Jump to content

User talk:A Train/Archive IV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celebration!

[edit]
Champagne is often drunk as part of a celebration

Please join me in celebrating my 1000th edit at Wikipedia, the most important online information resource! Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd

[edit]

I think I'd re-list a vfd with virtually no votes. Mention that it was listed on whatever day, but didn't receive enough votes to determine consensus. There may be a formal procedure, but I'd probably just copy/paste the vfd discussion link to today's log. Joyous (talk) 21:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

[edit]

For you kind wishes! And can you help me in a revert war at London, Ontario? Hamster Sandwich 22:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave this on the talk page...

Bill Brady Bandit All pretense of assuming good faith in this vandals actions aside, I would like to suggest that the cowardly anon vandal who keeps removing the Bill Brady inclusion under notable Londoners is blocked from editing after his first revert to that section. He obviously comes in bad faith for the simple purpose of doing so, contrevening the both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. He adds no value to the discussion and disregards the concensus view that Brady deserves mention in this article. If the chicken in question reads this, I would suggest getting over whatever personal bias you have with Brady, and perhaps do something useful in WP,like make a contribution to other articles, get involved with the community in a positive way. Maybe you will eventually mature into an adult type person who dosen't sulk when you don't get you own (misguided way). Or maybe just find somewhere else to push your personal bias with Brady. Go bother your parents or something.

  • Ham, say something like that, but cut out the bitter stuff. Don't tell him to go bother his parents for God's sake. :) Rememeber, WP:Civility above all else, bro. Don't call him a chicken either. Go chill out for a few minutes and write it again. Just cause the guy's a vandal, do go down to his level and make an ad hominem. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ya see..thats why I bounce this stuff off of you first! :-P Did you read his "I am prepared to eat rat meat" quote? I offer instead, a lovely hamster sandwich, with all the trimmings!. I just left a comment at admins noticeboard under, Bill Brady Bandit. Thanks my brother in electrons! Hamster Sandwich 23:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm takin the high road brother. I plan on getting an interview with Brady this week and have some of these ambiguities laid to rest. The Robarts Institute is 5 minutes away from me right on the other side of campus. I go to school here BTW [www.UWO.ca]. I'm the world's oldest sophomore. Hamster Sandwich 04:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hell no; I'm a 26-year-old sophomore by virtue of my 5 years in the Marine Corps, I may have you beat. As for the Brady thing; my only caveat is that other editors will call shenanigans with the original research. I say bounce that off of a few more editors before you commit the time. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good plan. Didn't think of the original research prohibition. The concensus seems to have solidified as to his notability. The anon just told me he would "permit" the continued editing of Bill Brady at the talk page. I was so grateful, well, tears welled up, I'm not afraid to admit it either.
I was going to ask Brady about his Transplant International connection and get some information concerning that body (so to speak)and ask him about his talk show to see if he was indeed the first radio call in show in Canada. If I have some time this week that is. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 04:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

[edit]

See my comment on the notice board. Sorry for causing trouble, I'd like to say I didn't mean too, but I'm so sick and tired of trolls that it is tough to do so. While I definitely didn't mean to cause trouble for you and other decent Wikipedians, I sure as hell don't care whether I caused it for trolls like Gorgonzilla. I'm sick and tired of sitting back and watching while mods let personal attacks like theirs slip while nothing happens. As such, I feel no remorse for taking matters into my own hands and letting him know what I think of him. I'm getting off this sinking ship while I still can. Shouldn't have come back to see the state of affairs, all I see is Wikipedia declining more and more. Agriculture 23:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipocrite has created the following page: [1]. Originally he created it in my user space: [2], and then moved it to his page when it was clear it would be deleted. I consider this harassment and would like to request you deal with this. I will leave as soon as it is dealt with. Agriculture 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The digimon VFD

[edit]

Honestly, I'm not sure if it even is bogus. I was a fan some years back but I don't know anything that happened in the show after the second season. I mean, "ChaosGallantmon Crimson Mode" seems a little bit of an outlandish name to me, but apparently it is a common sort of name. (As I search, I find "Imperialdramon Fighter Mode") However, there seems to be confusion even on forums as to whether or not he exists - I see various examples of merchandise sold in his name that people are saying isn't real.

