User talk:Ossified

Welcome!

Hello, Ossified, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Dcooper 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Getaway

Please do not allow the likes of users such as Getaway drive you off. They would win if that were to happen. Albion moonlight 13:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I appreciate it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Motorcity Madman

Thanks for your comment on my talk page about the Nugent discussion. I don't have a lot of awareness of Nugent, outside of a suspicion that the nickname above might have some accuracy to it. :) I hope that consensus can be reached about how to present the information, because I agree with you that it merits mention. And may I say that for a total newbie, you sure seem to have figured things out quickly! I was poking around this place for quite some time before I ever noticed the men behind the curtains. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to somebody to close it. :) I'm trying to figure out how to close a BLP. I've only recently started participating there and have never closed one before. My first effort failed disastrously. :) Meantime, I'd say go ahead and insert the agreed upon text...and prepare for the resultant fresh round of arguments. :) It's been a pleasure reaching consensus with you. I wish all discussions on Wikipedia went so smoothly. People get a might excited over things around here sometimes. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it. If I've closed it incorrectly, I'm sure somebody will let me know. I'll go make a comment about apparent consensus at the talk page of Ted Nugent. --Moonriddengirl 13:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility again (regarding User:Getaway)

I have tried to engage you on the Sean Hannity talk page. When I suggested that we work constructively, your response was "I'm not going to ask for permission. If you put inappropriate matter in the article, I'm going to remove it, ok?" The whole idea of the talk page is to express why you believe something is inappropriate so that consensus can be achieved. It's not to ask permission. Tonight, you responded to an edit with the following in your edit summary: "No need for the long-winded, non-encyclopedic commentary. We know you don't like Sean Hannity we get it. Don't be biased." Since there's no way for anyone to know why you believe that the editor doesn't like Sean Hannity or why you think they're biased, I can only consider your statements to be in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please stop. Please also try to be constructive. Ossified 01:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can "think" and you can "believe" that my comments are uncivil, bu that is merely your opinion based upon the fact that you simply did not like what I said. You do not like to be told that your editing exhibits your bias. That is what I see. I stated it. You don't like what I see. That is too bad. It is not uncivil to point out that you are exhibiting bias. It is clear that you have a bias against Hannity because you are constantly attempting to put in derogatory matter about Hannity in the Hannity article. By definition you have a bias. Now, I will say it again. Do not be biased. That is not uncivil it is just simply stating a fact that you do not want to hear. Do not put derogatory information in the Hannity article. It violates NPOV. I am sorry that you "think" and you "believe" something that is not true, but I cannot control that. All I can do is control what I can control and that means that I will repeat once again, do not put derogatory information in the Hannity article, it is biased.--Getaway 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive

Perhaps you would like to comment on this interpretation of "progressive" since you seem to have a deeper understanding of that label based upon Talk:Al Franken. Your comment would go under "outside parties". --David Shankbone 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

the latest

Thanks for your comments recently (mate!) - although I'm completely baffled by this stuff about misplaced commas - does the term "life mate" have gay undertones on the other side of the Atlantic?? Wik idea 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuge

Don't know if you noticed, but someone removed all the "regarding" from the headers, leaving that one "Military service". It sounded too much like it was implying that he had served in the military, so I changed it, but your adjustment works too. - Crockspot 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Your latest contribution to the THF/David Shankbone arbcom case [1] probably crosses the line into a personal attack on User:ATren. It certainly departs from "on point", focusing on him and not the case.

Please don't take the opportunity to take shots at other editors there. Georgewilliamherbert 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, you really shouldn't antagonize people with sarcastic comments either. There might be spurious accusations tossed about, but the appropriate response is not to belittle editors.[2] Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm. For a user of your tenure, you know the site very well. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what I did. Sorry, I meant to write "precocious." At any rate, it's not relevant, so I removed it. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with my interaction with Avidor, take it to dispute resolution; otherwise, please drop it. ATren 06:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the question is why do you continue to harass someone on wiki and off wiki as you are doing with User:Avidor (it's still on your User page; you only updated the blog a month ago or so), and why does it require dispute resolution to stop you? Why aren't Georgewilliamherbert and Cool Hand Luke, defenders against harassment, asking you to stop? It's curious. Maybe he's not on the "right side" of the issues. --David Shankbone 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you insist. Do you know why I started that blog? I happened to discover that Avidor had maintained a sock puppet blog for over a year - a blog which he used to tag-team attack a local Green politician. He regularly used this blog to endorse the words of his real identity, and vice-versa, to give the appearance of multiple different people attacking this local politician. I also believe (but cannot prove) he was using at least half a dozen other identites in forums and blog comments.

