User talk:JCarriker/Archive3

JCarriker Archive IV

This archive is poorly organized, it is on my to do list but not a priority so until then-- my apolgies. This archive contains portions of my correspondence with various users. Each archive has 20 headings including my archive heading, so each archive will ultimately have 19 headings of conversation.

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

"The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

How many individuals did you help as an advocate
What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey

— © Alex756 23:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (The Coordinator)

Images

Thanks for the info. No problem. Enjoy your holiday! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 00:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

OFFICIAL AMA THIRD MEETING NOTICE

The second AMA IRC Membership meeting was held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

Republics

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requesting advocacy assistance

Hi. You seem like an interesting guy, so I thought I'd give this a shot. I just started a request for arbitration here regarding User:William M. Connolley. The basic issue is one of an aggressive reverting behavior which is making it difficult (and nearly impossible) for a lot of people to contribute to the climate related pages. The level of hostility and conflict which occurs is unwelcoming, and the end product is one where the one who has the most time to revert "wins", with no effort being placed toward cooperative consensus. If you are interested in this case, I would appreciate some assistance in the arbitration process. Thank you. — Cortonin | Talk 01:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks — whoever it is, they're determined. It makes you wonder what they get out of it... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was alerted to the whole thing by an e-mail from Jim Perry, who said that he had requested page protection — I don't know how or from whom though. Asbestos has suggested a range-block on the addresses being used (Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress); one or other certainly seems like a good idea. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Hi. Thanks for you comment, I've just added my opinion to the VfD. -Pedro 13:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Afrophobia and ... Wareware RfC?

See my comments in talk:Afrophobia. deeceevoice 03:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, here they are:

No. lol Read what I wrote again. I didn't say you said it was a neologism. In fact, I didn't get the impression you thought it was. I understood perfectly that you were discussing, as you clearly stated, a "compromise." My point was that, even though some opposed the article on that basis, it was really groundless -- so why bend over backwards to accommodate a misapprehension, particularly when there are those who have already argued persuasively that it is not? "However, if you don't want my help, or don't want to discuss my ideas...." What? Why on earth would you assume that? Get off the personal tip. We're all here for the same purpose -- aren't we? Damn. So much wasted energy. Let's just stick to the subject at hand. Last I checked, the votes were pretty close, so I think saving Afrophobia may have a chance. (I haven't checked lately, though.) Further, I think the more people who weigh in on it, perhaps those who previously voted to kill it may change their minds -- if we can stay focused. Like I said before, I'll say it one mo' 'gin: Peace. deeceevoice 02:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further, I must say I take strong exception to your reference to this misunderstanding -- which was the result of what you unfortunately read into my remarks and not something I either wrote or intended -- into your comments when weighing in on the RfC regarding my dispute with Wareware. First, the error was yours. Secondly, whatever you think of me now, or may think of me in the future, has absolutely nothing to do with that dispute. And certainly some unfortunate, but wholly silly, misunderstanding has no place there. deeceevoice 03:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One last thing: I just read your second response in its entirety. Sorry, but I gotta say "bull." Let's examine this misunderstanding. You accepted that your objection to what I wrote was the result of a misunderstanding. But then you go on to try to charge me with the same thing ("Maybe I have read things into your comments that weren't there, and if I have I am sorry, but you have too." Essentially, you're saying, "You're another one." (What?!!!) And, again, you are simply incorrect. I clearly did not say you thought Afrophobia was a neologism. And not content to leave it at that, you further charge me with "still" focusing on your friends. Please note I did not mention your friends until you did; I "focused" on them no more than you did. I mentioned them only to explain my original statements. If your black friends object to the use of "blacks" to refer to African-Americans, then they should object to the use of "whites" to describe whites. And, frankly, I don't know a single African-American who does. And, to my way of thinking, "if we are, indeed, equal," then that makes absolutely no sense.

