User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive06

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of October and November 2005.

Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!

Jaxl's RfA

Hi TenOfAllTrades, thanks for supporting me on my RfA, and thank you for your comment regarding AfD. I really appreciate it! Rob e rt 16:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RoyBoy RfA

Thanks for the support! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard

I noticed that thread was being modified extensively on the AN too. I've left a note at the bottom of Category talk:Terrorists, and hopefully this will help it. Will you be able to monitor the activities there? If not that's okay. For something like this, it would be nice to have someone look over my shoulder too. I might repost something at the AN if it degenerates any further. --HappyCamper 15:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asking or the third neutral opinion

Since I've got message from you regarding our argue with ccole in spyware article, I would like to ask your opinion. Brief history: 1. ccole created account only yesterday, and started to add his site errorwindows.com/forum to spyware article. this site is completely empty, thats why I deleted it instantly. Got the email from him that I should not delete his site. After that he started to remove my site www.2-spyware.com which in my opinion compliment the article a lot. 2. His so called Facts, that my reviews not written by me, but taken from somewhere, thats complete nonsense and because of that we started to argue. We carefully install all the software on clean and infected systems and after that we are writing the reviews and taking snapshots from the software activity. we have 2 lists: bad and good removers and they all are tested. 3. all the site is written very carefully all parasites organised very strictly by what they are, what they do, examples, lists, and removal instructions. All this we are doing ourselves, never stole anything from anywhere. And he states that the site is not unique at all and doenst compliment the article. 4. he states that we are just affiliate site. that is not true, we reviewed most programs and at the top 4 are 2 free programs: spybot and ms antispyware. 5. I tried numerous times to resolve this issue personally with him, but he even dont read what i say. he even banned access to his page, that I cant evaluate it when he will start adding it again.

here are the links to reviews: http://www.2-spyware.com/anti-spyware, http://www.2-spyware.com/corrupt-anti-spyware here are the link to example of category: http://www.2-spyware.com/browser-hijackers-removal our dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spyware I would like to get your opinion or community opinion regarding this matter. If the site 2-spyware.com doent add value to the article I just will try to improve it more. But now I dont even get argument why it is bad.

please help me to resolve this issue.

Voting for the Chechen constitution

This picture has been around for a long time, and I think you need to contact the webmaster for Copy rights issues. Given, of course, that you're fair and impartial in this crisis and just not seeking ptetexts etc. And furthermore, the the caricatures even photos have belonged to the politics everywhere, also in encyclopedic contexts in order to make things vivid--BIR 12:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. and sorry. I agree with you. I'll do my best to get detailed info. --BIR 06:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ex-Muslims

Sorry about what classified as blanking. I was warning the user (because he/she is new). My reasoning is:

clearly it's topic is a repeat of other articles (i.e. apostasy)
the article is almost copy and paste job of a website critical of Islam
it is only a promoter for various links

Thanks for the warning though. Instead I will tag it for speedy deletion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're

You're a good admin - you don't instantly jump down someone's throat and you offer assistance. Wikipedia needs more admins like you; thank you.

Hi

Hi, Ten. The above was posted by User:67.18.109.218. I've just protected the talk page, and I'm off to bed, please feel free to unprotect when/if you think it appropriate. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vanity vandal

Thanks for handling that one. --fvw * 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandlism to my user page and protecting User talk:71.35.135.15. It is much appeciated. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. While I don't have a problem with new users doing a bit of experimenting, we're not here to play revert war games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i am here 2 play games i am playin 1 wit u 10:50 to 2:42 baby i'm everywhare

Above message from AOL IP 207.200.116.73. (Same individual as user:71.35.135.15.)

It's so amusing when the illiterate try to taunt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yesssssssssssssss i finelly got back in town and i see i haev acheved imortality on your wikepedai web page. 10:50 ta 2:42 baby. plus i wasent using an aol servar i was using a HACKED computer servar!!!!!

plus, i win

Jack Sarfatti block

I agree with the reasons for the block, even if the length is more severe than I would prefer.

But I've spoken with Dr. Sarfatti on the phone 3 times, and I have hopes that he may learn our ways sufficiently to merit a removal of the block - in time.

