case to make that you've protected the project with this foolishness. Unless it's this: People like me aren't welcome here. That was the message that came through loud and clear (and what prompted you to send the message -- somehow i doubt it was because of a watched page). Got it in one. If you hoped that your poor behavior wouldn't drive me away, then you shouldn't have acted a fool. The choice was yours.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to actually address your hostile behavior in some fashion rather than just repeatedly arguing it was OK. I agree not a single post was a blatant "block now" offense by itself, but your continued hostility (before & after the block) is not helpful to yourself or the encyclopedia. At this point, you would probably be better off disengaging, letting it go, and maybe even re-evaluating your general attitude. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thad -- you already know that i think you are a hall monitor par excellance and that I have zero respect for your "advice." It's funny how you found you way here so quick, though. Welcome. Would you like to explain how you dish out preventive blocks to long-standing editors that haven't gone over 3 reverts again? That would amuse, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how you think insulting me will help your case, but to answer your question, your talk page is on my watchlist. Free free to check my block record and tell me where I've erred if you like. You may be surprised to learn that I very rarely block anyone; guess I am not as 'excellent' as you thought. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where you got the impression that i particularly care about getting unblocked thad. I think you have terrible judgement, and shouldn't be in a position of responsibility over content and standards, anywhere in the humanities, broadly construed. Just pointing out that my previous block was a pre 3rr "edit warring" block, issued by you, over keeping a blog as a source in a biography that, more or less, asserted that a rebbe was the (factually, induspitably) messiah. And you didn't notice. I guess, just keep your eye on what matters son.Bali ultimate(talk) 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem here, and with your editing in general, if that you think you are infallible. You aren't and you don't have the right to act like you are. Whatever good you do here is canceled out by the way you treat others. Just because someone makes a mistake, says something stupid, or doesn't understand policy doesn't give you the right to insult them. Sure you normally avoid making your insults explicit and usually avoid "bad" language. That has protected you in the past, but it shouldn't. You attitude is poison, as you yourself *should* realize since you are so quick to jump on those who think they are right but are "obviously wrong." When two people are on the opposite side of an issue, at least one of them is wrong, but when neither is willing to even discuss it becomes a big problem. You usually get your way here - partly because you are usually right, and partly because you are more aggressive than your opponents. The encyclopedia might benefit in the short run from more accurate articles, but it loses in the long run from losing editors that started off POV pushing but would have evolved into good editors if you had treated them with respect rather than contempt.
You claim you don't want to play games, but your actions say otherwise. Several people have explained to you that no one diff caused your block, yet you keep arguing that there is nothing wrong with calling someone a hall monitor. That is probably true in isolation, but then again it didn't occur in isolation. You either don't understand or are ignoring this on purpose. Since I don't think you are stupid, it must be the later. You instantly remember every detail of our past conversation, whereas I didn't recall the details. I had moved on to help the encyclopedia, but you were holding an unproductive grudge. Finally, you choose to ignore opinions based on the source from which they come. Surely someone as intelligent as yourself realizes that is a logical fallacy. Good advice is good advice (and bad advice is bad advice), regardless of the source. My judgment doesn't enter into it. (Of course, you would still think it is bad advice because, of course, you are infallible to begin with.) All of this shows quite clearly you are here to play games whether you admit it to yourself or not. If you want to actually help the encyclopedia, I suggest you ignore where the advice is coming from and think maybe, just maybe, you actually are wrong sometimes, and access the damage your attitude causes. But, if all you want to do is play games, by all means tell yourself "that's just dumb old Thaddeus talking and ignore everything I've said. You choice is yours.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thad -- I don't reject your opinions because I don't like your name or personality. I reject your opinions because i think you have poor judgment (you also don't have any grasp of what a Logical fallacy is, but whatever). You appear to be one of those misguided souls who think the number of articles and editors matter, that this is more of social networking site than an effort to write strong, accurate content. You appear to believe that people with poor writing skills, a tenuous grasp on research and verifiability, conflicts of interest, nationalist/religio agendas, obsessive compilers of absurd lists of fictional persons, places and things all need care and protection. But people who actually know how to do the work, and had the responsibility and respect to figure out policies on their own by, you know, reading them, are to be hounded as problematic.
