User talk:CyclePat - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CyclePat (talk | contribs) at 07:16, 3 December 2007 (adding archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:16, 3 December 2007 by CyclePat (talk | contribs) (adding archive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to my talk page! Please visit my company's webpage at CyclePat.ca.

{{Archive box|

A-101: Sep 2005 - Jan 29 2006

A-102: Jan 29 2006 - Jan 13 2007

A-103: Jan 13 2007 - Apr 10 2007

A-104: Apr 10 2007 - Apr 12 2007

A-105: Apr 13 2007 - May 29 2007

A-106: May 30 2007 - Sep 8 2007

[[/

}}

History - Archives by permanent link

In Ottawa it is currently Sunday 29 December, 05:14 (EDT).

"I may eventually get back to you. However, if it's past midnight, I might be sleeping! Shssh! Type quietly."

Hey Man

I think I need your help and support. I go an e mail from an editor asking me to look at the List_of_gay_porn_stars section. These articles are riddled with POV, advertisement and spam. I tried to do a simple prod tag but oh my did I get the thrashing of my life! These subjects are the actual editors of their pages. So, when an editor goes in to try and edit the articles, they jump on them and remove any edits they do not like. The way the WP:PORNBIO is written, all these people have to do is to win an award or be able to write something about themselves in a web page and it can be entered into WP. When you click on the links for these pages, they take you to websites that you either have to agree to enter in on adult content or it takes you to their porno stores. The only way to get around these people is to put them up for AfD. I need some help here. Do you think you would like to join forces with me to rid WP os some of this crap? Let me know. I certainly could use the support and help Junebug52 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks Bug, but I can't help you until my block is resolved. --CyclePat 08:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Which will be resolved once you agree to stop going on about the AMA per your community ban. Æon 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you notice, you, and a couple others, are the ones that keeps going on about AMA. In fact, in one of your previous comments you even mentioned Esperanza. Should you be blocked for trolling? This thing about banning me because I hold an opinion and express an opinion that most others disagree with seems a bit unsettling to me. Why not just ignore me? When I talk about this alleged obsession? Surely, it should be easy for an inteligent person like yourself to realize exactly what you are doing? I hope you, yourself can move on to something more productive eventually? Nevertheless, if you do wish to continue discussing this issue I'll be happy to do so via email. In the mean time, please feel free to explore and add smirky comments (trolling) to other user's talk pages. p.s.: Just one question, what is the need to put me under a threat of re-banning if I so much as mentions the subject again? Surelly, as you have shown with your Esperanza example, it is difficult to not talk about our history without talking about our past. What we had was a dissagreement... Obviously you supported the close of AMA and I didn't. At the time there was no community concensus and there was a lack of communication on your behalf. Partly because of this, and other reasons, such as the removal of perfectly legitimate conversation to improve the AMA, the closing of the AMA, as I saw it, was trolling on behalf of the ones that closed it. Nevertheless, I'm being labelled a troll. So if you say I do X and it's considered trolling then maybe it is. However, I fail to see what X is anymore? And why it may be considered trolling, given the fact that the AMA has been shut down? --CyclePat 21:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Concensus?

Ryan had said "you are banned indefinately from mentioning AMA on wiki again, that includes all namespaces, if you are to mention it once more, the indefinate block will be reinstated permanently." The problem with this ultimatum is that even though I want to do that. I know, at some point in time, there will be an opportunity, a lesson to explain to someone, etc. that it would be ideal or opportunitistic (for educational purposes and nothing to do, as you ademently keep insisting, in a trollish manner. The last I checked, trolling was something that was there for disruption. The only disruptions I've seen, in my view, where a couple disgruntled Admins that closed the AMA. Hey! Great for them! Now they don't have to deal with verbios comments which may contradict their logic. But trully, for everyone else who is not an admin and who put there word down in the MfD, all I noticed where comments to keep on going. Now, where are these people now, I don't know, I could assume maybe they where blocked? Or maybe they don't care anymore? The problem I see, is that process wasn't followed. Every step that was taken did not have, or you didn't show the community support. It wasn't until after the fact. So all that to say... You closed down AMA. I disagreed. I tried to continue working with the AMA. You blocked me indefinatelly. You then got the community concensus (after the fact). I still disagree. I'm still blocked. AMA is no longer active, and all the pages are prety much protected. So what more is there to say. I guess I'll have to make a sacrifice. :( It's trully a sad day, when something you believe in destroyed in what I considered a very unethical way. However, again, I can make that sacrifice. I wonder though, I remember Tom Harrisson saying something like, if I leave the AMA he would support it not beeing deleted. Humm... Actually, let's assume they do come back, maybe by that time I'll look back and say something like "Well, that was a hard sacrifice then but, really I think I can do without out it now!"... (nevertheless, I promise not to talk about the AMA, however I reserve the right, should it ever become re-institutionalized (by someone other than I) to talk about the subject on the appropriate page.

