User talk:Stanfordandson

First block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's pretty clear that this account was created solely for trolling; a block until the AfD is over should suffice. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions tell a different story. No unblock. --pgk^(talk) 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA photo caption

By way of explaining my edit, it's not encyclopedic to caption that photo "Future GNAA members" unless Wikipedia is actually claiming that those people are future GNAA members. Since we don't even know who those people are, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that's not acceptable. The picture and the caption are there to illustrate the type of image that GNAA works with. Thus, we caption it, not the way GNAA captions it, but in a more detatched way, where the caption is not offered for the truth of the matter it asserts, but as an illustration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and you're going against consensus: two editors besides myself have edited to the original version. I'm going to change this back. Stanfordandson 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A majority among a few editors on one article is not the same as consensus, and anyway, consensus does not trump our basic policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Those kids in that photo are not "clearly" GNAA members of any kind; it's pretty clear that someone has photoshop. Unless you can provide information about those kids' identity and confirm that they are, in fact, future GNAA members, we are not going to call them that. Remember - against policy, numbers mean nothing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to believe the image was photoshopped. No pixels, no nothing. Stanfordandson 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Du Bist deletion debate

I've posted this on the relevant page itself, but I'm curious what you mean about "the informality of the title" when it comes to the song. BigHaz 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for admin

If you're serious, and not being a troll or anything, then I am most flattered and delighted to accept. Can you please activate your e-mail.--Poetlister 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire discipline

Can you please explain this diff: [1] And this one in userspace: [2]
Throw in comments like [3], your commentary on 2 AfD s: WP:AFD/Du Bist and Objective validity of astrology, and your previous block [4], and it sure looks like you're trolling. -- Samir धर्म 04:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly always willing to explain any edits I make to Wikipedia.

Let's go through the ones in question with the help of a bulleted-list:

Oops. I messed up. When I made the fire discipline edit, I was attempting to add a new category, but it turned out that what was in my paste buffer was a redirect I had been using earlier. However, the redirect did not work, or else I would have noticed immedietly and reverted the edit. This edit was entirely my mistake, and I apologize and have added the appropriate category.
The edit to a humourous userbox about alternating hands when masturbating was supposed to be a joke, albeit possibly quite a bad one with a vaguely postmodern tinge, playing off the switch between left and right implied by the userbox. Perhaps my edit was misunderstood and unclear, and perhaps should have been reverted, but I don't see how it could constitute trolling.
I'm not sure what problem there could be with the edit in the talk page of clonazepam, but I will attempt to explain my motivations for the edit. I noticed a comment left to a legitimate question that seemed very uncivil, including basically telling the person who asked the question to buzz off. This seemed to be uncivil as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy of not only allowing but indeed propmoting unstifled and uncensored serious debate.
The comments in Du Bist's article for deletion are nothing more than part of a debate on an appropriate title for that article.
I disagree that the edits on the astrology article for deletion constituted trolling. I was nevertheless blocked for them, but after that I stopped making edits to that page, and though my bad was supposed to last until after the end of the article for deletion, when it ended earlier than the AfD, I went out of my way to inform the blocking admin of this [5], in a good faith effort to ensure I took my 'lumps', even if I disagreed with them.