I give the opinions (which are what most of those statements are from you up there -- not facts) of people whose judgment I don't respect less weight. Nothing personal. I certainly don't think i'm infallible. And of course other people's stupidity and mistakes don't give me the right to insult them. What are these insults? Two diffs in which i tweak Ikip for his vexatious, over the top editing (i started keeping track of the number of edits he'd made in an attempt to frame jack for some wiki crime or other after he went over 100). If you're going to allow that kind of hounding going on, a few comments noting the hounding is more than fair. (Really "Keep it open! Ikip is only 64 edits shy of a double century! Don't declare now. Think of justice and Sir Don" is an insult?) "I strongly suggest you get a clue (or talk to jack) before you post ill-informed hall monitor crap here again" in an edit summary to an aggressive editor who falsely accused me of something? "i have no differnences with jack. Least not today. You really have zero clue here. It's the culture, i suppose" in another edit summary (as Rlevse reinserted his false warning and allegation on my talk page) is beyond the bounds? Another edit summary to the dedicated battler Ikip of "got the mote out now. Ikip -- Go away. You are unwelcome here. All future posts will just be rvv" after he, too, was edit waring to include stuff on my talk page that I had already removed. I have now dispensed with all the diffs provided by Tiptoey.
By the way Thad, I remember the details of our past interaction because it was recent (a month ago), I have a good memory and your foolish, punitive block to make a point (you don't like straight-talkers; you prefer an indirect sidling step) was the only one I'd ever received. What grudge? Did i pursue the matter? Did i give you another thought? Not once. Until you reinserted yourself here, unwelcome again, confirming my assessment of you.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This will be my last post, as I am obviously wasting my time... Your insults are implicit, not explicit. Not are they limited to the small number of diffs provided in this thread. I am quite sure you are aware of this.
You treat people with contempt and create a hostile environment which is a net negative on the encyclopedia, no matter what you think. I don't need to look very far, since you keep a list of (anonymous) stupidity you've encountered right on the userpage. Your behavior affects both "useless" contributors and useful ones. Many people who are quite capable chose not to contribute because they dislike the drama created by aggressive people like yourself. (You are far, far from the only one, but that is not relevant here.)
My block of you was never intended to be punitive. Your actions in that case indicated you rather edit war than discuss because you were "obviously right." Thus the block to prevent further edit warring. I unblocked you when you agreed not to edit war further despite your insistence you were in the right, when you weren't, and your insults of me. Being right is not an excuse to (implicitly) insult people, nor is it an excuse to edit war.
As far as I am concerned, yes the encyclopedia would be better off without aggressive know-it-alls, even if that means losing some good content contributors. Any loss of content will be made up for by others who would have left if the aggressive editor stayed.
Finally, attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself is indeed a logical fallacy.
Oh, I hurt your feelings. Well, it's good to know you won't bear a grudge (by, say, repeatedly returning to where you've been told your advice is unwelcome). Your block of me was prior to a fourth revert and with no warning, and zero chance of me going over the line. You did it because you don't like me and it's why you're here now. Happy that you're going. Many, many people who are quite capable give up editing in disgust because of sub-par Randy in Boise enabling administrators like you. I may be curt, but i don't track people down on their talk pages to stir up trouble, file endless AN/I arbcom and good knows whats against people i don't like. The encyclopedia of stupid comments on my user page is an example of the tortuous, sub-par debates with semi-educated people that one must endure to contribute here.
