User talk:Rspeer/Archive 5

Part V

(December 2006 -- February 2007)

One day we will all look back at this and laugh.

Color or Country

I nominated Color or Country for deletion - I see that you have edited it in the past (long past) but I thought you might want to weigh in--Dmz5 11:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi, Rob. I saw that you encouraged Sethie to be more civil and saw that you're an Administrator. I'd like note that he is constantly abrasive on the Transcendental Meditation Talk page. His personal attacks have included "brainwashed Mantra Zealots" and "you are a preditable robot." Yesterday saw another tirade, and in this case he used the word "fuck." (There's also a certain bravado about his abrasive behavior. Until late November, this sentence was prominently on his user page: "To all those who wish to use Wikipedia as a place to promote TM- watch out, I will eat you for lunch.")

Anything you do in the future to encourage civility and cooperation on his part will be appreciated.TimidGuy 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your well articulated comments to Sethie.TimidGuy 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dopiness

I removed your accusation of sockpuppetry from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison again.

Since I didn't place it in the first place -- you DO know how to use Edit Histories, right? -- your use of the adjective "your" is mistaken. I merely restored it. Which I will do again.

I can't see any evidence for it...

Then you're not paying attention.

...so I assume it's just the usual incorrect assumption that all newbies are sockpuppets of each other.

Another incorrect use of an adjective.

I don't support that kind of casual newbie-biting.

I believe in calling a spade a spade, myself. I also don't believe in coddling spammers and self-promoters with no actual history, no sign of future production, and -- given the inherent dishonesty of resorting to obvious sockpuppets -- little sign of integrity. Your mileage may vary.

I may be mistaken, of course -- if you have evidence that the newbies there are sockpuppets of each other (like a CheckUser), please point me to it.

Reality check #2: CheckUser will not run checks casually, and explicitly declines cases where a) it's obvious; and b) the sockpuppetting does not affect the outcome, which this won't.

But maybe not: let's test the strength of your convictions regarding your "usual incorrect assumption that all newbies are sockpuppets of each other". Close the AFD by treating the {{spa}} as equally valid. Then we can see how long it takes to be overturned and by how big a margin. I'm guessing unanimous. --Calton | Talk 10:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't close AfDs, particularly not when I've been involved in the discussion, and I don't care how it closes. All I care about is that you don't aggressively bite newbies, which you have done by putting back a harmful comment. Oh, and no personal attacks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, Calton. It was me who added the comment about sockpuppets, and it was out of order - it could very easily have been simply a ring around of people invited to comment to prop up a vote, rather than the voting of one peron under several names. I made the comment when i was tired and it was unwarranted, and as such Rspeer was right to remove it. The spa templates remain, though, and will mean as much to a closing admin as any comment about sockpuppets. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was completely unnecessary.

You're absolutely right, and I'm glad you regret leaving your smug nonsense on my talk page. The passive-aggressive "I may be mistaken" was particularly telling.

What makes you so passionate about a single AfD that's going to close as delete anyway?

Nothing. I'm passionate about having my intelligence insulted. I'm certainly also passionate those who aid in insulting my intelligence, are clearly wrong - both factually and philosophically -- and are smug about it.

I'm not trying to change the outcome...

Wrong. You are, by enabling and tacitly supporting abusive sockpuppetry.

I'm trying to fight a pervasive form of newbie-biting, which (regardless of whether you put it there in the first place) you are supporting by restoring and vehemently defending it.

I'm calling a spade a spade, and they ain't newbies -- at least not newbies who will do anything other than self-promotion and abuse of Wikipedia.

Oh, and no personal attacks.

If you think strong disgreement constitutes "personal attacks", you need to get out more. For the third time I call a spade a spade

--Calton | Talk 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really, really need to be more civil.

You really really need to mind your own business, Lumbergh. --Calton | Talk 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see Calton is his usual sparkling self. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea...and he is on a roll this evening. Not as bad as yesterday evening, but almost as bad. - SVRTVDude 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton/Civility