Why was he using such dirty tactics to attack a nobody Green from Minnesota? Because that Green happened to support a transportation technology called PRT. Avidor has waged a 5 year disinformation war against this technology and anyone involved with it. He continues to spread the same disproven claims over and over again, attacking anyone who would consider PRT as a transport option, mocking them with the derisive "gadgetbahner" and "PRTista" labels. He's made the absolutely false claim (over and over) that PRT is a scam perpetrated by the highway lobby - a claim that is ludicrously false by virtue of the immense time, money, and research invested in PRT through the years - at least a dozen different groups on 3 continents are actively researching PRT.

Avidor came here trying to spread his campaign. Nothing was verifiable - indeed, not one reputable source has ever even raised the "scam" claim, but Avidor warred here for 18 months trying to get his material into the article. JzG, for some ungodly reason, was his only supporter, and that caused conflict between JzG and me.

Avidor continues to attack PRT, PRT politicians, and PRT researchers on at least three different blogs, with almost daily posts filled with disinformation about PRT and its proponents. I occasionally comment on the most ludicrous posts. Recently, Avidor reported two separate users to COI, both related to PRT - both were found to be groundless, and in both cases it was Avidor himself who was admonished. Avidor also created an article for a prominent PRT researcher, then voted to deleted it two days later arguing that the PRT article should be deleted as well - a transparent attempt to game the system that even seemed to anger JzG. He is a true SPA with not a single edit outside of PRT, PRT researchers, or PRT politicians.

My role in this: I opposed Avidor on-wiki, and when I discovered his sock-puppet blog, I started my own blog to document his deceptions. I have perhaps a total of a dozen posts in the last year, which is about one a month - about 1/30th of the number of posts that have come from Avidor in that time, posts that accuse an entire fledgling industry of fraud without a shred of evidence.

Here is a brief summary of my last four months of postings on that "attack" blog:

An open challenge to online debate - Avidor had made the false claim that PRT proponents "refuse to debate him". On the contrary, I've repeatedly offered to debate him online but he refuses, so I posted that public debate challenge on my blog.
A post expressing my revulsion at Avidor's use of his hometown bridge tragedy as a political prop. Even as rescue crews were still searching for bodies, Avidor was making the completely false claim that "PRTistas" were using the bridge tragedy for their own political gain. I found this empty claim to be tasteless and horribly disrespectful of those who were still waiting for news of their missing loved ones, and that's what I posted.
A lighthearted post poking fun at Avidor's use of HTML "Easter eggs" - invisible text that Avidor includes in his blog posts, apparently for the purpose of increasing search engine hits to his blogs.
A post questioning Avidor's possible financial motives in pursuing PRT - this was in direct response to Avidor questioning several PRT proponents about whether they'd received money to support PRT, in several discussion forums as well as here on Wikipedia, despite having no evidence that they had. It was clear he had no evidence of financial ties, and was simply doing it to impugn the reputation of PRT promoters by implying a profit motive. My post in response was an open question about his potential financial motivations. The difference: I provided actual evidence to support my queries.

So there it is, four months worth of my evil "attack blog". What specifically about those posts is so objectionable to you, David? What is so repulsive about my occasional off-Wiki responses to Avidor's relentless off-Wiki campaign that you feel the need to raise it repeatedly here?

As for the comments on my Wikipedia user page, it's called disclosure. You know what that is, don't you? It's when an editor (such as THF) reveals his external affiliations so there can be no accusations of subversion. But as was the case with THF, that disclosure seems to have come back to bite me. Thank goodness I had the good sense to register anonymously, or you'd probably go after me personally like you did with THF.

I can go on if you like, and I can prove everything I've said here. I really did not want to resurrect all the gore details of this old conflict, but you absolutely would not let it drop. You may decide to take this further, but trust me, you will find that everything I've said here is absolutely true. You may also dig into my history, but again, you will find nothing damning. The worst thing that anyone can accuse me of is persistence, in not allowing this individual to use Wikipedia to spread his disinformation.

Now , can we drop it? Really, if you are going to continue bringing this up, do your research and bring it up in the appropriate forum. Otherwise, this is starting to look like harassment. ATren 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Republican Governors Association; Chuck Hagel; Two of a Kind (1983 film); Kids Against Combs; Choi Mu Bae; Alexander Haig; E. D. Hill; Work (professional wrestling); Sean Royal; Jack Reed; DragonRaid; John Warner; Daniel Akaka; Daniel Inouye; WVNN; John-Paul Langbroek; Samizdata; Christopher Dodd; John-Paul Clarkin

Cleanup: Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom; Anthony Giddens; Water fluoridation
Merge: Insert (SQL); Mike Malloy; Rasslin'
Add Sources: Hannity & Colmes; Feud (professional wrestling); Johnny Isakson
Wikify: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement; Jim Inhofe; John Smith (wrestler)
Expand: Zinedine Zidane; Vincent J. McMahon; The Wall Street Journal

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stossel

I wanted to let you know that I had to clear your edits on this article. There has been large dispute over the last month with the final result of an article lock. We've been working on compromising content based on NPOV weight and BLP policies. The article was just unlocked and before I was able to update the new text, you made your edits. There is lengthy discussion in the talk and I'd suggest going through this before making any large changes to the content in that section. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 21:13, 06 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking THF

The thing is, I wasn't mocking THF's personal appearance, I was referencing an insult Wikidea threw at him and I was using it to compare it to ATren's badgering User:Avidor on his User page, and did a "If I had said..." and used Wikidea's insult as an example of something I did not do. Unfortunately, ATren keeps repeating this as an insult I lodged, when in fact it was a reference to another person's insult and an example of what I did not do. Everyone gets this except ATren, which is why nobody has said anything about it except...ATren. If I had actually lodged the insult, I would have had Newyorkbrad and CHL and Fred Bauder coming down on me. --David Shankbone 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. Even what Wikidea wrote was pretty damned mild. What you wrote was a step removed, even from that. ATren, and his fellows, however, realize that their case is weak. Hence, the repeated disappearing/reappearing act of the Amazing THF, and ATren's seeming inability to get over a mere mention of a chin (oops...I hope that doesn't set him off). I've already expressed to him my belief that there are many much worse 'insults', but he is fixated. Rather than deal with his fixation (my internet medical skills are limited to diagnosis, not actual treatment), I thought I'd just call it like I see it, and let ATren know that his faux outrage (a hallmark of the right) is transparent. I hope that you don't think that I buy into the tripe that what you wrote was actually insulting. I don't. Ossified 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. The hallmarks of the right are "Faux outrage" and "We're the real victims!" Both of these have been well at work in the ArbCom. For years conservatives railed against the victim culture that they said liberals cultivated; who knew that after Clinton put the lid on that here in the States, they'd champion it so much for themselves. Now it's standard game plan. --David Shankbone 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now I wear the scarlet C as well? Defending a conservative brands me a conservative? Next you'll be asking me to name names. Serves me right for associating with such shady characters... ATren 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"By their fruits ye shall know them." I'm not particularly interested in how you want to label yourself, and I have no idea what the reference to naming names is about. Ossified 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Drama! --David Shankbone 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your defense is "I wasn't attacking THF per se, I was only using someone else's attack against THF in a separate attack against ATren." Glad you cleared that up. :-) ATren 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can start a blog about the unmitigated horror of chin mocking. It's not like there's not precedent. I checked, and www.chinmockwatch.com is available. Yours for the taking. Cin-cin! Ossified 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also www.asknotforwhomthechindropsitdropsforthee.com is available. I might take that one, though. I could stand to shed a few pounds after this weekend... I was just a damn pig! --David Shankbone 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get any ideas, David. Since ATren self-reverted this, it's just like he never wrote it! Cin-cin! Ossified 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I know! Assume good faith - a self-revert is like it never happened; AGF: he never thought it. <sigh> Have you seen the gross pimply photo on Chinface? It would seem like we could find someone who could provide a better chinface photo, ay? Maybe I'll do one myself. --David Shankbone 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entire thread seems unnecessary and unproductive. Would there be any objection to blanking it? At a minimum, I hope I'll see nothing more like this in the future. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, your credibility is a little damaged with me considering you took me to task for editing the Ted Frank article but not CHL. --David Shankbone 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs) [reply]

I've never been much of a fan of the memory hole. How about we leave it? Ossified 11:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised? ATren 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to speculate? Ossified 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]