Please bare with me whilst I take it to an admin board. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At last. Welcome back, Pat, I have unblocked you. Remember, though, that tolerance for agitation about AMA is about zero, so if we think you've gone out to find an excuse for wikilawyering your way back to discussing it, you will be blocked again in no time. However, right now, I think you've said what we want to hear, so you're good to go. Let's be really clear here: agitating for reinstatement is right out, explaining why it failed should be done with caution. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A true personal sacrifice for me because of the disagreement on how things where being done, but, as we both know now, there wasn't very much left... except for principal! And nobody wants to hear about that right? Thank you for the unblock. --CyclePat 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat

Now that this drama is over, even though I am not sure about what it was all about, can you please help me rid Misplaced Pages of some good old nastily written and advertisement ridden pornography? I need all the help I can get. I have some admins that are onboard with me to back me up as these people are ruthless about their porn. Please let me know. I need an old friend! Junebug52 23:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a really big task. Is there a game plan? --CyclePat 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just jump in bud and start removing fluff and things that are advertisements. I think you are good enough editor to know what is encyclopedic and proper for wikipedia. I think I would go to WP:PORNBIO. There are the guidelines for this crap. Junebug52 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:user:CyclePat/UTC Timezone

Most of the timezones from the above page have been deleted so I have removed them. Also user:CyclePat/Template has been deleted so I have removed that too.Please reply on my Talk Page. Kathleen.wright5 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MS

One thing you're forgetting is that the page you are editing is a disambiguation page. It is not an article in its own right, and doesn't need to have citations, just links to articles which themselves may or may not be properly sourced. All the fact tags are inappropriate there, although in the interest of AGF I left all but three alone. Challenge the articles if you must (although I highly disagree with this on articles about SI units and state postal abbreviations) but on a dab page really the only criteria for removal are irrelevance and redlinks (which can occur if the subject article is deleted as unreferenced). Dethme0w 07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Islands

I can't remember. I may have used one of two methods. I may have said that the Belcher Islands and Mansel Island (GNU Tourism or Ottawa Islands at the Atlas of Canada and Mansel Island at the Atlas of Canada) are in the Qikiqtaaluk Region so the Ottawa Islands being between them are thus also in the same region. Being unlikely that the Kivalliq Region would reach out into the area for those islands. I might have used the coordinate discriptions of the regions to figure it out. The leagal discriptions were available from either the GNU or GC but I can't find it again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer to that is both yes and no. Prior to division in 1999 the Northwest Territories included the Baffin Region, Northwest Territories, Keewatin Region, Northwest Territories and the Kitikmeot Region, Northwest Territories. After divison, along with some border changes, they were renamed the Qikiqtaaluk Region, Kivalliq Region and the Kitikmeot Region by the Government of Nunavut. However, StatsCan still calls them Baffin Region, Nunavut, Keewatin Region, Nunavut and Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut but the borders are identical between the current GNU and the StatsCan versions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Although it's good to have references, it is really rare to have references in disambig pages, especially when the disambig content itself has an article about it, which provides references inside. OhanaUnited 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article removed where all verified. The references provide within the article removed and placed on the talk:MS (disambiguation) where either non existant or insuficiently reliable to meet wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. And, that' even while trying still trying to use common sense (common knowlege). --CyclePat 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to help right now I'm lookin into http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract06/murray_prs.pdf to see if I can find a source for Mass Spectrometry... making a reference with easybib, page 24.... etc... --CyclePat 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

