User talk:JossBuckle Swami

This account is a sockpuppet of Thekohser (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Alaska cruises discussion

With all due respect, please do not come here three days into your tenure here and leave messages on my talk page like the one you just left me. There is a strict no personal attacks rule and a strict "no advertisements" rule. Please read the tutorials before recreating the article. - Lucky 6.9 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a relatively new user, you seem to be rather familiar with procedure around here. I'll say it again: No personal attacks. Also, no advertising. The current version of the article is much better, but I am not going to run what was clearly an ad through AfD. - Lucky 6.9 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How in God's name is THIS a "personal attack":

Lucky, I was cleaning up an article about travel in the Alaska area that someone else had written, then redirecting to a better-named space. Then you went and deleted it. I know you're concerned about it being an advertisement, but there is no advertising in the article, nor on the external link. Please don't do that again. Start an AfD or a Discussion. --JossBuckle Swami 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should look at this, Lucky... before you go shooting at newbies. Did it ever dawn on you that I have plenty of experience with MediaWiki language, but not Wikipedia? I'm not a fan of spam, either, but you took NO TIME to look into that first, did you? Quick Draw Lucky is my new name for you. --JossBuckle Swami 03:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went and deleted it. I am not going to start any kind of discussion on what was clearly an advertisement and if you type just one more nasty remark on my user page, you'll be taking a break. Take a look at WP:CIVIL to see what I'm talking about. - Lucky 6.9 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my earlier comment, you'll see that I agree that the article is much better and does not look like an ad. In fact, if it's been deleted, I didn't delete it and I'll even restore it if necessary. I will apologize for my role in this misunderstanding since I loathe fighting here. - Lucky 6.9 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge. Thanks much. :) Problem with this damned site at times is the inability to speak in real time. I go through more occasional misunderstandings here in the course of a month than I do in a decade in real life. - Lucky 6.9 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:MyWikiBiz

If you have legal issues or concerns, you should take them up with Jimmy Wales personally or the foundation's legal representative, Brad Patrick. As far as MyWikiBiz's reputation goes, I think he tarnished it all on his own by his behaviour both here on the site and on the en-l mailing list. Regardless, please do not alter other people's comments. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I came to this page following up on your request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Alaska cruising guy. I saw lots of controversy with Lucky 6.9 and Steve356. Then this exchange with Sarah Ewart -- this has been an interesting first week for you! I hope you won't get frustrated.

There's a lot of history with MyWikiBiz and it went all the way to the top, as you can see, to Jimbo Wales, the founder and chairman of Wikipedia. I was unaware of the history when I first stumbled into all of this -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#MyWikiBiz.com spam articles. You'll find links back to a lot of earlier discussion of these problems. Also, I thought the Arch Coal article was excellent at the time I saw it -- and I knew a fair amount about Arch already. But I learned two things -- first the Arch article I saw was not the Arch article originally submitted. In fact the Arch article now on Wikipedia is an article apparently created after the first one was deleted. Second, I saw some pretty bad (as in propaganda) articles written by MyWikiBiz. Put bluntly, they were abusing Wikipedia. I hope this background helps explain some of this.

As for the Alaska cruises, you probably never want to see an Alaska cruise again after this. I know that my own wretched experience was with the AfD for A Course in Miracles -- a book I had never heard of but which I got involved with "just to be helpful". As you can see from my talk page, I had some very intense interactions based on a comment I left on the article's talk page, leading to responses such as:

"I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work." ... and ... "You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium." (a relative of mine has an article in Wikipedia).

Eventually this very prolific, often brilliant editor went on to totally flame out and get banned.

Then there the Gnostic Movement AfDs 1, 2, 3, another unpleasant experience arising from my stepping into a complex interaction of competing religious factions and sockpuppets.

