User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2012/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Headbomb. 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. |
Get admins involved in what
What is there to get admins involved in? A discussion? I haven't done anything but respond to your comments about my behavior. Mostly incorrect ones I might add based on assumptions you made without finding out the facts. If you really want to enforce a policy how about 3RR for Markvs88's actions before I got blocked, or his uncivil comments and article ownership. Theres 3 policy violations there. How about Brad's comments at Bag saying YAY your bot got blocked, How about, etc. etc. Before you go painting me as the bad guy here, I am just trying to defend myslef from editors trying to ruin my reputation. One I spent years building up only to have a couple shitheads drag it through the mud. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem here frankly is that I am not some young high school kid who doesn't know anything. I am well educated, with a lot of experience in managing things like this and I know better than to roll over and take it when its not correct. I may not be as tactful as I should be sometimes and its sometimes hard to type out exactly the right tone and texture as it would be in real life in person but the fact remains I am being railroaded and its wrong. Frankly, someone who has been around as long as you and having worked with me and seen what I have done thus far as you, should know better. Your right though, I did use my bot for 2 edits, one to the Admin who blocked me here and one to the project talk page here. In both cases I apologized for the method and I stated that I felt there would be repricussions. So if the revokation of the bot was the result, then so be it. But I still contest that the block was nothing more than a way to keep me from discussing the issues that you said I refused to do. I didn't refuse anything. I was actively engaged in multiple discussions (I would be happy to provide links if you even care, likely not) before I was blocked. I then continued to comment on my talk page. By the time the block was over, my reputation in the discussions had been crushed and no one cared anymore. Mark got off with not so much as a warning. So thats the short version of my story and why I am so pissed off about the whole incident. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bot policy is unambiguously clear that it's unacceptable to edit from bot accounts, and doubly-so for the purpose of block evasion. I (or any of the BAG members) do not give a rat's ass about Markvs88's or anyone else's actions, nor do I/we care about your education level. The only thing I (and the rest of the BAG) care about is your actions, which were inexcusable, and the way you handled the whole thing is a textbook case of how not to behave as a bot operator. There is only one person to blame for your now-soiled reputation, and you only have to look in a mirror to find who it is. You could have disengaged as several points in the whole affair, and you even promised to do so, but you didn't because of some misguided sense of 'I'LL SHOW THEM HOW WRONG THEY WERE!!!', went down the path of the conspiracy theory / admin cabal, still refuse to disengage, and still refuse to see the block for what it actually was: stopping your from edit warring over the wrong version.
- The list of people who thought the removal of your bot op privileges was unfortunate is growing thin. It's not growing thin because people want the downfall of WPUS, it's growing thin because they are concerned about the well-being of Wikipedia. How many people told you similar things by now. Ten? Twenty? How many will it take before you consider that when the world is against you, maybe it's not the world that's gone crazy overnight, but you.
- So please, for your own sake, disengage.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I already admitted I made mistakes, but I still insist that the block was wrong and to prevent me from commenting. I'm not dropping sticks or anything else and only time will see if my instincts are correct in that without a lead coordinator to help do the day to day tasks, WikiProject US will cease to function as will many of the supported projects. The list of people was fairly short and what continues to frustrate me is that NO ONE seems to give a rats ass as you put it. If people were truly concerned about Wikipedia they would have blocked Mark not me. But its clear to see that I have over stayed my welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I'm not dropping sticks or anything else", fine, but don't be surprised that people stop taking you to your word, or if you end up being blocked for disruption. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your comment about "taking you to your word" has to do with anything. Regardless, I just removed my email address and I will be changing my password. This will be my last edit. If I come back at all (which is pretty unlikely at this point) I will start as a new user and a clean start. I hope that in time Kumioko will be remembered for what I tried to do and not what I was blamed for or accused of. For what its worth I have to give you credit where its due, at least you left Brad a note. Thats more than anyone else has done and you get an idea of the sort of comments and harrassment I have gotten repeatedly and on a regular basis from multiple users including Brad, Mark and a variety of others with their own agendas. I finally got tired of taking it and stood up and see what it got me. I will miss this place and I have to admit after all the work I put into it its a little saddening that it won't miss me. --Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I'm not dropping sticks or anything else", fine, but don't be surprised that people stop taking you to your word, or if you end up being blocked for disruption. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I already admitted I made mistakes, but I still insist that the block was wrong and to prevent me from commenting. I'm not dropping sticks or anything else and only time will see if my instincts are correct in that without a lead coordinator to help do the day to day tasks, WikiProject US will cease to function as will many of the supported projects. The list of people was fairly short and what continues to frustrate me is that NO ONE seems to give a rats ass as you put it. If people were truly concerned about Wikipedia they would have blocked Mark not me. But its clear to see that I have over stayed my welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- So please, for your own sake, disengage.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- People, including me, will miss the Kumioko that worked with people and did good work. We want that Kumioko back, and several people, including me, advised you to take a short break so you would cool down and not do things you'd regret because you're under stress at the moment. But we won't miss the Kumioko who insisted he was special, and who thought that it gave him special permission to ignore consensus, feedback, or policies. You can still be the Kumioko people liked, it really is not too late to go back on that decision.