User talk:Okiefromokla/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re:User:Jake Huntoon

Heh. I guess I should have checked the block log first! ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One week block

You're getting bolder ;-) Tan ǀ 39 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You don't get off easy with an Okie at the controls. I dealt an IP a 3 month block about a week ago :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(Justly)! Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're doing great. Wait until you get one of these to deal with, it's like imposing a prison sentence or something. Tan ǀ 39 00:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

That's fair. I had really gotten frustrated with that user earlier today; I generally don't go off the deep end like that. Thanks. --Mhking (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

1. The Gomery Commission has been found to be "biased" by the Federal Court of Canada, and its central findings thrown out, so an entire section on it is hardly merited: http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/death-of-a-dog-and-pony-show/

2. The next section is speculative and/or erroneous. The CBC are currently being sued by a former associate of the Ku Klux Klan in Canada, in a case that has not made it to court in 13 years. That is the only active case involving the undersigned. No other is before the courts. http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2001/zg0104/010424.html

3. The next matter referred to is also erroneous. No such case against me exists. I cannot provide you with a media report, as none exists to my knowledge. My lawyer, Brian Shiller of Shillers LLP, will confirm this, however.

In summary: three entire sections in the page in question are erroneous, or wildly out-of-date, or both. They have been placed there by partisan critics, and Wikipedia refuses to do anything about it.

Yours truly,

Warren Kinsella, LL.B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.220.178 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kinsella

Hey there. Glad my suggestions on the talk page are reasonable. I've not really been a terribly active editor there except to help combat the socks and keep the content relatively uncontroversial for a while now; I'll keep monitoring and see how the discussion develops, maybe see if I can help shape things. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocks

No worries - at least they're getting more eyes. There were a few days last week where we had 10-12 all day; quite the backlog. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect...

The guy is vandalizing the page. He is saying completely false stuff and he was just opening a troll thread at dpreview doing this. You can see him trying to say that four thirds is dead because of the micro four thirds announcement and other things that dont' make sense. I apologize for not following protocol-it's the first time I report anyone. I will read the page but please verify the claims because this is posting false stuff. It's like the Stephen Colbert thing about Elephants. It's just false information. If that's not considered vandalism I don't know what is. This guy has been trolling in a thread @ dpreview. I can warn and all. It will do no good. Thanks for your kind reply and reading this message. - Raist3d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raist3d (talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith — read Wikipedia's guideline on that here. Also, please read Wikipedia's description of what constitutes vandalism. Most notably, take a look at what vandalism is not, and you'll see that this user's edits are probably not vandalism. By reverting his edits more than three times in 24 hours, you violated the three revert rule which is cause for an administrator to block you, so be more careful next time. Also, in the case of obvious vandalism (which this is not), users must be warned in sequence using user warning templates before being reported to WP:AIV. WP:AIV deals only with obvious vandals and only those that have been properly warned. Now that the page has been protected, you should contact the user on the article's talk page and calmly invite him to share his view while also providing reliable sources that prove the 3/4 system is not dead. Do not accuse him of vandalism. Good luck. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Neko jack

Oops, it appears this user's last instance of vandalism was not as recent as I had thought it was (it seems it was yesterday), but their vandalism after the last warning appears to have slipped under the radar, meaning no action was taken at the time, causing me to believe the warning was more recent. --Muna (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. IPs need to be active at the time of being reported to WP:AIV, but this can sometimes be relaxed with user accounts if common sense dictates. If a user has been active recently, has vandalized after their final warning, and has nothing but vandalism in their contribution history, it's reasonable to assume that the account will never be used productively and an indefinite block is on the table. Still, as you know, technically — and preferably — all reported users should be active at the time. But in this case, it's not a big deal. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Help!