EgyptAir

EgyptAir's IATA code IS NOT original research. Your continued demands that every last iota of information be individually sourced is bordering on disruptive, and I am no longer inclined to assume good faith on your part. Please stop. Dethme0w 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not blank out any content. And your warning is quite rude considering I know the rules on 3RR and have been working for a while with wikipedia. --CyclePat 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply here. You removed content from an article and mis-cited guidelines to justify it. And you've got a history of this behaviour. A warning is appropriate, because your edits are disruptive. Dethme0w 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye! --CyclePat 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you've been wasting the time of numerous editors, first by engaging in a pointless tag war on EgyptAir (demanding a cite for a noncontroversial fact that is supported by a reference on a page one link away) and then by crossposting a minor complaint on multiple boards. This has prompted me to review your recent conduct in general, and I note that you're also engaged in a pointless edit war on the MS disambiguation page.

Your conduct at both articles has been disruptive, and likely has been disruptive to prove a point. I will block you if you continue to edit war on these – or any – articles over your own misinterpretation and misapplication of WP:OR and WP:V. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the link you're talking about could you please direct me. I'm really confused about what your saying. When I checked the link at the the the time there where no link to show a reference of MS with EgyptAir. I asked this question and now it appears as though there is a proper citation. Again, I have no clue what you are talking about in a reference which is one link away (which I did check). Furthermore, the information, according to me was contreversial because I coudn't find any reliable source. I'm sorry if questions appear disruptive however until recently I trully had no "reliable" references (which I again I did follow the ITA something) to show that MS is the related to EgyptAir. Again, this has been resolved between Dethme0w and I. Goodbye!

I have trouble reconciling your statement that the matter has been 'resolved' with your recent complaints to WP:AN/I and elsewhere. As your edit war on EgyptAir was not the first instance of this sort of trouble, I will be keeping an eye on your conduct in the future. As I said, I only intend to block you for disruption if you continue to be disruptive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Pat, thank you so much for support my successful RfA and trusting Ryan's judgment. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand ..

is exactly what the point is of your current battle to insist on rigorous sourcing of the abbreviation 'MS' in so many articles. Could you please explain? I feel that knowing what you're doing and why you're doing it will help understanding between everyone involved. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"This week MS, next week MT." p.s.: I'm sorry but I have no other answer than human curiousity and finding out the original sources as per wikipedia's policy. Pick one thing and do your best and finding the sources. Always ask questions and always try to find out how and where the original source (usually an assumption) was made. --CyclePat 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it that Montana is about to lose its postal abbreviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.63.240 (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG! LOL! HAHA :) I'm crying over here. LMAO ROF! I love a good sense of humour. --CyclePat 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Sadly enough, you're right. The article doesn't even make reference to the Postal Code. Thankfully I have some experience sourcing the MS article and I can easily find the information now! But, I would have probably done the same thing with Montana had I not gained previous experience with Mississippi? (head shaking... omg) --CyclePat 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, I have reverted your change on the MS disambig page. Your actions have the appearance of being disruptive by focusing on a single aspect and summarily ravaging the articles linking to it. Please consider what others have asked you and I am asking you. spryde | talk 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For those of you that appear to be stalking me. I've replied to this here --CyclePat 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Rifleman 82's talk page

Not a problem, I wasn't annoyed, so sorry if my reply appeared to be pointed. All the best Tim Vickers 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

You have been here long enough that I shouldn't have to point out to you that this is a copyright violation. It was lifted from here. I would ask that if there is anymore information in the article that violates copyright you remove it right away. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

euh! yah. Sorry is all I can say for now. --CyclePat 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. We all make mistakes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive reference edit warring

Pat, after repeated warnings, you've gone back to the same conduct that I warned you about.

You were edit warring to include a citation on 1 E-3 s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to confirm that ms is an SI abbreviation for millisecond.
You included a WP:POINTy references to WP:SYN in your citation, while simultaneously (and erroneously) changing the abbreviation from ms to Ms: .
You made a frivolous 3RR report over the matter: . The article has now been protected due to your silliness.