I understand how some of these edits may have been suspect, but I suggest that, in the future, you ask for explanations first, before accusing people of being trolls. I am a relatively new user, and if you scrutinize my edit history even more than you already have, you'll see I've made quite a few mistakes. Most I fix immedietly, but some have unfortunetly slipped through the cracks. Stanfordandson 09:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy a word that you are saying. You removed AfD notices, left spurious commentary on 2 AfD's (don't buy the "commentary" argument one bit), compared the illegal use of benzodiazepines to drinking coffee and wine, and edited in someone else's userspace. We see a lot of new users, but these actions are egregious. Do not do any of these things again. -- Samir धर्म 10:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've chosen me to harrass with baseless accusations, but a better use of your time would be reading up on Wikipedia's guideline on not biting the newbies, which accusing people of invented misdeeds does not seem to comply with. Check my edits carefully, if you must; I have added several deletion notices, but haven't removed a single one, even in the case where I nominated an article for deletion, but later had a change of heart. I don't see what's wrong with comparing recreational use of benzodiazepines with the recreational use of ethanol and caffeine. Ask any substance use counsellor, and they will tell you that, not only are uses of illegal and legal drugs remarkably similar, abuses of them are treated in much the same way. However, even if this wasn't the case, your belief that it's acceptable to be incredibly rude to someone merely asking about the recreational use of benzodiazepines, information that would certainly be encyclopaedic, but not okay to respond to such abuse by pointing out that the belittler himself apparently actually uses recreational drugs is spurious at best, especially since in some jurisdictions and situations it's illegal to use, posess or sell alcohol and in some jurisdictions it is legal to use certain benzodiazepines recreationally. Please remember that Wikipedia is part of the world, not just whereever it is you happen to inhabit. You might believe my edits to AfD pages were somehow inappropriate, though just how you have yet to specify, but I can assure you they were made in good faith and if you want to complain about them, I'd request you present some sort of reason to. I did make some constructive edits to other people's user pages, but as far as I know, that's against neither policy, nor guideline, nor custom, and is in fact encouraged in some cases. You might not be 'buying', as you say, but that's okay because I'm not selling. Stanfordandson 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What vandalism is not

Hi there. I made a good faith edit to Gay Nigger Association of America, specifically in removing an image that I did not believe improved the article. You reverted it as vandalism, which was inappropriate. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism to insure you understand what vandalism is and is not; in case you're not aware, it can be a bit insulting to good-faith contributors to treat their edits as vandalism. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions in this matter. -- SCZenz 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. Stanfordandson 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your apology; thank you. One point I would like to clarify, however, is that I removed the image because I thought it was inappropriate for the article; specifically, we do not need to illustrate the deliberately-shocking juvenile nonsense that GNAA promulgates in order to have an article on them. -- SCZenz 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Stanfordandson 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an editorial decision and censorship. We aren't required to use every possible offensive image just because we aren't censored. OTOH, I didn't consider the image in question offensive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the image's removal that SCZenz gave was that it was an offensive image, and so that was the argument I addressed. I agree with you that the image wouldn't be offensive to most people. I also think the image was completely appropriate for the article. Stanfordandson 06:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies

Hey dude, if you're going to pretend to be a new user, you have to not show so much familiarity with the policies and processes of Wikipedia. And maybe not edit battleground articles. Or nominate shitstirrers for adminship. Still, enjoy your time here, brief as it's likely to be. Grace Note 01:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a small number (<100) edits under a different username. I'm no longer using that account, and all edits I've made have been in compliance with the rules on sockpuppetry. I've also read a lot of talk pages and some of the mailing lists, as well as the actual policy and guideline pages, in order to familiarize myself with how Wikipedia works. I don't think there's anything especially exciting about that. Stanfordandson 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't called you any names and I'm in no danger of breaching WP:NPA unless I have too many drinks and get frisky. I don't throw the "troll" word around as much as some, on account of usually being on the receiving end. You have made far more than 100 edits previously though; it's clear enough from your editing. I don't have a problem with it. I'm just being friendly. If you want us to have an email correspondence, the address attached to my userpage works, but I don't have anything further to say to you. Grace Note 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Contactss.jpg

First, the contents and caption of the image indicated that it was more self-promotion by the GNAA; second, its copyright status is unclear at best, and it seems to have been photoshopped. - Mike Rosoft 07:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of GNAA image to protest

Stop adding GNAA images to non-GNAA articles. They are not informative because there is every reason to believe they are edited, staged, or otherwise misleading. I will not insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know this perfectly well, so if you continue such edits I will block you for deliberate disruption. -- SCZenz 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is the image misleading in that context? I've heard a lot of assertions, but no arguments. An image being uploaded for the GNAA article does not make it unacceptable to include it in other articles. You can use your administrator powers to bully me, even though it's generally considered inappropriate to block users you've personally been involved in a dispute with, but the image is not disruption and so it stays. Stanfordandson 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 31 hours for disruption. -- SCZenz 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock - Admin involved in a dispute with me blocked me, falsely claiming I was adding an image that was a 'GNAA image', despite the fact that it was relevant to the article I added it to and hardly an image that was exclusive to the GNAA.