Finally, if the source of an "argument" is based on "opinions" that emanate from someone of questionable judgment rejecting their opinions isn't a case of "attacking the source."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not overly impressed with this block. Your edits on Jack's unban talk page weren't productive, but nothing on that talk page was particularly productive. Had I been in your shoes, Rlevse's lack of clue and unnecessary warning probably would've gotten under my skin as well. This block looks like an overreaction by the ArbCom clerks and I think a "time served" is appropriate, though your obviously uncivil remarks post-block don't make that much of a possibility. AniMate05:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks. Could you quote the uncivil, clearly block generating comments. Was there something worse than "hall monitor?" If so, I can't figure what it was. And if that's it, how does that compare to the heaps of nonesense i've (and many others) have had to deal with here?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The exact words used to insult aren't really relevant, IMO. An insult is an insult. Please explain how you think insulting people is *helpful* to the encyclopedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone ever ask me not to call Rlevese a "hall monitor" again. And did i fail to heed them? Did i follow them around with this epithet? How is your presence here helpful. I find it annoying (presumably in the fashion that rlevse found being calleda "hall monitor" annoying). Can i have you blocked for annoying me? That would assuage some of my hurt feelings, i must admit.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Outside view
Let's see -- two editors engage in banter containing some rough language but clearly of a friendly nature, advising on where to obtain good food. Admin sees naughty word, doesn't bother to look at context, gives stern warning to one of the users. Editor is clearly miffed at this gross misunderstanding, requests that admin speak to other party to confirm. Admin refuses to do so, ups the ante by reinstating his previous comment (despite long-held principle that editors are free to delete comments on own talk page), re-emphasizes his failure to understand the situation by referring to differences between the parties. Editor responds again with edit summary requesting that admin attempt to understand the situation, though not in parliamentary language as editor is clearly miffed that admin is being so obtuse. The supposedly-insulted party chimes in to say there's no problem, no insult. Editor again removes comment by admin, still obviously miffed. Editor gets blocked. Have I got this right? Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Just take a vacation for a while. This is by no means the first time I've seen Rlevse take a "ready, fire, aim" approach but he is an arbitrator, so there's no way you can win. Go have a beer, crank some tunes, and come back to Misplaced Pages in a few days. It's just a website. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, this is probably it for me. I'm actually not that much of a critic of the vested editor mindset, has some merit (more rope for the more invested). But because he's an arbitrator and so therefore rounds up a posse because he got tweaked a little for being foolish? Not my kinda place. Someone else warned me earlier not to fail to grovel because he was an arb. I ignored it -- I thought that's silly. If i don't violate basic standards for users in general (edit warring, ad hominems, etc...) there wouldn't be any problems. I've been around a while. But this was fairly stunning and illuminating. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Fuck that 'this is probably it for me' shite; it's just a block; I took one for eight months. Rlevse is no idiot; I'm gonna go build his dog a nice user page when this shit-storm ends. @all; *time served* and an expectation of some mellowness. Make-It-So. Sincerely, Jack Merridew06:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
To folks that share me views
You are of course welcome to post here. But I have no intention of grovelling in the face of this idiocy. If it's in some way harmful to your interests (broadly construed) to be associated with this talk page or my approach, step away. It won't bother me. If i thought well of you a week ago, I'll think well of you (more or less) no matter what you say here or fail to say here going forward. It doesn't matter. I am, to say the least, thoroughly unconvinced that calling rlevse a "hall monitor" was a blockable offense. If folks want to engage me (support/oppose/opine/whatever) on this idiocy I'll respond for the next day or two (the burn rate on this version of the game). If you disagree with me, that's all good too. But I'm not amenable to taking the advice of fellow game players. I am going the full monty. So if you have a longer term commitment to the game, and your inclination is to say things in my support, be forewarned. If i was in your shoes (and cared) I would not do so.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You need a few beers, blow-jobs, Javanese girls cruising Seminyak. Probably in another order.
A 48 hour incivility block for calling an admin a "hall monitor" in an edit summary, on my talk page, when I removed a warning i received for friendly banter between me and a third party that neither of us found offensive or innappropirate. Then unblocks are denied twice because i don't express sufficient "contrition" for the non-offense of calling Rlevse a hall monitor, whose judgement was appalling, and who failed to check in with the user whose honor he imagined he was defending after being invited to twice -- second time after he reinserted, in a pointy and dare i say hall-monitorish fashion, his unwelcome and misplaced advice. Another hall-monitor, Tiptoey something or other, then blocks over this offense. Apparently my crime is especially heinous because rlevse is now, or is about to be soon, an arbitrator? Why should that matter at all. Oh yes, there was me "didn't hear that problem" when i asked "Hersfold" to explain how, exactly, "hall monitor" deserved a 48 hour block. Listen little fishies -- you've got your wish. Just keep on enabling your fellow MMORPG players, and ignore content. Your mommas will be so proud.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong track. I've been pinging. The misunderstanding about our dialogue is small beer; if it were just that, you would be unblocked now. Combative posts while blocked do not lead to unblocks. Please, chill and ask nicely for time-served tomorrow. People understand your argument, they are wary of the presentation. I run into this same issue, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, i understand that it's about asserting power and control, largely to make them feel more important. There was absolutely no disruption to the project. There was no motivation behind this beyond swatting down someone who didn't ass kiss. I don't engage in ad hominems, don't game over content, don't have a POV to push, and now don't care to satisfy any of them. Appreciate the spirit of your comments Jack, but you misunderstand me if you think i'm on the "wrong track." It implies you think my intent is to mollify them. It isn't. The heaps of abusive behavior these idiots condone, explicity or implicity, every day, the nonsense and harmful content they protect, are the real issues. The abusive "warnings" used like game chits by the game players (so they can later say "teacher -- bali won't stop touching my desk and he's already be warned fo times") are tiresome. I won't be taught to be more manipulative and passive aggressive, which is the outcome they're seeking (remaking the world in their image -- per Obama last night, it's a temptation few can avoid).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The ambient model is to try and keep the lid on and stop forest fires. Seen the huge fires that get going in real forests because they let too much brush build up for years? It's the same damn thing, here. I'm telling people that and I see movement in the right directing, but the inertia is huge, so it takes time.