I'm suspending your editing for 24 hours. When you come back, try to find sources and citations for contentious, nonobvious facts, or do something else useful and productive. Don't waste your time and everyone else's on silly citations and pointless revert wars. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

From the start TenOfAllTrades has being antagonising me. He believe his Truth with a capital T, is the ultimate solution. His lack of good faith from the start by looking at my previous history of blocks and allegeding I'm a troll is un-nerving and frustrating. Cross referencing his stalking of MS (disambiguation) and the provocative comments calling me a troll, I believe there is something here to be said in terms of "Forceful and power hungry administrator." I don't agree with this block and am asking for a review of user:TenOfAllTrades. I bet you this wasn't even on the WP:ANI board? Obviously, he's been following my moves and has admittedly shown dislike for my WP:BOLD attempts to make Misplaced Pages a better place with verifiable information. It's not pointy... it's being truthful... and it's doing the things, which, ironically some people don't agree. Having a reliable, well sourced article! If finding verifiable information, as discussed on the talk page of talk:1 E-3 s consist of getting blocked, then hands up to Misplaced Pages in contradicting itself and making me look like an asshole. Nevertheless, I will continue to provide reliable information. This block, I believe, is a step towards harassment. I would move that my block history, be cleared so administrators such as this are not biased... I don't have any other troubles with my Doppler account. So again.. if following WP:BOLD & WP:V consists of me getting a block then surely there is something wrong with the statements from Jimmy Whales which says "can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." and I cry at how confused I am... Please someone review this block. I'm sorry, if my actions have caused confusion... but at this point, after 6 days, we've finally got our first reply on the talk page and things are starting to move forward.

Decline reason:

You are carrying on your edit war in your application for an unblock request. This leads me to the conclusion that further disruption would follow if you were unblocked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Request reason:

I can not carry on with an edit war because the article in question millisecond is protected. There is no real edit war, because I have stoped editing and adding content and went to the WP:ANI 3RR notice board for feedback on the situation instead of continuing to edit.

Decline reason:

It was protected because of you. You have a history of disruption and a long block log, and your edits in this case were disruptive. — Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s.: WP:POINT? What is the point? I've been talking on the talk page for almost every edit I've done? The breakdown in communication is on behalf of those that believe there is no need for sources. I don't see any "point" here. --CyclePat (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what has prompted this attack on me. I've never been involved in any sort of content dispute with Pat, and I don't know what he means by his 'Truth with a capital T' business. I would be interested to see where, exactly, I called Pat a 'troll'; I will certainly apologize if he presents a diff to support that claim. I admit readily that I am aware that this user has a history of obstinate behaviour and that he had been blocked for it before, but I don't believe that disqualifies me from blocking him for it now.

The accusation of 'harassment' is groundless. He shouldn't find it particularly suprising that I noticed his disruptive editing on 1 E-3 s given that – as an administrator – I have WP:AN/3RR on my watchlist, and saw the report that Pat himself filed there. The warning that I gave to him last week (regarding his edit warring on and disruptive edits to EgyptAir and MS) resulted from a report that Pat himself filed on WP:AN/I. Frankly, if he made more of an effort to avoid drawing attention to his own disruptive behaviour then it probably wouldn't have garnered a block—I can't be everywhere, and I really don't have the time and inclination to monitor his every edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply by CyclePat

True the history of you comment don’t specifically call me a troll. I do remember reading through a few conversations and one person, maybe not you, said I had a trolish attitude. Nevertheless, you comment clearly state I'm disrupitve (Though I think I'm following Misplaced Pages's rules) and I find it personally offensive, considering I’m trying to respect Misplaced Pages’s rules. On one hand I’m told that I should remove all un-sourced information (Interestingly enough there has been a good conversation happening at MS (disambiguation), which involved user:Itub) yet on the other you have just blocked me for trying to add sources to this information. You don’t give to many details about why this is considered a “pointy” situation and disruptive. You just insult me. One after the other.:

State that you believes I’m making a point. In this statement violate WP:V rules because you state “If we required every bit of minutiae in articles to be sourced there'd be more references than text! And goes off topic when you state “Dethme0w adds “fact” tags to some statements in the article that actually ought to be sourced. Why Pat ignored these I can't say.” Finally, You, with the a capital Y, as in Truth with the capital T, accert that “Footnoting the abbreviation in every airline infobox is a waste of time and space, and Pat's actions here are nothing more than disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point” http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=171061503 (I obviously disagree with these statements and take offence)

