Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mainstream astronomy (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 15 July 2007 (→Note to self). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please reply to comments I make on the same page. I always watch pages where I leave comments for at least a week. Replying there will make it easier for other users (and me — and perhaps even you) to follow our conversation. Thanks.

Please add new items at the bottom of this page. (Click here to do that.)

Archives

Archive 1 9-Sep-2005 to 15-Jun-2007

Space Gamer

Hi Chris!!

I got here via a post you made on the discussion page for "Space Gamer" magazine.

I am a big FASA Star Trek fan. In fact, FASA's "version" of Star Trek is my favorite of all time and has tainted my view of what has come after it for the last 20 years!

Anyway, as a sort of hobby of mine, I started cataloging as many magazine articles for FASA Star Trek that I could find (adventures, gaming support material, even reviews). The list has grown long and I've found quite a few gems over the years. If you'd like, I'd be glad to e-mail you a copy of the list. I've scoured "Challenge", "Stardate", "White Dwarf" and even "Far and Away" and "Voyages SF".

"Space Gamer" has always been a gray area for me; I don't have much info on that title- which happened to be published right smack dab in the heyday of FASA Star Trek! I've dug up at least one issue (issue 77) that had some material in it, but not too much else.

Do you know of a contents listing for "Space Gamer"? How difficult would it be for use to peruse the table of contents to see if there's any pertinent info on FASA Star Trek? As easy as swallowing the sea? LOL!

Anyway, any thoughts and help would be greatly appreciated!

Take care,

Lee (Please respond to FASAfan A T Hotmail.com)

Deceptive message from User:William M. Connolley

-- William M. Connolley 08:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for alleged incivility

Well, you had your warning William M. Connolley 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true; see below. CWC

First Unblock-Request Statement

It is an abuse of admin powers to block someone you are in conflict with, as WMC has done.

It is a blatant abuse of admin powers to do so without first using at least one of these, or something very similar.

It is a gross abuse of admin powers to permanently block someone who has never been blocked before, with no better reason than the very debatable claim of "incivility".

There is something very wrong with an admin who accompanies the instapermablock message with a lie: I had no warning.

(Whew! It's a good thing I didn't press "Save Page" on my edit to User talk:William M. Connolley.) CWC 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I must apologise - the permanent block was an error. I've reset it to 3h as of now, which roughly fits the 8h I originally intended. As for the warning: you're removed it William M. Connolley 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another lie! There was no warning. Warnings require some sort of conditionality. Even "People who are incivil get blocked" has implicit conditionality. "Please review X" has no conditionality. It is a request, not a warning.

Also, WMC's unblock log message is not consistent with the hard-to-believe claim that the permanent block was an error, unless he means it was a tactical error.

Nevertheless, I accept WMC's apology.

However, I continue to request an unblock, so that my block log will have at least some indication that WMC's blocks are contrary to multiple Misplaced Pages rules, especially WP:DICK. CWC 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you are not the only one who thinks that Willy is being a WP:DICK. I support your effort to clear your name. --Britcom 04:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'm content to put my explanation on the record (see below) and leave it at that. Cheers, CWC 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Unblock-Request Statement

WMC has reduced the duration of his illegitimate block, but that does not make it legitimate. The original block was way out-of-line regardless of duration, and I would like my block log to have some indication that WMC's blocks are not an accurate assessment of my standing as a Misplaced Pages editor.

Response from Chaser

Your block has expired, so my understanding is you were just looking for a log entry. While you're correct that WMC shouldn't have blocked an editor he was in a dispute with, my opinion is that the behavior that led to the block warranted one (the 8-hour one, of course, not the indef). The only incivility I can see before the warning was Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit, which is listed at WP:CIVIL#Examples as profanity directed against another user, though I acknowledge the Aussie vernacular ties might be mitigating (I'm not familiar with Australian vernacular). Simply citing policy as WMC did in the warning is generally acknowledged as not the most effective way to deliver a civility warning, but the response to his warning ("remove pathetic piece of deceptive trolling") was totally inappropriate. It wasn't trolling; and I think that you knew it wasn't trolling when you removed it. I recognize that it's difficult to be hunky-dory with someone who warns you about something during a content dispute, but your reaction was clearly incivil and had the potential to inflame a bad situation. So block endorsed.— Chaser - T 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that explanation, Chaser.

For the record:
Actually, I did carefully consider whether WMCs request was trolling. I decided that it was: posting something dishonest and deliberately inflammatory in order to annoy someone. Dishonest? WMC clearly implied that I had made a personal attack, when I have commented only on his conduct, not on his character. He also implied that I had been uncivil; I was completely astonished to find that WMC, an Englishman famed worldwide as a brutal blog warrior, was unable to cope with the word "bullshit" (which is now regularly used on Australian TV, BTW) being applied to a blatantly false statement about core Misplaced Pages policy: he wrote that a WP:RS was not a RS because it printed statements by Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, both of whom WMC has been trying to discredit for several year now. (Note that once again I am commenting on what WMC wrote, not on WMC himself.) So I still contend that WMC's first edit on this page:

• was deceptive by implication, to a degree that requires deliberation or gross incompetence,
• was trolling in any meaningful sense of the term, and therefore
• was pathetic.

Futhermore, I did think about whether my use of those words would drive WMC to blatantly violate several Misplaced Pages rules. I felt sure he was too adult for that. Shows what I know.