If you're unblocked, you gonna cause shit? I don't think so. Just *say* so and we're done here. Listen to a friend, ya stubborn fuck; ok? Sincerely, Jack Merridew13:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If unblocked, i will behave more or less as i did in this instance in similar cases. Rlevse's ignorant posturing and poking was the problem here. He was like a child walking into a room. He had no frame of reference. That's called being clueless -- not particularly uncivil when one understands that he failed to comprehend some reasonably friendly banter on his own. When asked to get help in comprehension (by talking to you) he poked again with his little admin stick. He came here and sought me out -- not the other way around. Then he went for the drama button by privately contacting tiptoey (and perhaps others) to block me because I said he was behaving like a "hall monitor" and that he was "clueless." Oh, the mighty disruption, I'm lucky it was only 48 hours. It was so bad, around the time Rlevse secured his block from his friend, he disappeared from wikipedia for a while. I'm sure he was crying all night.
In seriousness, Rleves's appalling behavior in this instance (why keep coming to my talk page and poking me over a matter of which he was entirely ignorant? Why not just go away?) is par for the course round here. I get it. All in the game. But have any respect for it? No. Any contrition over my part in this? Of course not. The ones w ho need to apologize and modify their behavior are Rlevse, Tiptoey and a few others. I know that will never happen. They have the big stick and I do not. But dance for their amusement and puffed up egos? Aint gonna happen.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I sympathize, but you must see the irony in berating and insulting people for blocking you over imagined incivility. --King Öomie15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In my defense, you'll notice I'm largely addressing their conduct, which was far, far out of bounds. I guess "clueless" is directed at Rlevse directly, but i think he was demonstrably that in this instance.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Clueless is repeated instances of name-calling, gross incivility, and personal attacks while trying to get yourself unblocked while under a civility block. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope. The editors "valuable contributions" are in fact problematic for the encyclopedia. That's something you should deal with -- not simply pointing out the sorts of articles that they write. I was blocked 48 hours for calling someone a hall monitor. There's a problem here, and it ain't me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I had nothing to do with your earlier block, and was unaware of it until now. Personally, I'm in favor of a polite word with someone, instead of "civilty blocks", ("hall monitor" garnered 48 hrs? really?), but evidently that doesn't work either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Just be sure to leave my comments alone, in toto. I'm lightly pointing out a broader problem of the sort the community never deals with. That isn't "kicking him when he's down." I"ve called no one a bigot, to "kiss my ass," etc... as that editor has. I have pointed to a helpful link to one of his japanese fetish porn articles (at which the child in africa is greeted by some wonderful, wonderful encyclopedic content.) I'm far more concerned about his efforts to turn wikipedia into a porn directory than i am that he was rude and intemperate on a xfd talk page. Again, don't lay a finger on my comments.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have undone your edit, as the RfA is currently on hold.
The candidate's statement was not filled in, and the RfA is on hold until the candidate has the opportunity to correct this detail. Obviously, once this is done, you are welcome to re-add your comment (in fact, if nothing else is done in the meantime, you can just undo with an edit summary of 're-inserting my !vote now that the RfA is no longer on hold' or something!