RSPeer....I have started a thread on WP:AN and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton to try and get Calton to take a chill pill. I have come into close contact with Calton's unwarranted PMs and rudeness as late as last night...and got sick of it after about an hour. I don't know if I did that WP:REC page right, if not you can redo it if ya like and copy what I wrote. I had hoped it wouldn't come to going to an admin, but after some 3 hours of dealing with him last night over something that didn't concern him and was being delt with through an admin and still today being told that what I am working on will be deleted by him regardless of what that admin says, is just plain annoying, not alone ban warranting. Then again, that is just one editor's opinion. - SVRTVDude 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled out the RfC, and it's now active. Thanks for getting started on this much-needed step. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to try and get Calton to take a chill pill. You might want to ask your enablee about his incessant messages on my page (all while whining about how he's doing his damnedest to keep away from me) and his childish reversions of my recent edits, including the removal of {{ifd}} tags and the readdition of spam links (while whining about how offended he is to be accused of "stalking"). You really really need to try a little education, it'll do you wonders. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/Calton

I have signed that page and if any admins need to give me a shout, I will be awake for a couple this morning. I hate that it had to come to this...I wish that I could have worked with him. Stay Warm...SVRTVDude 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think an RfC will accomplish anything for the simple reason that Calton is usually right. No, he doesn't have to be snarky about it. I don't have to use so much profanity either. But it, and shit, still happens. I can't find a compelling reason to have to listen to one of his formulaic tirades and Calton does slap the crap out of a lot of vandals, POV pushers, and linkspammers. *shrugs* I just don't see it radically changing his behavior, and thus, unproductive. My two cents.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KXGN

That is why I am working with User:A Man In Black to provide the proper sources to use as references. More than likely the schedule will not go back up and I accept that. I get a tad passioniate (if you will) in my articles and probably provide WAY too much information (ie: schedule), but I am just trying to be through. I will do my best to not get into any "edit wars" in the future...I know that puts me in a negative light (sorry). - SVRTVDude 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orangemonster2k1

Enabling the immature. Smart move, that. Pout much?

I'm betting that you -- again -- didn't bother familiarizing yourself with what was going on. Free clue: try examining the recent edit history of the guy you're enabling. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? WP:CIVIL isn't suspended just because the opponent in your dispute is doing something wrong.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know what, I'm done. This is ridiculous....no matter where I go, it is another message from Calton bad-mouthing me, the changes I made (which were reverted...I made those in good-faith, was corrected, I have apologized)....I have also apologized for the actions that some have called rude and pretty much all the users, with the exception of yourself, are defending him. I came here to help, not be to yelled at, argued with, and have that person throw his actions back on me and other wiki members defend his behavior. I am done. Thanks for letting me update what I could here. I appericate the time. - SVRTVDude 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your protege lied. He continues to canvass people for the little crusade you attempted. His aim is punitive, clearly: If more people voice their opinion and more people know, it is more likely that the powers-that-be will make Calton change his tune. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you are treating others the way you treat me. You are pissed that I am showing others that there is a RfC open on you. You are pissed that those people are signing it and there are more and more names going on it against you. You are pissed....taking it out on me. I am not bothering you, I am not "stalking" you, I haven't had any contact with you, with the exception of tonight to tell you to leave me alone, in a week. You are pissed and you need to take it out on the person who has stood up to you, me.

RSPeer, I rethought (obviously) my decision of leaving and others talking to me made me rethink it. So, I never left, just went in another direction. Calton is obviously upset that I am showing others the link to his RfC and that is causing him to act out as he is. I will continue to work on the TV and Radio pages and as need be, I will let people know the RfC link...that is not against the rules. I am doing nothing wrong and am actually back to happy here. Calton, no matter what he does, is not going to change that. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things

Heya, I will take your advice and the next post he makes about me or the RfC, I will just let it slide off my back, so to speak, just read and get a good laugh (like I do now). When I wrote the post above about being "done", I was upset and pissed....I have been working with people actually all day and that has changed my mind...I will help people out and continue to edit and whatnot. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 11:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tags

Sorry, thought AfD tags worked the same way PROD tags did. My apologizes. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemonster2k1, again

You need to put a leash on your little protege and his wikistalking campaign. Given the ill-considered RFC you did for him, it's your responsibility to get him to stop things like his continual canvassing ([1], [2], [3], [4]), his sudden interest in the mainspace edits I've made in the last few weeks ([5] and [6], [7] [8] readding spam readding spam re-readding spam [9], and his repeated removal of the {{db-repost}} tag from WRAJ Internet Radio and the {{ifd}} tags from four now-deleted images); his canvassing of everyone I've had a disagreement with for the last few weeks, looking for support ([10] [11]); his continual pestering of my Talk page ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and [23], the last two about his out-of-policy removals of the {{db-repost}} tag, so particularly rich) despite his repeated claims of "staying away from" me ([24] [25] [26] [27]); and, of course, his cute little "open letter" to "an editor who shall remain nameless"; all of this with the clear intention of seeing me "punished" ([28] [29] [30].

