User talk:City of Silver/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:City of Silver. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ken Boyd (politician)

City ofSilver, Thank you for notifying me that I was not signed in. I will assume that you sent a smiliar message to the person who is simply an IP address and has made multiple edits using different computers to the page in question. Also, are you monitoring the situation at all? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escytherdon (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to be signed in to edit, although it would be nice since then they could be warned for edit warring. Warning that user for anything won't accomplish much since they're on a dynamic IP and their IP address changes constantly. (Your claim that the other user "has made multiple edits using different computers" is almost certainly wrong and even if not, it's something you shouldn't say without proof.) I'm trying to monitor the situation without much success, since the reverts are coming so fast. Cityo fSilver 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And for that matter, please read WP:3RR. It doesn't look like anybody has pointed the three-revert rule out to you yet, so I wouldn't worry about being blocked, but you have now officially been warned. That user is engaging in discussion on Boyd's talk page, which means the next time you revert anything on that page, you're almost guaranteed a block. Cityo fSilver 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

List of East German films

Yeah, I've accidentally deleted it. I'm undoing it right now. Bahavd Gita (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd make a bunch of good edits then wipe the page on purpose. It happens. CityO fSilver 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi CityOfSilver,

I just want to say that was very kind of you to move the unauthorized comments, from my main page, over to my discussion page. It was really nice.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was ready to just delete it, since that sort of thing ought to be ignored and nothing else, but that might have counted as refactoring another user's comment. CityO fSilver 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:216.31.246.114, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. That's not a WP:NPA you're reverting. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Following an attack warning for an edit summary blatantly violating WP:NPA, that user said, "Good advice to Nasnema. Let's hope he follows it." That also constituted an attack, since Nasnema didn't attack anybody. Also, the user reverted me without explaining via the edit summary. I think I read somewhere that doing so is a kinda-sorta accusation of vandalism in and of itself, which would be another attack, since I'm no vandal.

Or maybe I am. A vandalism template? When the sentence before your signature would have gotten your point across just fine? Ouch. That's advice you know I don't need and I'd appreciate it if you'd remove it. CityO fSilver 23:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary was a personal attack - the only one. No, "Good advice to Nasnema. Let's hope he follows it." isn't a personal attack. I could have left you a more personalized note but you were edit warring in error on that user's talk page (and you seem to object to the part that I wrote that wasn't a template anyway). Folks are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and even add comments like "Good advice to Nasnema. Let's hope he follows it." Toddst1 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Shepperton Design Studios

Shepperton didn't "lose a lawsuit". The final judgement was that Shepperton had not broken any law, as the helmets were industrial props(whose copyrights had expired), and not works of art. How exactly is that "losing"? In addition, the words "unauthorized" as well as the removal of "alleged" is entirely POV from the view of Lucas. I was the one making sure Wikipedia remained NPOV< yet I am now being warned? 41.133.47.137 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, if you check the edit history of the article, you will see that the other editor REMOVED RELIABLE SOURCES that I had added, and replaced them with his own sources(some of which appear fanzine-like) which give a POV account. If you like, it would be very easy to find many more Reliable Sources which show the ruling, certainly not Shepperton "losing". I fear, however, that the other person would remove them. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I'll try to keep one conversation going rather than two. CityO fSilver 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved your comment to your talk. Let's talk in one place. CityO fSilver 17:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am quite frankly baffled how anyone can read that article and say that Lucas "won" and Shepperton "lost". The judgement was that Shepperton could legally sell props anywhere in the world, with the exception of the US. Lucas was upset and angry, Ainsworth celebrated. If that's a victory for Lucas, then something is very odd indeed. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See how my replies here have no substance at all to them? That's because I don't want to keep the conversation going in two places. Please stop replying to me here. Whatever you have to say, say it on your talk page, like I've been doing. CityO fSilver 17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Um... not the one who was vandalizing...