Unblock request denied. Valid block. Do not disrupt Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it seems worth noting that the uploader of Image:Contactss.jpg put "gnaa corporate picture" in the edit summary. It is a GNAA image. -- SCZenz 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I upload an image of a tomato and say in the edit summary that it's a penis it wouldn't be a valid image in Tomato? Get real. Stanfordandson 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support anything and everything that User:Stanfordandson contributes to wikipedia. His contributuions are true, accurate, and a refreshing addition to wikipedia. I cannot understand how you fellow wikipedians can take such a negative attitude towards User:Stanfordandson and niggers in general. You should be respectful towards gay pride day and instill a love of life in general to all. Good day. Daloonik 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)--Daloonik 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing Wikipedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.  -- SCZenz 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't nonsense. There are many parks in Toronto, and while officially people of all races are welcome in all of them, there are unfortunetly some parks where certain members of racial groups harrass and intimidate people of other races who enter the park. It's not nonsense, and it's not vandalism. Also, I'm not sure what sandboxes have to do with anything. As far as I know, there isn't a sandbox in the park. Stanfordandson 05:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.  BaseballBaby 05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are not WP:POV, and I didn't add any analysis of an article at all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, if you continue to post in my talk page, please try to follow the formatting already in place. Consistency, readability, and my not having to refactor comments are all good things. I'm also not sure why everyone keeps bringing up sandboxes. There is no sandbox in the park. Stanfordandson 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 31 hours for continuing to add irrelevant nonsense at that article. If you are under the impression that we will tolerate your trolling and vandalism indefinitely, just because you take the time to make superficially-plausible arguments after each incident, you will very soon find you are mistaken. -- SCZenz 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content wasn't irrelevant; noting the safety of a park is common on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how the content you object to could be construed as nonsense, since it was a perfectly meaningful and grammatical sentence. It also is definitely not vandalism. At most, it could be considered a content dispute. Also, the next time you feel like calling someone a troll and calling their arguments 'superficially-plausible', please read about personal attacks and [[WP:AGF| assuming good faith. You might also be interested in reading up on Wikistalking. Stanfordandson 07:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|Administrator involved in an ongoing content dispute with me blocked me for things I've already been blocked for, and edits I made to Fairbank Memorial Park that were neither vandalism nor nonsense, as he falsely claims. It may be helpful to the potentially unblocking administrator to read through the discussion about this article I've had with the blocking administrator on my talk page. Also, this administrator's actions seem to violate Wikipedia's ban policy because the administrator blocked me because he was involved in a content dispute with me.

I've taken a look at the addition to Fairbank Memorial Park and it certainly doesn't belong, it is unencyclopaedic personal opinion.

Also it doesn't meet WP:CITE, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR --pgk^(talk) 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The typical way to respond to those problems is to ask for references, not to flagrantly violate the ban policy by blocking a user you're having a content dispute with. Also, perhaps the phrasing was NPOV (I sometimes have trouble with language, especially when I'm tired and full of caffeine), but that could be rewritten and citations could be added from statistics kept by the Toronto Police Service. Since this is a content dispute and not vandalism, I should be unblocked. Stanfordandson 08:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting statistics to infer such a statment would fail WP:NOR. The statement is still unencyclopaedic, it is an anti-statement a denial of a problem where there is no reason to believe such a problem exists. We don't fill articles with denials and anti-statements, e.g. in biographies we don't give a long list of crimes people haven't committed. --pgk^(talk) 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there's no way in which it could be used to not violate [[WP:NOR|Wikipedia's no original research policy. However, what's being contested here is the validity of the statement, but the validity of the ban. My edit may have been bad but it was not unsalvageable and so it was not vandalism. Hence, the ban should be lifted for two reasons which I will present in a bulleted list:

- - - There was no vandalism, making the purported reason for the ban seem entirely bogus.
    - The blocking administrator in fact blocked me over a content dispute which he refused to discuss with me, preferring instead to edit war and, when he came close to violated WP:3RR, flagrantly blocking me in violation of Wikipedia's policy on blocking, which states that it is questionable for an administrator to block a user that they're currently involved in a dispute with, and that it is absolutely unacceptable for an administrator to block a user because of a content dispute.
    - The ban was inexplicably set for 31 hours rather than some reasonable number based on neither current standards in horology, such as 24, 48 or even 32, nor a 'rounded off' number based perhaps on multiples of five or ten. Choosing 31, a number which is both an anagram and a parallelogram of the number 13, seems unusual, and is bound to drive certain sufferers of Obsessive-compulsive disorder absolutely bonkers.

Rather than merely considering the merits of my edits, you should spend some time considering the merits of the ban with respect to those edits, which is what {{unblock}} is for. Stanfordandson 16:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I seemed to have failed miserably at making a pretty, pretty readable bulleted list and don't have time to figure out how to do it properly right now, but would appreciate it if anyone reading this would take a second to fix it. Thanks in advance! Stanfordandson 16:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the block looks fine. Your edits were nonsense, and you were adequately warned to stop adding it but you continued. 31 Hours is a standard block length and used by many administrators. --pgk^(talk) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were clearly not 'nonsense', since they were in plain, readable English, and contained meaningful, truthful, and relevant information. As well, the edits certainly weren't vandalism, so 'warnings' are irrelevant. You also didn't address the fact that the blocking administrator clearly violated the block policy. Stanfordandson 22:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downsview (TTC)

Thank you for correcting the link in the Downsview (TTC) article, Stanfordanson! Daloonik 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Crum375

Hi Stanfordandson, please stop trolling. If you don't want to contribute meaningfully to WP, please refrain from editing. Thank you, Crum375 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did say please, so y'know...--TallaghNacker 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for the copy edit. Garion96 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed

Changed user page to remove "reason" for the blocks. Don't think it's fair to put down a purported reason for blocks and to duke it out with admins over the rationale for the blocks on a user page. Hope it's okay with you. -- Samir धर्म 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite clear, I wasn't purporting 'good faith' to be the rationale for the blocks. Instead, it describes the rationale for the edits. Stanfordandson 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I have copy edited some of MONGO's blatant and false errors in spelling and grammar. This is not a personal attack.

I have removed your blatant and false mischaracterization [6] from the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do not put this back in the review. Argue about the merits of the deletion, and not your opposition. This is your only warning on this issue.--MONGO 08:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you were my opposition. Stanfordandson 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not personally attack me in that deletion review again.--MONGO 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't attacked anyone on any page. Stanfordandson 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 48 hours for harassment. The purpose of any deletion discussion or deletion review to is to determine whether an article should be kept or whether an article was wrongly delted, not to post personal slanders about the motives of other Wikipedians. I told you to not do this and removed the personal attacks, which you then reposted them. You have been blocked before, so maybe you are about to exhaust the community's patience.--MONGO 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|MONGO himself banned me after falsely claiming I made personal attacks against him in a deletion review. The disputed edits were in fact simply me adding information about how the article was deleted, which is entirely in keeping with the purpose of a deletion review. MONGO also deleted very pertinent information I put in the deletion review. It should also be noted that MONGO's reason for blocking me includes a claim that I've been repeatedly blocked for harrassment, even though he is the only person who has even accused me of harrassment.|Then E-mail MONGO about this}}

No thanks, I'll take it to RfC. Stanfordandson 06:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by MONGO for the following reason (see our blocking policy): repeatedly, this editor has been blocked, and now once again, for harassment, I am blocking him again.

