User talk:Alamanth
|
Welcome!
|
Concerns about content
- Title changed for civility: formerly titled by Penbat as "Stop butchering Wikipedia articles".
- See also: User talk:S Marshall#User:Alamanth and User talk:Penbat#Edit summaries
You are whizzing round butchering Wikipedia articles in an irrational way and without any prior discussion. STOP IT.--Penbat (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Referring to my obviously well-intentioned edits as "vandalism" and "butchering" is uncivil, and calling me "irrational" and yelling "STOP IT" could be interpreted as personal attacks.
- The "Wikipedia articles" to which you are referring were each created by you, very recently. They are very short, and are without appropriate context; I feel they represent content forks and that the information within them would better serve readers if conveyed through existing articles. I carefully merged the material to articles that seemed closest in topic to the articles you created. This is not "vandalism" by any measure. Alamanth (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Both of you need to cool down right now. Penbat, your edit summaries and some of your other language are way out of line. Alamanth, you need to stop making wholesale changes such as in History of narcissism, where you clearly do NOT have any kind of consensus and never addressed the matter on the talk page. It's fine to be bold, but not in such contentious matters. If you two keep this up, you will run into trouble soon, since this has the potential to become disruptive very easily. I suggest both of you grab a hot or cold beverage and take the dog for a walk--and possibly work on some other articles if the WP bug bites you. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would care to explain on the article discussion page just what you think is wrong with it.--Expsychobabbler (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. I made a short note in my edit summary, but I'd be happy to explain further at Talk. Alamanth (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Drmies; thanks for your input. I agree that it's preferable to go to the Talk page before making drastic changes, and will try to do this without fail in the future. Please understand, though, that some reasoning went into this: History of narcissism is a brand-new article which Penbat created as a content fork of narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder, just five weeks ago. There is a discussion at Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder, dated to early 2008, in which Penbat participated. In this discussion, several editors raised significant concerns over creating new articles related to the topic of narcissism. Having seen this discussion, and the new creation date of History of narcissism, perhaps I underestimated the importance of "seeking consensus" to undo something to which several editors had already objected in previous discussions.
- I'm a little confused: does this mean that, within the culture of Wikipedia, a person who creates a new article is typically interpreted as having "property rights", and that new articles should tend to be respected? Do Wikipedians tend to think it is more wrong to merge without consensus, and more right to split without consensus? I'm aware of the "mergist" and "deletionist" philosophies and so forth, but am not sure what philosophy prevails, and, more importantly, I don't entirely understand what I did wrong here, or what information should come into play when I'm making these types of decisions. Any information or resources to help me understand are appreciated; thanks. Alamanth (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Alamanth, thank you for your response. The discussion on the talk page you mention is quite old, and I didn't look back that far. As for property rights, well, they shouldn't exist, but I believe there to be some sort of consensus akin to "possession is nine/tenths of the law." I don't know about the philosophies; I just know that in contentious matter, in which experienced users write content in which they are invested (both of you are, it appears), it's best to tread lightly, even if you are right (which we all are, of course). You merge, Penbat starts yelling, you possibly yell back, an admin is asked to get involved, accusations of sock puppetry are made, outsiders like me stick their nose in... If you are right, and consensus agrees that these are POV forks, then you will have done a good thing, and while it undoubtedly will take a lot more time, it is infinitely more painless. In the meantime, though, I am more interested in deescalation, and that means for you to please refrain from drastic edits, and for Penbat to stop using all too inflammatory language. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to do that. What you're saying makes perfect sense: the amount of time and energy that goes into a large disagreement is a waste, and it's far better to avoid the disruption in the first place. I apologize for having gotten off on the wrong foot and will try to communicate more thoroughly in the future.
- even if you are right (which we all are, of course)
- That got a grin; thanks. :) Alamanth (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
<--No grins anymore now. Of course your editing skills were not those of a newbie, but this is kind of sad. Happy trails anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock puppet
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.Unblock request
Alamanth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet of the other user, and I am willing to prove this fact by whatever means. I do not want to remain falsely linked with someone who was the subject of (what I have now discovered is) such a contentious situation. Please point me toward what avenues are available to clear my name.
Decline reason:
The evidence at the SPI is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. -- Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2009 (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.
Alamanth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The usage of SPI has a margin for error into which I have fallen: I have never been an administrator on Wikipedia. This situation extends beyond me: my IP has now been wrongfully associated with another person's history of controversial/harmful activity, and I imagine that this could affect the people around me, if that person ever were to commit a crime. There has been a mistake. Please help.
Decline reason:
I endorse the conclusions of Daniel and MuZemike. The evidence provided against you is extremely convincing, and your defense is not. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:44, 26 November 2009 (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.
Alamanth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well Alamanth, if it helps at all, I can assure you and anyone else reading this page, that the only thing I know about you is that you are not me, and you are totally innocent as accused. When I had to ask Jimbo to perma block me to stop all the false allegations and accusations things were different, people used to run proper IP sockchecks before making accusations and banning people this way...but not any more. *NEWSFLASH It is not remotely necessary to be *me* to notice that Penbat is filling psychology aticles with a load of rubbish and bullying anyone who challenges him. I have left a message for Jimbo (who usually sees through this nonsense in seconds, once his attention is drawn to it) and I'll chase up any friendly admins I can find to get this overturned for you. Meanwhile, take comfort in the fact that this happened because User:Penbat is simply too Narcissistic to face the fact that he is too insignificant for me to pay any attention to...The REAL Zeraeph--109.79.193.159 (talk) 4:09 am, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests must be filed by the user who is blocked, not an IP address. TNXMan 12:47, 22 December 2009 (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.
Alamanth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Until a proper IP check is run, and it is admitted that Alamanth COULD NOT POSSIBLY be me (Zeraeph) I am technically just as entitled to request an unblock as Alamanth...this was a really nasty thing to do to an innocent person, without even a proper IP check - c'mon guys time to do the decent thing please. You can establish who I am by emailing User:Zeraeph through the interface, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes, including proving my geolocation, to clear Alamanth and get this block lifted, as soon as it is, nobody hears from me again
Decline reason:
This user talk page is not protected in any fashion, so far as I am aware, so any editor can leave messages here. This would include advocating for the user's unblocking (or confirming the block, as some admins have done, above). If the main point of contention is that you, Zeraeph, are not this user, Alamanth, then filing unblock requests on their behalf is a singularly poor way to get that point across. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:52, 22 December 2009 (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.
Alamanth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The point of contention is that I know, beyond doubt, that User:Alamanth is not me, or my sockpuppet, which is the only reason why User:Alamanth was banned. A simple IP check would prove this beyond doubt, but you are also welcome to mail me through the interface to Zeraeph, and/or call me on my landline number to verify this beyond all trace of doubt and exonerate the, totally innocent User:Alamanth as is meet and right...then I am gone - simple.
Decline reason:
You've been asked several times to stop. If this user would like to be unblocked, then this user (and only this user) may request the unblock. This page has been semi-protected. TNXMan 19:18, 22 December 2009 (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.