Please see my comments at user talk:JackSarfatti and at the admin incidents page. Uncle Ed 18:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackSarfatti

Hi Ten! It looks that Jacksarfatti who you blocked has a few sockpuppets which have evaded the block. Since you were the one who blocked the first account, I thought it prudent to refer you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JackSarfatti. In the meantime, I will block the suspected socks, although it appears that they haven't edited since they were reported. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my coments at User talk:Ed Poor on unblocking. He should probably be informed about wikipedia policy on socks. DES ^(talk) 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progess

He seems to have made it 2 or 3 days without another block. I think he can make it now. How about you? Uncle Ed 13:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased with his progress. I'm still keeping a cautious eye on him and on Jack Sarfatti, but I don't think his return is going to turn into a disaster. Congratulations on a successful rehabilitation, Ed! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Terminal Velocity of bullets

Thanks a lot for the response. It was very conprehensive. Albeit I kinda lost the discussion with my friend, at least I know I wasn't that wrong about terminal velocity of a bullet being considerably slower than the muzzle velocity. you were very kind with the answer --Threner 18:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soitenly. Sorry you lost the argument. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.Gdansk Vote

"There are more Polish individuals in (for example) Toronto, or New York City; we do not list the Polish names in the bodies of those articles" There wasn't a vote on this cities and USA or Canada, there was on Germany and Poland. "In the case of Bischofswerda, the only apparent link to Poland is that Polish troops passed through in WWII." Actually they liberated the town, some of them died there.

I have been warned several times and even banned by posters enforcing the Gdansk vote.As you can see using the vote on German cities that share history with Poland is possible and can be easly argued for by using "shares history". In the past some similar usage of the vote was used towards Warmia, Sopot or Gdynia.As you can see the vote is flawed and didn't solve the problem since it is contested by people from both sides. I do think that the question regarding "shared history" should be voted upon as well as the period of 1466 because they is a lot of potential of both abuse and 1466 vote has been disputed by several people. One more thing:"to refer to cities that were once part of both Poland and Germany or Prussia. I trust that you will use your common sense." That would be highly nationalistic and advantage to poeple expressing German nationalism since ALL cities in Poland belonged to Germany. As you can easly imagine using this argument to give them German names would be highly offensive and in all likelyhood contested. I could agree with that if cities taken by aggression in such events as World War 2 or Partitions of Poland should be excluded from this and had simply their modern English accepted version. --Molobo 19:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" Don't rush the process. In the meantime, don't deliberately provoke conflict on the naming issue." You see the only thing I did was to comply to voting results. Only difference was that it was applied to German cities instead of Polish for once.And suddenly sticking to the vote provokes conflict.Of course I am not attacking you but this only showes how flawed and one sided the vote is. --Molobo 19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Hartknoch and others

Sorry but this is perfectly plausible.Królewiec was part of a Polish fief then. So it fits in the category of "shared history" quite well.Why did you change it ? It seems the Gdansk vote is only towards the Polish cities. In fact from 1525 to 1657 Ducal Prussia was a Polish and de facto part of Polish Commonwealth(and till 1701 was to become part of Poland under certain conditions) so there shouldn't be any objections to giving its name in Polish.I could understand objections to other entries but this is actually a very right one considering history. --Molobo 19:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. I learn something new every day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The metaphoric pasture

Here is a vintage electric rotary lawn mower circa 1990 complete with an intact rear grass catcher. May it be eternally reliable and serve you well - whether it be for the pastoral golf course, or otherwise. Cheers! --HappyCamper 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your nicely worded ideas on what adminship is all about. --HappyCamper 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your comments

Hello! I thank you for your independent counsel; I appreciate it and am gladly compelled to respond. Perhaps I should've enlisted more comment from other users; however, as stated in the RfArb and subsequently to at least one of the arbitrators, the fact that little user input by others was offered (before or since) while the discussion occurred on two article talk pages (here and here, the latter of which was fairly civil) gave me pause about an RfC and that option. Whether due to lack of interest or insignificance, this is irrelevant. I'm also engaged in a mediation (supported by another) about a totally different issue (which is yielding positive results), so I'm aware of other options available and believe they would not yield a conciliation in behaviour from the user in this RfArb. Lastly, one of the Arbs provided an appropriate comment while refraining from rhetoric: I have absolutely no problem with that and accept(ed) it.

I see you've been commended by another on your judicious use of language: I try to do the same (and, as a segue, have also been awarded in the real world for writing and public speaking). But I'm no authority. A large part of my point is that others have not acted similarly, whether general users or arbitrators, doing so (as I see it) inappropriately. My edit wasn't questionable by the other user: my position and edit summary was (my initially 'jingoistic' "Cdn." comment may have been unwise, but I provided prior and subsequent basis for my edits based on policy/guideline) and I was still rebuffed. All the while, his position had no basis in policy (and still hasn't clearly stated what it is). The straw that broke this camel's back (hence the RfArb) was the deletion (not archival) of my comments on a talk page by the user in question. Such things can inflame a relatively insignificant issue in Wikipedia, as the user's lengthy and persistent comments and acts did, but I will not tolerate it continuing when it's directed at me and when it persists from the very beings we appeal to when wronged. I've also apologised (and can) when I do so, whether or not I err in language or judgement, and know when to concede. However, that doesn't prevent me from fully calling inept words or acts (or users, frankly) to account. Case in point: the other user (in responding to the RfArb) referred to this entire she-bang and my argument as "racist." Would you find that (given his prior comments) tolerable?

