Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:56, 9 September 2006

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006)

Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me

Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me. I will address all of your allegations on the ANI. I was done with the arbitration, the message I sent was ending it, but you couldn't let it go could you? I guess calling me a troll is being "excessively zealous" whereas my actions are bootable. Why is there one standard for yourself, and another standard for everyone else? I asked you pointed questions on the arbitration, and you called me names, alleged that I was a "buddy" of the person, brought up irrelevant edit histories, and you did not follow: WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:Consensus. Travb (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Thank you for your comments, I am going to archive your comments as per Talk page: etiquette.

Please WP:AGF and refrain from calling me a troll. I would appreciate an apology.

In addition, you state that I meant you when I said: "season POV warrior". The talk page has no evidence of this. I included absolutly no names to avoid a ANI and anymore hard feelings, I wanted to let it go, but now because of your ANI I have been dragged back in. Although you assume that I stated you were a "season POV warrior", you have repeatedly explicity called me a troll, or used the adjective calling my actions "trolling".

"In the last 24 hours, not less than 40 comments and edits have been made to my arbcom case by you, and I think you are harassing me." How many comments have you had on the arbcom case? I notice that each section has a "Comment by others:" subsection. Do I qualify as an "other". Are only people who support you postion supposed to comment on the Arbcom? "my personal opinion" is that I have the right to comment as an "other", "that is my opinion and I am entitled to it." But unlike your lack of evidence on the Arbcom page, my personal opinion is supported by evidence: in this case wikipedia policy. "other" means that "other" people, not involved in the ArbCom are welcome to comment on the ArbCom, even if those comments do not support your position.

Now that we are scutinizing each others edits again, in regards to the "40 comments" you have probably noticed go through my edits to build your ANI case against me, that I often change my words, and rewrite my words. I never use the "show preview" button. Further:

1. What is the official number of edits before an editor is harrasing another editor?
2. Could your ANI be considered harassment, especially when I had clearly indicated I no longer was going to be involved in the arbcom?
3. If I make 40 edits on your ArbCom in response to your 40 edits, which was the case, is this harrassment?

I am sorry, but your argument simply has no merit.

But this "40 comments" is really another side note, yet another diversion you have created from the main point:

• I have every right to comment on the ArbCom, as an "other".

"If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions."

It already had, before you called your ANI.

I have made my point on your ArbCom page, and I was willing to move on. I am still willing to move on, and put this disagreement behind us, unless rootology requests my assistance.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with this user MONGO, I have had to deal with them before, you can see they dont understand brevity, many times when someone writes such long books they arent actually writing anything important. I have never seen a user apologize as much as some that have commented on your talk page. Dont get pulled into any drama, passive agressive. --zero faults 08:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...thanks...I've never seen such a long winded response at AN/I.--MONGO 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My mea culpa

As you suggested, I apologized to Fred today:

• User_talk:Fred_Bauder#I_apologize_again.

You were 100% right about Fred, and I was 100% wrong.

I will repeat again what I have said many times before: it is wrong for Encyclopedicadramatica to post private information about you. No one should go through such harrassment.

On a completly unrelated note:

RE: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_Mcilvaine FYI, I think the 99% of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are total bullshit too. I am holding out on the Flight-93-being-shot-down-theory.

If you have any good wikilinks on this theory, which cover both pro and con, please let me know. Travb (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lightning picture

Congratulations on Image:Picture 006.JPG, it is excellent. I've tried many times to photograph lightning strikes without success and am rather envious of you for your success.--Guinnog 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism (always)

Hmmm... Ultramarine seems to have headed off to mess with something else. But we have a new editor, Economizer, who has become intent on putting a bunch of POV stuff into the lead (and never touching anything outside the lead). I wonder if it mightn't be a good time for another quick article protection on Capitalism. LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Do you know if there is something weird going on with protection and edit history. I just noticed the article itself no longer shows up in my watchlist's recent changes (the talk page does though). I can view the history and all, just not from my watchlist.

Btw. Is this pushing it to ask about the {sectOR} tag that Economizer stuck at the top right before your protection. That just seems like the wrong tag to have there. I'm happy to chat about OR issues on the talk page, of course, but I'm not sure about that template at top. Oh well, maybe it's just best to leave locked as locked. LotLE×talk 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones

BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See . Morton devonshire 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa....it must absolutely be because of the U.S. Government trying to cover up the truth....NOT.--MONGO 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request for Jones article

Hi Mongo. That was quick. Thanks. But the idea was also to delte the criticism section, which is where most of the material really came from, and is now redundant and messy. I'm going to mention it also on the talk page to see if there is consensus.--Thomas Basboll 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I didn't know. Maybe some troll was disguising himself as you? Sir Crazyswordsman 08:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you, but I doubt the admins there will perform a CheckUser, since those with that power are almost never around anymore. And even if they were around, they don't like their buttons pushed. (read How to get banned for some more information). Sir Crazyswordsman 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure

Letting you know that I lengthened your block of DaffyDuck619 to indefinite, only to compel him to discuss; I'm letting you know since you put in your 31 hour *seconds* before I put in my indefinite. :) --Golbez 08:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I checked his block log after I blocked and I saw he has been a big time repeat offender--MONGO 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)