(Hmm. Upon revisiting Talk:Hockey stick controversy, I see that I also wrote "WMC, your COI here has overwhelming(sic) your understanding of the basic principles of Misplaced Pages." Given that WMC has an enormous WP:COI re that article, and has been reduced to meaningless mantras in his futile attempts to deny that COI, I can't help wondering if my use of vernacular was only an excuse. Well, if so, his trolling worked well enough for another admin to endorse his block.)

One last point: on reflection, I suspect that admins looking at block logs will take blocks by WMC a lot less seriously than those by other admins.

Having put that on the record, I see no need to take this matter any further. CWC 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Arrgh.

I see that user:Chaser left the following message on User talk:William M. Connolley:

Blocking during disputes

Will, I declined Chris Chittleborough's unblock request because I thought the block was proper, but you can't block users you're in disputes with. The policy is unambigious and ArbCom has indicated the same thing. This is the kind of thing that people get de-sysopped for.--Chaser - T 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WMC replied:

Thanks for the advice. I certainly wouldn't block a user I was in dispute with - but I'm not in a content dispute with CC William M. Connolley 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In reality, the whole incident originated in a content dispute about a statement sourced to Natuurwetenschap & Techniek in Hockey stick controversy. (See Talk:Hockey stick controversy#William.2C you are doing it again.) Sigh. CWC 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bork

Hi Chris. First of all, I don't believe it's acceptable to accuse someone without basis, and especially not to accuse them of defaming, as you have done to me. Nothing in my history of editing comes close to hinting that I would do such a thing.

Second, the three revert rule applies here, even if you think it doesn't. You think it doesn't, presumably, because you think you are correct in the interpretation of what's acceptable policy regarding sources. If you disagree with someone regarding an edit, you discuss it - even if you believe you are in the right (which, newsflash: we all do when we revert...that's the point). The rule clearly states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." It doesn't qualify which kinds of reverts are "acceptable" and which are not; it forbids three. Anyone's history is there on wiki for all to see; we can determine if someone is protecting a darling of their movement or not.

I can understand when someone makes an edit for which they do not provide any source; it is my understanding that in that case - if the edit is potentially controversial - then it gets reverted until it gets sourced. In this case, each time it was sourced, and each time, instead of discussing your concerns about the quality of the source, you simply reverted it. Even when an acceptable source was used, you still chose to revert instead of discuss.

In this case, you appear to be misrepresenting - and hiding behind - wiki's "rules" in order to protect someone you like, and who is (for two completely separate reasons) right now being vilified in the press. You seem to want to avoid any more criticism of Bork, which, unfortunately, is not an acceptable practice here. The item was sourced (secondarily, by the way) by an internationally-recognized news organization, TIME Magazine.

I can help you understand why the wiki policy suggesting secondary sources over primary exists: it's there so that we don't become "the deciders" of what's important in a BLP and what's not. More importantly (and, in my opinion, unfortunately), it's there so that wiki can't be held responsible for what LPs may consider damaging content about themselves. It's pretty much the same reason why it's not OK for "mainstream" news organizations to publish an unsourced rumor about a celebrity, but it is OK for them to publish the fact that someone else published the unsourced rumor.

In any case, if you want to discuss it - and if you want to abide by wiki policy - then please discuss it on the article's talk page. Please stop reverting. Thanks. Info999 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

1. The {{blp1-n}} notice I left on User talk:Info999 says "could be regarded as defamatory"; I believe that reporting Judge Walton's alleged comment on Bork et al's brief breaches both the letter and the spirit of WP:BLP.
2. Info999, you might want to take a look at the third bullet point in WP:3RR#Exceptions.
3. I didn't know that Judge Bork was the darling of any movement, let alone those that I belong to. (The "Don't let what happened to Roy Pretlove happen to anyone else" movement has very few ties to American law or lawyers.) The only reason I visited that article was to check out the phrase "to bork"; I saw some obvious problems and tried to fix them.
4. Actually, BLP aims for a far higher standard than "so we can't be sued". I think that's great, and I'm just trying to uphold that high standard.
5. I'm afraid I'll keep reverting unless someone provides an acceptable source (not a blog, especially not a Wonkette blog) and shows that reporting whatever Judge Walton said does not violate any of our rules. Info999, if you're not happy with that, we'll take it to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Cheers, CWC 15:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments

Sorry, it was a mistake (I'm not sure what happened).

To err is human. When computers are involved, little mistakes are often greatly amplified. No problem. One little mouse click in the wrong place can make a real mess, because we programmers often don't think carefully enough about CHI issues. CWC 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Amir Taheri

Based on suggestions from other Wikipedians, I think our Amir Taheri "disagreements" should be reconciled with compromise language. Are you ammenable to negotiating mutually agreeable compromise language that at least describes the criticisms that have been made against Taheri?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs)

Nyisnotbad, you are quite free to propose cited, balanced criticisms at Talk:Amir Taheri, and always have been. But please read up on core Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NOR (especially the "undue weight" rule), and WP:RS first. CWC 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From someone who is a little obsessive about Michelle Malkin

God damn you suck ass. Can you have your head any further up Malkins ass?

Your POV is all over that article.

The article does "flow" better if you are a Malkin fan

This remarkable contribution to elevated discourse comes from user 140.90.233.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who almost certainly edits Misplaced Pages under a registered username. Isn't that special? CWC 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to self

"If you strike this article down, it will only bring negative reputation upon Misplaced Pages, & maybe even worse." — from this AfD. I just couldn't let that go unnoted. CWC 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I appreciate the help you've given me on Anthony Peratt. I don't quite know what the rationale behind what some of the others are saying, but I'm glad you brought up the idea of deleting the article. --Mainstream astronomy 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)