Think about this another way: if you were wronged in the real world and believed you were not being treated fairly and spoken to properly (either by another user or by impartial third-party arbitrators), would you not take action? I have indicated this in a note to Mr. Wales, Jimbo – perhaps the ultimate ombudsman (and, similarly, to the Canadian prime minister on a personal matter once). That, diplomatically, may yield action and it may not. I'm fine with that. I am irked not by decisions but by the language used to articulate them (particularly from an authority, and not because of it), and potential disrepute. As well, I'm not faultless and take full responsibility for my acts before and since, and proceed on that basis. In any event, user comments may require me to withdraw from pursuing this further and may do so.

So, I can and accept the occasional friction (besides: isn't this the safest form of sex? :)), but (to extend your metaphor) will not tolerate having others adding fuel to the fire and getting burned by anyone. I hope this is clear. Again, I thank you for your comments, apologise for this soliloquy, and invite more. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 07:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Hoax Page - Thanks

TenOfAllTrades -- that's for expediting the deletion of Ariel Odell (and for keeping an eye on the hoaxter/vandal). Is the user blocked? ERcheck 00:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use Of Edit Summary

Hey, thanks for giving me a heads-up on making sure that I use the edit summary box. Thanks for the help! Boneheadmx 04:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comunism vandal ;]

fixed your user page, cheers! --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 04:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stole my bike vandal

These are open proxies, feel free to block indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein case →Raul654 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tone?

Congratulations on your newly-minted adminship, Alkivar. As an admin–and despite it being 'no big deal...yadda yadda yadda'–you're now more a part of Wikipedia's semiofficial face. Newer Wikipedians will look to you as something of an authority figure, whether you want them to or not.

In that spirit, could you try to take a somewhat cooler tone in addressing the concerns of other editors? I'm a bit troubled by this edit. Raising a good-faith question about copyright at the Village Pump shouldn't be met with YELLING, or dismissive edit summaries about 'whining'. (Is there a history of conflict with Dragons flight on this issue?)

Given BD2412's decision to remove the list from his own user space–see the continued discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003)–it seems that the matter isn't a slam-dunk open-and-shut issue. As an aside, BD2412 is a good, reasonable fellow, and probably wouldn't appreciate his words being used with the sort of 'sit down and shut up' smackdown post you made to the Pump.

Do try to take care in the future, and consider a nice cup of tea and a sit down before posting in anger. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I appear a bit angry with the post, but one of my largest pet peeves is people who think they are lawyers... in particular non lawyers attempting to give legal advice CONTRARY to an actual lawyer giving legal advice. The problem becomes a matter of legal risk... a non lawyer following a non lawyers legal advice has no recourse, this is a big problem. For example if the general populace of wiki were to depend on Dragons flight's advice they could be opening wikipedia itself up to legal risks. ALKIVAR™

15:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THC acid carboxylation

Would you care to maybe add smthg about the transformation process from THC acid to the infamous, (comma is not needed) psychoactive THC, or maybe you know someone from the wiki science community who could? Ksenon 20:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I'm a bit stumped. I'm not a medicinal chemist, unfortunately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kawaii Neko

Cool Cat, do you know Kawaii Neko (talk · contribs)? He tried to do some well-meaning but inappropriate things with the redirects from your old username (User:Coolcat)–which I have repaired–and has adopted the layout and formatting of your user pages for his own.

I've asked him to at least remove your name from the pages–he did a copy-paste–you might want to keep an eye on this user. Is it someone you know? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that was me registering usernames for posible imposteration, and discovered how I could use templates. :) --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching my back and keep up the good work. Sorry for the rather short previous reply...

The reason I am using is because of the issue with inter wiki-redirects not working properly. So I thought using the templates to create dupes of myself for people tring to link to my userpage from other wikis. I dono, its not the best way to do it but, I am not sure what an alternative could be. I am open to suggestions... --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there isn't any way to do cross-wiki automatic redirects. I didn't think that templates could be transcluded from other wikis either. You might just have to make do with some sort of static user page on most of your accounts; include pointers from all of those to your main account on one of the wikis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]