This is an archive of past discussions about User:Penyulap. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
That is not the place for the discussion, either on user talkpages where things can be addressed and personal problems solved, or at ANI where nobody will be happy with the outcome, including me. I'd rather people made efforts to get along together, rather than being abrasive. The abrasiveness started prior to my participation in that conversation, and the graphics lab is not the place to fix it anymore. Penyulap ☏ 05:12, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It has been pointed out before that the question is itself moot, because if it is not blue, it is pointless fluff regardless of where it is. Credit for the image goes to Richard, who has been here working hard for some time, watching the dynamic develop. If you click through to the original image you can find him and the associated discussions. And please do go and call him a Genius as well, he is tired of other labels, I think his current label is "collateral damage" Penyulap ☏ 00:41, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Bliss - an answer infinitely more sublime than than the question. Praise be to you and Richard, and 10^24 curses to me for filling up more non-article space with this banality. Thom2002 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I love this little guy! It makes a perfect top icon, which is where it now sits on my user page. I noticed that old demon drama was circling you for a while there, so I had to wait for it to be exorcised. But I can't help complimenting you when something as great as the 99%er makes its way from your brain to commons. Maybe they should start up a wikimedia:uncommons to house creations like this and your grumpy editor award, which really is brilliant. Exeunt. INeverCry02:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the spam thing doesn't work. It might work if there was a red circle over it with a line through it to indicate anti-spam. The 99% works because it's a figure in action, a mini-protester if you will, while the spam version could just as well be a spam file icon for the folder where you put all your junk email. Пока! INeverCry03:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that has made my day all over again. I think your page looks fantastic, very orderly. Penyulap ☏ 03:29, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Need a collaborative effort!
I hope you could lend me some of your effort in working out few articles which are related to India and are of very high notability. One example is Tuberculosis in India. I found out that there is an article about Tuberculosis in China, but none for India which tops world in the number of Tuberculosis patients. The situation is really grave and that is what tempted me to start the article. I think we have enough compelling reasons to collaborate and develop this article. We need loads of data also, this effort requires some experienced attention which I might get from you. I have also other articles at my mind too (eg., Diabetes), but this lists at the top of that very list. Kindly let me know your idea. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 15:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not much into writing articles except when they get in my way, I'm somewhat disillusioned with wikipedia at the moment, however I did tell one editor who does seem to like writing articles, you never know, he might be interested. The other thing is to ask the largest contributor to Tuberculosis in China, they may well have an interest, and look at letting the wikiprojects on the talkpage there know about it too. Penyulap ☏ 16:42, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)
done, do you know what year he was born ? it would be easy to add now. There is the opportunity for anyone interested to write a bio for him, apparently he was quite a character, quite charming. Penyulap ☏ 02:32, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
is there a free photo we can use anywhere ? Penyulap ☏ 05:48, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Actually I did not know anything about this person till this morning. Today in my watchlist I saw recent edits in deceased page, and as I found you were one of the primary contributors of that section, I though you'll have a photo etc! Oops! Similarly I managed to collect Steven Rubenstein's photo there. I am just another editor of that page, I don't think I can collect a photo. :-( But, this person was highly educated. "B.M.E., B.E.E. (1949) and M.S. (1950) from Cornell University". Here I have found some good information (specially bio section), I think we can add it there! What do you think? --Tito Dutta✉06:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And since I found the person did not send any message to your personal message to your (this) account, I thought you know him personally. I can write a short bio there if needed. And in his userpage, a "deceased" notice should be added, and in very first line of his page, the link ARMD is a disambiguation link (the page was not a disambiguation page when he write it), what do you think–should we correct it? --Tito Dutta✉06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
yes by all means go ahead and fix it, I will be happy to do it myself and take responsibility for it, I will have a looks soon. (I mess with lots of people's userpages, and we're not talking minor changes either, so I'm good to go there).
I did not know CAR Kagan personally, I saw someone ask, I think at ANI, (you may find it in my contribs around the time I edited the page). The editor asking at ANI did not know if it would be ok or not to include Mr Kagan in the list as he has less than the usual minimum limit of edits, however, I saw that he could indeed make the list to the communities satisfaction, by a very wide margin. All I knew at the time was about 30 minutes or so researching and the rest is intuitive. His article would be an excellent candidate for a wp:dyk, though, as far as I can tell, you need to do the research in some depth first before creating the article, to qualify for the DYK. I'd be happy enough to help, I'm not into standards, but I can write in an engaging manner for subjects like this when I put my mind to it. Penyulap ☏ 08:06, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I've asked to have the template inserted onto his userpage. Penyulap ☏ 08:50, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, a nice chap who I asked, suggested drafting and discussing, which, when I thought of it is a great idea, because anything we do put in would be much better after we've done an article, after all, who knows what would turn up ? I've put a few things here and I think I'll draw a picture, unless US patents are pd ? I'm guessing they probably are... Penyulap ☏ 14:14, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I've had a positive response to a request I made for an image of Claude Kagan. Penyulap ☏ 15:05, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Hello Penyulap/Archives/2012, Titodutta 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
thank you. I am rewriting my contact now. Penyulap ☏ 09:56, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Person-hours in space graphic
Yes, of course I think it was appropriate to remove the graphic. If I didn't think it was appropriate, I wouldn't have done it. First of all, it was two years out of date, and therefore inaccurate as a representation of the situation. Second, it was practically illegible at its resolution. Third, I don't have the means or the data to create an up-to-date graphic. If you have the means and the data and are willing to keep updating it, then please create a graphic that brings the information up to June 16, 2012. I don't think that simply replacing the same outdated (and unverified) data in a different format is the right thing to do. Better no data than bad data.RandomCritic (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a look into it, however, I have doubts that two years is any kind of a good idea in this case, because the ratios simply haven't changed in a noticeable manner, but I'll let you decide about tagging it.
I've changed it ahead of your request to a format that can be easily edited by anyone, however, if you like to suggest a set of figures and a graphic I shall be happy to make one for the article. Penyulap ☏ 14:01, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)
thank you for that, I am delighted you're smart enough to work it out, I think some of my images get deleted because the information which is obvious to some people isn't put precisely into the right fields. I'm too apathetic to fix it a lot of the time, and I can suggest changes to the forms/wizard but suggesting changes is completely pointless most all of the time on wikipedia, it is such a futile effort to make the most clear and obvious improvements, so in the end I just end up doing awards or something, which lasts much longer as there are people interested in assisting to keep them. But for the Chinese Space Station or OPSEK new work is pointless, shrug.
I appreciate your help. Penyulap ☏ 10:27, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I know, but please don't block me.....
I... know....PALZ90...00 has ....done..... a bit.... of mischief but , I was asking(....I mmeant...not to angry you.....) but can I put the blocked template on his user talk and user pages.......if you were pleased.....Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 11:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
nobody is trying to block you. Don't worry about his pages, they are fine. Penyulap ☏ 12:44, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at International Space Station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Both you and Craigboy have already violated the three-revert rule. Discuss it on the talk page, and don't change the article until you both agree on a compromise. If you can't find anything to agree on, then go to dispute resolution or open a request for comment. I am sending this warning to both parties, I won't report either of you at this stage, but if you continue then you will be blocked. --W.D.Graham13:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I really think it will be a cold day in hell when I take consensus lessons from you WD. The reason nobody is going to report anything is because Craigboy is such a valuable editor, to me, and always willing to have a chat. This is something we can fix all by ourselves (amongst the editors) without ANI. Penyulap ☏ 13:45, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree you have both made useful and valuable contribution, but your edit war is starting to become disruptive, so I will take whatever action is necessary to resolve it. Secondly, your inability to accept consensus on the other issue (which was resolved and I will not be drawn into reopening) is also disruptive, just drop it and stop trying to make a point. --W.D.Graham14:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no chance whatsoever of that happening WD, it is wishful thinking to pretend that other issue is settled. I'm just a bit busy at the moment, I'll get back to you and Ckatz when I have time to spare. Penyulap ☏ 14:15, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
How can you interpret five against one in favour of retaining the status quo to be anything other than a consensus to do so. We also reached a consensus that you should stop bringing it back up every few months. The issue is dead, and if you try to bring it back a fourth (or is it fifth, I've lost count) time, sanctions will be brought to bear on you. --W.D.Graham14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
promises promises, and "I'm the only one" I've heard it all before, I want a divorce. Penyulap ☏ 14:43, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Andy and ANI
just to pre-empt any remarks, I've pretty much summed up what the community will be forced to face. This is inevitable, so there is hardly any need for me to expand on my comments at ANI, so there is no need to ask me not to do so. (the community is a lot slower than it should be on this issue, I'm just a bit further ahead in time than most others) Penyulap ☏ 22:19, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I'll be staying out in solidarity with Andy, so it'll be longer than 24 hours by the look of it. I'd rather be a martyr while defending wikipedias highest moral standards than remain and turn a blind mind to the worst offences against fundamental policy. If people want to look no further than the end of their nose when making judgements and decisions, reading short phrases without studying the issue, it's no concern of mine. Penyulap ☏ 23:30, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I just realised you're a full hour behind me. Penyulap ☏ 23:32, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
That's your choice, clearly; I was holding back on pressing the block button on Andy in the hope that he'd retract what was obviously a frustrated outburst, but your deliberate repetition of it was unfortunately always going to end in a block. Since the issue of Sceptre's editing is now coming under scrutiny at ANI (and I agree with a topic ban) hopefully this will be the end of it. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Like hell it will be, you're all far too slow and cannot see what is going on or where the future lies. Sceptre will be banned only from his most obvious prime target, considering how slow the community is in recognising Sceptre's behaviour, to the point of obtuseness, Sceptre will simply disperse and spread the exact same behaviour into other areas, and with that less focused approach, Sceptre will continue permanently to undermine the project. But hey, thanks for taking 60 seconds out of you busy commute was it ? to judge the entire issue. Brilliant work. These systems filter out the good editors, whilst collecting the cream of the crap. Penyulap ☏ 23:52, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Whilst Wikipedia is broken in some areas, I don't believe it is when it comes to persistent POV/COI editors. If Sceptre persists in pushing a line across multiple articles that is clearly rejected by other editors, then a much wider topic ban - or indeed a long block - will ensue. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
A long block my fat arse. You are failing to take into account how long it has taken to get to the point of banning Sceptre from manning. Actually, I'm talking from the future, as the ban hasn't yet been decided has it ? Consider that time, and the dispersal, and my extrapolation stands perfect. If you don't believe me, wait 10 years and see. The crap becomes compounded, woven into the fabric of the project and becomes inseparable. Bah. I'm explaining kaleidoscopes to the blind. Penyulap ☏ 00:01, 22 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you're not. If you can show me evidence of Sceptre POV pushing and/or being disruptive over multiple articles then I'll quite happily take it to ANI to see what the community thinks. I've been here a while and I know that Sceptre has had a number of issues with his editing previously. As the phrase goes, show me the money. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Do your own homework, rather than blocking someone and then tuning around and asking for their help. My god, do you know shit about real life ? Penyulap ☏ 00:15, 22 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Onoes! Please, Pen dearest, don't let your emotions get the better of your (remarkable) intelligence here in Wikipedia! I have only just discovered this block and what led up to it at AN/I, and it's made me feel guilty for not being around enough :o( I can fully understand where your feelings are coming from, and I understand (only too well!) just how easy it is for us fallible humans (let alone our particular subset of humans! ;P) jut to let our feelings pressurise us into letting fly and going a few steps too far. Megahugs to you; I feel that you need them at the moment. Do remember that if you shoot your own horse, it can't continue to carry you into the field! Please, take a few deep breaths, disengage from the emotional stuff for while, make those emotions take a back seat and let your astounding intellect guide you in here. Just the same as you would if you were the only first-aider at a major road accident. You can't afford to let the emotions affect your abilities to save lives; same goes in here, too. Pesky (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The project is a disappointment, as the smallest, most superficial level of gaming is allowed to destroy it entirely. What anyone with eyes can see is that if you have 2 minutes to spare and no experience, you can write a python program to replace 95% of the admins on wikipedia. Anything beyond that, like a murderer who speaks politely, owns this place, and the admins as well.