So I could "feel your pain" looking at some of these interactions. I hope you'll hang in there!--A. B. 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have your own opinions about MyWikiBiz and the way Jimmy Wales handled it. I've read all about the controversy on the Signpost and on various Public Relations blogs off-Wikipedia. I have come to the conclusion that MyWikiBiz was certainly NOT writing "propaganda" articles -- that would have the net effect of driving themselves out of business. Instead, they were writing good articles about companies that really belonged in Wikipedia, according to WP:CORP. People went ape-shit because they didn't like the fact that money was trading hands. Well, guess what -- money trades hands all the time, even when "neutral" analysis is required. If you want examples, look at Linux, any accounting/auditing firm, or even any time NBC has had to report on General Electric (its parent company). I've seen the "original" Arch Coal article, and it was as far from "propaganda" as you can get. Jimmy Wales really screwed up on that one. It's shameful. -- JossBuckle Swami 21:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A mediation case has been opened in which your name is mentioned. I just signed up as a mediator, pending approval by the involved parties. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. If you would like to be listed as a party, please write your name in the blue box. If you feel you are not involved, please remove your name from the list under "Who's involved?". (In this case, your name will only be allowed to be reinserted if a reason is given.) — Sebastian 22:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing was a bunch of nonsense by a troll. Sebastian had no idea whatsoever. I did when I saw the "plaintiffs" in this stupidity. Don't take your frustration out on me or threaten me, OK? We were all victims of this idiot. - Lucky 6.9 02:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you freakin' go again, Lucky. Show me where you were "threatened" by me? You have a screw loose, in my opinion. It is sweetly ironic that regarding a complaint about how you delete first, and (maybe) ask questions later, your "solution" was to delete AGAIN. I think you're headed for a nice, long, public rebuke, but that's just my opinion. --JossBuckle Swami 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better watch the personal attacks. I'll say it again: You and I were the victims of a hoax. As far as the threat is concerned, you wrote: I think you should be blocked for a month, so that you can begin to understand that you are trampling on the time and energy of dedicated, innocent volunteers. That is a threat, pure and simple. Implying that I have "a screw loose" is a personal attack. Let it rest. You are getting worked up over a banned troll, for crying out loud. I got colbbered, Sebasitan got clobbered, WarthogDemon got colbbered...and you did as well. I'm sorry that you wasted your time, but I am not the reason your time was wasted. - Lucky 6.9 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. I had no idea that you'd commented nor were you being asked to. The guy apparently went back through my edit history, saw our little misunderstanding from way back when and took advantage of it. I have no beef with you and I wish that I could make up the time you wasted. Please, can we let this drop? - Lucky 6.9 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this guy's first post was on Lucky's Talk page, right, discussing previous events? He was clearly a troll and sockpuppet. You are completely overreacting without being aware of the circumstances. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am overreacting. However, I was annoyed back in November with Lucky's treatment of our "Alaska cruises" disagreement -- that he deleted a page that I was working in good faith on (created by someone else, altogether), then deleting my discussions with him, then claiming that my comments were "personal attacks" and questioning how I "knew so much" about Wikipedia after only a couple of weeks editing.

That was an "episode". NOW, we have a pattern, though. I was responding to what seemed like a very legitimate arbitration, talking about the very problem of unilateral deletion of criticisms, and what is Lucky's response (before even contacting innocent contributors)? That's right -- DELETION. Zoe, if I had Lucky's attitude, I would ask you, "Who the f*ck are you, barging in on this conversation? Are you STALKING me? Are you a sock of Lucky? I think you are a sock of Lucky. If you don't cease immediately, I will ban you, and erase all of your comments on my Talk page."

Seriously, Lucky may have been victimized here, but he's clearly in need of some public examination. My OPINION is that this could be solved with a month-long break. He can sit back, relax, then think about what it means to completely invalidate someone else's honest work by deleting it. I didn't think that was the "wiki way". --JossBuckle Swami 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm human, OK? I set straight our misunderstanding. This guy's very first edit was to my talk page. He then threw in a few good edits to cover his tracks, which he should have done first to make himself appear legitimate. Very calculating and it almost worked. Honest work sometimes does get deleted, as was the case with you. When it does, we set things straight with a couple of keystrokes. I stick my neck out with each and every deletion or block as do all the other administrators. We aren't perfect and all we can hope for is to be able to unruffle feathers when a mistake does occur. If there is a pattern to all of this as you suggest, it's that there are a lot of people out there who treat this site as a sort of chalkboard. Then, there are those like this guy who has been blocked on a number of occasions and who now has a vendetta going. He's set us all at each other's throats. - Lucky 6.9 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at anyone's throat, but apparently, I've been accused of it. Lucky, you have a bad habit of deleting comments that you deem "stupid". Or, you delete article or discussion content without even checking if there is any valid activity already underway (as you admitted to above: "I had no idea that you'd commented"). You called "nonsense" something that I plainly and soft-spokenly described as at least seemingly legitimate. So, you're calling into question my ability to discern between "nonsense" and "legitimate criticism"? YOU are the one deleting things without checking if there is anything valid worth saving; then, when people complain, you ERASE their complaints! Friend, (and I do mean that as someone who thinks you could be a friend) you need a break, and you may need a public examination, because you're (to me) obviously in a form of personal denial of fallibility. If you are so confident that you are in the right, and I (and others) are in the wrong, then why are you so determined to make sure nobody else brings this criticism to the light of day? --JossBuckle Swami 03:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are (or were) at each other's throats. I saw the user's edit history, saw the list of so-called plaintiffs and then I saw red. It may have seemed legit, but it was certainly not. I like to think that I have a lot of friends on this site and I treat everyone with respect, even those whom I may disagree with. I know I'm fallible; otherwise, you could rightfully accuse me of sophistry. I plan on taking a break over the holiday weekend anyway. Maybe most regular users should as well. We all need a break. - Lucky 6.9 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:AN