Here you state: “Your conduct at both articles has been disruptive, and likely has been disruptive to prove a point.” You don’t call me a troll but, if you look at the first line of WP:Troll it says “Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces.” (Ex.: Your not calling me a thief, you’re just saying that I steal stuff... same difference)
You ask me to stop and insult me at the same time. “Idiosyncratic”

You Promise to block if I’m disruptive... yet you’ve already made your conclusion that somehow there’s some hidden agenda to prove a point. You then state that I have a “misinterpretation and misapplication of WP:OR and WP:V.” But you do not go into details and stop the conversation short there. (You give warnings but they fall on deaf ears because you fail to explain. For example you could say : When you do X (add a reference), though it is in collaboration with WP:V it is a violation of ______”)
You blocked me for disruption. And provide an your explanations. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:CyclePat&diff=prev&oldid=172563400

**note: all these elements are clearly explained in my edit summary’s and items.

Also, I believe I may be mixed up with comments from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#User_talk:Dethme0w Where you state : “Pat's actions here are nothing more than disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point—again.” And later you insult me (FLAME) with the statement “idiosyncratic understanding” (FYI: that means “Pertaining to an abnormal susceptibility to some drug or other agent, peculiar to the individual.” ) --CyclePat (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. I found it. user:Itub stated when talking to me something along the lines that he fear he may be violating WP:DNFT --CyclePat (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Second reply by CyclePat

Hi Again, I know what you're trying to do. I know this because I wanted to see if you had the chance to see my recent edits by checking your recent contributions. I noticed you've been looking for an essay which ironically deals with a similar situation, one which we are presently facing. You're trying to find some sort of way that will explain to me your POV; That sources are not required. I believe this is because I'm trying to find well sourced information for article related to MS (disambiguation) and wanting to include it into the various articles. That means I agree with you: "I'm essentially wrecking the Status Quo and being disruptive." I feel as though I am being quite tolerant and observing the rules of Misplaced Pages. Yet, it appears as though you don't want me to follow them. In particular, we're having a problem here with WP:V. To improve an article it must be changed, it must grow! Growth is a fundamental keystone of Misplaced Pages which goes hand in hand with it's GFDL licences and Policies. These policies have been elaborated and reviewed by thousands of editors and the consensus is that we "must have reliable information" which is is verifiable. There are too many exceptions and problems that exist with people adding "unsourced" information within Misplaced Pages that it saddens me. I've had much experience in the past of debates escalating to the point where I've ended up being blocked. So now, when I try to include information people are biased towards by background and look at me as if I was suffering from Leopard syndrome. Not only that, I have a tendency to not let things hang and push forward. If someone threaten me with a block or if a dispute starts I will usually not let things hang. Unfortunately, with the article millisecond, it took me a few days to get into realizing what is and was happening... specially with user:Itub who has ironically followed me with interest from the article MS (disambiguation). So, what's my point... I think you know. There is no real point; all I want to do is add some well sourced information. It frustrates me, when I arrive at an article and I don’t understand the content. When I want to know more information... there is no sources and this violates Misplaced Pages’s policy’s of inclusion. My intentions are all good and I plan to continue to provide sources for many articles. (Just take a look at my user talk page and you will see the 5 references I've found). What's that you say? One of them is wrong? (as someone has pointed out regarding Ms)... How can a reference be wrong? (Of course it can...rhetorical question here). They way of solving this, is by obviously expanding the article to maintain WP:NPOV and explain that "M" stands for Mega according to the SI system. Or don't even explain it... just put it there with the list of other references and let people figure it out themselves. Remember WP:CITE and WP:V is gold. Anything else just doesn't matter, even if it does disrupt the status quo... surely the consensus found within these rules was for the "Greater good of Misplaced Pages"... That's what counts! Good edits... Good intentions... Surely you’ve noticed this and realize there is no need to block me for adding these sources.

Patrick

p.s.: This email is not released under GFDL.

Pat, you don't actually have a choice about whether or not to release your contributions to Misplaced Pages under the GFDL. If you don't want something released under GFDL, don't submit it to Misplaced Pages. If you want to send me a message by email, you can do so; if you want to play to the crowd by posting here, you can—but in the latter case, you're stuck with the GFDL.