! You need to upgrade your Adobe Flash Player to watch this video.
Download it from Adobe. Use the direct link to youtube instead.
search for this video from the International school of online editing, title "the kind of co-operation expected on English wikipedia, - a foreigners guide"
It's an offence to conventional wisdom. On wikipedia, words speak louder than actions.
It is very easy to be blinded to the essential failure of Wikipedia by the sense of achievement you get from getting it to work at all. In other words - and this is the rock solid principle on which the whole of wikipedia's success is founded - its fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by its superficial design flaws.
— 42
I can, as you know, just 'flip the switch' and be 'over it', or turn it into more insight or whatever, or just leave the switch in both positions or whatever. But seeing things from Andy's perspective is so obvious and attractive because he is the one with 1000% integrity (I typed an extra zero by there by accident, then though, leave it there, it's true) while the other editor is using gaming to slip past the mob mentality, undermine everything, and now playing a different good editor's strengths and weaknesses like they were a musical instrument devoid of sentience entirely, and in a way that reminds me immediately of the way adept Junkies will play a person's thinking against them, appearing to be in complete agreement, while using that person as a tool to get what they want. Oh, you can watch it happen, watch the whole sorry affair, wikipedia is nothing but a spectator sport after all. A daytime drama, a 24/7 drama, watch everyone mug each other as you please drama, just so long as they hold their teacup properly with little pinky finger extended so, then all is well, all is as it should be, one foul word like "Don't drink that shit it's poison" and you're banned for foul language, and everyone is back to the teaparty like that silly business is thankfully behind us now the gardener has been removed/sacked, more tea anyone ?
Explain a principle like the innocent prisoner's dilemma to people, and try to get it recognised in policy, and it's all 'oh that's nice' and it's clearly understood, explained properly, and it's still, 'let's move on without doing anything'. Bah! the fundamental design of wiki is contrary to the fundamental anthropology of humanity. You cannot embody higher thoughts into a mob.
The proper thing is to see the future from the future looking back and assist the transition, which can ONLY be accomplished by leaving the ever so slowly sinking titanic and going to a new project(actually it's possible to be on both ships at once). Bot's will watch you Auntie, because you won't need to, or want to, go before wiki is well underwater, so bots on the new site will watch the good editors and treat your words as scripture, while filtering the bad out and their trash with them.
Do I talk a lot ? I probably talk a lot, too much, I should shut up. Penyulap ☏ 11:21, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)
you are right as always Auntie Pesky. Penyulap ☏ 18:53, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)
It really sounds as though you're in a bad place at the moment. The most important thing to remember is that the majority of the people in WikiLand are good souls. Yes, there are a few manipulative ones around; yes there are a few just plain nasty ones; yes there are those who game the system and bring out the worst in an otherwise thoroughly good egg. It's like any big community. They're all just the same. You fell into a big pothole in the cart track, but fine – pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and look out alertly for people stretching kevlar threads across your path to make you fall over! Ultimately, the nasties get found out and go off with their tails between their legs. (Some of the nice guys go off like that, too, sadly.) I can see what was happening there. And I can understand your anger and frustration with things like that. But you can do a lot more about it if you stay on board ;P Pesky (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not that I'm upset, I'm not at all, and I don't care at all about whatsisname, it's the community that I'm upset about, the systemic inability to deal with it's own problems, like an immune system that just _does_ _not_ _work_. The systems are doing whatever they can to be counter productive, to filter the wrong way.
Anyhow, I learn as quickly as you know I do, it's near impossible for the usual suspects to troll me anymore. I find their attempts amusing, like with that award recently made, and what is most amusing is the models they use to try to predict my behaviour. Now that makes me fall off my chair laughing. apart from being upset, which I'm not really, you predict me perfectly as always and can speak for me as always. I'm not in a place where I'm upset and worried to be banned, nor am I trying in any way to be banned, I am 99 % more likely to decide to leave the same way anyone leaves a cafe, library, or wherever a ruckus breaks out. Right now, I am boycotting 95%, up from my daily 50% boycott.
I simply need to do what I always do, and lower my expectations of he community. I simply expect too high a standard, and am woefully disappointed. Hence, as always, a new project is obvious, as it's not possible to do any worse than this one. I guess you can easily argue that I am upset, but the word upset is the wrong one as it conveys the incorrect meanings most of the time. Penyulap ☏ 19:10, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)
You're right, "upset" isn't actually the right word. I'm not sure what is, though! But I'm pretty sure that I know what the feeling is, even if not the word which properly describes it. Communities work very well around people who conform to community goals and expectations, and they're always a bit lost when dealing with people who game the system – any system – in any community. It's right that we should assume good faith, but it does sometimes lead to someone getting away with far more than they should. Even so, I'd rather have ten guilty people go unpunished than one innocent one get wrongly zapped! We're a nicer community, that way; though a tad more vulnerable. Pesky (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
oh Auntie, we think with the same mind ! (hugz)
The gamers are as clear as day to me, they are so incredibly easy to see, I mean the few critics I have for example who sock are completely laughable, they are so far off the mark, trying to emulate new users to see if they can fool me, it makes my stomach hurt from laughing at their efforts. Whereas newbies in need of help are so totally completely different, I just can't see how other people miss these things, but they do of course, it's the nature of people to be different. Penyulap ☏ 15:26, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Sceptre got tossed off the topic and is under close scrutiny from now on and Andy got whacked because he did what he did on purpose, after getting whacked for the same damned thing just a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem to me like any great failure in this instance. Hang in there, --Tim //// Carrite (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the update, however I have already lowered my expectations of the project, and so the project in general doesn't particularly upset me as much. The ban is however just a part of the path I foresaw wherever it was I wrote it up, however long ago it was, Sceptre will dilute his/her(can't recall) efforts and be harder to catch whilst doing what will become a better job of it. That's pretty much the path laid out, so we may as well say welcome to the project Sceptre, because there is pretty slim to no chance of fixing things any longer, the opportunity has gone. So I'll say if he/she is reading, 'Welcome Sceptre' and you'll be more and more at home here as the system continues to filter as it does. Penyulap ☏ 21:24, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Stupid stuff like this does seriously affect our motivation, and our view of the project, often for a long time. It's June now, and I still haven't fully emotionally recovered from December's "party". It knocked me for six, and I very seriously considered quitting the 'pedia altogether. But, as Tim says, "Hang in there!" (He's so right! He's also one of the project's Good Eggs. Black Kite is another Good Egg. I can think of a lot here of the same type; that's partly what kept me going.) Tell you what: you're one of the people in here who lighten my life and make the place fun. I am perpetually amazed by the sheer level of genius embodied in you. The corollary to the genius thing, of course, is that the vast majority of people just can't help not seeing some stuff as clearly as you do. They can't help that any more than they can help the colour eyes they were born with. So it's not their fault, they're not "doing it on purpose". I so wish I could give you a Real Life Hug! I think you could do with one. On a lighter note: Hey! Did you see I got my first FA? :D [Pesky does big cheesy grin]Pesky (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
That is a violation, and totally my own fault. It was pretty much the first big article I made, and so I did what I have been doing in the ISS for ages, summarizing the sub-articles into the main article as neurally as I can. They say there are about 500 pages of rules and guidelines on wiki and most people only know about 50, and that one I haven't come across before.
I'd very much appreciate assistance where it's required, I figure I can make some small edits and add to the summary for each section or some such to address the issue ? please feel free to assist, as I'm new at that sort of thing, but is that the idea in a nutshell ?