Further, I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia walking on eggshells. I simply state my opinions. My nod to hoping you would understand that my original post was offered in good faith -- which it was -- was the attachment of "peace" at the end. After all, why would I purposely insult you and then say "peace"? That defies logic. IMO, that single word at the end should at least have been sufficient to make you doubt your obviously ill-considered, defensive and then offensive response. But, no. You took that your misunderstanding and then ran with it -- in your responses herein and then over to the to the Wareware RfC page. I think your comments about my misplaced focus is the pot calling the kettle black. The mere fact that we're even having this exchange tells me you were far too focused on some perceived personal slight -- when there was none. And taking that misplaced focus even further, once you reached the RfC page, you saw fit to specifically refer to this absolutely ridiculous misunderstanding between us and how you were "frustrated" with me -- and before even bothering to address the real subject at hand: Wareware's unrepentant, virtulant and repeatedly vicious racist verbal attacks. Absolutely uncalled for. Oh, indeed. IMO, "peace" was completely lost on you. deeceevoice 11:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already responded to this at Talk:Afrophobia. Please review it as soon as you can deecee. -JCarriker 12:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this reads like more excuse making. There has been no misunderstanding on my part -- so, no. It is not "mutual." Secondly, IMO, given the fact that you now realize that your response was clearly the result of a misunderstanding on your part, the honorable and appropriate thing to do would be to remove the irrelevant, wholly inappropriate reference to it from your remarks in the RfC. "Continue to assume the worst"? No, I don't "continue to assume the worst" about you; never did. However, so far, quite frankly, you've not given me much reason to think of you in any other way than your unfortunate conduct has prompted me to. All I read are excuses -- even a defense for your indefensible post in the RfC. deeceevoice 12:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up. -Rev. Jesse Jackoson Bless you deecee and peace be with you. I'm sorry your angry with me,but I have done nothing wrong. Why not rest on this matter for a few days and come back and look at it anew? -JCarriker 12:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

You've done everything wrong. You took a silly misunderstanding on your part to a wholly improper place -- a place where I am pressing a very serious matter against the clearly unacceptable behavior of someone and where there have been repeated and truly despicable attempts to misrepresent not only my views on Wikipedia, but my behavior, as well. And then you come along behind people like Babajobu (who also has jumped to some ridiculous conclusions, as well based on this contrived "evidence," later challenged without response by myself and others) and write about how you are "frustrated" with me. You've made nothing but excuses for your conduct by saying I've committed the same faux-pax -- when such is clearly not the case. And then you have the unmittigated gall to try to defend your mention of this silliness is in the RfC by trying to say something it most certainly does not. And you're too proud to withdraw your reference to it. What I see here is your ego at work -- nothing else. And, no. A few days' time will not change my perception of that. I'm done. deeceevoice 13:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I called for a hard ban against wareware in that same post. I also said I was ashamed that it took the community as long as it has to call him on it. I did not take a silly misunderstanding to Rfc, I backed you up and endorsed you, sided with you. You can't see that, you only what you want to see deecee. Bless you and peace be with you. -JCarriker 13:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

That does not negate the fact that you've done something wholly inexcusable. Perhaps you did not initially understand the context in which my strong objection to your dragging this silly misunderstanding into the RfC lies. But now you do. The fact that you still refuse to acknowledge the injustice of it and the potential harm -- and correct it -- is, IMO, inexcusable and unforgivable. *x* deeceevoice 13:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good bye deecee. Bless you and peace be with you. -JCarriker 13:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Elagabalus

Hi Jay. I've gotten frustrated recently because I stated my opinions, which is why I was slow in providing this response to your RFC.

In a nutshell, one thing I would do with this article (especially if I didn't have such a backlog of other projects I've started & need to finish) would be to provide in-text references to the original sources -- Dio Cassius, Herodian, the Historiae Augusta. Mostly because this has become something of a minor cause of mine (like my quiet style edits of moving "AD" from behind the year in front of it), but in this case it's important because Elagabalus is such a controversial person, & his motivations & personality are disputed both on & off of Wikipedia. An example of what I mean by "in-text" references would to write something along the lines "According to Dio Cassius, Elagabalus was the son of Sextus Varius Marcellus and Julia Soaemias Bassiana (Dio, 79.10)" (Note: I've made up the reference here to Dio.)

Each of these 3 sources (as well as the source for "...atus" (which I assume is from an inscription) is more reliable than the others in certain ways, or require special handling (probably the best example of this would be the Historiae Augusta, whose accuracy varies greatly depending on the section). And considering that the last time I seriously submitted an article to WP:FAC it was shot down due to lack of sources, it may not be overkill to go to the extreme of documenting the facts of this Emperor's life in this manner. -- llywrch 18:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem about not adding the inline references to the Elagabalus article. I only mentioned it because . . . well, because it was the only change I could think of making to the article. -- llywrch 17:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your request that I communicate with deeceevoice

See User_talk:Deeceevoice#Another_county_heard_from. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why she thinks everything I do is against her especially since I'm on her side, but she seems to have no intention of extending good faith towards me. That's unfortunate considering that we have many interests in common and will likely cross paths again. It really hurts, but I know my heart, God knows my heart, and my people black or white know my heart and I'll just have to take some solace in that. Again, thanks for your help Joe.