I am astonished at the amount of time that you're willing to waste on finding 'proof' on the 'net that ms actually means millisecond in the article 1 E-3 s. It just doesn't need a footnote. Milli is linked from the article, and it describes the prefix. That article, in turn, links to SI, which has a multitude of links and notes explaining the full system of metric abbreviations, including a link to the BIPM itself. I don't know how much academic writing you've been involved in in your time, or how much experience you have in determining the type of material that should or should not be footnoted in a reference work. I do know that your overly-literal reading of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other policies (to take an example, your suggestion that it's a violation of WP:SYN to assemble prefixed SI units is...unusual) is decidedly out of sync with the community's desires, the project's goals, and conventional editorial standards for academic writing.

As to you 'know what trying to do' based on my question at the Ref Desk, you'll need to readjust your mindreading. I'm afraid that the question is one that's been in my mind for a while, and I wasn't even thinking of you when I posted it. You've demonstrated that you're capable of contributing here and being a net benefit to Misplaced Pages, except when you decide to go off on one of these disruptive, quixotic quests. I haven't any intention or hope of seeing you indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages, however I will continue to block you when you ignore warnings and edit disruptively.

I hope that when your block expires you'll be able to return to being a useful, positive, non-disruptive contributor to Misplaced Pages. Your energy and drive are powerful resources. I encourage you to do the worthwhile things that you've outlined on your to-do list. I don't really have any other comments for you, and I don't have any intent of getting dragged into any further discussion with you during the remainder of your block. I hope that I don't have to show up on this talk page in an administrative capacity again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Milli seconds References

Here is a list of references I have worked on during my block:

"ms." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com. Accessed 20-11-2007. Note: ms abbr. of millisecond.
"ms." The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002. Answers.com. Accessed 20-11-2007. Note: ms abbr. of millisecond
"Definition of ms." Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2005. merriam-webster.com. Accessed 20-11-2007. Note: ms functions as an abbreviation for millisecond.
Harper, Douglas. "Millisecond." Online Etymology Dictionary. Nov. 2001. etymonline.com. Accessed 20-11-2007. Note: "one thousandth of a second," 1922, from L. mille "a thousand" (see mile) + second (n.).

here are the references that where removed from the article. (No reasons where given assides for the fact that the information was wrong and that we shouldn't reference a wikipedia article because it's not credible. I've reformated them and removed biased, repetitive and obvious information.

Misplaced Pages contributors, "International System of Units." Section: Units, _Wikipedia, The 💕_, 10-11-2007, 17:38 UTC, Accessed 13-11-2007.

Note: Primary information from cross-referencing SI prefix, "m" symbol (milli) with SI base unit, "s" symbol (second). "ms" refers to ther abbr. of the terms "milli" & "second".

Prentiss, Barry. "MD Abbreviations by Abbreviation." _Stanford University : Standford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)_. 25-02-1999, SLAC Mechanical Design Department for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, 09-11-2007.

Note: This reference explains "ms" with an upper-case. "Ms" means "Millisecond".

It's up to the article to explain the difference in between "M" and "m" if we so chose. Furthermore, Trivia is a good section for the interesting fact about millisecond.

ToDo

To-do list for User:CyclePat:

edit · history · watch · refresh

There are no active tasks for this page

Copyright Violation of use of image within another article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Weirscover.jpg
Speedy delete or Sources required at http://en.wikipedia.org/Andrew_Ellingboe
Nominate SI for peer review WP:PR http://en.wikipedia.org/International_System_of_Units

Comment to Itub

Since user Itub doesn't have an email I'm posting this here.

Hi Itub Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: I completely understand the implications of adding references and resources. As stated on my user talk page and demonstrated by the 24 hour block, it can seem disruptive. However, when someone wants to add content to an article, such as the above reference, we're essentially changing the status quo. There will obviously be some sort of disruption if one person disagrees with the new changes. You've explain that you believe there is no need for a reference. However I've explain that it is difficult, at first glance, to read this article and take it at face value. There is skepticism because it's hard to find cited and verifialbe information. Rules and regulations support, even WP:IGNORE, my idea and seem to contradict yours. All I'm looking for is an easy way to verify this article. So what is the reasonable compromise which you think we should make? Perhaps include some references?