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Death of Caylee Anthony. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CityO fSilver 23:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I never vandalized this page at all. I was simply trying to revert the vandalism that I saw in the opening paragraph, and Wikipedia hung. I refreshed the page. Why it appears that I caused that particular vandalism instead of reverting it is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.96.23 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What vandalism did you see in the opening paragraph? Is it still there? CityO fSilver 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest warning for edits to Pontypridd High School

CityOfSilver

Namaste

I am much obliged for your noticing a possible conflict of interest in my referring to Pontypridd High School in my UserPage, and, I presume, erasing it, as I see no mention of that school on that Page now, and don't recall erasing it myself.

I apologise for being so new to editing that I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia's rules of engagement for editors. My autistic condition makes it all too easy for me to become totally blinkered when I typing my thoughts into my laptop.

I can assure you it will improve. Editing articles in Wikipedia is a lifeline for my mind, which is getting very bored with what I do in my retirement, as it has become so used to being creative by my work as an Esquire and Surveyos of the Royal Division

So, your intervention has not discouraged me. In fact it has helped me to better recall events in my teens. But, I won't fill your techy user page up with my ramblings, as you are probably very busy trying to keep us lay editors in order.

Thankyou again.

Sincerely,

DadrianT,EsqMCIHT (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, autism can be beneficial to this site because it can help you focus in ways others, like me, cannot. I knew you were acting in good faith. That motivation to do right by this site is possibly the most important thing an editor can have.

The best way to learn Wikipedia is through trial-and-error, since if you mean well, and you obviously do, you'll get corrected by others and you'll come to understand more and more. I still consider myself a "lay editor" around here; here's me, just the other day, getting help understanding something I didn't know anything about. It happens to everybody. No big deal. CityO fSilver 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Columbus edits

Because I live in Columbus and if you don't put Ohio after it people try to guess which Columbus it is and they never guess Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.67.149 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All those links go to Columbus, Ohio, and any confusion is gone once someone clicks them. Please stop doing that. CityO fSilver 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, that arena is not in Dayton city limits, which is why those links go to Trotwood rather than Dayton. Please stop doing that, too. CityO fSilver 19:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Grief! OK, left a comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, and maybe I'll regret asking, but can you point me to the nightmare that was "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles?" CityO fSilver 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - just noticed this. Have a look at Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_25#the_or_The.3F. It spilled out all over the place, and there was an ArbCom request as well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks. Also, holy crap. I just kind of wandered into that discussion from Recent Changes. I hope Slash v. Hyphen doesn't turn into an all-out mess like that. CityO fSilver 18:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What?

What did you mean, "level 2 warning"? My reasons were voiced and valid. 75.191.176.246 (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2011

(I had to add the above comment here; the original edit was just the section header with the actual comment in the edit summary. CityO fSilver)

The discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page, and since your edits are controversial, you need to discuss before editing. Your only attempts at discussion were in your edit summaries, which is "discussion while editing" as opposed to "discussion before editing." As near as I can tell, you have not discussed this on any talk page until I specifically asked you to with that warning. It looks like my warning compelled you to discuss on the talk page, which is exactly what I hoped it would do. The idea of such discussions is that you might see it the other editor's way and realize you were wrong, or that editor might see it your way and realize you were right, or a compromise will be reached. It's only through discussion that everyone will see what is "valid" and disputes like this will be avoided, just like everyone wants them to be. CityO fSilver 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring other editor's comments

You've done it twice by removing links. [1][2]. Please stop. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply in better detail on your talk page because I do not want to run even the slightest risk of my reply getting missed. A computer (or rather, phone) glitch is screwing with my edits right now, and I'm sure those links, which I saw, are about to get removed as an inadvertent result. I'm going to try to keep them there, though. CityO fSilver 23:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest carefully monitoring your edits to ensure that you're not removing links. You can click the "show changes" button to ensure that. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see from your contribs that you're struggling with this problem. Is there no way you can click on "show changes" and then correct this problem before it recurs? It could be misinterpreted as deliberate misconduct and cause headaches for you. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

British National Party

Binksternet called this "a contentious and unproductive conversation" and I agree. I should have taken this elsewhere long before this.

{{Please do not be bias, removing sourced information could be classed as vandalism , and also dont make personal attacks against other users , No i do not support the BNP and As i have stated on the history i was showing both sides , supporters and critics. I recommend reading WP:Neutral before editing again , thank you. Goldblooded (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you removed the template , because firstly you revereted sourced information and made a personal attack on me. But anyway im going to assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt. But as ive said before under WP:NEUTRAL my edit is jutified. It shows both sides of the arguement , it doesnt matter what the article is about , even if is controversial you must keep it even. Too many critical things could be counted as bias. Goldblooded (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"removing sourced information could be classed as vandalism" That is absolutely incorrect. "Sourced" is never the only requirement for keeping information and sourced information can be removed.

As for "personal attacks," it looks like you were offended by what I said in my edit summary here, which was that your edit "reads like promo for the BNP." I did not accuse you of being a BNP member or supporter. My comment was about your edit, not you. If you say you're not a BNP supporter and someone else says you are, I would correct that person since you just specifically said you were not one and I have no reason to think you're a liar. And when I revert your edit again, like I'm going to do in a second, I'm going to say as much.

And finally, as for the edit itself, your edit's source is a primary source. That can problematic because primary sourced information is provided by people with a stake in the matter. In this case, it is obvious that the BNP has that information on their site for propagandistic reasons. What insight does Betty Booton's support provide? How does the BNP benefit from people knowing she is a supporter? (I can admit I don't like the BNP. I'm American so I don't know as much about them besides what I learned from watching the BBC debate with Nick Griffin, but when it came to the Booton information, I thought, "If she's 90 and supporting the BNP, it might be because she is old and has a few marbles rolling around loose. These people support the ideas that motivated the perpetrators of the blitzkrieg. What other explanation is there?") I can't see, specifically, what good understanding there is to be gained of adding this information. It reads like the Wikipedia article is hoping to tilt people's opinions of the BNP. If there's another reason for including it, I can't think of it. CityO fSilver 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And for that matter, who cares about Betty Booton? She got smashed in the election. Why is she so important that she gets mentioned on the BNP's article, which is too long anyways? CityO fSilver 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well theres several things wrong with your statement, Firstly i was offended that you called me (or at least made out) that im a BNP supporter/promoter , and in the eyes of some that could be a personal attack , But im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and move on. Also ,if you truely are American - why are you even on that article? I believe my edit was a fitting contribution to weight up the clear bias on that page , im surprised it hasnt been questioned for its neutrality yet. Being 90 years old and a candidate is pretty impressive , and if i remember rightly across the pond in the states one of your senators whos name i cant remember but he is of asian ethnicity and is planning on standing for another term in 2012/13 at the age of 92.

Also saying things such as shes some old coot whos lost her mind is pretty offensive , and youd be surprised- i know a 90 year old (who is my godmother , although i do refer to her as my gran now since all my grandparents have passed unfortunately) and the way she acts and looks , you wouldnt think shes a day past 65, paticularly that shes been through so much in her live , she actually lived in London during the blitz; her house was destroyed but she rebuilt her life- which in itself is a remarkable feat and im pretty sure that lady in the article lived through the same ordeal in conventry.

On a closing note , what did you actually mean by "These people support the ideas that motivated the perpetrators of the blitzkrieg" ?

If your refering to the german blitzkrieg then no , not really becasue in britain and france theorys such as blitzkrieg and the theorists who thought them up , not just germans ; westerners including Charles de gaulle were mainly sidelined and ignored. and the french commanders inability to coardinate with tanks , (unlike the germans) was among the many factors that led to france's defeat and humilation in ww2. Goldblooded (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Firstly i was offended that you called me (or at least made out) that im a BNP supporter/promoter". I'm seeing a disconnect with you telling me what you think I "made [you] out" to be and the fact that you linked me to the Assume Good Faith page. Please reread that page. Right at the top, there's a request that editors "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." I said twice that I do not believe you support the BNP. I said zero times that I think you support them. You're deciphering the things I'm saying and jumping to a conclusion that I'm saying nasty things about you, and you only have gotten to that conclusion because you're ignoring what I said and guessing what I mean. That is exactly what the Assume Good Faith page asks editors not to do.

"I believe my edit was a fitting contribution to weight up the clear bias on that page , im surprised it hasnt been questioned for its neutrality yet." The article is not not even remotely neutral. I have never said otherwise. But WP:UNDUE, which goes to a section at the neutrality policy, says that neutrality is achieved when "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." The BNP cannot be trusted to provide unbiased information on itself since it has a stake in promoting itself. (The same is true of any political party.) The BNP is not a reliable source, so edits sourced to it violate WP:NEUTRAL.

"Being 90 years old and a candidate is pretty impressive , and if i remember rightly across the pond in the states one of your senators whos name i cant remember but he is of asian ethnicity and is planning on standing for another term in 2012/13 at the age of 92." You're thinking of Daniel Inouye, but the Democratic Party isn't telling people they ought to vote for him because he's very, very old. The BNP is using Booton's age to promote her.

"Also saying things such as shes some old coot whos lost her mind is pretty offensive , and youd be surprised- i know a 90 year old (who is my godmother , although i do refer to her as my gran now since all my grandparents have passed unfortunately) and the way she acts and looks , you wouldnt think shes a day past 65" I've never made any such generalization. I've expressed a guess, which is that Booton is operating at diminished capacity. Inouye and your godmother are good examples of people who are surprisingly sharp for such advanced ages. But they don't represent every single elderly person out there. We had a Congressman named Strom Thurmond who is a perfect example of what I mean. Isn't that sad, that he was still in the Senate when he was clearly suffering from dementia and probably should have gone to a nursing home?

"what did you actually mean by "These people support the ideas that motivated the perpetrators of the blitzkrieg" ?" I'll rephrase. The BNP espouses some terrible, immoral ideas that are almost carbon copies of the Nazis' ideas, and the Blitz was perpetrated by the Luftwaffe under orders from the Nazis. The term "Blitz" was used in your BNP link. If my use of "blitzkrieg" is wrong, let's call it the "WW2 German air raids on England." That's what Booton survived, and it's the people who ordered those air raids whose ideas she apparently finds worthy.

And finally, I reverted you again. I don't believe WP:NEUTRAL allows for the insertion of propaganda into articles, since doing so violates WP:RS which in turn violates WP:NEUTRAL. You disagree. I'm happy to continue this discussion, although since it's a content discussion it ought to take place on the article's talk page, not here. Either way, you really need to stop reverting and continue discussing until the matter is settled; you are very close to violating policy and getting yourself blocked. And for that matter, please do not threaten me with "grave consequences" or call another editor's viewpoint "rubbish." Those are personal attacks.)

TL;DR: WP:UNDUE, a part of the neutrality policy, requires reliable sources. The BNP is not a reliable source. Anything sourced to it cannot be accepted. CityO fSilver 04:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Theres no point having a pathetic dispute about this ill probably ask for a third opinion later but I said i was offended at first , and on your other points; being old isnt the reason - why else are generals, world leaders , senior officials etc generally older people? Experience of course. And that guy you were on about , was 100 years old. Some people "age" when they get to 50/60 although some people never seem to age until they are very old, for example harry patch or even the Swiss scientist Albert Hofmann.

Blitzkrieg and The Blitz are completely different things, and it amazes me how you dont know the difference between them; its like saying a plane and a tank are the same thing so please be more specific. Also , if you want to call it that, call it WW2 german air raids on britain/ the uk or even the british isles , because targets in scotland , northern ireland and wales were also hit, unknown to most foreigners (and rather annoyingly) england isnt the only part of the united kingdom, you wouldnt refer the whole of america as california or wyoming would you? Also its a long story , but you'd be surprised about how the RAF bombed germany , including purposely bombing civillian targets but thats another story.

Other editors have said those kind of things to defuse the siutation such as walk away etc, so you have to take that up with them. And as i said before its a way of balancing the evidence; feel free to reword though. Goldblooded (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I loose as always, I knew it was going to be a lost cause and quite frankly i cant even be bothered to waste anymore time; I dont even know why i still bother editing on this even though i dont get any help from ANYONE , no thanks , no compliments no nothing, EVEN when i was a newbie. Its unebelievable, yet Wikipedia needs younger members and sadly the more experienced members seem to do a good job of scaring off new recruits but at any rate; You win, i hope your happy with yourself. Dont bother/flame me again. Goldblooded (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see this end in a block, since other than your not-so-great encounters with others, you're a fine editor. It was predictable enough that you'd get blocked that I tried to show you the 3RR policy. You violated it and look what happened. I hope when you come back you have a little more willingness to discuss things since as you can see, getting into confrontations got you nowhere. CityO fSilver 21:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe not. I just saw where you got indefinitely blocked back in July for attacking other editors. Your block was lifted when you accepted mentorship, but since you've been attacking and attacking (and attacking) me and others for days now, I don't think your mentorship worked. Maybe you shouldn't come back. Back then, you were blocked by The ed17, who you just attacked for absolutely no apparent reason, and I just asked him to consider indefblocking you again. CityO fSilver 23:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my changes to the iAUDIO article