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to stop and respond to that trollish statement. First, your right several people did tell me to cool off, which only pissed me off more because they were doing it at the same time as Markvs88 and others where continuing to make comments on here and via EMAIL. But no one told Mark or Brad they were being uncivil. And NO ONE, not even you who say you were going to miss the old Kumioko. Excuse me if I don't really believe you at this point. I never insisted I was special and I NEVER ignored consensus. Markvs88 was and its frustrating when everyone just sits there and lets him and others make comments, violate policy, etc. The comments that Brad101 made and you commented on are the type of things I have been dealing with and frankly no user should have to put up with it. I only wanted you and others to follow the rules, to enforce the issues I was having with civility, trolling etc that I dealt with, calmly and quietly for more than 2 years. But you failed and so did they. But that's ok because Kumioko is gone and his reputation and all the work he did for YEARS is now just the butt of a joke because I cared and put myself out there and tried to make a difference and help. While you sat there and did nothing. Your right though, I should have kept my calm but excuse me that I simply snapped and couldn't take it anymore. I am ashamed of how I acted and in how you and others dealt with it. With all that said, I now know and understand you don't really care so I am really just saying this for my benefit. As far as making comments on bot stuff, if I see something I feel like commenting on I shall because frankly I don't trust your judgement anymore. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now let's get something clear here. I got back from a ~4-months wikibreak, and I'm in no way obliged to deal with every troll out there, including those who hounds you. But I'm part of the BAG, and I do concern myself with the behaviour of bot operators, because that's what I signed up for when I applied to be part of the BAG. You refused to listen to your friends, admins, uninvolved editors, etc... You could easily have put things on hold for a week or two for things to cool down, but you didn't and instead kept on plowing while throwing accusations of mass conspiracy against you and WPUS and lots of other quite silly things, and that created a lot more drama that it would have otherwise. Now you're free to not believe a word I say, but that's on you. You're not banned from editing Wikipedia, so you're more than welcomed to come back. Assuming, of course, that you stop your tirade against everyone that tries to help you, and that you leave your bile at the doorstep, and that you're more concerned with improving the encyclopedia than you are with 'winning' against Mark or Brad, as annoying as you (or anyone else) might find them. Like I said before, it would do you a whole lot of good to do something new. As Churchill once said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Don't be one. Try writing a GA, do some categorization work, give a shot at citation cleanup, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone who's trying to help you, ok that's a funny one. Anyway, it has nothing to do with "winning" and the reason I was so upset is because I did and still do believe in the project. But, like I said, whether I agree with the events or not, my reputation here is completely ruined, I would never be able to have a bot again, would never be able to submit an RFA without all this nonsense being dug up, partially thanks to me losing my temper against a couple of idiots and partially because of those idiots. So although I will likely do some edits it will be as an IP, Kumioko is gone now and all the work he did is just the butt of a joke now. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reputations can be rebuilt. It takes some time, but if you believe in the project, that's certainly achievable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I shouldn't have to rebuild because I lost my temper due to 2 or 3 rogue editors making my life hell and no one else doing anything but sitting and watching and you know as well as I the community isn't particularly kind or forgiving. Anyway, I'm just on here tonight to remove me and my bots name from a few more things and then I should be pretty much done with Wikipedia and it can be done with me. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reputations can be rebuilt. It takes some time, but if you believe in the project, that's certainly achievable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone who's trying to help you, ok that's a funny one. Anyway, it has nothing to do with "winning" and the reason I was so upset is because I did and still do believe in the project. But, like I said, whether I agree with the events or not, my reputation here is completely ruined, I would never be able to have a bot again, would never be able to submit an RFA without all this nonsense being dug up, partially thanks to me losing my temper against a couple of idiots and partially because of those idiots. So although I will likely do some edits it will be as an IP, Kumioko is gone now and all the work he did is just the butt of a joke now. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now let's get something clear here. I got back from a ~4-months wikibreak, and I'm in no way obliged to deal with every troll out there, including those who hounds you. But I'm part of the BAG, and I do concern myself with the behaviour of bot operators, because that's what I signed up for when I applied to be part of the BAG. You refused to listen to your friends, admins, uninvolved editors, etc... You could easily have put things on hold for a week or two for things to cool down, but you didn't and instead kept on plowing while throwing accusations of mass conspiracy against you and WPUS and lots of other quite silly things, and that created a lot more drama that it would have otherwise. Now you're free to not believe a word I say, but that's on you. You're not banned from editing Wikipedia, so you're more than welcomed to come back. Assuming, of course, that you stop your tirade against everyone that tries to help you, and that you leave your bile at the doorstep, and that you're more concerned with improving the encyclopedia than you are with 'winning' against Mark or Brad, as annoying as you (or anyone else) might find them. Like I said before, it would do you a whole lot of good to do something new. As Churchill once said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Don't be one. Try writing a GA, do some categorization work, give a shot at citation cleanup, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to stop and respond to that trollish statement. First, your right several people did tell me to cool off, which only pissed me off more because they were doing it at the same time as Markvs88 and others where continuing to make comments on here and via EMAIL. But no one told Mark or Brad they were being