I think essentially what it is is not a separate monster, but another form of the existing ChaosGallantmon. In that case, I wouldn't suggest another round of VFD but a merge into ChaosGallantmon. (Anything to reduce the number of loose Digimon articles...) [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite

[edit]

Hi, I saw your posting on Joy's user talk page, hope you don't mind my nosing in. Not many people can do the technical IP check to see if someone is a sockpuppet - only DavidGerard and TimStarling that I know of, and they don't use it lightly. I'm pretty sure that User:Hipocrite isn't a sockpuppet created just to harass User:Agriculture, though. For one thing, User:Gavin the Chosen has accused User:Hipocrite of being a sockpuppet created just to spite him! So at least we are dealing with a multipurpose sockpuppet here. No, really, I think Hipocrite is a regular person doing his/her best to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. FreplySpang (talk) 00:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • JINX!!! :-D FreplySpang (talk) 00:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, User:Hipocrite requested the deletion of his AgriTalk subpage, and I deleted it. FreplySpang (talk) 00:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hilarious. FS, you and I must be soulmates, or the same person in alternate dimensions, or twins seperated at birth. And by 9 years. :) As I alluded to, my investigation into Hipocrite was quite cursory, so I'm totally prepared to take you at your word on this. I'll just keep trying to referee as best I can, then. Thanks, FS! Fernando Rizo T/C 00:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the help, as a note, I wasn't claiming Hipocrite was a sockpuppet, merely a user harassing me and generally doing some bad faith edits. Once again thanks. I'm off now. Agriculture 06:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Point

[edit]

The point is that this is how one of the principle proponents of this 'decency' league behaves. The behavior is entirely on point to the topic of discussion. If this is how they start it is probably going to be how they continue. If you look at Agriculture's history you will find that he has posted this type of material for quite some time. --Gorgonzilla 01:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not arguing that you're wrong and that Agriculture is right, or vice versa. The point is that you're both being disruptive. If you believe that his behavior is inappropriate, take the high road and show everyone how a good editor should behave. Don't stoop to taking cheap shots like this and this. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey I look at my user page and I see that the guy who wants to discuss decency has written a headline 'Screw You', he then delves into some not very subtle personal attacks. You don't think that sort of behavior isn't relevant to a debate on policing decency? I do, I think it demonstrates exactly the sort of level the 'debate' will start and end at. He decides to make an 'appology' and removes the 'screw you' but leaves the personal attacks in place. Responding in kind was a bit uncalled for though. --Gorgonzilla 01:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

[edit]

I did think that was directed at me, but I later realized what you meant and at any rate I never thought you were talking down to me at any stage. Cheers, CanadianCaesar 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X

[edit]

In the world of Online Gaming, Illuminati X is an organization that has chronicled the online gaming sites history. Earth 2025 is the online game in question. While this may not be considered as normal history, I should know, it is an online chronicle. A Chronicle of which will be viewed daily by a customer base of around 50,000 people. Thankyou for your consideration and please do not delete this. <unsigned comment by User:24.151.22.156 at 08:26, 22 August 2005>


Blinging

[edit]

How else can one convey the fact that someone considers themselves Blinging without using that word? Also the Michele Raven stuff is true, that woman is nasty and insane! -Wiffle0rz 09:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiffle0rz, I completely believe you that Michele Raven is nasty and insane. The larger issue, however, is that it's not encyclopedic to say that "she thinks she's blinging" or that she has "amazing deepthroating ability". Try to make things neutral and academic when you right about them, and cite references. Seriously, read some other articles on Wikipedia. Try Wikipedia:Featured articles. Then come back and tell me that you honestly think what you wrote at Michele Raven sounds professional. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I did it fast and hoped others would clean up for me, lol. I understand about the blinging, but the deepthroat thing is totally on-key, its one of her main selling points, one of the reasons shes famous (shes considered a Deepthroat Queen) and the theme of many of her films! What hobbies are you into? -Wiffle0rz 09:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiffle, check out WP:NPOV, and you'll understand why "amazing" anything doesn't work for Wikipedia. It's got to be neutral. How about, Many of her films are marketed on the strength of her noted skill at "deepthroating" instead? You see how that's neutral? On another note, I reverted your addition of Gag Factor to Slut's See also section, because it has nothing to do with it. Think about these edits before you make them, OK? Fernando Rizo T/C 09:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfDs from today

[edit]

Erwin, I don't disagree with any of your VfD nominations. Those were all good catches on your part and I'll back you up 100% for tagging them. My advice, however, is this: use a more descriptive (and less snide) nomination. Invest a calorie or two into writing a complete sentence. You've got an RfC over you head right now, and the last thing you want to do is piss off some other random people who see your VfD noms and run over to RfC to certify your dispute.

You're an odd mix of smart contributions and unprofessional conduct, but I think you can be brought around. I say plenty of snide things to people on Wikipedia in my head, and give myself a good laugh. I recommmend you start doing the same. Drop me a line if you want to talk about it some more. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was compiled by several well known problem users. You only have to do a brief scroll through the contributions of 'Gorgonzilla', 'Mirror Vax' and 'Acetic Acid' to find they are all involved in a number of editing disputes, personal attacks, etc. It's a poor reflection on wikipedia that people like that even have a voice. Oh, congratulations on your adminship. I would have supported it but I don't vote on RFAs. Erwin Walsh
Walsh, I complained about you because you were VfD tagging with an insufficient amount of thought. In the process you VfD tagged a lot of important pages, the ones that you don't list in your Vfd log. What people have been asking you to do is to exercise just a little bit of care. Stopped clocks are right twice a day. Instead you spend time attacking anyone who complains about your behavior. Recently the subject of your VfD nominations have not been a problem. But you have been engaging in a lot of pretty disruptive and unpleasant attacks in the process. Your latest attack on me is utterly untrue and says more about you than me. I am not a homophobic biggot, in fact I rent out my basement in Massachusetts to gay couples for a nominal fee so they can establish residency and get married. So I don't use homosexual as an epithet. --Gorgonzilla 13:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wild Animal Park

[edit]

The Wild Animal Park is in the City of San Diego (yes you drive through Escondido to get to it but it is in the community of San Pasqual. It is not in Escondido. It has a Escondido ZIP code much like areas of Del Mar Heights have a Del Mar ZIP code but they are not in Del Mar but San Diego or areas of Lake Murray have La Mesa ZIP code but are in San Diego not La Mesa. There are numerous examples of this throughout the "City of San Diego" <unsigned comment by User:Marcpschaefer>

Check an the other conversation on this. I live and work in San Diego and worked for an elected official for the area. San Pasqual is in the City of San Diego. When contacted by residnets of San Pasqual we would refer local issues to the City of San Diego and not the Cityof Escondido.

Ron Davies

[edit]

You are American and thus not fammiliar with the topic. I know that Wikipedia has a very American-centric slant to the world, but please, if you are not fammiliar with a topic, please let it be.

Ron Davies resigned for the second time as a result of a further homosexual indiscretion in woodland near his home constituency in Wales. He claimed at the time that he was a keen Badger Watcher, and that was why he was poking around in the bushes (sic).

check the BBC if you want for the story.

<unsigned comment by User:82.35.34.24 - I replied at their talk page>

Collection of comments from discussion with User:82.35.34.24 on 23 August

[edit]

Are you saying Robert Maxwell was not a thief? Are you fammiliar with the story of how he STOLE, not 'mis-used', millions of pounds from his company's pension funds, to support his failing business?

<unsigned comment by User:82.35.34.24 - I replied at their talk page>


Ok, if I MUST proove you to be out of your depth here.

Link 1: Davies admits he is partial to badger spotting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2828421.stm

Link 2: Davies again admits to badger watching: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2828421.stm

On the Maxwell story, I can only conclude that you are showing your ignorance in a much larger way. I don't know how fammilar you are with the Robert Maxwell story, but here you are - go educate yourself, and next time, stick to edits that you are fammiliar with. Thankyou.

Link: Check the Caption below the thief's photograph. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681364.stm

Now can you stick to your areas of interest/experience please. As you well know, not every sentence on Wikipedia has to be accounted for. Especially not claims of Robert Maxwell of all people, being a thief, a liar, a fraud, and a cad. In the UK, that would be laughable. <unsigned comment by User82.35.34.24>


Now, I have a dissertation to get on with. Buh-Bye!

So please in the name of God tell me WHY we cannot describe Maxwell as having thieved from the Trinity Group's pension fund? How is this NPOV? The man was a thief, therefore he thieves correct? Don't they teach you anything in the colonys? (light humour/jest/mil ribbing intended). <unsigned comment by User82.35.34.24>


So please in the name of God tell me WHY we cannot describe Maxwell as having thieved from the Trinity Group's pension fund? How is this NPOV? The man was a thief, therefore he thieves correct? Don't they teach you anything in the colonys? (light humour/jest/mil ribbing intended). <unsigned comment by User82.35.34.24>


Ok, you seem like a decent sort of chap.

How about stole. That is the most common verb used for the act of stealing no? And the BBC used it too - hardly tabloid. I do not want to give the impression that white collar criminals are somehow less culpable than their working class counterparts, simply because their crimes are conducted via Offshore Financial Centres and electronic trading networks.

That is something you in America should know all about with your Corporate Governance issues ;) <unsigned comment by User82.35.34.24>


I would, but I would just get annoyed with the political articles which would invariably lead to lengthy edit wars. Plus it would probably eat up too much of my time (surfing from one interesting random article to the next) and I have a dissertation due in 2 weeks time, and then that's it, no more studying....EVER! I see you are a student, how's it going? <unsigned comment by User82.35.34.24>

Thanks!

[edit]

Hey...thanks for your enthusiastic support for potential adminship on my talk page. It's quite surprising to me to find such support, especially from names I recognise so readily. Evidently being made into an admin hasn't jaded you yet. Giving things a few weeks to make it over the magic-three-month point seems prudent to me — just to help give more positive reasons! I'll drop you a line if/when my 'name' turns up on RfA. -Splash 01:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronicity!

[edit]

No, I think a week is fine; I was just reacting to the common-or-garden vandalism of adding "pee" to Pea. Since you said there was an ongoing problem, and it's not an AOL ip address, I increased my block to a week. (Otherwise my shorter block would have overridden your longer block.) Cheers! FreplySpang (talk) 04:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • OMG I have that song stuck in my head too! We must be psychic! :-) :-) :-) FreplySpang (talk) 04:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

[edit]

Hello. History of South Carolina is on Featured Article Candidates for a third time due to recent controversy. Because you commented on one of its past nominations, you may be interested in commenting this time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina. Toothpaste 19:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be honest now Mr. Rizo ...

[edit]

... who brought aetherometry to your attention? More to the point, where and when did you discover the ability to 'know' pseudo-science without spending a single word in the talk page discussing it? Currently under review, is a particularly short read on one experiment, its findings, and clear opportunity for you to list (even just one), inconsistency with the scientific method. Please keep in mind that a conflict with 'accepted' mainstream understanding, is NOT a priori inconsistent with the scientific method. Or do you think otherwise? Your quiet arrival and proclamation of 'pseudo', suggest that you have made up your mind and felt no need to comment about it. Or maybe you never even read a single word of the monograph currently under review, but by its open acknowledgment in challenging MainStream paradigms, you concluded therefor 'it must be false'.

By the way, and I might be really going out on a limb thinking that you care in the least, but I too really enjoy PBYs. I'm a stick and rudder pilot myself with a rather divers background as an A+P certified mechanic around seaplanes. I naïvely wandered into this wiki with grand thoughts that it might be a cool place to "work with others" on collaborating in articles and developing open-source information sharing. I spent a short while putting in my two cents on welding, machining, and just a few other things before I saw what was happening in the science topics.

If you really know something about science, particularly as it is actually wrestling with some heavy questions on the nature of electricity, solar activity, major points against Relativity, and big problems with Big Bang Boloney... then you should feel welcomed by me personally, to engage in any dialogue. Be that PBYs, Short Brothers, Red Shift, or whatever.... But if you are just taking cues from others who told you 'aetherometry is a total load of shit' .... and you act blindly on just that word... then don't spend one single minute responding to what I have written here. TTLightningRod 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TT, first of all, that's awesome that you've worked on seaplanes. I have a lifelong love of them, but it's fascination from a distance- I've never had the good fortune to fly in one or anything like that.
With regard to Aetherometry, you are making some very off-base assumptions. I am not intimately familiar with the subject, nor should I be. What I am doing is refereeing as an impartial admin. I've read the talk pages for aetherometry thoroughly, and it seems to me that the consensus amongst registered users is that aetherometry is psuedoscience. If the consensus were otherwise, I would be fighting just as hard to preserve that consensus. Whether I personally agree with it or not is totally immaterial to the discussion. All I'm doing is enforcing that consensus.
I have strong feelings about a variety of subjects, and I know that my strong feelings will lead me to make biased edits, so I tend to stay away from them. For example, I don't make any edits other than the reverting of obvious vandalism to 2003 invasion of Iraq, because being a veteran of that particular war I know that my views of it are inherently biased. If you know that your feelings about aetherometry are so strong that they impair your ability to be impartial, then I would suggest editing a different article. Consensus rules at Wikipedia. It's very frustrating to be on the side opposite the consensus, but that's the way it is. Unless I can convince other editors of the factual correctness of my position on a talk page, then I don't waste my time trying to edit the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FR, see, the curious thing is... I don't know if aetherometry is bunk or not. I honestly haven't made up my mind on its validity either way. That may seem tough to understand by my actions against this 'consensus' you speak of... But it is because the "registered" users have not addressed the meat of the topic... instead, they have acted as a disturbing group of Mainstream, Peer Review, Accepted Publication foot solders. And that is not what I ever understood this Wikipedia to stand for. The Anon nature of the 'supportive' contributors is another story... and I would be happy to talk about the sophist nature of arguments 'against' anonymity if you like. In the end I trust you may agree that is a non-issue.

So we are left with categorizing the topic as pseudo (fake, or known to be false) Or, proto, non-mainstream, applied, nascent or what have you... if it is only in keeping with the scientific method... no matter how controversial it may be. I have yet to find its violation with open mindedness on the part of the Aetherometry researchers, the concept of falsifiability, documentation and publication source, even real peer review and offers of further peer review. The arguments posed by well known and popular registered users have NOT been so equally honest as those who must now contribute anonymously. Your thoughts. (US Army 68G pre Desert Storm, no combat. I too think we should avoid topics of geo-politics) TTLR

Once again, TT, you're arguing the validity of aetherometry and the validity of other editor's opinions. I couldn't care less; I'm simply enforcing the consensus and neutral point of view. I may have opinions on what is and what is not pseudoscience, but in the case of aetherometry they are uninformed and irrelevent. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same brilliant circular arguments..... (they're like a virus Mr Rizo, check yourself with this little test)

This consensus you speak of has skipped an actual scientific process, that of examining A's adherence to, or lack of, scientific rigor. Without honest examination of scientific rigor, and yet simply categorizing something as a fake, this is no longer a neutral point of view. And most ironically, that maybe the only real pseudoscience going on here.

  • By not personally engaging in the stupid main-space edit war of "science" vs. "pseudo" (ya can't really say the same, : ).... and instead, talking to you here, this should demonstrate my interest in 'building' consensus. Yes/No?
  • By reading the published papers, before I formed an opinion as to whether there was any science or not, and dialoging about it, I should also be demonstrating a 'neutral point of view'. Yes/No?
  • By not categorizing something as Fake, without reference to charges of fraud, or even a single censure by the Holy MainStream for Aetherometry's lack of rigor, then I am in the least being honest. Yes/No?

If you have answered yes to these questions, I suggest you examine more closely the behavior of others. In that, you would be a good admin. TTLR

TT, I think you're missing the mark. Your statement, "This consensus you speak of has skipped an actual scientific process" shows a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to conduct original research. The idea that Wikipedia editors should be examining the validity of different claims is totally antithetical to the purpose of this place. Claims are examined in scientific journals and publications, and all we do here is report the findings of other publications.
The Encyclopedia Britannica does not employ a staff of investigators, nor should they. They do (and we strive to do) a survey of published materials and make articles based upon those materials. If the majority of the widely-read scientific publications say "foo", then the best any encyclopedia can do it say that those publications say "foo". Wikipedia does not care who is right and who is wrong, Wikipedia should only care about what is being published elsewhere, and catalogue it. That, good sir, is what an encyclopedia does.
Other editors have looked at the landscape around them and crafted that article accordingly. Read Aetherometry again. It is decidedly neutral. It explains the various claims made by aetherometry, discusses connections to other fields of study, tells you where to find more information, and then links to a handful of sites, some for, some against, some neutral. It is concise, and offers no opinion of its own. It is an encyclopedia article, and it is my job and my pleasure to ensure that it remains such. -- Fernando Rizo T/C 01:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whazza? The whole issue of the psuedoscience label is that it comes apropos of nothing. These editors have NOT surveyed the materials around them for that judgement; in fact there ARE no quotable materials calling Aetherometry pseudoscience. It is a purely POV label. While your commitment to neturality is laudable I find your glib confirmation of a false and uninformed consensus rather appalling.Pgio 02:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And who might you be? Fernando Rizo T/C 02:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's someone surveying the material around them. TTLR
Ha ha! Good point. Mr Rizo, if you are thoroughly familiar with the Aetherometry discussion, it should be quite obvious I have been involved.Pgio 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware that you're involved, I just thought it was an interesting point of etiquette that you dove right into argumentation with me without so much as an introduction. I thought I'd be subtle instead of just calling you rude. TTLR had the decency to make a bit of small talk with a perfect stranger at least, although I'm not entirely convinced that you aren't the same person. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same person, although my assertion to such need not prove anything for you. What Pigo and I suspect, is that your interjection into aeth/talk, at the particular moment you did, was detrimental to an ongoing discussion on the merits and adherents to the scientific method by that topic. The wikipedians 'pushing' the pseudo category business, were NOT thus engaged much like yourself, in assessing the material. The timing of your actions, Pgio and I suspect, helped in derailing a constructive collaboration. This collaboration WAS NOT original research as you suggested, but actually a proper examination of the material submitted by others. Do you understand the dynamic I am describing, and thus why we may have been attracted to "who is Mr. Rizo"? This is particularly respectful of you as a person, Fernando, yet I do feel it appropriate to critique you in this matter. TTLR
Not the same person at all. Sorry if I was rude. Not exactly good faith though, the suggestion of sock puppetry. Pgio 03:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic, how it was "Fernando" who made his way through Aeth with nether an introduction, nor even a bit of small talk himself. And he basically called me a sock puppet too. More of that "bad faith" we're seeing so much of around this topic? Your new barn stars seem to have a few casting cracks, Mr Rizo. TTLR
You're entitled to your opinion. Have fun. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Flipping Fernando the bird", would be an expression of POV. Commenting that "I think Mr. Rizo is a mule packing a POV agenda for himself or others", is also an expression of opinion. That you first acted without a public introduction nor "small talk", is simply stating a wikipedia-historical fact. Certainly, that you could have had some dialogue with other Registered Users, in any manner of caucus not visible to the general public, is an educated speculation on my part... But I'm, as you say, "entitled to my opinion". Admittedly, I'm now quite short on friendly small talk with you. Responding to your three point list below, would be riding your Marry-Go-Round. The meat of that has been "asked and answered" in many places, including the aeth/talk you said you reviewed. My opinion is that you either didn't, or that a preponderance of evidence is lost on you rational. Take care, TTLR
And a hamster scurries off to learn aboutAetherometry.... Hamster Sandwich 08:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be quite honest and tell you that I'm pretty tired of defending my actions in aetherometry, but I'll sum up where I stand one more time.

  1. After seeing a storm of changes in the aetherometry article, I saw an abusive edit summary and used reverted it. This was before I had read the talk page for the article, but given the same opportunity I would do it again. An abusive edit summary spells bad faith editing to me.
  2. I read the article's talk page, and decided that the consensus amongst registered users was that artherometry was pseudoscience. Being a moderately intelligent person, I realize that the label "psuedoscience" may be contentious, but it is my job as an admin to uphold the consensus.
  3. I continued to revert the article to what I percieved as the decided upon consensus and requested that the page be protected as it became clear that the page was in a constant state of flux, as per Wikipedia policy.

I am not interested in debating the merits of aetherometry, nor am I interested in defending my actions further, as I feel I've beat this horse to death and am convinced that I acted both appropriately and in good faith. If you disagree, I invite you to file a request for comment against me; that's what RfC is for. You won't see me on aetherometry's talk page, because I have no interest in the subject. I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one. If a consensus is hammered out on aetherometry at some point, you can expect me to enforce it, too, once the page is eventually unprotected. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.35.34.24

[edit]

Hi Fernando,

Just a quick note to thank you for your prompt help with regards to User:82.35.34.24

I really appreciate your assistance and hope that he/she will no longer vandalise my user page or other Wikipedia pages.

Kind regards,

-- Kosovar 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that...

[edit]
An Award
You have made an amazingly rapid transition from relative newcomer to effective and eloquent administrator. I'm unfailingly impressed by your work here.

Joyous (talk) 00:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hells ya! Hamster Sandwich 05:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just an fyi:

[edit]

I'm back at school and don't have internet at the apartment yet (unless you count walking around the room to pinpoint that one generic open Linksys spot - and promptly losing it a minute later :). When I get the chance I'll of course continue working on the PBY; There's actually a solid section in Jane's that I've not really worked into the article. In the meantime, keep racking up the accolades! Gotta go before the wifi craps out once more. -eric ✈ 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Walsh

[edit]

Whats with this character? User:Erwin Walsh At first I didn't check his edit history and didn't think anything about him. He asked me to purge a few of the members in the encyclopedic merit (decency) afterburner project and I said I would, but they all calmed down and now he's doing it himself...--MONGO 11:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't honestly know. I've tried to talk to him, but he just doesn't communicate with other editors. Sometimes he makes great contributions, and sometimes he's just disruptive. He won't be around much longer if he keeps it up, and I honestly think it's a pity because he could be a great editor. It killed me to block him just now. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verfiy for Delete

[edit]

Hi; I wrote the article TINDOMH, which you have put up for deletion--no worries, I kinda understand the reasoning, and I apologise if it's against wiki-etiquette (these are my first articles, though I've been hovering about for a few weeks)! Is there a way you'd suggest to a) make the article noteworthy (i.e. worthy of an entry unto itself) or b) permit its existence (not as an article but) as e.g. a footnote in a related article? Thanks for your help. Predglyn 15:45 GMT, August 24 2005.


Hi Predglyn. First off, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I see you've made some good edits to some James Bond articles while you were here; that's most appreciated. If you want, you should hook up with Kevin (User:K1Bond007), our resident Bond expert. I'm sure he's got a project or two that you could help out with. Now concerning, TINDOMH. There's a couple of Wikipedia policies and guidelines at play here.

  • First off, many editors (in fact, most editors) interpret the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section of What Wikipedia is not as a requirement for notability before an article is included. In the case of TINDOMH, it has not made any kind of impact on the world at large, and no one outside of the Cambridge Astronomical Society group from 2002 would know what it was. Wikipedia is not an avenue for publicity, it only documents those things that are already notable.
  • Secondly, TINDOMH doesn't muster up to Wikipedia:Verifiability. No reference (such as a newspaper article, or a book or website) is referenced in the article, thus other editors cannot verify its existence and notability without the use of Google. At Votes for deletion, Google is almost always used if no verifiable references are cited by the article in question.

I hope this answers your questions. If you can do anything to prove the encyclopedic merit of TINDOMH, I'll be happy to help you out, and I'll even rescind the VfD nomination if it's compelling enough. I hope that, regardless of what happens with TINDOMH, you stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Don't hesitate to drop me a line if you need any help in the future. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

Thanks for the prompt repsonse! Yes, I see your points, and am taking them on board as experience. With a colleague we've moved the reference to an external link within the Galileo: The True Story page; does this impact things? (You can consider my Keep vote on the TINDOMH article rescinded in any case, if it truly isn't viable)

As a side-question--what are the guidelines as to when an external link is permitted and when not? If it can be seen to contribute to an understanding of the article's information, or the people it discusses, does that allow linking? Is linking to "personal" (i.e. not of direct "encyclopaedic" value) websites right out? Oh, and is there more freedom on what may and may not be put/linked to on one's personal user page? Thank you again. It was nice of you to welcome me!

Hi again, Predglyn. I didn't notice this reply until just now, otherwise I would have gotten back to you sooner. I don't personally have a problem with the Galileo: The True Story article; it strikes me as a notable and encyclopedic enough subject, and you and your compatriots have gotten a good grasp on Wikipedia markup language and style very quickly, and you are to be commended for that.
With regard to external links, check out the Wikipedia:External links policy page; if you've got any questions above and beyond that, drop me another note. As for what you can and cannot do with your user page: you're free to do whatever you wish with it, as long is it is not attacking another person, and obscene images are generally frowned upon as well. Anything else (links other sites, personal photos, etc.) is pretty much fair game.
Many editors find that there first article gets VfD'd and they stomp off in a fit of pique, never to be seen again. I'm glad to see that you're picking up Wikipedia and running with it, in spite of your initial setback. If you've ever got more questions, you're always welcome on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Nadia Russ

[edit]

Hi Fernando, please look at fixed Nadia Russ article and if you think there' s some change needed let me know or do it on your owns if you wish. Seems it looks OK now. Best

[edit]

I was hoping you could help to calm and mediate an increasingly rancorous dispute in articles related to Macedonia, in particular, the foregoing, Republic of Macedonia, and Macedonian slavs. As an outsider and a neutral to this ongoing dispute, and as a motivated new admin, I think you may be able to inculcate some much-needed civility on both sides. I note that this problem has been mentioned on the AN/I page as well.

Primarily, it appears that ethnic Greeks and Macedonian (or Macedonian slavs depending on your perspective) have been engaging in revert battles, subtle rephrasing campaigns, and talk page flame wars. Both sides seek to push POV, which results in articles becoming a mess and unencyclopedic. I point you to both sides of the debate (which I have joined, hopefully prooductively) at Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Also, take a look at MATIA's old talk page for a Greek-English translation that shows some collusive bad faith, and I am certainly concerned by this pro-Macedonian [slav] user's cavalier remarks that appear on the AN/I page and at Macedonia's discussion page.

I fear this is poised to get completely out-of-hand soon, and I was hoping you could help. Many thanks, Friejose 17:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friejose, I'm actually not going to be around much today, and possibly tomorrow either. I've started reading up on the conflict, but I won't be ready to intercede for a day or two because I'll be busy in RL. If you need immediate help and the AN/I isn't getting you anywhere, let me suggest User:Ryan Delaney, User:Joy Stovall, User:FreplySpang or User:Grutness. No guarantees that they'll have time either, but they are level-headed admins whose opinions I respect greatly. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you really want a new and enthusiastic admin like me, try User:Func. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sundevil4life

[edit]

This guy seems to be behaving like a jerk, but nonetheless, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I have had experience with a couple of newbies who have come onto Wikipedia all bluster and fist-waving, but then they calm down once they're shown how to behave. Let's try to coach this guy instead of alienate him. If he doesn't respond positively to coaching, then we nuke him. Regards, Ground Zero 20:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think if you look through my edit history, you'll see that I'm as big of a proponent of Don't bite the newcomers as they come. That said, this isn't a kid who came here and made a bad edit to a Transformers article or a person who gets into a POV war editing a contentious issue. He is here for the sole purpose of advertising his law firm, and for that I have no sympathy whatsoever. He's a spammer. I've been putting off a lot of things that I need to do in RL today for long enough, so I'm gonna take off and I leave him in your hands. I totally understand your concern, GZ, and your sentiment has my backing 100%, even if I don't agree with you in this particular case. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has made some edits to other articles. Take a look at his contribution history. If it weren't for those, I'd probably agree with you. A spammer isn't worth wasting time over. I offered him help, and he ridiculed me, so I have made the offer again. If he doesn't start to turn around quickly, then I'd agree to blocking. I'm new as an admin, so I am hesitant (as the guides tell me to be) about exercising that power, but I will look into into it. Any advice you can give me on that would be appreciated. Regards, Ground Zero 21:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can make sandwiches...

[edit]

Hiya Fernando! No I haven't managed to get blocked, but it sure was a weird feeling for a few minutes there y-day. Kind of like having someone I don't know wearing my skivvies and then putting them back in the drawer. And the guys vandalism was weird too, he hit a couple of users that I do have on my watch list, and then a couple of articles I had never gone to. Hillary Clinton? Hamster Sandwich 16:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from VIP

[edit]
    • Wow. That's an impressive record. I'm watching them. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vandal seems to have gotten bored or stopped as per my warning. I took some time to investigate their hundreds of contributions, and as Linas pointed out, every single one is vandalism. I'm going to be bold and ban them indefinitely. Senior admins:if I'm out of line, please correct me on my talk page and I'll unblock the user. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a school IP, this is hardly surprising. Blocking IPs indefinitely is generally not done though; Considering the fact that there may be great contributors at that school logging in with usernames and thus not showing up in that list of contributions, and that this is our chance to introduce tomorrow's good editors to wikipedia, I think short blocks to stop immediate vandalism are our best choice. --fvw* 22:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • As per your suggestion, Fvw, I'm reducing the block to 24 hours. How do you know that it's school IP? Fernando Rizo T/C 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. ARIN classifies the netblock as a Qwest one, labelled "REGION 10 EDUCATION SERVICE". I have no idea what region 10 is, but the whole thing suggests school to me. Most IPs that have long streams of tests and reasonably benign vandalism are either schools or libraries. --fvw* 22:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Drive

[edit]
Thank you for supporting the FAD.

I noticed you have left the Featured Article Drive team. On behalf of the Founders and other participants, I would like to thank you for your time and support, and of course, your contributions. We would like you to accept this small barnstar as a token of thanks for helping us to improve articles on the wiki. Rob Church Talk | Desk 00:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rob, you are a fantastic fellow and I can't thank you enough for having such a high opinion of me and my edits. Unfortunately, I cannot accept this Barnstar with a clear conscience, no matter how thoughtful the sentiment it represents. I am very proud of the work I do on Wikipedia, and I think I've made some great edits. That said, I do believe that I made exactly one edit on behalf of the Featured Article Drive, and if memory serves it was a punctuation change on The Godfather (film). Thanks again, brother, but I would feel like a right bastard if I put that barnstar on my user page. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 00:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A million raindrops make a river, take it and be proud of it I'd say. (I didn't contribute at all, so if anyone's a bastard it's me. Come to think of it, that was an indirect personal attack. You're lucky I don't RfC you.) --fvw* 00:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Bring it on Fvw! I ain't scared of you! :)
The more I think about it, it is exceptionally rude of my to turn down a gift. Fvw's right. Thank you, Rob, for the Barnstar. I will mount it on my userpage, post haste. Forgive my rudeness. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only just noticed this discussion whilst chasing after a bot. I'm not worried either way. Rob Church Talk | Desk 03:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Train/Archive_IV&oldid=1171447503"