Oh, are there examples, actually you'd be able to name some articles where it has been done off the top of your head, I can have a look and learn fastest that way. Cool. Penyulap ☏ 22:11, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I've started with a bit of a stopgap measure, and will fill it in as I go along, I'll have to look and see what revision it was back then and so forth, and I'll have to think of the other articles it applies to, like the Core Cabin Module and so on. Some, like the Innocent prisoners dilemma are just all me though. I'm glad I learnt something new today :) thanks. please check back in a week or so to see how I've gone with it, to check for errors. Penyulap ☏ 22:29, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Is there some way I can expedite the process ? I'd rather get assistance if I can, and I have no problems with taking credit for a mess, just so long as it's a big mother of a mess :) Penyulap ☏ 22:39, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I am considering this CCI request. Are you willing to fix these problems yourself? (If so, dump this on a user subpage and work from there. The request will be declined. Let me know if you want to take this option.) We have enough CCIs as it is. MER-C09:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I want to assist and fix the problem ! the page has been created here. I do believe that we need to look at a way to slow down or stop this from happening in the first place. Nobody is suggesting that I am stupid, or malicious, and without doubt you must come across countless cases the same as my own. I do believe that treating the cause is as important as treating the symptoms, and I would like to help with both. Penyulap ☏ 10:57, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know the method I should use, as an example, I have added a null edit here and added a tick in the new listpage, with 'pen' next to the entry, would that be a good procedure to use ? Penyulap ☏ 13:39, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I would use an oldid url (example) and also put a template on the talk page of the source article (to minimise the risk of it being deleted). MER-C02:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I hereby give you permission to edit my user and talkpages as you see fit. I would like to add some guidance of my own afterwards, for anyone who'd like to assist.
The images that I have uploaded to commons require attention, I haven't uploaded what would be considered copyright work according to the conversational meaning of the term, however, much of my work is poorly labelled and/or attributed, and I hereby give you, and anyone who has participated in copyright clean-up drives like this before who I have not previously spoken with, unrestricted authorisation to act on my behalf and release works I have uploaded on licenses as they see fit where ever it is possible for them to do so, and add attribution(s) as they see fit.
There are mixtures of images within single images I have made, for example, on the top of this page, where there are a lot of component images, which I figure will make the mix and match licensing difficult I guess, I've had trouble using the commons wizard, or entering or understanding the forms and licensing, and when it gets as complicated as it does, I wish you could enter each image name or url into a requester at the time of upload, so that the server could give you some idea if the licences are compatible whilst it is searching for duplicates. It could enter them into whatever fields they are meant to be in, it would help an enormous amount, although, I do understand that the people who read this will naturally assume I am wishing for ridiculous things here, because they are, by nature of the work they are doing, very familiar and adept at copyright matters. Whereas all I know is what annoys another human being and what doesn't, like file:mist lifting off cedars.jpg, in comparison to fair use, which I stay clear of. Penyulap ☏ 04:56, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
for articles getting deleted, I'm not at all concerned, I have only made a few, and they are good subjects with support from other editors, or, they have already been deleted :) but I don't mind either way, I'm not attached at all to what I do, I don't even bother cleaning up vandalism 99 % of the time. But that is not to say that I don't care about what I write, I do, very much. Penyulap ☏ 04:59, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Some background
I would like to explain some background about the situation at ANI. The race and intelligence (R&I) topic has had a team of civil POV pushers for a couple of years (recently cleared out in an Arbcom case), and the R&I issue is related to nature vs. nurture. That latter point has been debated for decades and may never be resolved—there are interesting and valid points that can be made on both sides, and many correlations between a person's biology and their behavior have been found (so it's nature), while many studies have shown that upbringing and experience can contribute enormously to behavior (so it's nurture). The problem, particularly as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that it is very easy to cherry pick studies to "prove" whatever theory one favors, and a second problem is that for well over a century people have tried to show that certain "races" are pre-determined by biology to be superior, while others are destined to be inferior (phrenology for example). There are results suggesting that on average, some "races" are superior to others regarding intelligence, while many (all?) scientists currently working in the field regard attempts to use intelligence in that manner as misguided due to the overwhelming confounding issues of nurture (for example, some groups of people genuinely have no desire to perform well on tests).
One of the problems at Wikipedia is that polite persistence is often rewarded by having neutral editors abandon articles, leaving them easy pickings for civil POV pushers. The result in the nature vs. nurture area is that dozens of articles end up giving a completely false picture of the science because any point favoring genetic determinism is highlighted, and balancing views are downplayed or ignored. This is not just a matter of an opinion on some scientific issue—at heart, it is an attempt to show that there are some races that are genetically destined to be inferior to others. Perhaps the issues will be scientifically resolved and that conclusion will be demonstrated in twenty years. However, it is known now that such a conclusion, if true, would apply only to averages over large populations, and would have no relevance for predicting the achievements of a particular individual. The reason that many are supporting a topic ban at ANI is that investigation of edits confirms that if unchecked, many articles will fail to be neutral. There is no easy way to resolve matters like this because only those with a deep emotional attachment to the topic are motivated to work in the area for month after month. I am just presenting my thoughts to provide some explanation, and am not looking for any response (but if you reply here, I will notice and won't need talkback). Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Eewwww, what a shite-hole of a topic! Yes, that's always going to attract non-neutral people (probably from both sides of the coin). Civil POV-pushers are probably a far bigger cause of "driving editors away from Wikipedia" than any amount of low-level occasionally-grumpy narrowly-defined-"uncivil" editors.[citation needed] They make life hell for people, and it's always the well-meaning, good-faith editors who really care about the standards of content who end up being pushed too far, snapping, and then being penalised for it. Yes, in an ideal world, none of us would ever snap in WikiLand; but Jeeze! I've even done it myself in the past (and that takes something!) Pseudo-scientific racism is one of the very worst sorts; it's pretty despicable. Pesky (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, what irritates me is the damage caused to articles on scientific topics—at least in areas like politics or great breakthroughs a reader should expect POV warriors (in the media as well as here), but it is disappointing that even articles on core science are used to promote undue views (and irritating also that the activism makes it hard for neutral editors to find balance because any concession unleashes more POV enthusiasm). Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
dear john, my remarks at ANI are simply re-enforced by your statement. I won't go into detail because, as I have mentioned, I'd like to see the matter die down. In this case Acadēmica Orientālis has a learning curve that can easily render the matter moot long before you or anyone else catches up. Someone (not you), intelligent enough to engage him, could give him the right type of guidance and shorten the journey, however, he'll be just as likely to silence the lot of you all by himself.
the only thing there is to add is, I shall apologise in advance if you are not the one who inserted the header for a topic ban above your call for a topic ban here. I've noticed someone leaving unsigned remarks there as well, which causes problems. So I'm sorry if I blamed you for proposing the ban as a section there. You propose it in your diffed remark, which is not appropriate at all, or, to put it another way, it's completely malformed. Penyulap
Pesky, certainly it can be problematic because there are rational, educated, notable sources on both sides as well as emotionally driven uninformed masses, however, like any other controversy, people on both sides would stay out of trouble if they allow the opposite side to present it's notable encyclopaedic case and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. The only thing ANI should be doing is making sure everyone plays nice, and Acadēmica Orientālis certainly is. John, I notice, has two unfortunate hobbies, one is picking the wrong horse, and the other is not bothering to research whatever topic is under discussion. Picks the wrong horse, or the wrong track, or both. Penyulap ☏ 11:56, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, there are parallels with spectrum studies and so forth, where biology and intelligence link up, however, there is a lack of controversy and everyone is free to discuss it (badly if they wish) without hindrance, because the uninformed masses think it is a disability, and the informed masses think it is an ability, so everyone is happy :)
The idiot can throw it as an insult, the genius can catch it as a compliment, and they will both be satisfied with the exchange. Penyulap ☏ 12:00, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
FYI
By the way, the language is already in place to allow for a user to question a 'disruptive' block. I quote: "Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account"
Currently that is what is happening at AN. Arcandam felt that Sarek's actions were unwarranted and disruptive (what could be more disruptive to the encyclopedia that a bad block?) and as such, brought the request to AN. Maybe it is a novel way to look at it, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not mind, just point me in the right direction. Penyulap ☏ 20:01, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Just dump a {{Please see}} template/link on whatever Village Pump and noticeboards you think should be notified. The RfC itself will be auto-listed at the policy subsection of the active RfC list, though it sometimes takes up to half an hour. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)20:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
yes no problem, I will read up and do that, and ask for you assistance if required. thank you. Penyulap ☏ 20:26, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate that you are disappointed that few are willing to put your proposal explicitly into policy, that doesn't mitigate the silliness of your alternate proposal (Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Alternate_proposal) - I suggest you remove it. If you want to retain your 4:36 (UTC) comment, you can move it up to the earlier section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I flatly and sincerely deny the idea that it is silliness. If you can suggest where guidance for new editors can be included in a manner that can be implemented, I will be happy to abandon my attempts to assist them at the policy page. Penyulap ☏ 12:01, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to it being re-factored. Penyulap ☏ 12:03, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but no amount of refactoring will address the silliness of expecting the alternate proposal to be included in policy after the responses you have already received in your previous proposal. Although a number of the goals you have stated may be worth attempting to accomplish, there was a lack of wisdom in making the alternate proposal that you did as it appears to run counter to those same stated goals (even if that was not your actual intention). Anyway, it is not too late. You would be better advised to withdraw the alternate proposal and maybe draft an essay and see where that takes you. But if you can't help yourself as far as accepting that, then I think it is more likely that new editors will end up worse off with you continuing your attempts than they would without (which would be an unfortunate situation given what I said already about the goals). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
please, you apparently can't take the hint so I am warning you, calling the proposal silliness is offensive, if you don't wish to be civil to me, consider this the last response and warning that you'll get from me. Penyulap ☏ 16:12, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. See if what I did looks ok to you. Thanks for your work on this article - it's fun to read about the progress on this Space Odyssey. I'm not a scientist, so I'm grateful for those who take time to explain science topics so that they are fun for us muggles to read (if I may mix my literary metaphors). -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I am really glad that you like it, some of may favourite parts I was thinking of today, like the part with the pope, how readers who like the old man would follow the ref and have a lovely read about it, and the drama of explosive decompression destroying the station, and X-3 class solar flares, there is so much I really enjoyed writing, and I must confess I'm not always a big fan of refs, they are a bit of a mess for me, but I adore it when I write something so precise and compelling that nobody ever ever ever bothers to cn tag it or even edit it really, like note 2 has been there forever, and the decompression, sometimes I think people get as lost in the story as I get lost in the telling. I love it. Penyulap ☏ 00:54, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Note to N....... (you know who you are)
thank you for your kind words. Penyulap ☏ 19:55, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)
You mention that 'I don't need to wave', if you can tell me who I'm waving at, I'd like to screen and continue. Penyulap ☏ 01:08, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)
the sample given doesn't pass, maybe it's too small, is there another ? Penyulap ☏ 01:49, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Why ? I am the puppeteer, case closed. It's a legitimate alternative account, used for some single purpose, I can't remember the policy, but it's probably linked through from the wp:sock page I would think. Penyulap ☏ 03:46, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Comic bookstore guy "Worst... Block... Ever...". The 'vandalism' referred to, is the same in both cases, inserting a space, or spaces, into articles. Not the redirect, which is legit. The alternate account, is WP:SOCK#LEGIT to be precise. I'll quote first example given in the opening "long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated," is one good reason, as I have a reputation you know, and my name can poison the well of many awards, like the tireless cybernetic contributor barnstar, click the yellow swirling center at the top of this page, you can follow it to the talkpage of WP:STAR and compare it's unpopularity there, with the warm reception it is given by it's recipients. Anyhow I figure User:INeverCry didn't need a dramaqueen's name on their page, being so serious an editor and all. Then there is the humor aspect spelled out as well, the dead poet returned from the dead to present the award, zomg can anyone actually read the page ? It is pride of place front and centerstage on INeverCry's userpage. It's no secret to anyone, omg do you think INeverCry thanked me, penyulap, and doesn't know ? whatever.
