User talk:Dlabtot - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthon01 (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 12 January 2008 (→Bleep: rsp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:14, 12 January 2008 by Anthon01 (talk | contribs) (→Bleep: rsp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Sock puppet

You look very much like a sock-puppet to me. Behaviour of this kind is just what some people want to see, since it enables them to make accusations against, and block, the people holding the opinions you claim to espouse. Please stop it immediately. The Battle of Jenin article will eventually be written in an encyclopedic fashion - but behaviour like yours is a serious obstruction, not a help. PalestineRemembered 10:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm NOT a 'sock-puppet', I'm having difficulty responding to this insult politely. Please stop harassing me. Dlabtot 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User Contributions like this make it a bit of a give-away. PalestineRemembered 17:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted an alert about your personal attacks against me on WP:WQA. Please stop. Dlabtot 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying you "look like a sock puppet" is not the same as saying "you are a sock puppet." Glad to clear that up for you. You are not following proper procedure. This is what is causing all the trouble. You not them. Clean up your act and follow procedure. William (Bill) Bean 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I humbly bow and scrape before your superior level of experience. Thank you for helping to make the Misplaced Pages experience so pleasant and rewarding. Dlabtot 00:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I didn't vandalize anything. I'm in the middle of moving content within, and adding content to, that page. Dlabtot 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man, I was a bit heavy-handed with the vandalism notices. I just thought you were a vandal deleting content in wikipedia. I'm really sorry. I deleted the wrongly-put notices. Next time, add an Edit summary so that I don't jump to conclusions. Again, I'm sorry. Dabomb87 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you've denied it (and explained yourself) I have no difficulty atall accepting what you say. Puzzled you've acted in the way you've done, but it'll all come out in the wash.

Would you mind me putting a single dot in your UserPage, which will stop your name showing up in red at the end of your postings? If you were some kind of returning character, blasted from the project for something unspeakable, then you'd not need me to suggest it, you'd know the trick already! PalestineRemembered 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to thank you for the two edits you made to Battle of Jenin, being this and this. They were both significant improvements to the article, congratulations. The last thing on my mind was to scare off someone doing such good work. However, the trickery that has occured on this article is huge - see here for the latest attempt to ignore policy. Notice how it's become difficult even to read my section-starter, comments have been inserted into the middle of it and the indent pattern has been broken. Under these circumstances (and the jeering that accompanies any possible link between critics of Israel and sock-puppets), you can understand my alarm at seeing what I took to be a suspicious person. I fear that your impressions of editing honestly on this topic have been permanently damaged by this affair, and I deeply regret it. My only consolation is that you'd almost certainly have been driven off, as happened to these two editors just in the same article and . Best Regards PalestineRemembered 11:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fallon's comments about Petraeus

Keep this in the discussion about the article, not my personal talk page. A.S. Williams 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

Hello. You've recently nominated Yuri Landman and Moonlander for deletion but given no explanation at their respective "articles for deletion" discussion pages: and . This makes the nominations, shall we say, incomplete. Could you please add that information? Thanks. Doctormatt 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize I had to do anything besides nominate it for deletion and give the reason why. They seem to be relatively blatant self promotion. Well, it's pretty late here. Tomorrow I'll research whatever steps I missed and make the nominations more complete. Dlabtot 06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When nominating articles for deletion one should state a clear reason for that nomination. Merely tagging an article is not sufficient. William (Bill) Bean 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I had no idea it was such a difficult and exacting process. I have stated clear reasons why I nominated those articles for deletion. If you don't agree with my reasons, fine. Dlabtot 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you wish to nominate Moodswinger as well, which is related to these two articles? If so you should nominate it. If not, you may wish to explain why in the deletion discussions. Rigadoun (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a Moodswinger article. I'm sorry, I don't have time to make another nomination. I already messed these two up by skipping some steps apparently. I wouldn't have done it if I'd known how much followup work would be involved. I don't think they warrant inclusion but I also don't care about it so much that I want to spend multiple hours of my day on the issue. I won't be nominating any more articles for deletion. Dlabtot 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Let's shake hands, I've made 2 General Announcements on the nomination-list to close my discussion. Hopefully this will end in a good direction for everyone. Best, YuriLandman 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is in no way a personal issue between you and I. I'm always willing to shake hands though. Cheers. Dlabtot 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Plea for calm

I am asking you to please to refrain from your aggressive posts towards me. I officially apologize for any mistakes I may have made while editing Misplaced Pages and ask that you forgive my transgressions. I refer you to WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and especially this page. Dlabtot 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot: You did not follow proper procedure when flagging the article. This is not the first time you've done this. Since you have done this at least three times that I can see your "plea for calm" rings false. Follow procedure and I'll have nothing to complain about. That is my only beef. William (Bill) Bean 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized and asked you to assume good faith on my part. And your response is to come hear and tell me that my words 'ring false'. I'm asking you one last time to stop attacking me. If you persist in your attacks I will have to move towards a more formal process to get you to stop. (I'll crosspost this on your talk page) Dlabtot 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating fact is not an attack. You have tagged articles without showing cause at least three times. That's not an attack; that's a fact. If you feel a need to formalize this please feel free; however, I have more than enough evidence to assert that you are not acting in good faith. Your call. William (Bill) Bean 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've placed an alert on WP:WQA. Hopefully this will mark the beginning of the end of acrimony.