People like you are the reason a lot of people are giving up on this site. I hope you continue to have fun "kicking people when they're down".James Frankcom (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
People like you, who claim academic "credentials" but create copy-paste copyvios and fail to adequately source almost any of their contributions (a real academic would know the hows and whys of this) are almost as much of the problem as a system that allows unsourced, unverifiable alleged information to persist here for years. You applied for a role you are not qualified for and you got a straight response. Plagiarism used to be a good way to get drummed out of the academy, or haven't you heard? If having glaring deficiencies pointed out in a straightforward and professional manner is why some people "are giving up on this site" then that's all to the good (though it doesn't really appear to be so). The people who care about getting it right will learn that unsourced information is unacceptable. You don't strike me as one of those people. Prove me wrong. Go source all the articles you've created that are unsourced and get rid of the copyvios -- requesting speedy deletions for those would be the easiest route.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I think this post vindicates your Oppose fairly well. Even outside every other issue, this attitude gets a resounding "hell no" from me. --King Öomie15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bristol Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, noticed you were also working on Nicole Blackman. It seems to me as though most of the material listed in the bibliography section is inappropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages (magazine articles, chapbooks, etc) - if you could please help sort this out, that would be great. Thanks, keep up the good work! Feather Jonah (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you didn't leave any explanation on the article, could you please explain the issues represented by these tags? The source is an official government biography that confirms the information in the (two-sentence stub) article. Tony Fox(arf!)17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The primary source tag is to indicate that the article rests entirely on a primary source, which is not sufficient for notability and verification. The refimprove tag is a reminder that reliable sources, independent of the subject, are required and that the referencing needs to be improved.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Toshiyuki Kakuta, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Ray19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to editwar, but do you truly consider the provincial government of Manitoba to be unreliable concerning the historical membership of its assembly? Ray03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I consider it a primary source, insufficient for building a proper encyclopedia article, for many reasons. I'm sorry you don't understand why blps of nobody's that hinge on a single primary source need primarysources and refimprove tags. You're inability to grasp this concept is beyond my ability cure.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually haven't removed hardly any "content." Most replaced excessive, lengthy quotes which obscure the issue with summaries. Short, declarative sentences. Long quotes are a classic for such coatracks. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you redirected this to Alcibiades the Schoolboy. That's probably sub-optimal, as the topic isn't fictional. We had some discussion on this on User talk:Casliber. After more reflection, the best solution is to move the page to Homosexuality in the Renaissance; of course we have no article on this rather obvious topic despite entire books on it, but we had one for pederasty during this period, even though it's just a subtopic. Further, although the Florentine stuff is well documented, the book about it still uses only homosexuality in its title. . Some word replacements seem necessary. Pcapping22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The only thing in that article that stood up at all was claims about the work of fiction, Alcibiades the Schoolboy (which isn't really about Pederasty, either). The article as it stood (and stands in the history) is basically one big lie. I have of course no objection to an article on Homosexuality in the Renaissance. Would support a deletion of the redirect/article Pederasty in the Renaissance. More fun to be had can be found at Haiduc's "Modern Pederasty" cat which had both Horatio Alger Jr listed as a pederast (he was a child molester, if anything) and James Baldwin as one (who was a brilliant writer, but a garden variety homosexual). How many more false claims are made by that category, i don't yet know. I suspect quite a few.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The stuff about Florence checks out from the book I linked above. I merged it, with changes, and redirected it to LGBT history#The Renaissance, because this entire epoch was missing from that article. The LGBT editors can take it from there. I'll have a look at the other stuff you pointed out above. Pcapping23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of guys from the modern pederasty cat. It's less clear what to do with those that wrote literary works with a pederasty tint in this epoch, e.g. Ralph Chubb. Probably they need a different cat, because ideating about pederasty is not the same as doing it. Even more so for authors that wrote historical works about pederasty during this period— those I've just removed. Pcapping23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The cat is a blp nightmare waiting to happen (like a lot of them) and should go. I neutralized more of the language that you redirected (i didn't really care where it went). cheers.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's disheartening. They don't seem to understand the problem of big numbers at all (leaving aside other almost as important issues for simplicity). I'm not participating because, honestly, it seems like a useless cacophony without anyone with the power (or the balls, Mr. Wales) to cut the cord. I'm an uncompromising dick, so the chance that i could actually add anything productive to that chorus is even slimmer. All that said, I'm glad some good diligent folks are trying. Eagerly following along. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Bravo! Me and my wife thought it was nice to see some reasonable remarks on the ANI fiasco about Benjiboi and porn BLPs (or indeed any BLPs). My friend Artie also reckoned you deserve a good pat on the back. Well done! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, because you are interested in fight with false nobles, hoaxers etc., as me, please, can you help? In article "Knight" one user added hoax about O'Shaughnessys and hereditary knighthood. Of course, he added some "sources", but in this "sources" are nothing about "hereditary knighthood". If you can, please help. --Yopie (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've retired from dealing with these kinds of problems on Misplaced Pages until fundamental changes are made in the editing environment (which i expect will never happen, but i won't be made a fool of any longer). Sorry I can't help you out. It's just that there are so many thousands of hoaxes, lies, frauds, etc... here and no will or means to clean out this Augean Stable and prevent the shit from acreting further. Good luck, go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Monahan