Then the poor editor who has opened the spi has quoted the wrong thing as 'vandalism' first, that's just idiotic to start with, what IS vandalism. A legitimate redirect is not vandalism. sheesh. Why do so very many google returns say "Byron Todd Frank, 6th Baron Byron, later George Gordon Noel, 6th Baron Byron, FRS (22 January 1788 – 19 April 1824), commonly known simply as Lord Byron, was a British poet and a leading figure in the Romantic movement." And what twit is calling this redirect vandalism ? well, that would be the idiot who has "blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing, i.e. making vandal edits with a sock"
So take your pick, is this an idiotic block for the legitimate redirect being redefined as vandalism,
or is this an idiotic block for inserting a space into an article.
The 'good faith mistake' refers to the editor who made the spi report, who has clearly not read WP:LEGIT, they made the GF mistake, not me, I'm a fucking Genius :) And the break is enjoyable, like Beyond my Ken says, and is right, I should shut up, at least once in a while, I do have a monumental mouth. Penyulap ☏ 09:01, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hugz; calm down! I can totally understand where you're coming from, in just the same way as I totally understood that when baby Rocket-pony fractured my skull it was entirely my own fault ... someone else might have walloped him for "being vicious". Just try to be a little bit less reactive; let things lie for a little while until the heat has died down in various situations, rather than letting your reactions get the better of you. Chill for a while; go out and get some fresh air and explore somewhere. Pesky (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The redirect was the vandalism, not the space (although the insertion or removal of whitespace only to make a trolling edit summary is disruptive in itself as well). The only Google results, as explained in the RfD, are Wikipedia mirrors, i.e. are caused by your redirect. And please refrain from making personal attacks, they will only result in the access to your talk page removed for the duration of the block and/or the block being extended. Fram (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep it up Fram, that foot of yours still has meat on it yet. Chew till you get right down to the bone. Oh yeah, that foot ain't going to see the light of day anytime soon. Penyulap ☏ 09:22, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
"making vandal edits with a sock" Preposterous. Can anyone read ? WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:VANDALISM, the incompetence is shocking. Once would be forgivable, an admin who doesn't bother to investigate anything at all is common no doubt. Then to reiterate the stupidity after it's been clearly pointed out, suggesting that "The redirect was the vandalism" despite WP:VANDALISM is unforgivable.
I would afford forgiveness to a newbie for this level of incompetence, but you deserve nothing as an admin. My integrity forces me to be truthful, and within those bounds there is some leeway, the most generous description I can afford you is incompetent. The most generous I could be in action, stretching the limits to the maximum, would be for me to allow you to apologise, and then ignore you.
"For interested readers, Worm has never done me any favours, nor I him. He mentions
I've got to say, I'm not seeing the abuse. I should point out that INeverCry uses that image prominently on his userpage. The worst thing he did was create a redirect which isn't appropriate. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC) "
It turns out the complainant isn't a newbie, so obviously has no such excuse. Penyulap ☏ 11:06, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The reasons given for the block cannot withstand the test of examination
Decline reason:
Indeed they can. The redirect is a reasonable one - it is not his name and bears no resemblance to his name. I don't want to see a mountain made out of a molehill here, but this request procedurally declined as it does not address the reasons for the block. WormTT(talk) 12:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
For the reviewing admin: the vandalism in question was the creation of the redirect Byron Todd Frank to Lord Byron, who was not named Byron Todd Frank. This kind of sneaky hard-to-find hard-to-disprove vandalism is far worse than writing vulgarities on the top of some random page. Penyulap has been seriously disruptive across the project - taking up the cause of borderline editors and creating meandering discussions about policy esoterica that are tangential to the improvement of the encyclopedia - his major contributions are generally disputed by other contributors - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Penyulap. There is something seriously wrong here that requires substantial community review. Hipocrite (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting principal. In effect, it is a crime to defend the accused. Further, a person is guilty by mere association with the accused. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"Penyulap has been seriously disruptive across the project".. Ahem. That's getting a bit personal. The redirect was plain stupid; but I;d suspect a moment or two of mental aberration rather than a bad-at-heart disruptive editor. I've been communicating with Pen for a good long while now, and he has a good heart. He also has genius capabilities in some areas, combined with a few perception deficits in others (particularly in some kinds of interaction). Typical autie, in fact. What we need to be doing with editors like Pen is working out how to get the very best out of them; this requires a certain amount of tolerance (no, not doormatty softness, just some patience and understanding and flexibility), a reasonable definition of boundaries, persistence, and maybe a go-between (for interpretation etc.). I'm happy to be the go-between as and when really needed (without being overloaded, please!). So if there's a problem which starts to look intractible, keep me in the loop.
Pen, being painfully and totally honest with yourself, can you bring yourself to admit that you acted like a total pillock and didn't foresee the possible consequences? (Hugz!) It wasn't your brightest moment ... but I can think of far, far more stupid things that I've done in my life ;P Pesky (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and "Keep it up Fram, that foot of yours still has meat on it yet. Chew till you get right down to the bone. Oh yeah, that foot ain't going to see the light of day anytime soon" was just out of order. Seriously. In your shoes, I would apologise for that one. Pesky (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No, what's getting personal was his comment about Fram, and your attempted defense of someone for being Austistic, which I don't see this user having ever said. What's not personal is that we have a long-term low-grade disruptive editor who is apparently grooming numerous socks and now starting to branch out into sneaky vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? I thought I'd already commented on the comment to Fram. Either my memory (and eyesight) is non-functional, or something else is. With all due respect, I think your reaction is a bit too heavy-handed. It sniffs of some kind of vengeance. Pesky (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
let me tell you what I like about Hipocrite's arguments right here. He is logically supporting calls that I be murdered. Literally. He's pointing out and linking to a conversation between editors elsewhere to support his arguments, and the conversation that he is pointing to calls for me to be killed. This is a typical day in the life of wikipolitics. My loveable yet occasionally homicidal bot suggests that I should be tricked into going outside without my space helmet. And someone agrees with his comment, the only other comment he makes is that the witch-hunt needs a catchy jingle to go with it. So he is supporting one of those two arguments right there, where he refers to the comments my bot made. HE REFERS TO MY BOT BY NAME. Then, Hipocrite quotes that conversation as justification for his calls that I be whatever, and on and on it goes. Right here is what is wrong with wikipedia. Hipocrite needs discipline right here for his remarks. That is what needs to happen to fix wikipedia, and I don't see that it is ever going to happen. Penyulap ☏ 07:24, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
You are not taking valid criticisms onboard. No one paid any attention to what your bot said, except to note that using your bot to say it was not appropriate. No one is suggesting that you be killed. You must stop sockpuppeting, and you must stop vandalizing, now. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Pen, I respect your efforts to improve discussion on Wikipedia, but this reply of yours is completely off the deep end. You need to take a break and gather some perspective. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It may seem melodramatic, but have a look, at the discussion, it goes like this
Craigboy starts off in the wrong venue with "He is one of the more prolific editors but he's extremely biased and for the most part he has no idea about the subjects he contributes to. I don't mean to turn this into a witch hunt but what can be done about him?" which ironically, when you phrase it what way and in that manner with nowhere to go can only turn into a witchhunt. It's not so much a matter of I don't know what I'm talking about or am biased or any such blatant nonsense, it's a matter of Craigboy has nowhere sensible to turn to for advice, he's been clearly and comprehensively outvoted on images in Science and technology in the peoples republic of China, Chinese space station, and putting detail on APAS into the China section of the ISS article. WDGraham and Ckatz, multi-editor ownership of the ISS eng variant, set the worst possible example of how to ignore other editors, and lots of them, trying to make out that any archived consensus no longer exists. So Craigboy gets confused and kind of edit wars, often to 5RR before I give him a minnow and say, hey, slow down friend, lets talk, and people help, and the discussion is archived and it starts over again. I've done whatever I can, other editors on the Science and technology in the peoples republic of China and the Chinese space station have done what they can, so what point in grumbling that you can't change consensus ? He's just looking for other wowsers to grumble along with him, and he finds them. WDGraham of course, James, who is the admin and largest contributor to the ISS article, he doesn't like me, but he is a good admin at least, never abusing his admin tools, but he does frown and pout about his major work the ISS article, it went to FA a few years back and then without any maintaining it on his part because he was busy in med school and the army, the article rotted away on currency, to my, Craigboys and a lot of other editors frustration he kept using rollback to own his old version of the article, which just brought back all the fetid rotten currency issues. He doesn't have the desire or the spare time to help bring it to FA, and because FA status was always used as a stick to beat me with by WP:OWNership "oh don't do whatever it is we haven't read about to the article it's FA and we will go on ignoring anything you propose to fix anything, talk to the hand" then I have little desire to enable further WP:BITEing of new editors who turn up. The article was such a stinking mess that I just brought it to FAR and said here, what do you guys think, and it was a slam dunk in my favor, and an end to all the