Just now, someone left a barnstar on my Talk page, and by the time I get to that someone's Talk page to thank him/her, your little protege is already there asking about it. So much for "not wikistalking". The stalking ends, and it ends now. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had mistakenly put a prod2 tag on his talk page. I was trying to quickly get it worked out so Calton's talk page didn't get deleted. I was trying to be helpful, instead I get my ass crawled in. Next time, I am just going to let it get deleted. I was trying to help. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't believe you. Really. Flat out, I think you're lying.

2) You claim to be "leaving me alone", yet you have my Talk page on your Watchlist AND you're acting on what you read there. That's not "leaving me alone" here on Planet Earth.

3) You've been warned -- multiple times by multiple people, including admins -- to stop. You haven't.

You enabled this nonsense, Rspeer, so take some responsibility for reining it in. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history on your talk page if you don't believe me. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I'm not exactly inclined to spend time figuring out this issue on your behalf, especially with your "blame Rspeer first" attitude. The only ones "enabling" the particular dispute between you and Orangemonster -- the details of which I don't even try to follow by now -- are you and Orangemonster.

Orangemonster is not my "protege", nor are any of the other people who are fed up with your chronic incivility. Maybe you should reflect on what causes so many people to have so much ill will toward you in particular. It certainly isn't me.

So, pardon my apathy, but I'm not going to step in and de-escalate one of your disputes for you. Perhaps you should take some responsibility for reining it in. And if that doesn't work, there are always more appropriate people to ask, like the Mediation Committee.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diluting the RFC

I respect your opinion, but was just trying to show that my attempt at a good deed was met with hostility. I added a longer explanation on the RfC talk page. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my last two diffs on the RfC from the record. My apologizes if I have upset you in anyway. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Borda count page

Hi Rob. Is there some reason that you are keeping this very old version on a user page of yours? It is showing up in google searches.----Fahrenheit451 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I didn't think Google would index things that nothing linked to. Anyway, I deleted it now -- thanks for the heads up. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied, but I do not mean to suggest you are lying... only...

I replied to your post: [31], but I do not mean to suggest you are lying... only... saying that it looks that way from my end. I just wanted to clarify. And, ironically, I ask you to clarify yourself in my reply to your response.--GordonWatts 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean to suggest I'm lying? You said it three times in the edit comments. That doesn't help any. I understand if you regret leaving comments like that, but it certainly shows you're not editing with a clear head.

You've gone completely unhinged over this issue, you're ignoring some obvious consensuses, you're wikilawyering, and somehow you seem to think the solution to the situation you've gotten yourself into is to argue more. And now you're off on this irrelevant sidetrack about trying to "prove" you don't argue too much. Nobody's limiting your word count, it's simply that the more you argue, the worse you make yourself look.

For your own sake, stop. Every time you try to get the last word in you're digging yourself a deeper hole. Several people have told you this already in an attempt to help you, but you've blown them off too.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For your own sake" For my sake, ok, but what of others? But what if (for example) the claims that I was verbose were false claims? (Remember: I found some numbers that back up my claim here.) So, what if I'm right? Should I remain silent like a lamb and allow others to also be abused?--GordonWatts 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already said, just above, that your recent fixation on word counts is an irrelevant sidetrack. And if there are "others" out there who think the appropriate response to an overwhelming consensus against them is to argue it to death, then it's not "abuse" when the community shuns them, just like it isn't for you. If you can't respect a consensus, there's no way you can fit in on Wikipedia.