I was a bit surprised to see this AFD. I understand that there was a sockpuppet who added false information, but I was wondering how did he get the information past other editors? I'm just curious and was wondering if you could share a summary of the events that led to this AFD. Erik (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
How does false information get past wikipedia editors? Most are lazy and incompetent and don't enforce standards. It's very easy. As it is, that never should have been a stand alone list. Fellow only has 5 or so notable "works."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I cannot remember what the list looked like. What were some examples of so-called works outside the five or so? Erik (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
About 50 or so unsourced articles he wrote for the New York Press. This included 50 word capsule reviews and short contributions to things like "The best places to buy cheap cigarettes in new york." None of it was on-line verifiable (and who on earth would list all that>? As i pointed it in one of those discussions long ago, i was once a wire service reporter. As a consequence, there are about 1,000 "works" with my byline (most of it ephemera -- daily stock market reports, company earnings, reports of minor local happennigs all dating back to the early 1990s). Were i to become a succesful screenwriter, or whatever, would it make sense to have a list of 1,000 tiny wire articles i'd written? No. FInally, the parade of sock puppets behind all that garbage had been caught frequently lying and fabricating. The general unsuitability of the material coupled with the fact that the editor responsible for the content was a serial liar made deletion the best course of action.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It was just a surprise to see something Featured be deleted through AFD. Happy editing! Erik (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
PlayerHistory
Hi there, at my RfA you brought up the issue of PlayerHistory being an unreliable source but you never revealed why you thought this. Would you mind enlightening me so I can see why I'm not supposed to use it in the future? Cheers, -- BigDom18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You had the chance to learn then. I offered, you declined to be told. Now, I'm not inclined. Go do your own research. The short answer: It has unpaid editing and almost zero editorial controls. I'm sure you're still srabbling about wikipedia making useless inappropriate articles with poor sources like that one, but don't be discouraged; most wikipedia editors support that kind of thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no way of researching who runs the website, you know that as well as I do. I'm starting to think that you don't actually know the answers. I also fail to see how you can call articles that meet a widely accepted guideline "inappropriate". Cheers, -- BigDom19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The owner of the website discloses who he is. Really, just don't return here. I couldn't give two shits for the stupid and irresponsible ATHLETE internal wikipedia guideline. The good news for you is I'm done with wikipedia except for a few specific things. Use as many unreliable sources as you care too. In fact, i encourage it. Why? It might hasten the day. As for teaching you -- I'm just not interested in educating fan-boys and youngsters about research in the humanities. It's a tedious process and they never seem to learn anyway. Now run along.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What a mess. Starting with the Rahman edits. They're bad -- but what you'd be reverting back to would be just as bad (don't have to know the topic to understand how awful the prose and loaded language is there, i.e. "the clearly visionary Rahman" ). Basically, that article appears to be a playground for various Malaysian factions interested in truth and not encyclopedia articles. That's a constant byproduct of the irrational wikipedia system.
The Mahathir article is a little more complex.
His edits to place "Chinese" before those businessmen's names is clear race-baiting (our friend the editor is 99.9% certain to be a Bumiputera]. They are in fact ethnic-Chinese, but the desire to emphasize their "foreignness" (both men born in malaysia, if i recall) in that context is thoroughly inappropriate and a pretty clear indicator of an unhealthy (from the point of view of accurate, fair content) agenda.
His removal of the bit about Mahathir's predictions about US elections in 2006 seems good -- a piece of information so minor it wouldn't belong in a 500 page biography on Dr. M, let alone an encyclopedia article. Just more tourettic keyboard diarrhea sprayed onto the website.
The removed bit about the Australian media was accurate and could be sourced. But it was fact tagged for a long time. Its omission doesn't degrade the article in any important way, but was an accurate statement which dozens of high quality cites support.
The bit about the prickliness of Dr. M vis a vis singapore is true, and the sparing, mutual piss-taking nature of his relationship with Harry Lee in Singapore is an important part of both men's biographies. However, the removed bit was unsourced and was written by someone trying to prove something about Mahathir, i.e. that he's a hypocrite. So here we have a POV editor from the other side removing the slightly slanted, unsourced statement. I'd say this edit is a net benefit. At least he didn't add crap.
The removed bit about jews and ghettos. It's true that Dr. M said it, it's true that he frequently said things construed to be antisemitic (he used to bang on about a jewish bankers, particularly George Soros, during the region's financial troubles in the 1990s), but is the way that's handled in the removed (sourced) graph encyclopedic? No. We should be quoting a scholar and/or a reputable opinion writer on the topic of Dr. M's alleged antisemitism. Not just an out of context bloc quote from the man himself. So i find both what was removed and what was there in the first place problematic.