The article was already heavily biased before I did any of my changes. I appreciate that you removed some of the biased sections, but removing the entire "JetEffect & BBE" section was unnecessary. I will restore this section, but attempt to remove any biased paragraphs. I will also add entries for some of the newer players (including - most importantly - the iAUDIO 9 and iAUDIO 10, as well as the Cowon X7 which is mentioned previously in the article), but omitt the links to the manufacturer product pages - I only added these because I saw that the previous editors had done this in the other product sections. I can see now, however, why it might be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.231.23 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. And the article looks a lot better now, even if it is still a little list-y. Thanks. CityO fSilver 20:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Message of apology

Hi there CityofSilver , I hope you are well; thank you for notifying Ed about this as well and as I have already said to Bink ; long story short I apologise for my foolishness I should of posted it on the talk page and waited not just blitzed ahead. But thank you for your edits and hopefully I will we will be able to shake hands and move on and continue once more to improve Wikipedia; Although this time I not only know how to edit and create articles (as I have done before) I have learnt to be more civil with people and assume good faith wherever possible, and I am sorry if I caused you any wikistress. :)

PS: Although in my humble opinion I do find it rather cold about you saying things such as this, particularly on the casus belli of getting your own back.

“I don't know if anybody came across his previous blocklog or those (now-archived) discussions from July, but I feel like if that whole debacle had gotten brought up earlier, we wouldn't be talking about a mere 48 hours off”

Of course they would of checked. Also if you wish to know the background it wasn’t really a “serious” block it was more of a block where if I really wanted to come back and I was going to edit rationally (as I did albeit recently I did have one or two disputes – the only 2 I have had since that block) they would of unblocked me , as they did. But anyway again thanks for notifying the admins and trying to help, even if it was a little upsetting someone could say that. Goldblooded (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically a chatlog.

:At this point, I don't know what to say to you. You take everything personally and respond with attacks. You claim this message you just left is an apology, then you attack me yet again, calling my behavior "rather cold" and accusing me of evil motivations yet again with "casus belli of getting your own back." If I read that right, and I'm not sure I do, you're accusing me of picking a fight with you and providing myself cover by notifying Ed before you could. I can't think of one thing I can do, outside of giving in and saying that you were right to add that information to the BNP article, that will calm you down. And I won't do that, since you were wrong. I keep feeding these discussions here when I should have taken it to ANI long before this. I'll stop doing that now. CityO fSilver 20:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all kind sir, thats just my opinion on the matter, Assume good faith and please dont take it the wrong way and assume the worst (see WP:EQ)and as you know it will exacerbate the situation. As for my latter paragraph i was explaining about the previous block. Concerning the edit I wasnt right (hence why i was blocked and i have by now learnt my lesson) and thats why i am apologising; accept my apology or leave it. (: Goldblooded (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Telling me to "assume good faith" when I've done nothing but assume good faith is yet another personal attack. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I don't know what to say to you. I'll accept your apology as soon as you post one without qualifying it with an attack. CityO fSilver 20:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but i dont understand. I was just telling you to assume good faith and not assume the worst , as it says in wikipedia's rules. Please elaborate. Goldblooded (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on an ANI report. Stand by. CityO fSilver 21:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry , but may i ask why? Goldblooded (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The report is forthcoming and you'll have an answer to this. Stand by. CityO fSilver 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Im confused, So who are you reporting , and if its me then why exactly are you doing it? Goldblooded (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've advised you and (I hope) everybody else involved about the discussion. Feel free to respond there. CityO fSilver 21:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)