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).

Stanfordandson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no clue why, but MONGO's blocked me indefinitely calling me a 'trolling account' even though I've only edited this page since the last time he blocked me for making personal attacks I didn't actually make.

Decline reason:

Contact Mongo--KungfuAdam 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling seems to fit quite aptly. Not for the first time, either. User:JzG 21:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This should be reviewed again because JzG has a long running grudge against me, as evidenced by his repeated vandalism of my user page. Stanfordandson 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No chance of an unblock. Your edit summary for the above was "jzg is a known vandal, so this needs to be reviewed again". JzG is a well-known and admired long-standing Wikipedian with a good reputation. For this personal attack on him, I would be prepared to block you indefinately. So consider yourself to have been given two blocks for the price of one. ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted MONGO, but he's not responding. Stanfordandson 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems he has protected and blanked my user page because it's being used for 'ongoing attacks', even though it's only been used for one attack, and I wasn't the one who made it, and I couldn't have removed it because I was blocked while it was up. Stanfordandson 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any administrator reviewing this block: I have brought this issue up on the unblock-en-l mailing list. Stanfordandson 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled why another editor would use your userpage to link to an off site attack page on me. I also see that blocks are nothing new to you. Maybe I'll reduce the block to one week, but not without a formal apology for mischaracterizing the DRV as you wrote it.--MONGO 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to apologize, 'formally' or otherwise, for a supposed mischaracterization that I believe to be entirely correct, especially in the face of your own rather more severe mischaracterizations that 1) I have been blocked multiple times for harrassment, 2) that I made personal attacks against you, 3) that my user page had repeatedly been used for personal attacks against you, and that 4) I have harrassed anyone. Moreover, I'm not going to apologize for a 'mischaraterization' which you have up until now not shown to be such when, as far as I know, a mere 'mischaracterization' is not a reason for which one can legitimately be banned from Wikipedia, neither indefinitely nor, if one makes a stink about it, for a week. As well, I'm not going to do this if I've already been blocked for it and the block has expired, but I'm now blocked for another reason and you're dangling a carrot over my head in an attempt to get me to apologize for the reason you blocked me the first time. While it is indeed true that 'blocks are nothing new to me', please note that in the case of one administrator's blocks, I filed an Arbitration Committee case. While the case wasn't accepted, several Committee members expressed implied criticism of an administrator's blocks against me. Please also note that at least one generally respected administrator seems to be openly critical of your own blocks, and that the several {{unblock}} requests I have made in response to your blocks were apparently denied not because the administrators agreed with your blocks, but because they believed I hadn't contacted you via E-mail to discuss them.

If you provide me with some sort of reason to believe that my characterization of the AfD was incorrect, I'll apologize to you, 'formally' or in any other manner you wish. Otherwise, any apology I make will be forced and without any true feeling of remorse on my part. Stanfordandson 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can find no reason to unblock you. There was zero cause to even mention my name in the DRV, none whatsoever, yet you did this and even went so far as to replace it after I asked you to not do so. I see no evidence that your intention here is to do anything other than disrupt the efforts to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 07:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so first it was a 'personal attack', then it was a 'mischaracterization', and now it's a mention of your name. But I've already been blocked for that and the block has expired, leaving me wondering why you blocked me again. I'm certainly not the one disrupting efforts to write an encyclopedia, because I have made dozens of fine edits and haven't been blocking users for no apparent legitimate reason. Also, I wonder how apologizing for mentioning your name in a deletion review is going to convince you otherwise when my edits can't. Stanfordandson 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential edits

Since I am blocked indefinitely by MONGO, I am going to put potentially useful edits in this section of my talk page. Other people can look at them and, if they think they're decent, make them in my stead. Stanfordandson 06:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in Laurentian University should say 'medical students' instead of 'med students', as the latter seems to be unencylopaedic in tone.