The edits about Badawi "giving in to the Singaporeans" and "giving in" to something else is pure garbage, and should be removed. A lot of Mahathir loyalists are furious at Badawi for recently saying the "New Economic Policy" brought in by Mahathir (it gives Bumiputera's priority in government contracting, education, calls for a transfer of corporate ownership, etc...) should be phased out. So the POV of the editor becomes clearer. This edit can be classified as "childish unsourced editorializing."
The Lingam removal should be restored, but the mild soapboxing and innappropriate tone needs to be fixed (i.e. "throughout the proceedings Mahathir feigned ignorance." I rather doubt that the linked Associated Press article to that statement makes that determination).
Hope this helps. I'd say you have a pov-whitewasher, likely a young teenager, on your hands. Aint anyone can edit grand? Mahathir is one of the most fascinating world leaders of the 20th century and I personally have a deep interest in the man. The wikipedia article on him is a hopeless mess.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that detailed analysis. Could you handle some of that repair work? I watchlist the article but I'm limited by my ignorance of the topic to just reverting obvious vandalism. Will Bebacktalk19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries. But no, i won't be taking that on. I'm mostly still here out of an interest at the macro-content level. Good to see your name again though. (I didn't even remember posting to that talk page -- Phil Bowring is an acquaintance and close to a dear friend of mine. I used to work for his old shop.)Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - I don't want to get too involved either. I've posted a similar request to User:Earth, the most prolific editor of the article. He hasn't been active this month but it looks like he still drops in occasionally. If nothing else can be done I might remove the contentious parts entirely. Will Bebacktalk22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Following up on concerns about User:Ash's use of citations
Please see this draft RFC/U. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have told Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I get the point you are making, and I do understand where you are coming from, but could you tone it down some? It isn't really helping matters. NW(Talk)04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
What? Have I been mucking about in the continence creation toobes?Bali ultimate (talk)
I did a few days ago. It's clearly a moral problem, but i quickly concluded that Godwin couldn't be so incompetent a lawyer as to just dismiss this stuff when he was in fact at risk. So having done no research (admitting my laziness here) i presume that wikipedia will continue to do the legal thing rather than the right thing. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the meta threads yesterday morning and Metz's article last night. While I'm not up on the legal nits, it's pretty clear that there's a lot of inappropriate material about. I have it on good authority that commons is a cesspool, in this regard. The projects need structural changes to cope with this sort of thing, as the communities are inherently incapable of finding their way ethically. More needs to be covered by speedy deletion criteria (and speedy blocking). I do miss Bali, but there's time ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew17:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is mouthbreathing pseudo-libertarians, randroids and god knows what else. There is no law compelling them to do the right thing in this (and many other regards) so they gleefully puff themselves up and shout like children "i won't do it because you can't make me!" and imagine, meanwhile, they're striking a blow for "freedom" (again, the philosophical and ethical frameworks behind this stuff aren't very deep). You want to fix wikipedia? That will only happen when someone at Google wakes up and smells the coffee. Google drives the whole phenomenon and are the ones with the simple levers to compel change. Will they? Well, again, lots of wild-eyed web 2.0 cultists, internet libertarians, etc. etc. so probably not. (sounds like you've already departed the morning of the world, then?) Bali ultimate (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done winter, this year. The worst is the lack of humidity.
This project was cool when the typical self-selecting participant had a fucking clue; these days, as a top-five site, *everyone* shows up, which includes the 3 billion people of below average intelligence. It's also pretty clear that the community has little ethical sense. At this point, Misplaced Pages must show up in the top ten of most Google searches, and that raises the stakes across the board. Internet traffic is a new currency, and WMF sites have huge monetization potential that unrealized due to the non-profit nature.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Croatia–Mongolia relations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Debresser is right about one thing: the profanities are rather inappropriate. And they detract from your argument, which appears right on the merits. I realize arguments like this one can get frustrating, but please try to moderate yourself, if for no other reason than to ensure that your opponents can't change the subject from the content of your debate to its tone. Profanities can't possibly help you, but they can concede the moral high ground, and perhaps lead to other problems further along the line. Shimeru (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For fuck's sake: "What the fuck are you on about" means "what the hell are you talking about." The expletive is adverbial and for emphasis. As for the "moral high ground" gibberish, I'm not interested. This is just more wikipedia fail - the article in question is being owned by the members of a messianic cult (does the term "epistemic closure" mean anything to you?) and typical wikipedia admin that you are, you come to me talking about one use of the word "fuck?" This is just more MMORPG bullshit, and i'm sorry to say you're enabling it.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite aware. I'm saying that you're not helping your argument. In fact, you're allowing your opponents to deflect the debate from the substantive issues, like sourcing and ownership, to the rather less important issue of your behavior. Think about it. Shimeru (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well, you're of course right on the question of tactics and i appreciate the spirit in which you came here. I just don't care about tactics, and am tired of the dysfunctional approach to editorial issues (which is obviously not your, or any single persons, fault).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Your comment here was a blockable personal attack on me. You implied I am not who I say I am, that I have some sort of underlying bias, and insulted my ability to understand non-computer related issues.