Gratefully,

Jay

Block question

I thought that '85.206.194.155' would only block one adress, not a range? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that idiot. At first I thought that his comments are a little funny (with all those Slav monkeys and so on), but after I saw the Nazi remark I started to think that something is wrong with him. Anyway, I wanted to back down, but after I saw what this sick guy wrote recently, I'm not so sure any dialogue is possible. Sad but true. Halibu tt 14:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our vandal is able to change IP often [1]. Do you think a range block would be in order here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say the 85.206 range can only be blocked for 15 minutes? It's not part of the AOL or NTL ranges. It seems this guy has a dynamic IP. Given that all of these IP edits are restricted to vandalize a single page (meaning same user), I wouldnt hesitate to hand down a longer block. --Ji ang 01:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd request that the range is blocked. The talk page is unusable with this guy messing around with discussion with other ppl. He's also started to make changes to other articles in a similar manner, i.e. stubbornly refusing any reasonable discussion. He also continues sending ppl to gas chambers and calling them nazis etc. He's been warned many times and obviously does this on purpose. As you've seen I've tried to be quite patient with him, but extending this game is purely a waste of time for myself and other wikipedians. I'd suggest a more effective action to be taken. I don't think that blocking whole range for a longer time would be more harmful than leaving it, as I haven't seen any of these addresses being used for any other purpose than this vandalism. Lysy 13:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Block the range for a week or two and good riddance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A tech note: AFAIK it is impossible to revert entries by to separate authors (or vandals with different IP, as is the case) - then you have to do it in the old manuall way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that problem. Unfortunately, blocking all of his IPs might be a problem and I can't help you with that (no such privileges). I see only one hope here: that we're more devoted to wikipedia than this guy is to destroy it. Halibu tt 05:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, why blocking 3 or 4 class C ranges for a couple of weeks would be a problem ? 85.206.192.*, 85.206.193.*, 85.206.194.*, 85.206.195.* . I really think we could all use the time in a more productive manner. Lysy 06:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wareware RfC

Yep. It's a decent enough save. I would have settled for a simple deletion of the offending verbiage, but you did good. :) (That wasn't so hard -- was it?) Thanks for returning and making the connection clear and for your additional words of support. deeceevoice 11:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship

Hi JCarriker, Thank you for your support in my nomination! I look forward to helping out. - Banyan Tree 04:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have just had a review of the block of 85.206.193.96. Not one of his contributions appears to be racist or otherwise vandalism. I can not see why you have blocked this address indefinetly. It appears to me that the guy you were concerned about is using an ISP others might be using too. a range block would be completely inappropriate. Teh AOL etc numbers are given as these are large ISPs, but other smaller ISPs should be protected in absolutely the same way. I have therefore removed this block and will remove the related blocks once I have time. Refdoc 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the addresses after seeking guidance from Jiang as to the clarifications of the IP address.

I wrote on his talk page:

How do you deal with a problem user with a Range IP?

An anon user has been using ethnic slurs against Halibutt at Talk:Vilnius. The anon was repeatedly warned that he would be blocked if he continued his behavior. However, he is using the 85.206 range and therefore can only be blocked for 15 minutes. I have blocked him for 15 minutes, and will do so again when/if he uses another ethnic slur. At some point, if not already, that's going to be laughable. Is there not some stronger action that can be taken? Please advise. -JCarriker 14:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

He responded on my talk page:

Where does it say the 85.206 range can only be blocked for 15 minutes? It's not part of the AOL or NTL ranges. It seems this guy has a dynamic IP. Given that all of these IP edits are restricted to vandalize a single page (meaning same user), I wouldn't hesitate to hand down a longer block. --Jiang 01:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given this vandals history to not only use ethnic slurs and to advocate viloence, e.g. "slaves- to gas chambers", I did not hesitate to block him indefinitely when he appeared again. If the information that I used to reach this information was flawed I welcome the opportunity to rectify the situation and any advice you can offer will be appreciated. This situation was persued cautiously and with a great deal of dialogue between the regular users and the two admins who responded to the situation; therefore I must protest your accusation of "abuse of admin powers", as there was no deliberate effort to violate wikipedia's guidelines. -JCarriker 22:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

As it is, we have not been given these powers. I would love to have them and would have good use for them (see User:K1 and User:Martin2000's sockpuppets). But we are not entitled to block people indefintely for bad behaviour. RfC and ArbComm are the places to go.