No need to apologise. I was just quoting the text from the top of the page. Don't worry about it :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centiare spam

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 26#Category:Women in space. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. — coelacan talk — 10:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in User talk:Cat's Tuxedo, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to User talk:EJBanks, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Gwernol 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

need your support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships

The WikiNazi's that don't understand what real work is what to deleted 12 hours of work. --71Demon 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Wikipedian, and asset to the community

You are a very good wikipedian. We need more like you, you understand fairness, and that there is a world outside wikipedia. Keep up the good work. You should be made an edior. --71Demon 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already an Editor, as are you, Demon. I think you meant "Admin". And, for the record, I would never run for Admin, and if I were ever elected Admin, I would not serve. But, I do thank you for your supportive comment! (I hope nobody censors this dialogue between us two human beings. Did I mention a link anywhere? No? Okay, I think we're safe.) --JossBuckle Swami 15:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

That's good to hear, JossBuckle. If you do decide to contribute productively, follow the rules and guidelines, and you still run into problems, give me a shout and maybe I can help. Thanks, Crum375 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sugestion

I not know all the rules of the Wikipedia yet! What you was talking about? (In my talk page) Jane 2 January 2007.

Please stop

JossBuckle, your post was uncalled for and over the line. Any post that attacks others will not be tolerated, and you may be blocked. Please reconsider your role here. If you'd like to contribute productively to WP, you are more than welcome, but if your main goal is disruption, it will result in your being blocked. Please take the time to carefully contemplate your next moves. Thanks, Crum375 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. Thanks for the laugh. Have I touched too close to an embarrassingly exposed nerve? --JossBuckle Swami 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only 'nerve' I have is the strong desire to see this project succeed. Please reconsider your options. I am sure you can contribute productively if you put your mind to it. This is a new year - how about giving it a try? Crum375 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to feel just like Cassandra when the IRS comes a knockin' in St. Petersburg, Florida. --JossBuckle Swami 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category US State Related Ships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#State_ship-related_categories as soon as the cfd was removed, some one started abusing there power and put it back up. Please put your vote to keep thread. Once a cfd is removed, they should have to wait 6 months to put it back. This is nothing more than abuse because somebody didn't get their way. --71Demon 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Anyone (and of course you) is welcome to comment on my talk page. I do find it odd that someone would bother to control my talk page. Wallie 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

I did not consider it to be spam. However, the link you provided for Centiare is non-existent. If you could fix that I will have a look. From that point I will decide whether it was an assistance or a hindrance. Thanks (SUDUSER)⁸⁵ 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I initally thought the best thing was to organize 115 yeas of American films by year in a category rather than one MASSIVE A-Z. However I am thinking now its probably best to draw up a list of American films ordered by date and year of release. See List of Canadian films. I will do it like this but there are so many that each year should have a page. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation is most welcome!

Thanks. Good to know my concepts are not singular. I welcome your invitation, and will have to take some time to explore the sites you mention. Thanks so much for letting me know. Pastorwayne 11:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

I ignore advice offered by sockpuppets as being fundamentally untrustworthy and insincere. It's a rule I have. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per your edit warring over self-referential text in spam in blogs and also because you appear to be banned user MyWikiBiz. To challenge a ban you have to go to ArbCom, not simply register another account. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]