Please feel free to google my full name. That will give you 20+ years of on-net record of who I am and what I do, which is much wider than "computer science". My only connection to the Chabad movement is that one of my college friends married into Chabad, which I disclosed on the talk page, but that's a random connection, and I am not in active contact with that friend. I am not jewish nor of jewish ancestry; my family religious background is Quaker and Episcopalian, but I am agnostic by personal choice. I have no "side" in the fight about Schneerson's Wiki page.
I don't think you're a member of Chabad and i never said so. Quite clearly you're not. I don't think your "biased" in their favor, and i never said so. I thought i read you were a computer scientist or something on your user page. If i got that wrong, i apologize. However, I also think your intervention over there isn't helping. Your statement to the effect that you just can't simply judge any historical content if you didn't experience it yourself is troubling and calls very much into doubt your ability to assess and improve content in the humanities. Now, when are you going to stop enabling the biased editors over there and help fix that article rather than endlessly spin out wikipedia process? Those folks believe that Schneerson was well nigh infallible, and can't stand the mention that Schneerson declined as he aged (since accepting this puts a strain on their ideology and official history which is of course something different from the real thing). Your apparent statement that if Olidort, who clearly wishes he didn't say what he said, gets a letter to the editor published somewhere denying he said it, disqualifies the mention of the whole thing, was frankly silly.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not say that getting a letter to the editor published "disqualifies the mention of the whole thing". Please re-read my comments earlier. That would establish minimum WP:V and WP:RS basis to challenge Erlich's writings; whether that results in removal in toto, or just rebuttal on that specific point, remains to be discussed based on what specific details Olidort does or does not put on the record, and whether Erlich responds. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I neither put it there nor removed it. I think the logic for it being left out was that we (the non-Chabad editors, including those trying to put it in and uninvolved admins such as myself) would leave it out briefly in an abundance of caution, while the issues of whether Erlich is reliable or not and whether he misquoted Olidart or not were researched off-wiki and reliable verifiable sources generated (or not).
That could not be done instantaneously.
As we come to the end of a reasonable time for them to have researched and gotten stuff on the record, the question of what to do next rises up. Which is appearing now. But not urgently active yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've boxed the ani threads; mebbe they'll stick. You two seems to be chatting productively and I think most of it should move over the article talk pages. I've not read-up on all that stuff, but will in the next some days. Cheers, Jack Merridew01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No. Just a priori. First post ever is to AN/I by a new account that harbors weird grudges about the Misplaced Pages Review, refers to wikipedia with a possessive, and quotes with confidence (albeit wrongly) rather arcane policy information. Whoever it is, it's a lying game-player.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't. The strange grudge against Misplaced Pages Review, the banging on about "academic" standards, the flowery language- it all fits. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was A Nobody. It's certainly someone's sock, anyway. ReykYO!12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Aha. Oh dear. Still, at least that explains where he's been of late; I tried to persuade him that wikia was a better match for him back in the days of the Space Marine Chapters drama, so I'm glad he's taken that up eventually. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times
What is your association with The New York Times? Are you employed there? Do you know people who work there? Is that why you're fighting so hard to remove anything that sheds a bad light on them in regards to the Holocaust? If so, that is a COI. Are you also working with PhGustuf in order to control the The New York Times and the Holocaust article? Both your edits appear to look that way to me. I want the truth so just be honest with me. Caden16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not now or ever worked for he new york times. Never communicated with PHgustaf in any other forum than that talk page (or other public forums on wikipedia). Isn't their a biography of a footballer's girlfriend or a wrestlemania article that could benefit from you special talents? Why not run along and do that? Seems more your speed. Finally, future allegations without proof will result in action against you by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