ownership comments on content, oh sweet jesus that was a relief) So the article doesn't go back to FA, so he's miserable and doesn't want to help fix it. The idea I wrecked it is ridiculous, in the words of other editors it read like a "NASA brochure" and Brad said if he was voting back then, it never would have made it to FA in the first place. Apparently this is all supposed to be my problem, I try to help snap him out of it, with no success. User:PALZ9000 tries to rescue the miserable mood with a bit of humour, suggesting on one hand I should be done away with HAL9000 space odessy style, and that some catchphrase for the grumblers association is required, I would suggest they should go with "Con-sen-SUS is not for US, Con-sen-SUS is not for US" see how it rhymes ? the whole thing with the US, yeah, anyway, then Bushranger turns up with a fair point that comedy is not written into policy, (same as April fools really). He goes on to say I should listen to the grumblers, and I'm like, well go on, I'm all ears, what should I do ? (and I put this question to all of you, what should I do about the grumbler brigade ?) anyhow as soon as I ask bushranger for specifics he suddenly wants to run off and find something else to do, (tail between his legs I wouldn't be surprised, the only alternative is he's just doing a drive-by hit at me) then N2e comes on board with the corker of the month "However, I will say that the summary of the situation by the first several commenters on this topic (Craigboy, PALZ9000, W. D. Graham, Salopian James, and Bushranger), and their analysis of the problem, matches my own observations on a number of space related articles over a number of months." How can you agree with a bot who only wants to kill me, or come up with a catchy phrase for the witchhunt, unless of course you admit that you are not interested in doing anything other than grumble, and I have no idea what N2e is grumbling over, and if he doesn't want to say what it is, how is anyone going to help him ? If people want to claim PALZ cracking jokes is tricking N2e into thinking he is a real editor, then N2e will have to take responsibility for agreeing with the call by PALZ for me to be killed. So he has to admit, or hold his peace, when I say he has not read or understood the comment that he is pointing to and agreeing with. Just the same way as Hipocrite is pointing to the same broken ass conversation, he can either admit that he has jumped onto the personal prejudice bandwagon of unsubstantiated drivel and grumbling, or he too is joining N2e and PALZ9000's calls for me to be killed. All rather dramatic, yes you are right, but the only other option is for them to admit they are making flat out baseless allegations trying to pretend that there is any valid criticism of me when blatantly, and rather comically, there isn't. It's like Avanu observes on my talkpage, they rush in where angels like Pesky would fear to tread. If you don't want to examine a conversation in depth, or make a decent investigation into the problems, then don't bother pointing to them because you'll end with your foot in mouth at best, or, be one of the demagogues that are destroying wikipedia, one good editor at a time. So I say it again, Hipocrite should be rebuked for his driveby calls for predjudice against me, or sanctioned for the more outrageous charge of supporting calls for my murder. One is serious, one is I admit melodramatic or, as some observers put it, amusing.
So hypocrite says You are not taking valid criticisms onboard. No one paid any attention to what your bot said, except to note that using your bot to say it was not appropriate. No one is suggesting that you be killed. You must stop sockpuppeting, and you must stop vandalizing, now.
So put up, put your money where your mouth is and cough up these "valid criticisms"
"No one paid any attention to what your bot said," read the conversation you are referring to, rather than step one, open mouth, step two, insert foot.
"No one is suggesting that you be killed." PALZ9000 is, and N2e appears to be supporting something he has said.
"You must stop sockpuppeting" you must read SOCK LEGIT POLICY this is a procedural warning don't accuse me of socking unless you intend to back it up with evidence.
"vandalizing" that is an overt personal attack. Back it up. This is a procedural warning, don't accuse me of vandalism unless you want to point directly to it. Penyulap ☏ 19:20, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Pen, get some intelligent backing and input, and take stuff like this to WP:DRN and / or RfC; take (heavy-duty) personal attacks which can't be explained by Hanlon's razor, and real WP:TE and WP:OWN issues to someone level-headed and clear-sighted like Worm, or Floq, or Ched, or one of many, many other real Good Egg admins here. Or, as you did, to FAR or GAR as applicable. You're not alone. The real intelligent people will be able to see where The Truth™ lies. As for the folks who fall on the non-malicious side of Hanlon's razor, their opinions and misunderstandings and lack of insight are not really worth wasting much of your brainspace on. Ignore them, or rebuff gently and walk away. Clever people recognise the idiots for what they are; they don;t count for much once you get IntelliSmart folks looking. Pesky (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
well I can try I guess, don't bother recommending that first admin to me for anything at all, but I otherwise will take your advice, I guess starting with the most pressing issue, which is another editor who is being abused, long running and ongoing. I'll ask them for assistance. Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Problem one, Ckatz vs WDGraham
On the ISS talkpage Ckatz from his first edit, long before my time, has been pushing an arbitrary decision over an editor consensus, with no relevant exclusion for the issue. He's been abusing WDGraham, because WD can't see other editors on the page who disagree with him due to his defensive nature. Ckatz games the system by handing out partisan "advice", enabling WD to the level of disruption. It confuses many of the editors, who take the examples set and apply them elsewhere. On one hand, it's arbcom, on the other hand, you need examples a monkey can understand and good gamers are good at it. Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but...
I think Penyulap is just winding the admins up. For reasons known only to him, my impression is that this so-called vandal sock is really just a test of Wikipedia's administrators and system for dealing fairly with people who don't act 100% compliant. I actually find it somewhat entertaining in a way. I certainly don't see it necessarily solving anything. I think there is a culture here that is set in its ways and speaks its own jargon. I believe it is entirely possible for something fairly trivial to be punished out of line with its severity, simply because someone said it wasn't fairly trivial. The somewhat comical thing to me, is that if he is actually just winding you up, you played right into it.
Onoes! You hit my OCD button! I gotta know the reason for the full stop!
Anyways, I'm not a Nadmin, and Pen has never wound me up yet. Maybe being a non-admin makes me immune. I agree totally with you on the thing about stuff being punished out of line with its severity. (Two metasyntactic variables there [Pesky quotes Gaspode], but you know what I mean.) There seems to be a nasty, punitive, vindictive streak rearing its ugly head in the 'pedia; this is not what we're supposed to be about. Pesky (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I filed the sockpuppet report. In it, I said I did not want to have Penyulap blocked but I did want to have the socks blocked. I still think that a humorous sock should not make disruptive changes to the wiki, just humorous remarks. Maybe it's just me, but I can imagine someone making humorous remarks under their primary account. Outrageous, that. I guess you can say I wanted to signal to Penyulap that actual disruption with redirects to real articles and such like is not going to fly. Even adding an unneeded space to an article is disruptive in its way. Save it for talk pages, please. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate it (and I expect quite a few other editors would, too! ;P) if you could stick to the following version of Pesky's Rules™:
Do's
Be gentle with people, even if you don't like them or what they're doing
Go out of your way to be very understanding and patient; not everyone can see things with microscopic clarity and at warp-speed functioning (and they can't help that)
Be a good leader; set a good example
Don'ts
Destruct-test the boundaries
Make snarky remarks, even if you think they're very funny and well-worded
Oh Auntie, that last request is the one that reaches right inside me, right to the heart, I never want to let you down, ever.
For the others I agree, but at all times I must act with absolute integrity, that is the one thing that cannot be changed or compromised. If I do not walk straight through the bullets to protect the project, I cannot ask anyone else to take even the smallest risk at all. I am not a hypocrite and I refuse to act like one. I must set, or even create, the good example.
If I am getting blocked because I am doing the wrong thing, then I shouldn't continue, it's as simple as that, and if nobody wants to help make a change, there is no reason to bother. I cannot do it all by myself. Penyulap ☏ 12:53, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Awww, I know that feeling so well! It's not a question of "shouldn't continue". It's just a question of looking at alternative strategies. A poor strategy is (by definition) poor – but if it's the only one you have, that's the one you use. Now, here's a bit of magic for you, which is well within your capabilities. You have one of the most outstanding creative minds I've ever encountered. Are you aware of the thought-tool which views the functioning of the mind as the Office Boy (that's your conscious, internally-verbalised thought processes) and The Committee (that's all the other stuff which goes on in the background which we're generally unaware of)? Consider it. The Office Boy doesn't need to know all the ins and outs of the management of the entire structure. He carries messages about and stuff like that. The Committee (and everyone's "committee" has a different structure) does a mass of stuff which never overtly impinges on the Office Boy's functions. But, heck, do they have some influence! One of the Management Committee members which everyone has is The Creative Director. His job is just to generate ideas. Not to vet them, not to analyse them, not to quality-check them, just to create them. And he can create millions in such small spaces of time that you wouldn't believe it. Another vital Committee Member is the Devil's Advocate. He's the guy that challenges everything. That's his job. He's the guy who challenges the rest of the Committee to perform at its best. Categorise them any way you like; you have as many of them as you need.
Here's the magic. Before you go to sleep, you (the Office Boy) task the Committee to take on board all the experiences of the day, add them into the melting pot with all the experiences of your life, and generate alternative strategies. (Actually, you can task them to do pretty much anything at all which won't jeopardise your safety, mental, emotional or physical.) More often than not, the Office Boy won;t even be aware of all the hundreds of different strategies that have been looked at. You won;t even know what they are until you get into more advanced work and start demanding a few explanations. But you will find that they've suddenly been added to your repertoire for trial.
No, you can't do it all on your own, and you shouldn't try to. You'll burn out – and then what good are you to any of us? Read up on (and hand to the Committee) a heap of stuff about prioritising, delegating, team-leadership, team-membership, sustainability of effort, production-control, pacing yourself ... and make the best possible use of all of it. By this time next week your Creative Director will most likely have presented to The Committee a million or more possible sustainable and ethical strategies for vetting and consideration. Several thousand within 24 hours. And the Office Boy doesn't have to think of them at all – just to take on board the contents of the memo when it's circulated. Pesky (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding: Here's a dead-simple thing to add into the mix for the Quality Assurance Director to take on board. Ask yourself, every time (and this will become lightning-fast and unconscious with practice): "Would Pesky say that to someone?" If the answer is "No," then don't you say it either. It's not perfect, because I'm far from perfect. But it's a start. Pesky (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, we are different people, you are the Oracle from the matrix, you can see who is good and who is bad. You are the one in charge of choosing admins on the website for which wikipedia is the hell. You look at each person, give them the cookie, have a look at them up and down and you know all there is to know of that person.
The goings on here on wikipedia are all moot. Penyulap ☏ 05:01, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hehe! No, I'm no kind of superhuman oracle! And I make mistakes, plenty of them. Thing is, we should never try to react to people on any kind of basis of whether they're "good" or "bad". We should try to treat everyone kindly. If you have a truly vicious animal, you can have it put to sleep, but it's incredibly wrong to torture it. That's just wrong. You have it put to sleep humanely. Inflicting pain in vengeance is barbaric. Pain as an education tool is similarly primitive. These are basics, and if we can't live up to them all the time, we should at least constantly strive to resist the temptation to hurt. Pesky (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
But I'm here to help people what can I do when tedious vicious people wander about looking for people to abuse, and I happen to notice there is very little else they enjoy more than walking about with their foot in their mouth ? I mean, they like it that way, they don't take it out, and there are quite a few like this, they come and ask me to respond to the nasty insults they come up with, and pose that foot right there, just touching the lip, just needs the tiniest little bit of assistance and what can I do ? they give me insults, I return the favour with the help they are after in a much kinder fashion by comparison, which, consequently, everyone seems happy with. Of course, people don't admit to things on wikipedia, the culture is dishonesty. Andy shows what using the dictionary and honesty gets you, and he doesn't even tell jokes, he is nice to me, and polite, and I'm sure he looks upon the added fuss I produce in the educational department as something else that is filling up Richards server space, he'd look at me and not so much laugh, or dislike, but I bet you $50 right here and right now he has a Grumpy look on his face over my work (allowing 10 seconds maximum for him to suppress a smirk, well, ok 5, on account of experience, actually, come to think of it maybe not at all, I should ask him). And even when I use nice proper language and concepts and do not put their foot in their mouth for them, they don't listen. They just do not listen. Not to a word. Not one word. Nobody else will help them, I can point to policy till I am blue in the face in that SPI (SPI, LOL, like you can't spot me from Low Earth Orbit, who else dresses like a pimp before they sit down at the computer to type ?) and pointing to policy like sock legit is just (facepalm) and the thing is, everyone knows what is proper, and they just let him go on embarrassing himself. I think they do it to bait me really. Or I dunno, maybe it's just meanness that they don't help him. whatever. (btw, I lied, I don't dress like a pimp before sitting down at the computer, for me, that would be especially difficult, but my gosh, everyone would be like "I bet he/she does too, I just knew it !") Penyulap ☏ 06:56, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)
This is not to let the bad guys win by descending to their level. Don't return snark for snark. Don't return snap for poke. You can just sidestep them; sooner or later someone will pick up on it. If you rise to their bait, you're playing into their hands. Pesky (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's more a matter of not letting things go unanswered, which has the effect of simply encouraging their abuse. If admins want to gang up on me with wrist slapping comments, then they can have a more civil offer of assistance in return, even if some consider it two cheeky Penyulap ☏ 19:58, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Request
Penyulap. Can you please indicate here, right now, all accounts that you have access to or control. These may be accounts for humour, bots, primary accounts or general accounts. You may email them to me if you prefer. WormTT(talk) 07:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, for all my posing I simply haven't been at all prolific, because my artistic skills are only just, in the last few months becoming good enough to want to sock, for the reasons given.
Naturally there is PALZ, and Thomas, there are other IP's used when traveling, and often I sign my name to them, but as for signup's I don't recall making any others, I've checked firefox's saved passwords and can't see anything, and it goes back a long way. I started editing with this account, and if you see edits you're not sure of, just ask, because I'm happy to confess to whatever is, or could be, me. On Auntie Pesky's page I asked a friend in Malaysia to post a comment, and I think I used a public IP one time to post a neutral comment in the eng:var war on the ISS page. One thing you'll never have found me doing is voting or anything along those lines with a sock, if you find such a thing, I'll pre-emptively deny any involvement there, it's just not me. I can't recall if there may have been a similar demonstration somewhere the same as Pesky's page, I think there was, I'll have to remember for you, wait, actually I do recall, I was pointing to something, actually that one I'd like to be confidential with, however it's of no significance as far as community standards go, it was just contacting someone anonymously, and not for any bad purpose at all either. (you can ask him, actually, he knows it was me too, as I told him in email pretty much straight away). I'm pretty lame when it comes to socking, or vandalism, but hey, I cannot prove beyond doubt that my humor is completely lame, there is that to be said for me :D huh??, huh ?? Penyulap ☏ 08:27, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit. Next twit who runs out of excuses for being wrong in some discussion with me will resort to name calling, and the chances of being called a sock will be inversely proportional to the size of their imagination. Penyulap ☏ 08:48, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you turned down the unblock request made for the redirect, which it now appears was on google for 4 days running or so before I happened upon it, why was that ? Penyulap ☏ 09:24, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I turned it down because the redirect did not appear reasonable - but more importantly, your unblock request did not address the reasons for the block. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Worm and Pen, you're both people for whom I have a lot of respect and affection. If you two can work together on stuff, amazing things will happen. I'd like to buy you both a beer (or other acceptable beverage of your respective choices). Pesky (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, considering that I have been completely cleared, and the name was in the article for a long time, and the redirect was blatantly obvious, then clearly your 'reasoning' is an Epic fail. You haven't addressed the facts of the case.
Your judgment in my opinion so far is completely worthless, to be questioned always, and I have no faith whatsoever in you. You can't be trusted and I despise you, but on the bright side, I don't actually waste any significant effort on such people, as my friends and strangers deserve it more. That's where my effort goes.
Sorry Pesky, letting everyone down like that is something unforgivable. Penyulap ☏ 09:45, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Pen, you owe Worm a sincere and grovelling apology, not me. Seriously. Worm's a Good Egg in many ways (too many to count). I'm not sure whether something in Real Life™ might be having an effect on you; I wouldn't actually be surprised. You seem to have become so much more bitey and jumpy and reactive recently, and it's spilling over in ways which it wouldn't have done a short while ago. I know that the space stuff seriously wound you up (and you were vindicated at the FAR, which was great). But please don't let me down any more; get a muzzle and lead for your Internal Fire-Breathing Dragon until he's learned "Sit, stay, and quiet!" Pesky (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Pesky I think your not reading me correctly here, there is Zero upset, zero emotion, or extremely little of each if any at all, and it's just opinion rather than wp:pa. The RL judgment call has been made here, and I do not go back on my words unless I am wrong, I have no time or effort or emotion to spend on people who have absolutely no regard for justice, innocence or human decency and certainly not when they take up the official position of judging other people and imposing their failed judgments upon them. That said, I am always supportive of my friends choosing their own friends, and you are most welcome to spend all the time you like on him/her, and good luck to you. I continue as always to have respect for you which is second to none. You can tell me don't edit this or don't edit that, or stop right there and so on, but you can't turn around right and wrong or compromise my integrity. Unless you were telling me that he/she has brain damage or some such, then it's not possible to change the equation and convince me otherwise. An Epic Fail is an Epic Fail, and not addressing the evidence against an accused during an appeal and sidestepping it for BS is not on. Penyulap ☏ 17:42, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, don't worry. I don't look for apologies. I don't expect Pen to be happy with me or anything. It really is fine for him to have a low opinion of me. WormTT(talk) 19:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Worm is one of the good guys. If he made a mistake here, either in action, reasoning or the way he explained it, it is somewhat unusual. RichFarmbrough, 01:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
ISS.
Hey Penyulap. OK .. after a couple hours reading this morning of the ISS (space station) article, it's history, it's current talk page, and several editors talk pages - What are your questions? Is there a particular post, thread, or incident that you'd like me to comment on? In general, I'd say it is indeed a very complex matter as a whole, so I'm not sure what I can do to help. Let me know. :-) — Ched : ? 15:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well the primary concern is the template that states the matter of British vs American is settled at the top of the talkpage, and the associated British English variant notice, both of which are used to claim multi-editor ownership of the article and talkpage by the pro-British editors. The proper way in my opinion to repair the damage done is to remove both, so they can all have themselves a little !vote on the issue in the absence of the stolen status quo, as they had begun to do three, or was it four, years ago. That way everyone would be a lot happier with the whole thing, not perfectly happy of course, but a lot happier than they are now. As it is now they are looking at a 'rigged election' where the status quo !votes which probably would have been !American votes got flipped around into !British.
If they have themselves a little vote, regardless of the outcome, they'd be happier, even if it stayed British, everyone would have had their say, or the chance to have their say in a fair manner, and just like the democracies that most editors live in, that's pretty much what keeps them quite and content-ish. At the moment it's a monument, so I'm basically after a smaller monument, like one of those little dog monuments that have shiny brass noses where people have rubbed it for luck, rather than the monument it is now with three car-parking levels, a mall, 4 bell-towers and it's own subway station.
Any fair vote could only be held in the absence of the stolen status quo votes, or if it was entirely necessary, they could have themselves a pointless argument vote over the pre-existing variant of the article, which would also be just fine, because at least that too, would give everyone a fair say before being overruled by being outvoted.
I don't mind who gives advice there, so long as it counters the partisanship of Ckatz, James won't point out what he is doing is wrong, but at least doesn't go anywhere at all towards misbehaving. James is fair, even if he'd rather see me out of here or whatever. I would return the uninvolved help template myself, which nobody in their right mind would suggest that I'm not entitled to do, but I don't want to inflame the situation by doing it more often than is necessary. If there is nothing to counter the ownership claims on the talkpage, then up will go the uninvolved template until such time as an uninvolved voice talks some sense on the matter. I don't care who it is, but tying up the votes back to front has to be addressed, rather than pointed to as the 'matter has been settled' and 'consensus' according to the template at the top of the page. Penyulap ☏ 19:50, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
The closest that it's come to that was the original one that James opened 3 or 4 years ago, goto the iss talkpage and click the first link you come to, where I point out the poll was changed from brit->american or the other way around. It was at that point in time, when the status quo votes were hijacked by the British side that two distinct groups became upset. One, naturally is the American side, the other group, which I fall into, is the WP process needs to be respected faction. Basically my standpoint is that because the status quo votes were hijacked you have an incumbent illegitimate faction owning the page, you have to remove it in order to hold fresh elections, otherwise the status quo which was hijacked in the first place is still in fact hijacked so you get yet another illegitimate faction owning the page. The page would quite possibly remain British if a RfC were held, however the incumbency is too defensive to support establishing a consensus for their illegitimate position.
The difference is significant, because the ENG VAR template is being used to own the page, however, if it were removed and then had a consensus established for it, it could be returned to the page as simply an ENG VAR template indicating the established consensus. Penyulap ☏ 21:50, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Well if it's been that long, perhaps a new RfC would help. Although, I know some folks get a bit "Not again, we've been over this 1,000 times" attitudes on some pages. Even though WP:CCC indicates nothing is set in stone. I'll have a read through the archives over the next couple days. — Ched : ? 07:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well the one thing that is of primary importance is the separation of the two issues. If status quo counts for anything, then there'd be continuing, and justified, discontent amongst some of the editors. The variant is irrelevant, how it is chosen is irrelevant, but allowing everyone to have an equal say is the absolutely crucial act which will allow everyone to feel welcome there once more. If a RFC is dominated by a faction using stolen status quo to pick up all the 'I don't care about the variant' kind of !votes, then the many who were upset will have precisely the same justification for feeling upset as they did before. Not addressing the underlying issue would render the entire process futile and pointless. Removing the stolen status quo, having a RFC and returning the British template to the page would solve the issue properly, strange though it may seem. No quick reply is needed here, please take your time, RL issues are pressing in on me, I don't know what time if any I shall have in the near future. Penyulap ☏ 09:39, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
somewhere between professor X first class, the locksmith who allows moving the radio telescope, and the kitchen light at 3am, good qualities for a big fat head to have. I found the top shelf with that dilemma of mine too, but it doesn't change the math. Penyulap ☏ 01:26, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User:ThomasMoore1852. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Following from the brief discussion on the village pump last month I wanted to inform you about a proposal I have made. Although not all participants of that discussion were fans of the small format, one of the main criticisms put forward was the lack of consistency in current usage. My proposal may help improve this. We could also continue discussion on adjusting the styling of these boxes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Inquiring
Feel free to ignore my questions.
I support you. I'm wondering about the discussion regarding user page redirects. Should I assume that if it turns into a policy against redirects used that way that you will be fine with that? You don't anticipate making a point over it either way, do you? I'm not trying to antagonize you. I wanted the discussion to peter out in your favor. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't particularly care which way it goes, the redirect is simply economy of effort. Cut'n'Paste is almost as fast a way to produce the identical effect, but what is more important are the side effects of the discussion. It overturns existing widespread policy and practice by using my own persona to do so, which is all cool, it's an unimportant policy. The people who use redirects are often some of the most experienced editors that we have, and whether the policy is overturned in the laughable 4 hours for a RfC, Zomg, that makes me laugh, or if it's overturned because it wasn't advertised properly, either way experienced editors will sigh at the pointlessness of it. My own more important illustration is this creep bullshit. It is inevitable that as wikipedia ages and fills up with people completely lacking in a shred of commonsense, that Dennis relying on people to have commonsense, which is proper in the real world, just won't work here because nobody on here CAN be forced to use commonsense. Oh sure, knee jerk ban the people who don't use commonsense, except it is the admins doing it as much as anyone else, so that doesn't work. Basically, we now have a stupid catch-22, editors (no small percentage of which are my groupies) want to overturn existing widespread policy and practice, that's fine, but they also want to do the idiotic thing whereby they do not want to tell anyone by putting it onto the policy page. So the edit warring over my userpage hasn't been resolved at all, at all, it's still going to happen anywhere and everywhere because their little so called consensus is pointless. It's not on the page, so it does not exist. This is my point, that Chinese whispers and passing so called policy from person to person all ends in tears. Dennis is a brilliant editor who I trust and is almost always right, but like me, he runs into trouble through high expectations. He has to lower his expectations of the projects editors and recognise that if it's not written in policy pages, it just doesn't exist and people will war over it, because asking them to use commonsense is asking too much. Penyulap ☏ 13:08, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I see the sense in that.
Hello, Penyulap/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Look the reason I discourage email exchange when screening fails is not because I can't create a separate email address for each person or group who I give my email address to, so that I can tell precisely who has given out my email address, obviously I can. It's simply encouraging that sort of thing, so endless fishing doesn't work. I would suggest simply to point to an original account and the problem is solved, but if you want a disposable address, I guess I can give you one, that's I guess a simple quick solution all things considered. Penyulap ☏ 13:41, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
"The/the" request for formal mediation
FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Beatles". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 July 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Notes to anons
Even though many editors are ok and I could do the email thing, I am lazy, so I'll just write here sometimes if it is enough, unless I'm asked otherwise.
to the Lass in the cape, Thank you.
to the editor whose name is owned, I was aware of that one (and appreciate it every bit as much just the same), I included it in my recent work, as you'd see from my contributions, it stands out.
I like your way of handling these things. I think you are smart and respectful. I wonder if you may have a growing fan club. I'd be your on-wiki friend, but I think it's against wiki-rules. I think we're all supposed to be emotionless and independent. ;) You seem to realize we're all in this together and I respect that. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can be my on-wiki friend if they want to, it's a lot easier than being my off-wiki friend let me tell you. There is the whole finding me thing you see, just ask 6 Billion people one at a time if they are penyulap, and by the third time you've asked me, I'll tell you.
That said, there are no secrets on the Internet. Penyulap ☏ 13:15, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)
No, Penyulap is not a personal name, it's a noun, it means 'magician' or 'wizard', (it's Indonesian, and google translate is pretty insulting as usual, it means all your magics are belong to me from Pen, a prefix meaning I owns your ass, and sulap). On INeverCry's userpage, I am the Wizard that raised Thomas from the dead, to present the award, go have a read, I like it if I do say so myself. Penyulap ☏ 02:05, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I'd read it but never realized your name meant wizard. I Pen Indonesian or only sulap? I'm not a good internet meme recognizer. NewtonGeek (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Pen is just a prefix that means to keep or to own, it doesn't mean to Pwn in the internet meme kind of way, it's just how I describe the meaning of the prefix 'pen' in Bahasa that's all. A street legal definition :D sulap means magic, google would probably give that up easy as it comes across it more often. If everyone goes to google translate and teach it that Penyulap means 'Jackass' I'd appreciate that a lot. It's an easy task as it clearly doesn't have many teachers at the moment for penyulap and that is why it is getting it so terribly wrong describing me as a juggler instead. Whatever, can't trust machines. Penyulap ☏ 02:42, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
ANI page archiving
I attempted to save the history lost by reverting the bot. It appeared to work after several stacked attempts but the restored page was there and then not, and then there again, for me??? Maybe caching in my browser??? Weird. Anyway somebody needs to clean ip a glitch there. You looked technical. LOL 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
start a new section on the ANI page itself, outlining the problem, and it will be fixed faster, I haven't been following it as closely as it seems, but yes, you do the right thing by asking. Just open a new section there on the ANI page. Unless it is fixed already, sorry I got your note late. Penyulap ☏ 01:12, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks! ANI is nothing but a joke and an invitation for a bunch of hyenas to demonstrate their best childish fist slamming and feet kicking against every word you have evr posted. I can't believe the admins sit on their hands and play with themselves. I have been approached many times to get a user name. I get free examples of why not everytime I visit. I need a vacation. Wait! I am leaving for one this afternoon! There is a God Lennon! BTW: I attended a Beatles tribute band concert on Monday night. Did they ever suck! I won't mention their FabFour name. LOL Try to stay out of trouble. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You've given me a good hearty laugh as I read all of that, initially I was just talking about the archiving was all, to get help fixing it, but wow, yes it is precisely like that at ANI on most days. I do not blame you one little bit for not wanting a username, everyday I ask myself why do I bother trying to help here, it is so totally hopeless, then I remember I can't exactly walk outside so I'm stuck, and I don't have the short attention span required for twitter. Beatles tribute ? zomg, of course they'd suck. Maybe people should never ever present themselves as the real thing they should only ever present themselves as fans celebrating in tribute to the real thing. There are some pretty good bands out there who are not attempting to copycat the Beatles, but follow their design, whether by intention or accident, they do a good job of it too, at least I like their style. Try these guys on for size, I know they are singing in a language you won't understand, but hey, the attitude is so totally outrageous. They are BIG same as the boys were. Beatles might be dead, but their haircuts and attitudes live on, reincarnated, woven into all of us. I know you may not like other languages, but music is universal, I think if you have a look around their work, they may well grow on you, either way, they are better than the band you just saw. Penyulap ☏ 14:54, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Yes, ok, maybe the guy is more Mick Jagger in that one, ok, poor example, but if you look around you may see what I was trying to get at. Penyulap ☏ 15:04, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)
It's confusing to have the same poll open at the same time in two places. As for it being policy or some such I have no idea, you can re-open it and find out, someone will probably find something or other to say so as they close it again. Of course that person might be huff and puff and gruff too, whereas I'm just someone you can push around and be friendly with, but do as you want to, read docs, open it again, or ask about as a fast track to finding out, whichever you prefer. But as for me, I don't know, intuition is often my guide. Penyulap ☏ 01:09, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
That is perfectly ok with me, I won't complain at all because as I said, I have no idea on the policy. I'll just wish you luck with that one, still, to be wise, ask yourself why you want two polls at once and will it confuse the issue. Penyulap ☏ 01:31, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this simply a matter of main article and sub-article ? that being the case, and the question being identical, it's the same poll for the same set of articles on the same subject. Whether it is on the main article's talkpage or the sub-article talkpage where it's a little bit quieter is not a significant difference. You'll just annoy people I expect. Just put a note in mentioning which articles you would like the poll to apply to if you feel it requires it, or raise the question on the talkpage now, and see what you get in the way of interest in that subject. I'd say such closely related articles will have most editors wanting the consensus to apply to both, and be annoyed at being asked to vote twice, but if that is not the case, then yes, have two polls. Penyulap ☏ 01:52, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Look at it this way, I just pushed McCartney though FAC with lower-case "t"s, so if the current "consensus" (improperly applied) at the Beatles holds for Macca, then every FAC reviewer missed that one. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the FA thing quite a lot, thing is, you can wheel a barrow full of turds through the FA process, and it makes no difference to the fact that FA is not a destination, it's the second rung up from the bottom of the ladder. Penyulap ☏ 02:03, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Reply
I don't have any 'serious' or 'humour' accounts. I had an account which I had not used since january, and I tried to use it again in march, when the password was not accepted. So I made this with the name Monareal, and renamed it as Mir Almaat 1 S1 in May.Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 05:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have been watching the heated discussion for quite a while, but due to my real life commitments I really don't have time to participate. However your "attitude" has caught my attention, because it rang a bell on somebody that I know of.
Yeah, somehow your "stubbornness", your tendency to use words that "overstates the facts" (and let others to mistaken your words for personal attacks or trolling), your broad knowledge, your frequent use of ironies, and the failure of both sides to resolve any discrepancy, has shown up thousands of miles away - in my daily life (although it seems your case might be a bit more serious).
In my case, I was actually diagnosed with this, and one of its major effects is difficulty in social interaction, particularly due to the different way of communication. Such is the case for me during my whole life, and it seems that it is the case here too, with you and the other editors talking past each other. Unfortunately, such things can easily turn into a full-blown war if not dealt with properly, as with this case for over a year.
I would like to urge every editor dealing with Penyulap to understand that while his words might seems to be trolling and/or constantly attacking, his acts are of good faith, and the reason for using the words are from a kind of dis-order that he currently have. His words should NOT be taken with any assumption that he is acting under animosity, especially if he seems to be doing personal attacks.
On the other hand, I would suggest you to take every part of articles that you find problems to discussion, before doing any editing, and tone down your words during discussion. This will help to close down the "communication gap" and help you to become accepted as a worthwhile editor at Wikipedia, without the need for any "moderation" from other editors here.
I hope that this can help you (not only on Wikipedia, but also in your interaction in daily life if I'm not mistaken) and others to understand what is going on with this user for the past 12 months, and I am confident that with some help from those who understands the situation, the "problems" with this user can be resolved. =)
I would like to offer me to help "moderating" any discussions on article and discussion issues, so feel free to ask me for help if you have difficulties while dealing with other editors.
Hope this helps. =)
P.S. I wonder how old you are, and if you have have any problems dealing with your peers? I have been facing the same problem since I was born.
Well, it is a very interesting idea straight off, and it fascinates me to have a good read, they say that when you read a medical book you end up feeling sick because all of the symptoms suit you, it's like yes, yes, that is so true I have malaria now that I have read the entry on the malaria symptoms :) btw, I am very happy that you don't mind talking about it, I like frank discussions.
I've never had a diagnosis along those lines however, and there is one thing which I spotted straight off in the article, and let me quote it, "The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome" which kind of makes me feel a bit left out because I'm an empath of the highest order, that's no secret and Pesky would say as much. That said I do have my limitations, if you could compute every possible situation and every possible outcome, there is the conclusion that you could solve every possible disagreement, but I can only solve some, much to my dissatisfaction. But on the bright side I have abilities to detect peoples intentions at a frightening speed, so that I can 'bet the farm' every time and come up a winner, people are frieghtened by that because they think that just because I see that they have evil intentions that I would judge them for it, which is almost never true, it is said that there are no bad people, only bad circumstances, and that is a rule to live by almost always. I find it amusing that I can instantly spot socks that are supposed to annoy me but fall flat, and that I have never given an award away to a sock, but the reverse is not true. Took me seconds flat to screen INeverCry as genuine and truthful, I was proud of that, but I get frustrated how other people are slow to see the clear signs which I see, it can be incredibly alarming to have to sit and watch the damage get done.
I would say that I don't have problems with peers in any great way, I do shit people to tears when they are stubbornly denying their shortcomings however, and I do care more about including everyone than other people do, but on the whole I am just fine at making and keeping friends, and if I think about it, they usually, or maybe almost always, have exceptional talents and gifts, I couldn't really think of any of my close friends as being 'ordinary' amongst their peers, but I do have like, 'medium friends' that are rather ordinary (no offence to them) :). I figure that being able to clearly understand unusual or extraordinary genius could be from the empathy, where other people can't understand, I often do naturally. But trying to get, say, bot policy fixed properly just falls on deaf ears. I think that my medical conditions do impose great restrictions on RL opportunities, that is certain, but those conditions I can't say if they are really related. Asperger's hasn't been mentioned before, but like Auntie says we are all on a 'scale' for many things, so where you face difficulties interacting with other people and fight against their ignorance, so do I, and that is where we understand each other clearly I think.
I do enjoy helping people, and in RL it is a great deal easier, as there are more skills and abilities I can use to help them, but here, your limited to the keyboard, mouse, mic and cam. I find the silliest thing is people trying to vote each other off the island, followed by the next silliest thing which is believing this works in their favour.
Anyhow, when you do have time, I would like your assistance whenever you can give it. There is work to be done getting people to shake hands and agree to work together, and, as the project is so very badly flawed in it's design, there are new squabbles daily to sort out. So if you can help translate so that people don't talk past each other, that would be brilliant. I look forward to that. Penyulap ☏ 05:45, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Pen, your test results put you darned close to where I am (and also where a number of outstanding editors and admins are, too). Galactic Penguin, feel free to come over to my talk page whenever you need any enlightened and open-minded assistance! I have a heap of autism-spectrum stalkers there, some of whom are prolific long-term Wikipedians. I'm a high-functioning autistic myself, and have taught I-dunnamany A-spectrum people (as well as neurotypicals and people with different challenges) for decades. I've dropped a (probably tl;dr) comment over on the ISS stage. People really need to stop thinking of A-spectrum people as being thick, sub-standard, disruptive, and all that other stuff, and start to accept the possibility that for some things, we're actually far better than they are. And ... Pen, we always need to remember that neurotypicals just don't have the kind of savant processing skills for factual data that we have. That took me decades to "get". It just seemed like, "How can anyone possibly not remember that? They must remember it, so they're now just lying about it" reaction. And, oh how they hate it when investigation proves that the person they've labelled as "mentally deficient" was actually in the right. It's something they find it really hard to forgive, because it's just made them, in their own eyes, less mentally-capable than the person they've been thinking of as "deficient". :o( High-functioning autism, and other high-functioning areas on the autism spectrum, are not "deficiencies", they're differences. And, compared to A-spectrum people, neurotypicals are highly deficient in some areas. That's just the way it goes. The vast majority of people have a seriously distorted view of what autism-spectrum-stuff really is. They've had their heads stuffed full of mythconceptions (I do like that neologism!) for so long that they're sure they're right about it. For the most part, it's just plain ignorance of the reality, rather than wilful nastiness and discrimination. Pesky (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Check this out my galactic friend.
Some researchers have argued that AS can be viewed as a different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability, and that it should be removed from the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, much as homosexuality was removed. In a 2002 paper, Simon Baron-Cohen wrote of those with AS, "In the social world, there is no great benefit to a precise eye for detail, but in the worlds of maths, computing, cataloguing, music, linguistics, engineering, and science, such an eye for detail can lead to success rather than failure." Baron-Cohen cited two reasons why it might still be useful to consider AS to be a disability: to ensure provision for legally required special support, and to recognize emotional difficulties from reduced empathy. It has been argued that the genes for Asperger's combination of abilities have operated throughout recent human evolution and have made remarkable contributions to human history
yes, I know you have seen it :) but wow, it's like being an X-man, that is so cool. Mine isn't along the AS lines :( it seems more like garden variety savantism, I wonder if that makes me just a human instead of a mutant. Hmm, which side of the coming war am I on ? :) Penyulap ☏ 16:20, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
I suppose I should have been more diligent in looking for links and diffs, but they're too detailed to fit in my brain. Anyway, I found this from the 3 July, and it has to be read to see that a certain editor's accusations of me being a big bad wolf seem to be very strange. It's a delightful conversation.--andreasegde (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Glad you have found something to keep you busy, idle hands you know :) Keeping FA's small is over-rated from what I hear. My largest contributions have been on the ISS which is unavoidably large, and it can't possibly matter, if I was interested, I think I'd bulk it up a few times over, but I'm kind of less interested in it at the moment. I'm thinking it's easier to work on other websites, after all, google follows the facts people are typing in and searching for, if wiki doesn't cover it, google will direct elsewhere. But it's still interesting to study wikipedia as a cautionary tale and help where I can. Penyulap ☏ 11:57, 16 Jul 2012 (UTC)
"As an involved admin, I'd suggest the solution is rather easier than it might appear. Block or otherwise limit Penyulap and Andreasegde from participating on Beatles related pages. Tendentious editing is easy enough to spot and the solution is easy as well. It is only made hard when we demand maximal dispute resolution and leeway in situations where that isn't needed. If these were newer editors or the dispute were any less trivial (on face), we would've done this long ago."
I love it, best thing since an editor agreed with my bot that I should be killed on the wikiproject spaceflight page. I like "the peanut gallery" comment too. I just wish nobody pointed it out to them so fast, It's good where these people have their foot in their mouth a little longer if it's clearly not an honest mistake. Penyulap ☏ 01:31, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Done Penyulap ☏ 09:41, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