And why would the vandal respect the ArbComm ? (sorry, my 3 cents again, cannot resist. Ignore.) Lysy 06:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection would have kept the nuisance at minimum. And another editor has now confirmed that the range in question is that of the largest ISP in Lithuania. Hence I maintain, what happened was very wrong and close to abuse of powers. I appreciate your situation and difficulties, but the solution chosen is in my opinion a bad one. Refdoc 23:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with the ramifications of your dialect as in my dialect "gross carelessness" in the use of one's powers is morally close or identical to "intentional" abuse.... So, now that we have bashed each other up, shall we make peace again? :-) Refdoc 23:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, I can think of few people who have earned it as much as you have.

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your speedy deletion of the article that was created in my name (the now defunct Micahmn). I had never actually been the target of vandals before, but it is nice to know that there are those like you out there looking out and stopping stuff like that. Thanks again MicahMN | Talk 04:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lithuania+Vilnius

Hey, generally current version of "Lithuania" looks o.k. for me except "It subsequently lost most of its previous grounds to Soviet Union and was plagued by territorial disputes with Poland (over Central Lithuania and Suvalkija/Suwałki) and Germany (over Klaipėda/Memel).", which I don't really understand. Either it's because of bad English there or my knowledge of English is not good enough. I don't understand the part "It subsequently lost most of its previous grounds to Soviet Union...". Accent on the capital city is not neccessary in the second paragraph, I think. Especially doubtfull is the claim that Vilnius has been capital city of Lithunia until 1919, because from 1795 to 1915 it was only the capital of Russian governorship.

"Vilnius" is much more problematic. I mean its "history" section. First two sentences "The area of present Vilnius has been inhabited by Slavs and then Lithuanians for centuries, as is proven by numerous archaeological findings in different parts of the city and is possibly a forgotten capital Voruta of the King Mindaugas." look simply not correct. There are archeological findings proving slav population in the city, but I never heard about such findings in the surrounding area. According to archeological findings and written sources there was jewish community there from about 11th century as well. I never heard that slav population was there before Lithuanians as these sentences imply. Next parts look more or less o.k. until we come to the 20th century. This part looks heavily biased. It seems that it represents very narrow point of view. In the first two paragraphs it is only one point of view represented, Lithuanian government is not mentioned even if it have played quiet active role during that time. Calling elections to parlament of Central Lithuania "free" is not correct at least. League of Nations recognized Vilnius as part of Poland but not the elections and their results. The word "returned" sounds pretty odd here as it wasn't recognized part of Poland any time before. Third paragraph lists facts, which are correct, I guess. Fourth sentence is rather doubtful as Vilnius become one of the peripheral cities of Poland and its flourishing at that time is to be proven. Next two paragraphs look more or less o.k. The role of Polish Home Army in liberating city from Germans is exaggerated, Polish forces were very small comparing to Soviet troops. And the following sentence looks rather strange - it is unclear -was the repatriation of Poles expulsion or voluntary as these are opposite terms and could not happen at the same time.

If somebody is claiming that this article is biased I would agree at least regarding the 20th century history. I would not call it Polish point of view, because it is very narrow understanding which could be characteristic to the narrow minded nationalist. Hope that these remarks will help you in some way. I might be biased somehow on these issues myself, although I have MA degree in nationalism and I have learned to look at these kind of things calmly. Dirgela 16:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more thing - the "history" section in Vilnius article seems to be too large and deserves its own page. Disscussion could be continued there - blocking the whole article only because of its section seems to be counterproductive for me . Now anyone can add anything about transportation or climate in Vilnius only because of issues related to its history. Dirgela 17:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And why not post it in Talk:Vilnius? IMHO that page would only benefit from a serious discussion. Anyway, I'll list your ideas there and will try to find some better wording, let's see if it works. Halibu tt 03:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

AMA

Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it! Of course, I've taken on a pretty large case right off the bat in case you haven't seen it already.[2] Thoughts and advice are always appreciated!! --Wgfinley 23:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

¡Thanks for the note!

I have done a little editing to palæocontinent. Mostly, I run my wiki at PeacefulBeginnings.Org — ¡The First Intactivistic Wiki On Earth!. Currently, I have a crisis there because many people insist on using WinTels which do not speak Unicode. They refuse to install one of the Unices or better yet, if they upgrade anyway, buy an AppleMacIntosh. They seem intent on corrupting data. They refuse to even refuse to at least switch to Firefox.

--

— Ŭalabio 00:44, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)