Three questions

It's notable because he was supposed to have only one question, then insisted, very assertively, that he was going to then ask two more. He himself quantified the number of questions and it's there in the video evidence, and transcripts. Badagnani 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss articles on their respective talk pages so that all the editors involved can be a part of the discussion. Dlabtot 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

thanks for your comments and work on: Scentura Best of wishes, Calendar 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI Tagging

You're right -- I apparently was overly optimistic of the chances of getting a short resolution (based on his admission of error over at WQA). I've removed the resolved tag and responded on ANI. Honestly, this might need to go to an RfC/U. --Bfigura 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Petraeus Page

Thanks for your work on the Petraeus page. You're doing a good job at helping fight the POV. Bbrown8370 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks, although actually, I've pretty much given up on that. A certain user has worn me down through the sheer volume of his contributions. Maybe once Petraeus is no longer the current poster boy the article will be able to be improved. I don't think there is much chance of that in the short term. Dlabtot 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm also about to give up on it for the short term. I just wanted to say thanks for trying. Bbrown8370 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is talk about removing the neutrality flag from Petraeus' page. A lot of work has been doen to clean up the POV. If you get a chance, please take a look and voice any concerns that you have. Thanks. Bbrown8370 17:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave up on that page awhile ago. Dlabtot 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (3rd) for evidence. John J. Bulten 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are talking about. Nor do I particularly care. My name is James Lang and I post from 12.32.36.103 and from 12.32.36.57 I made a few edits anonymously from one or both of those IPs before I registered my login, under which all of my edits have been made since. Good bye. Dlabtot 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium

What prompted your interest about Depleted Uranium? Starkrm 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually have any particular interest in DU. Someone made an edit to a page on my watchlist, and DU was one of the articles they had previously edited. I started editing the article because it looked like it needed help - and it still does. But frankly, I don't actually feel any need to explain or justify to you why I choose to edit one page or another. I respectfully request that you leave me alone and refrain from asking me irrelevant and pointless questions. Let the admins do their job. If you want to discuss how to make the DU article better, its talk page would be the appropriate place to do so. Dlabtot 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a, apparently disinterested, person with such a strong opinion, I was just being genuinely curious about your scientific background and how you came to have your point of view about DU.Starkrm 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The only strong opinion I have in the matter is that all articles on Misplaced Pages should adhere to WP:FIVE. Just what point of view are you projecting onto me? Dlabtot 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say what your point of view was. You are correct that all articles should adhere to WP:FIVE but people usually pick and edit articles about subjects they are interested in or know something about. So... I was curious about your scientific background and how you form your opinion (whatever it might be) about DU.Starkrm 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to know diddley-squat about Depleted Uranium (although I sure know a lot more about it today than I did a few days ago, which is one of the rewarding things about editing Misplaced Pages). But you don't have to be an expert to know that, for example, when I came to the article this study was improperly characterized and cited in support of a statement that it did not actually support. I could go on, but, as I said, my talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss improvements to that article. I'd be happy to discuss it on the article's talk page, though. Dlabtot 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to discuss the article here, I just like chatting with people who have the same interests I do. So, no background at all? Wow!! That was very brave of you, who didn't know "diddley-squat" to pick out that reference, read it and make an edit. Weren't you nervous at all, since you had no prior knowledge of DU? Surely you must have some scientific background. Starkrm 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this. No I have no scientific background whatsoever. Unless programming counts as a scientific background. Now I ask you again to please drop this. Leave me alone, please. Dlabtot 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you are back editing Depleted Uranium. I'm still curious about your scientific background. How are/did you form your views about it? Do you at least have a background in the scientific method? Starkrm (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC

I'd be happy to discuss any edits to Depleted uranium on the article talk page. I've already answered your questions and politely asked you to stop this pointless, repetitive questioning. I ask you again: please stop. Any continued harassment on your part will be reported to WP:WQA. Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the truthout website was not an appropriate source, (which you must concede since you sought another) then the Observor quoting the truthout website wouldn't be appropriate either. "diddley-squat" really?? Starkrm (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts? I'm sorry you feel harrassed. I didn't think I was being uncivil or impolite. Again, I am sorry you feel harrassed, I was trying to make polite conversation. We hadn't communicated in nearly 20 days. Starkrm (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now there is no confusion, and you know that I feel harassed, and you have acknowledged that I've politely requested that you stop this behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You violated 3RR (more than 3 reverts in 24 hours) on Depleted Uranium today. Please review the WP:3RR policy. - Merzbow 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Editing that article has been difficult. Dlabtot 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not involved nor do I plan to get involved, just happened to see this in passing. - Merzbow 09:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC

You know, all you have to do is propose a solution yourself, there is no need for an RfC, which on an article with traffic as low as this one is nto going to get many responces. Also, do you have your email enabled? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your objection to the RfC is duly noted. Dlabtot 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well for crikety sake, who not just propose new wording or a new place for the material instead of just complaining that its not in the article anywhere? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article will be improved if more editors get involved. I understand that you do not agree. C'est la vie. Dlabtot 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree? I would love more editors to get involved .. the reason it looks like an entry in Quackopedia is because no one got involved in the first place, and those few who did were chased off. And from above, do you have your email enabled? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No I don't have any desire to receive email from wikipedia. Dlabtot 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not email from Misplaced Pages, its a way for users to communicate off wiki. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Look I get it. That's what I meant. I get enough spam as it is, I don't need people emailing me because of my edits here. Dlabtot 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have to go here to have the RFC show up in the appropriate place: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:RFC. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

I decided to contact you, as you made your identity public, because I wanted to make 100% positive that you were not James Salsman. I know .. there was the RfCu, but those can and have been faked before, and Salsman stole someone’s identity before with one of his sockpuppets User:Peter Cheung who when emailed in real life was truly quite surprised to discover he was editing Misplaced Pages.

Consider this a full apology, I do not believe that you are James Salsman, and treat you accordingly from now on. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider this a complete rejection of your apology. Your behavior can't be erased or excused simply by saying you are sorry. And I'm not interested in any anecdotes about James Salsman. I sincerely hope I never hear the name again. I really don't want to have any further contact with you beyond what is absolutely necessary to discuss articles on which we are both working. So if you have anything further to say to me - about those articles, not any other topic - I respectfully request that you say it on the talk page of the article in question. Dlabtot 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your request wasn’t so respectful in your email ... oh well your loss I suppose, and in case you were worried, I have been around here along time and am not going anyhwere, and remember you started following me pal Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One more time: if you have anything further to say to me - about those articles, not any other topic - I respectfully request that you say it on the talk page of the article in question. Dlabtot 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaders and Followers

Just curious, are you going to follow me to every article I edit? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with Alan Keyes - Wikignat making disruptive edits.

Dlabtot, I need you to come back and help me out on Alan Keyes. If you remember, Wikignat removed a large section of well-sourced controversial material about Alan Keyes about two months ago. With the help of JamesMLane and yourself, we convinced him that this was the wrong course of action and that the information belonged. He left it alone until now. Again, he removed that same large portion of material, claiming its slander, and ridiculously stating that wikipedia will be sued if this material is left. He had new sources, supposedly "refuting" the controversy and making it false and a lie. I read his sources, came to the conclusion that he was misrepresenting them, then added new material as a compromise to maintain NPOV. However, he came back, removed all of my new material and is now attacking me personally. Since you and I have been keeping Alan Keyes up to snuff (and its getting support in the A-class review), I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. --Jdcaust (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

After I posted this, I realized that at the same time, you were already over there. Thanks for your help. --Jdcaust (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

and on and on it goes... Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least were finished for today. His reverts lead to a 24 hour block. Hopefully he'll drop this once his block is up. I think the fact that you, JamesMLane and myself all undid one of his reverts helped speed up the block process. It really showed that he was reverting against consensus. Thanks again for your help. --Jdcaust (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughtful input on Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You know I think the article is actually getting better and at the risk of being overly optimistic I think the tone of the discussion page is moving in a good direction as well. Dlabtot (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just skimming the latest discussion in the "false" thread. I, too, thank you for patiently explaining to Kww. He's really been frustrated by this, and it's good that someone is taking the time to discuss this in relation to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Pseudoscience on talk pages

A conversation is going on about this topic. Perhaps you have something to add. Mostly and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Dlabtot (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

One of the issues that the Bleep RfC is trying to address is what I see as increasingly biased wording being added to the lead, e.g. saying the film presents quantum quackery or quantum mysticism. The critics may say that, but putting that in the lead as though it's a fact that the film is presenting it is undue...and the wording reads as if the filmmakers were actually presenting it as such. I'm just trying to find more neutral wording, so the reader can make up his or her own mind. Dreadstar † 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the article for that film, I suggest you do it at that article's talk page. It's not really something I'm very interested in, so your arguments will probably be more on topic there. Dlabtot (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the little attack on the page? I think you are misrepresenting me? Anthon01 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)