Perhaps I should have said this before, but arguing personally with each of your critics is a particularly bad way to respond to criticism. I wasn't happy in the first place with you taking this to my talk page. If you want to show that you can be a reasonable editor, the best thing for you to do would be to refrain from responding.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I wasn't happy in the first place with you taking this to my talk page." Read my initial post above: I WASN'T arguing - merely letting you know my motive and intent was not to insult or pick on you. No one should ever criticise anyone for a post such as that. I try to make sure and avoid insulting or offending, and that was a worthy motive or goal in my post. "If you can't respect a consensus, there's no way you can fit in on Wikipedia." I find that insulting, because you imply (even if not explicitly state) that I don't respect or follow consensus: FALSE!! I respected and complied with the consensus on removal of a great number of source links (not just the ones to my newspapers), and to prove this claim here, let me remind you that it is on record (a documented fact) that I did not vandalize and did not edit war (not near as much as some), and to prove I did NOT edit war, please note that I have NOT in recent times come even CLOSE to the "3-revert rule". "If you want to show that you can be a reasonable editor, the best thing for you to do would be to refrain from responding." I try not to provoke or push or pick a fight, but since it is permissible for me to reply to you (since I'm not scamming, threatening, such etc), I shall reply: If you say (or imply) a falsehood about me (such as I inferred/estimated you did here), I have a right (and a duty) to respond. Oh, one last thing: If my estimation is correct here (that my only "crime" is defending myself), then I oppose your suggestion that this is inappropriate: In a free society, such as Wikipedia, ALL voices are heard, even when some are sometimes in the minority. Let me point out that you should be glad that I respect consensus (even that regarding the numerous source links -most NOT my own - that I did not want deleted). Be glad -it could be worse, were I a different person; Be glad I have a cool, not a hot, temper. You'll feel better that way.--GordonWatts 02:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This brief exchange between me and one of my opponants (ObiterDicta) is proof that I'm not "out to get" you or those with whom I might disagree.--GordonWatts 02:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you know this by now, but you really misunderstood that admin if you thought they were actually telling you it was a good idea to start an RfAr against 31 other people. I don't feel the need to comment in the RfAr. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Thatcher did not explicitly say I "must" notify everyone, but, as a party, the rules require it, and I was told to comply with the rules ("Also, you must notify editors you consider a party to this dispute now, when you file the request, and post diffs of the notifications in the Confirmation section of your request. These parties must have a fair chance to comment"), so, yes, Thatcher did tell me to do this -indirectly.

MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENT:

By the way, I wasn't going to specifically tell you, but since I am responding here, I would like to point out that, of the 33 participants, only 14 supported any one sanction (and that was the max vote; some were less!) -so, by no means, did ANY "consensus" exist -not even a "slim majority" -and this in addition to the fact that I did nothing against the policy -just stubbornly insisted I had a right to have (and voice) my opinion. Since the Community action is closed, no votes can be added to it, and any action based on this faux "consensus" is clearly a violation, and these who support it (once they learn that they support action NOT supported by consensus, thus a violation itself) themselves would be in violation of WP:CONSENSUS and open for sanctions.

But, hey, even I wrongly thought consensus existed -but I am big enough to admit I was wrong. Are you?--GordonWatts 10:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to take a look at this before commenting to Gordon --Fredrick day 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, you're done using my talk page as a soapbox. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting systems and the WD Smith article

I noticed you removed the Smith article. "This section is too long" is not a very good reason for deleting substantial stuff. I agree, this is borderline OR; but I feel strongly that it is in fact notable.

I'm reinstating this paragraph, in a shorter edited format. If you have a substantive problem with it, you're welcome to make whatever edit you see fit, but please also discuss why on the talk page.

Cheers, --Homunq 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps. If I were you, I'd do another archive of your talk page. At a quick read, this nasty stuff probably isn't really your fault, but it sure looks bad to have a talk page full of name-calling.

Yep. I plan to, as soon as I can tell that all this crap has settled down. I just don't want to look like I'm hiding criticism, however spurious that criticism may be.

I'm okay with a brief mention of the Smith paper in the article. However, the part you added has a footnote which mentions how the Borda count isn't really so great in practice, which has no citation backing it up. (I think it's true, too, but I certainly don't want the voting system article to start accumulating statements whose only qualification is that someone agrees with them!) So I wonder if you can find a way to rewrite that section so that it doesn't require such a disclaimer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUKI (tm) and other stuff

Whether or not you believe in SUKI (tm) is hardly the issue -- a debate had evolved on the Talk: Suki page, and irregardless of the outcome, evidence was placed both for and against the existence of SUKI (tm) as a major world religion. I personally am neutral on SUKI (tm) -- I have heard of it in my travels to Japan and on the west coast of North America, have good reason to believe its a religion, but not being versed in Japanese culture, I cannot be entirely sure.

Someone had gone into that page and injected the phrase, "SUKI (tm) is fake", without signing the comment, and without appending the comment in an appropriate place. I reverted such edit on the basis that it was innappropriately added, and not on the basis of content. If the person who believes (through his/her comment) that 'SUKI (tm) is fake', then such person should offer some evidence constructed in a fashion that is at least consistent with other comments on the page, appended to the end of the discussion.

70.73.4.197 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to take you at all seriously, get a username. Also, why did you post this into my talk page archives? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]