The Terren Peizer article was cleaned up and sourced properly recently, yet others keep reverting the article to the poorly sourced info and not even re-adding the recent information presented. They seem to have an "agenda" that is anything but objective and all article on Wikipedia should remain objective. Please take a look, as your input is welcome. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you actually edited the page back to the person who violated the three revert rule. Other links and info that were previously added were removed. BeltKingIn (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Okiefromokla, for looking into this. I was merely trying to keep the article essentially as it was before July 28.John Z (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Eir UUitt

I reported this user to WP:AIV because I didn't think a suspected sockpuppet case was necessary; in the page's history, almost all consists of socks of banned user Tile join (talk · contribs) editing and being reverted, and it is one of the four pages usually vandalised (another is currently protected). Some information is at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Genesis vandal (Aka user:Tile join). Although many of the usernames appear to be random, "Eir UUitt" would look like a sock even without any edits, as it is another variation of "Eir Witt", similar to several accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've blocked the user. Thanks for explaining the situation. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Help?

This is the first time I've asked for help on Wikipedia in a LONG time . I noticed you were sorta backing me up, and then Ward3001 dismissed our comments. I apologized for the misunderstanding, and he dismissed it again. What should I do now? Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He probably just doesn't want those messages on his talk page. It's not that he ignored them, so I wouldn't worry. The word "dismissed" was indeed an odd choice for the edit summary, but you were completely correct in advising him to stay civil. I always let users know when they cross that line or violate talk page guidelines, even to a vandal. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it to WP:WQA, mainly because I don't like to be in bad standing with any user. (Except vandals, I don't see how they could EVER like me. ) Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Wikiquette alert probably wasn't necessary, but I didn't know about the message he left on your talk page. I've advised him of the problem, but there's really nothing more that can be done at this point. If he continues leaving uncivil messages on talk pages, he can be blocked. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*bangs head* Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) He did it again. :-| Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian Territory in the American Civil War, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my guestbook

LAAFan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the smile! Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Okiefromokla/Archive 5, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

User talk:Greg Jungwirth the second

Mostly curious about this one: how'd it get blocked so fast? Don't get me wrong, this is a troublesome user for sure, but I'm so used to seeing "process must be followed" (SSP, RCFU, etc), that when I saw this, I was surprised how quickly and efficiently it was handled. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It was posted to WP:AIV, so I saw it quickly and was willing to block the user immediately on the grounds of sockpuppetry and abusive editing based on a few things. The user's only contribution was this and another comment, which included some personal attacks and admission of editing on a previous account that had been blocked indefinitely. In this case, the account in question was obviously Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs), which had indeed been blocked indefinitely, had a history of accused sockpuppetry, and had posted very similar comments to User talk:Treelo. Sill, the suspicious user name would have warranted an immediate block even without these examples. When something is this obvious, telling an administrator directly or via the appropriate noticeboard is the only process that needs to be followed. When a situation is less clear or more complex, "slower" means, such as the ones you pointed out, should be taken. Thanks for the question. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User should be blocked

The IP user vandalised the Paleo diet diet article after the last warning by User:Corvus cornix and should therefore by temporarily blocked. I reverted his last edit. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. The user did in fact vandalize after his "final" warning (on a side note, users should be given four warnings, not three. Template:uw-vandalism4 should have been given). However, it has nevertheless been an hour since the user last edited, and IPs must be active now to be blocked. If the user continues vandalizing, please re-report him/her. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That user just vandalised the paleodiet article again. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The user has been temporarily blocked. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Err... ban evasion

You banned User:77.42.186.127; he's back as User:77.42.149.92. I'm not sure if he should get smacked for ban-evading or engaged. Or both. See Musa al-Sadr. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He may have a dynamic IP, so his address could change every time he logs onto the net. He did provide some reasoning in his edit summary, so while he's technically evading a block, I don't think blocking again is the answer right now. You've done the right thing by attempting to initiate conversation for what appears to be a content dispute. However, if the user starts reverting without acknowledging your efforts, or shoots off a personal attack (which is what he was blocked for), I or another admin can block any IP he uses or the page can be semi-protected. In the worst case scenario, a rangeblock could be used to block all similar IPs. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is back again and continuing to edit-war using a variety of IPs. Not sure what to do with this one... he's sort of borderline, since he's commenting on the talk page, although sine-bot is signing them for him. He's also rapid-reverting and at least one other editor, George, has reverted his edits on Musa al-Sadr. Do you think you could drop a "welcome and sign your comments pls oh and you could make a log-in if you wanted" on his page? If I do it, it might just be provoke-y. I don't want to revert any more because I'm going to hit a revert wall with him and that's no way to build consensus. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the user is discussing the problem, but reverting the reverts of the other editor, this appears to be an edit war over a legitimate content dispute, so I have protected the page temporarily and left a warning about further reverts. On a side note, thanks for not contributing to the revert war; you have done everything correctly in dealing with this situation. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks for not contributing to the revert war".. Lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.187.53 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The anon user's point is taken. I did not realize that you were Emilyzilch because of your different signature. In the future, please use greater care. You violated the three revert rule, which is something for which you can be blocked. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will. I did say I stopped editing so as not to further the revert war. I'm sorry if I unintentionally misled you, I was considering asking for a formal name-change and I guess I'll go ahead with it. Incidentally, I've had a lot of harassment from sockpuppets in the past, most of them Klaksonnian in nature. Just sayin'. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just wasn't being as thorough as I should have been. Okiefromokla ^questions? 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville^BONK! 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there...

I just read your reply to some outstanding message you left me:

"You need to assume good faith — read Wikipedia's guideline on that here. Also, please read Wikipedia's description of what constitutes vandalism. Most notably, take a look at what vandalism is not, and you'll see that this user's edits are probably not vandalism. By reverting his edits more than three times in 24 hours, you violated the three revert rule which is cause for an administrator to block you, so be more careful next time. Also, in the case of obvious vandalism (which this is not), users must be warned in sequence using user warning templates before being reported to WP:AIV. WP:AIV deals only with obvious vandals and only those that have been properly warned. Now that the page has been protected, you should contact the user on the article's talk page and calmly invite him to share his view while also providing reliable sources that prove the 3/4 system is not dead. Do not accuse him of vandalism. Good luck. Okiefromokla questions?"

The edits happened about the same time there was a troll, talking bad about 4/3rds and pointing to the wikipedia entry as evidence that the system was dead. The system is obviously not dead, as new camera models continue to be announced, new lenses are being introduced- both Olympus and Panasonic have come forward on this and made that clear

You can see new models being reviewed like:

[url]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE520/[/url]

The micro four thirds announcement and Olympus/Panasonic commitment to both mounts:

[url]http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3767[/url]

According to the definition given by the Wikipedia on Vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles."

The changes he made clearly constitute vandalism because it made the four thirds entry extremely inaccurate. Moreover, there were indeed nonsense inserted in the article- like for example- doing a diff between August 6 and August 7, the following was said:

"The format was declared officially dead on August 6th, 2008, with the announcement by Olympus of the new Micro Format, code-named Phoenix."

Keep in mind this editing happened around the same time that Micro Four thirds was announced. There was never even as a rumor a "code Phoenix" in any rumor mill I can think off, nor was it officially declared dead. This compromises the integrity of the Wikipedia as a reliable source and is downright nonsense.

Around August 7, the same individual introduced the lines:

"Also known as the Postage Stamp format, the system provided a standard that, with digital cameras and lenses available from multiple manufacturers, allowed for the interchange of lenses and bodies from different manufacturers. "

Four Thirds has never, EVER been known as "the Postage Stamp Format." This is downright nonsense. Which again, according to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, it is vandalism.

This makes as much sense as saying that the Ferrari Formula F1 have been widely known as the "poo poo Turtle Dorito car." It is plain nonsense.

I am very thankful for pointing to me on wikipedia protocols, which I admit I didn't know much on that end about, but to pretty much any reasonable knowledgeable photographer, the article was clearly vandalized.--Raist3d (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the text formatting- I am still trying to sort this out.--Raist3d (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a few days to respond, I haven't had much time to read your entire comment. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Nevertheless, as I said on your talk page, user warning templates need to be used before a user is reported for vandalizing. If this user returns and continues these edits, please use those warnings before reporting him. If you are confused about the warnings, feel free to ask someone. I will probably not be around at any given time (I usually check up only once or twice a day) so placing {{help}} on your talk page will get you immediate help. If the problem resumes, report him again to WP:AIV. Since only active IPs can be blocked, I can't block this one now — he hasn't edited in a month. Thanks again. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a million for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. It's always great to see how Wikipedians work together against things like that! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's no problem! :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jackson South Coast League team

The Jackson South Coast League team page should be deleted, as the planned expansion team will never play. The SCL doesn't even exist anymore.JaMikePA (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. Meaning, if the article was notable as a future team, it will be notable as a team that never played. WP:AFD is the place to determine that. Again, the article won't be speedy deleted because it doesn't meet any criteria for such deletion (see WP:SPEEDY#Criteria). Let me know if you need any help putting it up for a deletion discussion, though. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian removal

You've read Cultural Imperialism and the Indian removal articles and do not see Indian removal and a specific incident of Cultural Imperialism? Please explain this for it is obvious to me. Herbert Schiller clearly defined the term in his 1976 book and it perfectly describes the replacement of one culture by another which is what happened in Indian removal. Alatari (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sorry, I'm a little foggy. I once removed a plethora of unrelated "see also" links from the Indian Removal article, so let me know if that isn't the context of your question. I will try to answer nonetheless: I would have no problem re-adding a link to cultural imperialism if there is a source that makes the conclusion that Indian Removal is indeed an example of cultural imperialism. If a Wikipedia editor was the only one to make that conclusion, WP:OR would apply. However, at least from the definition on the culutral imperialism article, it doesn't seem to me that Indian removal is necessarily an example of cultural imperialism. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Oklahoma City area citizens

Once upon a time, you changed the name of the above article (List of Oklahoma City area citizens) from "List of Oklahoma Citizens".

I've been going back and adding refs to the list, and, quite honestly, more than half of those entries in that list are not OKC citizens, but citizens from other parts of the state.

I added something to the talk page a couple of weeks ago, but noone said anything, so I really don't think anyone is following this page closely at this time, but I do think it bears continuing existance.

What do you think about going back to Oklahoma Citizens (though, maybe renaming it to include the word "Notable" or "Famous")?

Pfranson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is already a List of people from Oklahoma, so it would really be a big help if you could remove any non-Oklahoma City citizens from that list and see if they are represented in List of people from Oklahoma. However, since it's implied that anyone in a people listing article would be notable, it isn't necessary to add the word "notable" or "famous" to the title. But I would rename the article to List of people from Oklahoma City to keep it in line with other people listings. Thanks for looking into this! Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RSUHillcatslogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RSUHillcatslogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

meat

can the bone of the meat show if it is young or an oll meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.198 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OKC

Ya I went to see the roman art at the museum down there. Plus get some photos that were needed for oklahoma pages. Thanks for the thanks,--CPacker (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean this place. Never been there. This place is good enough for me! Thanks again. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oldfarmerwomancropped1.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oldfarmerwomancropped1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and deleted it per the reasoning on the deletion entry. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

UCO

Hi I was wondering what I should do about the University of Central Oklahoma page. I have added that it is not the oldest university in Oklahoma. It was talked about on its talk page about a year ago. I added sources citing NSU as the oldest university in Oklahoma but it keeps being changed back saying it is the oldest. UCO, OU, and OSU were all founded the same year (1890). NSU was founded almost forty years earlier in 1851 as the Cherokee National Female Seminary and Bacone College which was founded in 1880. All of my sources showed that info. Please get back to me on what I should do. Thanks--CPacker ^{talk to me} 04:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put something on the talk page there. Hope it helps. I'll put the page on my watchlist and keep an eye on it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help--CPacker ^{talk to me} 04:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Thanks! Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

California Musical Theatre

I really did not think I was engaging in incivility with User:DionysosProteus untill I read the Wikipedia:Civility and accusing an editor of a lie seems to be listed.....doesn't mention anything about someone who actually is telling a lie....but I get your point. Just as a quick defense....... Dionysos was pretty belligerent.

Anyway I have left a message on his talk page to try and begin working together. I just have one question. You said No more reverts. To whom is that directed? To me or to both. I knew the editor was trying to get me to break the 3RR, but I did not. We are both guilty of reverts but as I see it I am correct in wanting consensus. As the major contributor to the article I do not wish to be pushed out from under it over someone clearly not understanding wikiguidelines. Even the editor User:Bhuck refuses to stop reverting when both Dionysos and myself have stated that theatRE is the correct spelling to use for the article. I guess my question is are you saying once protection ends if the edit war continues and I make a revert again I will be blocked?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, accusing him of lying, and some of the other things you have said to him, such as "follow policy or stop editing" and calling him an ass, are uncivil. Even if you feel Dinoysos has been somewhat belligerent at times, but it's important to remember that even if someone is being uncivil, it isn't advisable to point it out in comments like "You seem bent on twisting this situation to a disturbing point of lies." I've dealt with editors who I felt were distorting the truth and operating outside guidelines, but getting past the reflex to point it out with frustration is hard. In these cases, the other editor feels they are correct, so making accusations does nothing but aggravate the situation. It's better to try understanding the point of view of the other editor, and then calmly stating your opinion and/or policy. After that, if an editor is continually belligerent and truly unreasonable, dispute resolution will sort it out, so there is no reason to get flustered.

"No more reverts" is intended for both of you—that is, if no dispute resolution or discussion is attempted and reverts continue, I will probably block the one who reverts. However, you did indeed break the 3RR because you had four reverts in a 24 hour period (that means any 24 hours stretch, not just a calendar day). I initially chose not to block you, but another administrator has pointed out some more incivility on your part that I had overlooked (like the comment "Don't waste my time or my effort and don't be an ass"). However, since you have since attempted to work the situation out with Dionysos on his talk page, I will suggest to administrators at the edit war noticeboard that the block simply be waived, but only if you promise to curtail your reverts. That is, I will unprotect the page, but until the dispute is resolved, you must promise to refrain from reverting any edit related to the current dispute. You must also promise to be on good behavior and refrain from incivility like name calling, etc. If you promise these things publicly at the AN3 case, other administrators may also choose to let this block slide. Does that sound reasonable?

PS: About the theatre-theater debate, both "theater" and "theatre" are proper American spellings according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Note, however, that it is usually inappropriate to change between British and American spelling in articles; it is usually accepted just to leave the spelling in whatever nationality it was written in. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Also, you point to consensus in your arguments, but I see none. In fact, there don't appear to be enough editors to the article to sufficiently establish true consensus, so I would advise you to stop using that argument, as it doesn’t appear to be working much. In any case, it is obviously time to form a new consensus. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That made no sense to me. I was treated unquestionably rude and you have taken a side. Fine. Open the article and block me. Make it as long as you want, as I find this whole situation to questionable towards you own actions when another admin weighed in. Plus you show my fouth revert as being day BEFORE my reverts from the 11th, on the ninth. It is my own fault for simply not understanding how the two dates pull together as 4 reverts. You continuw to say I am incivil but no metion is made to what was said to me or the demand for me to wait for consensus when I was not silent and the other editor made demands and labled me a vandal. I have always tried to be respectful to those that repect me. If this is a matter of my being in the wrong than a simple explanation along with the block would have been reasonable. Now I feel that a blind eye is being taken to the actions of another. A guidline is not a hard rule, but I am being pushed too far. I will not stop doing what I feel is with in the policy of wikipedia untill it eaxplained.....at the very least that I am wrong.

I deserve that much. I contribute in good faith and your are assuming I am doing this in bad faith. Fine. I have no choice but to let the chips fall where they may with no further explanation. I have been cussed at and yelled at by memebrs here with no reaction from maods. I can only assume that you have no desire or willingness to simply explain things when I am confused, but my confusion should not stand in the way of others. I accept a block witout undertsanding why and expect in the future no explanation to others when they do the same.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One last thing. I didn't call him an ass then ask him not to be an ass. It was just the latter. The way this whole situation has been handled I will take the block. I make no promises to anyone that cannot get the situation correct, public or private. And I still have no idea how a revert on the 9th has anything to do with the 11th but that is up to me to understand. I don't and no one is attempting to explain it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot, silence is consensus. If the editor makes a change and no one objects that is considered consensus. I was not silent but that was not satisfactory to the other editor. He kept making the reverts and that is defined as valdalism. Also I was not the one changing the spelling both myself and Dionysis objected to the change, so your kinda preaching to the chior there.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I said one last thing back about two posts ago but then I reread the talk page and feel if you are both going to bring up what I said to Dionysis about not being an ass the post he made that illicited that responce needs to be seen here as well;

Please consult wikipedia guidelines on the format for introductions. They ought to summarize information found in the article. Conformity with Wikipedia guidelines is all the justification required. Your fantasies about my motives or your unstable emotions are utterly irrelevant--please do not waste my time with them again. DionysosProteus

I guess I must be a truly "unstable" person to see that as belligerent and uncivil/incivil. And I guess the Wikipedia statement that a guideline is NOT a formal rule, was just something I made up in my mind. Sorry I have been such a problem. I will try not interact with the other more civil members in the future. Thanks for the lesson guys.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it is usually accepted to leave spelling in the version in which an article is written, that generally applies to non-regional topics, such as ice or perspiration. I would argue that the "Strong national ties to a topic" rule applies here, and I am still waiting for a response from Amadscientist to this talk message. I realize you may not find the question of spelling in this article to be particularly riveting, but as an admin, you at least have a better familiarity with the rules (I am more used to the way German Wikipedia works, which doesn't even officially recognize the three-revert-rule)--if I am the only person contributing to the spelling discussion on the talk page, but other editors demonstrate a refusal to accept my edits in the article, what alternatives to an edit war do I have? Should I request arbitration, and if so, can you provide a link to the appropriate description of how that process works?--Bhuck (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion would be to keep the spelling in the article consistent with the official name of the theater. Its website [1] uses "theatre", so I would suggest using that spelling throughout the article. There is no set preference for British-American spelling on Wikipedia, but consistency in any given article should always be established. Since this article obviously cannot be renamed "California Musical Theater" because the theater is called "California Musical Theatre", it is better to stay with that spelling for consistency's sake. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the experts have to say on the matter: [2]. If some regional college in Kentucky were to rename itself the "Kentucky Kollege of Kooks" for whatever strange sort of marketing reasoning, we wouldn't have to write in the article that "The kollege was established in 1849 as the Ohio Valley Polytechnic Institute. As competition for students with other regional kolleges and vocational schools increased, it renamed itself, adopting its current name in 2008."--Bhuck (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of California Musical Theatre

Hello Okiefromokla. You asked for other admins to comment at the AN3 case. You may wish to reply there as to whether you are persuaded by any of the responses. I myself would probably consider four reverts in 24 hours to be blockable, but we hardly ever do blocks if protection is in place. If Amadscientist would agree to wait for a Talk page consensus before making further changes, the block could be waived. That is something that you could negotiate, if you want to go in that direction. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, I must wait for consensus even though clearly Dionysis refused to wait when the first revert was made. I do not see four reverts. I see three on January 11.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand any of this but Edjohnson is correct. If you feel I have made 4 reverts regardless of my understanding how a revert on the 9th constitutes a fourth rvert on the 11th, blocking me is better than blocking the page. You are free to do both as I would guess by now your trust in my good faith is......well none.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)