uncivil. And NO ONE, not even you who say you were going to miss the old Kumioko. Excuse me if I don't really believe you at this point. I never insisted I was special and I NEVER ignored consensus. Markvs88 was and its frustrating when everyone just sits there and lets him and others make comments, violate policy, etc. The comments that Brad101 made and you commented on are the type of things I have been dealing with and frankly no user should have to put up with it. I only wanted you and others to follow the rules, to enforce the issues I was having with civility, trolling etc that I dealt with, calmly and quietly for more than 2 years. But you failed and so did they. But that's ok because Kumioko is gone and his reputation and all the work he did for YEARS is now just the butt of a joke because I cared and put myself out there and tried to make a difference and help. While you sat there and did nothing. Your right though, I should have kept my calm but excuse me that I simply snapped and couldn't take it anymore. I am ashamed of how I acted and in how you and others dealt with it. With all that said, I now know and understand you don't really care so I am really just saying this for my benefit. As far as making comments on bot stuff, if I see something I feel like commenting on I shall because frankly I don't trust your judgement anymore. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- People, including me, will miss the Kumioko that worked with people and did good work. We want that Kumioko back, and several people, including me, advised you to take a short break so you would cool down and not do things you'd regret because you're under stress at the moment. But we won't miss the Kumioko who insisted he was special, and who thought that it gave him special permission to ignore consensus, feedback, or policies. You can still be the Kumioko people liked, it really is not too late to go back on that decision.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Careful, he'll just tell you you can't post there anymore, like he did me. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Gates Hall
Please revisit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Office_locations_of_academic_journal_publications WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
doi and AWB
I am also doing an AWB run on Category:Pages with DOI errors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am catching "doi=" and "http://dx.doi.org". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Innapropriate username
The username in this edit seems to violate the username policy. Just thought I would bring it to someones attention. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:UAA is usually the place to bring those up (although reading WP:UAA/I first is a good idea). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the IP was inferring that you do it since they are probably not familiar with WP policy. I'll take care of it. Nevermind, it appears that username has no talk page and no user page so in order to add anything the page first needs to be created and I cannot do that as an IP. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Not sure how you came across my sandbox'd article (I've inherited all my Dad's old unfinished articles/rewrites), but thanks. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record, you and your "dad" make the same spelling errors and use the same vocabulary. Not to mention that your "dad" would have had to be around 14 years old when he had you as a "child". Nice role playing, though. Oh, and before I forget, I believe there is a diff or two around here from your "dad" saying he never had kids at the time his account was active. Doh! Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Your edit
This removed about a dozen accessdates and messed up some formatting. ResMar 03:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any place where it messed up formatting, and it only removed accessdates which should not have been there. See User_talk:CitationCleanerBot#Accessdates for the long explanation. 15:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
DOI - CNKI.
Could you hold off (or even restore) those cite doi's that start with CNKI, I'm going to see if there is *some* way that we can salvage them. I'm posting to Template_talk:Cite_doi about them...
- Whatever they are, they are not DOIs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll continue this discussion over at Template talk:Cite doi. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I also posted at Template talk:cite journal, I'm not sure where this would ultimately brought together.Naraht (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll continue this discussion over at Template talk:Cite doi. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
re: change to Wikipedia:Redirect
I have reverted the change that you made recently to WP:R. I explained my reason for the revert on Talk but suspect that I may still be missing something about how you are seeing Wikipedia Books and Redirects interact. Would you mind clarifying on WT:R? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect
Hi, please note that WP:3RR applies to pages in Wikipedia: space - you've reverted Rossami three times in just under eight hours. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the last was done after reaching agreement. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, it was not. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether nominators are allowed to vote, but I guess they are. I think you should please separate your vote from your nomination, though. Thanks. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Citation Problems
I have attempted to change the format of one of our citations on the Joint attention article page. The original reference is still there but I have made some sort of error with the template for the new citation. I would like to format all the citation so that the citation bot can run (so that the references can be standardized). If you could assist to let me know what I am doing wrong or how I can better go about changing the citation formatting, your help would be greatly appreciated. LianneAnna (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- This ought to fix things. Just make sure the syntax is something like <ref>{{cite foobar | .... }}</ref> and you should be good. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. LianneAnna (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Great Arkansas Barnstar
|
The Great Arkansas Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your efforts on the book Arkansas Confederate Units Aleutian06 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Oh nice, I didn't expect that! Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Citation cleanup" error
In this edit, you accidentally removed the "].</ref>" from the end of a reference while removing the "sig" parameter from a Google Books link (search for the reference named "google107" in that edit). Your regex for matching link parameters probably needs to stop at ']', '<', and '>' characters. Anomie⚔ 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)