I hope if you don't mind but I would like to comment on the recent additions you have made. What you are doing is not disruptive. The manner in which you are doing it is the disruptive part. Coming to an article, claiming WP:OR, WP:SYN, and a host of other policies and guidelines does not endear you to the rest of the people working on the article. If you want to ensure the items are sourced, go find the sources yourself and add them quietly with at most a quick note on the talk page. Don't war over it and most certainly don't declare that you will remove it unless someone else does the legwork for you. If you can't find a source for it, pop a quick note on the page asking where this information came from. If nobody responds to you, don't remove it unless you are absolutely sure it is a false piece of information. The exception to the above rules is what Jimbo is concerned with: WP:BLP (the quote you keep using to justify your methods). Biographies of Living persons must have their facts sourced correctly as we are dealing with real peoples lives here. Non-BLP articles don't have as serious an issue if not everything is properly sourced. Non-obvious items should be done first and the rest later if we can get to it (FYI, with abbreviations, taking the parts of the name of an item is one of the most common and obvious ways of abbreviating the term or word). I hope you take this as a serious comment meant to help you out. spryde | talk 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for this explanation. I am happy you pointed it out. I'm serious. That's what I have been doing. I'll be taking a short wikibreak before adding anymore content to that article: To think about what you have said. ANd how I could addapt, if not forget about my old methods. Thank you again and I appreciate the time you took to answer this. --CyclePat (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your impression is mistaken.

Pat, this is not going to "require hours of discussion". You've been repeatedly and explicitly warned not to engage in this sort of WP:POINTy and disruptive misapplication of WP:V.

Should you continue, I will block you. This is a final warning. Why not just find something that needs a footnote, and fix that instead? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat, you are indeed engaged in a disruptive dispute that relates to content. I reverted you because you had engaged in the same sort of POINTy editing about which you had been warned – extensively – before. You are not in a position to play the 'conflict of interest' card to escape censure here. I assure you that if I block you I will post to AN/I and encourage other admins to review my actions and yours—but if you continue on this course, you will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, CyclePat. Staking out an extreme position and then demanding that other people 'compromise' is not a form of dispute resolution.

Do you remember what happened when you were lobbying on behalf of the AMA? A substantial number of editors told you that your position was out of sync with the community's wishes. You responded with a great deal of ruleslawyering, edit warring, circular discussion, and spamming of multiple noticeboards. Eventually, your refusal to stop beating a dead horse led to you being blocked for nearly three months, until you agreed to let the matter drop and return to constructive contribution.

I am concerned over the clear and obvious parallels between that situation and the one that you're digging yourself into now. A week ago you were making spurious reports on WP:AN/I and WP:3RR, now you're on WP:RFC and WP:RSN. Many, many editors have now observed that demanding citations for facts which are a) obvious, b) common knowledge, c) already footnoted in a wikilinked article, d) uncontroversial, without dispute over definition, or e) all of the above, is disruptive. Such notes are superfluous, inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's style, inconsistent with any sort of academic or technical writing standards, and visually distracting. I will leave aside for the moment the fact that even if references were needed in this specific case – which they are not – the references that you've chosen (dictionaries) are inappropriate for the subject area in question (metrology).

You've already been blocked once for your conduct surrounding this issue. The next block is likely to be longer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your continuing to miss the point is not something that I can remedy. I've tried explaining to you the problems with your conduct over the last few weeks, and made no headway. You're going to have to find another editor who you trust and who can explain in different words what the issue is here, because I've done my level best to explain things to you and failed. Now you're moving to personal attacks ("power hungry administrator"), which doesn't bode well for any sort of productive discussion.

If you don't know what metrology is, it shows that you haven't even been following the (many) discussions that you've started. Not only was it brought up in one of them, it was wikilinked. Do your own homework; don't expect me to do it for you.

Short of acknowledging that your conduct has been disruptive and undertaking not to repeat it, I am unlikely to respond to any further comments that you might leave on my talk page. You're welcome to your 'hours of discussion' with anyone who actually wants to try explaining mattesr to you; I've got better things to do. If you engage in any additional disruption to articles, I'll block you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop now.

What you are doing is disruptive. Please stop now or you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: