User talk:Polargeo 2/Archives/2010/November

Would you like to redact that slip of the keyboard?

I'm assuming good faith, but I and A are not really very close to each other, even on a Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. Syrthiss (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? i have never edited on a Dvorak keyboard and don;t know what one is. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On WMC's talkpage, your response to Flying Jazz... you called them Flying Jizz. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Being called "Flying Jizz" doesn't hurt my feelings and doesn't offend me, and I'll never complain to anyone with authority at Wikipedia about it. But I do have an issue with it because it's just plain dumb, and I object to being involved with dumbness. Please stop calling me Flying Jizz. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have made my mistake plain and therefore I now know your username. If you are accusing me of talking dumb though, I simply point you to your own statement [1] which shows a complete lack of any understanding and could only be provided by a user such as yourself who turns up after only making a few edits over the last year and comes straight back in to have a dig at the editors they last had a disagreement with. Your behaviour and level of your comments deserve no respect. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well...actually I only meant to say that being called "Flying Jizz" was dumb. I wouldn't accuse you of talking dumb in a general sense. The remainder of your post just makes me shrug and feel a little sad that you can't assume good faith on my part. But such is life. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Life, don't talk to me about life :) Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

test edit

IP test edit 194.66.0.122 (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: IP talkpages

Thanks for letting me know, Polargeo 2; that my IP was changing when I first started editing is spot on (editing from work or a coffee shop). If you mind, I have another question.
A month or so ago, I thought I saw a relationship between an established user and an IP account that had backed up the established user's edits in article discussion. I asked the user if the IP was theirs and they said it wasn't. I filed and RfCU which was declined. The reasoning: "No checkuser is going to publicly connect a user with their IP address." I've asked the declining clerk and a few others to explain that to me, but they apparently thought I was being a sore loser or whatever, and didn't reply. If the user has stated that the IP isn't theirs, how does RfCU connect the two? I thought it simply looks for a relationship between the two. I am asking because I apparently either asked for a checkuser against someone protected from on high or (more likely) I did something wrong. I'd like to not make the same mistake again if I spot a red flag editing relationship. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only limited knowledge of checkuser and SPI so I cannot answer in detail. Have you considered that the user may have accidentally edited whilst logged out? In which case the edits could have been removed by oversight or the simple thing to do may have been to deny them, as actually happened. Obviously I don't know the case in question. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's over and done with, so there's no need to really hash over the details, That said, I thought that denying an IP that you did use is pretty dishonest. From that perspective, I am not really sure what I did wrong. Here's the RfCU request; I don't think the user is a puppetmaster or anything; I just think he should have owned up to the IP usage, esp. since the IP edit seemed to act in concert and support with the established account. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to look into the edits but in the future rather than pushing for a checkuser, which could easily reveal nothing if the user never logged in at the IP in question, you should make a case for WP:DUCK. Why do these accounts overlap in their opinions and editing styles on a certain article to that extent, is there any real probability they are not linked in some way. The close proximity of the location certainly adds some weight to a duck argument. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. That was what I was looking for - a better way to approach this in the future. I've got it. Thanks. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ergs...

[2] Please don't use that information on Wikipedia. It was simply a demonstration that anyone with the basic ability to use a search engine can overcome the technical aspects of the checkuser extension. (Actually, there was another post to follow, but WMC is a no fun fuddy-duddy and removed it.) -Atmoz (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I have already previously set up two accounts by open proxy I obviously don't need to follow your guidance. The problem for me came when one of those accounts which I openly declared on wikipedia happened to have the same browser characteristics as some other accounts set up by someone else, not me. Checkuser majic pixie dust does the rest. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The post was covering my ass, not yours. I obviously can't stop people from proxy socking. But I can try to stop the notion that checkuser is the be all and end all for uncovering socks, as some people believe it is. -Atmoz (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I sort of guessed you were ass covering. Agree my own experience of having 6 accounts linked to myself which had nothing to do with me taught me that. I can just be thankful that those accounts did not edit. I'm still pissed off that they have notes on them saying blocked because of Polargeo. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela?

I wonder if the subtitles are accurate? I've heard some pretty nasty things about Mother Theresa too. I guess you can't always go by how hyped a person or cause is in order to determine its righteousness. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose context is everything :) Any idea who the mass IP sockpuppeteer is? Or have you heard of the user EngineerFromVega? Polargeo 2 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a mass IP sockpuppeteer. I don't generally follow such articles for the most part. And yes, I have heard of EngineerfromVega before, but I believe it was quite a while ago. He may be a sockpuppet or alternative account (something I think of several accounts in the area), but I don't know who is behind it. I have occasionally been contacted by other people (usually through my youtube account oddly enough) regarding my activities on wikipedia and they've offered supportive words for me and shared their own experiences - I can only say that extremely abrasive personalities can create quite a few opponents given enough time, which may look like sockpuppetry upon cursory examination. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Best to ignore it all I suppose. Just natural curiosity. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, another request for clarification of the Climate Change case

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Polargeo, I understand that you feel strongly about this, but engaging in a revert war at Template:ACE2010 is not the best way to proceed, and will be a completely ineffective way of getting your guide there. Better is to engage in calm discussion at the talkpage, and prove that your guide is written in good faith. When you start reverting other editors though, it just escalates the conflict, and makes people less likely to see your actions in a positive light. For what it's worth, I have added your guide to my watchlist, and I will be interested in what you have to say, no matter what. I will be watching closely to see what you have to say about the different candidates. If it's obvious that your guide is being written in good faith, then there's a good chance that consensus will support inclusion in the template. So please, slow down a bit, take the long view? --Elonka 16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not engaged in a revert war. That is a rather harsh way of describing removing a statement that did not have consensus on the talkpage. You cannot be engaged in a discussion and then simply change the template that refers to your own eligability as well as mine whilst the discussion is ongoing. I really think SandyGeorgia and you changing the disclaimer to give preference to your own guides could be viewed as highly dubious. I put my own guide back in because the one independent user (Skomorokh) who appears to be acting as clerk for the template appears happy to have it there at present until consensus says otherwise. Polargeo (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No Hard Whatsinames

RfA is a brutal business and I know you take it seriously. Probably because you want your bit back and ArbCom just won't do the right thing and let you have it. But whatever, when the stress gets too much and you do finally file a re-nom you can rest assured that I'll be waiting for you. And I'll probably !vote support.

Probably. ;) MtD (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I handed in the bit voluntarily, it wasn't taken from me. Anyway I think unless you sort yourself out you will not last very long as an editor. Please try to make wikipedia a pleasant place to contribute. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Trolls

Please don't be baited by them. It makes you look bad and gets them off. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As Marknutley once said. No worries :) Polargeo (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Portraits

Could you please remove that disturbing pic which you put next to me?  Dr. Loosmark  12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Loo in British English is toilet so I translated your name as mark on a toilet. The whole thing is meant as satire and charicature. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, it was so outrageous, you benefited from the toilet pic. I'd have asked for it be left there. Tony (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to revert back to the toilet pic if Loosmark requests. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to recommend this pic for Stephen Bain, but sadly, it's fair-use and can only be used in article-space. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Polargeo when I visited the guide this morning there was this pic next to my name:

and the following text: Flush this one and clean thoroughly.

That was all. From the article about Satire: Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon. It was also strikingly different to how you employed satire for the other candidates. Now I see that you have stamped a big "CENSORED" all over and added the following text: Censored by Loosmark [1] In British English loo means toilet so I tried to humorously interpert Loosmark as a mark in a toilet. Although the image Swab in toilet bowl.jpg showed only a toilet and cleaning products. We have a long history of charicature and toilet humour in Britain particularly regarding our politicians.
I will only this: I have never ever seen any political candidate in Britain compared to a mark in a toilet which needs to be flushed and then "clean thoroughly".  Dr. Loosmark  22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes satire can be used as a weapon and a social critisism and that is exactly what I was using it for. I was encouraging people not to vote for you. Old examples of toilet humour include the prince's mistress Lady Dorothy Jordan being portrayed as a chamber pot (toilet) because her name Jordan is an old word for chamber pot, John Bull farting in the King's face etc. Polargeo (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I opted not to thank individual contributors to my RfA. While I appreciate the supports, and respect the opposers, I'd just as soon not remember which were which in the future, so as not to bias any actions I might be in a position to take. That said, I cannot forget your support. I hope I never do anything to cause you to regret your decision, I hope you will throw this in my face if that ever happens.--SPhilbrickT 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I felt extremely uncomfortable with the persecution of certain opposers on your RfA but I appreciate the fact that you kept it at a distance and that you were in a lose lose situation if you had commented. I would have commented if it was my RfA but I do understand why you did not. I supported you based on my knowledge of you and that is what I always do on wikipedia, I do not follow the crowd one way or the other and I personally think you will be a fine admin. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)