User talk:TheoClarke/Archive 003

Back to Theo's Archive Contents and Index

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 22 Jun 2005 and 5 Jul 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Nick Boulevard RFC

I really want to believe that Ray Girvan, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are not the same people. I do but the more they edit against my slightest move (G-man is suspicious also) the more I wonder, the intro to brum music is not me being awkward and I was actually enjoying the debate although I felt it wasn't over, you came up with a suggestion and I was in process of replying when I saved and Ray had added his comment I lost mine. :( I don't want the article to be in favour or against Brum... let the music history tell its own story, I have a feeling a specific user has pinpointed my achillies heal and has added these words to provoke a reaction, I am still playing by the rules. Nick Boulevard 00:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is ludicrous, Nick. You want to look pig-thick and paranoid? Well done: you're doing fine. For starters, this is me here. This is Andy Mabbett [1]. Like someone is going to set up entirely different identities - websites that have been up for years, way before any Wikipedia disputes arose, for a geeky computer journalist in Devon and a West Midlands bird-watcher - just to spite you. Get real. RayGirvan 00:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nick: It is time to take one of those deep breaths and to stand back! Ray's irritation is understandable and, while I would prefer that it was expressed more softly, he is right that your assumptions about three eidtors who have some shared values and opinions appear paranoid. And now, back to that article.—Theo (Talk) 07:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theo, Rays post here doesn't deserve a reply IMO. I have highlighted my apology of the 13th June on my RFC to Ray of which he didn't acknowledge, I have not accused him of being anyone other than his charming self since so his abuse is not only water off a ducks back (I'd rather be thought of as a duck than a pig anyday) it's groundless as well. My reference here was questioning their connection, maybe that is merely by their editing nature and love of editing my articles, nowhere have I said Andy Mabbett is Ray Girvan or vice versa since my apology, thanks. Nick Boulevard 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nowhere have I said Andy Mabbett is Ray Girvan or vice versa since my apology He did so, here, yesterday. [2]. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard. Andy Mabbett 19:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo: I didn't realise until just that you're an admin. That makes it even worse. You ought to be upholding the stated editorial principles here, not telling us to be lenient to <personal attack removed> Boulevard. I'm not taking it to e-mail because this kind of problem ought to be in the open. Such tolerance has lost people like Larry Sanger and User:172. It's rapidly losing me too. Is that what you want? RayGirvan 01:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will not tolerate personal attacks on my user page. I asked you to ignore any accusations or allegations that Nick might make in the future because of the abusive and inflammatory nature of responses such as the one that you have just made. I believe that you have reached a state of exasperation such that you are unwilling to be civil. I made the same request of Nick and he agreed. It is your prerogative to refrain from the use of email IRC and suchlike. However, I am uncomfortable about chastising individuals in a public forum because it lends itself to the kind of mobbing that is counter-productive. I do not wish to lose any editor who is enhancing the encyclopedia. I do wish that all editors conduct themselves with civility. Brutally: The misbehaviour of others is no excuse for your own misbehaviour. —Theo (Talk) 08:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you have reached a state of exasperation such that you are unwilling to be civil. Wow! Got any more dazzling examples of your perceptiveness? We've had months of poisoned atmosphere, disruption and hindered enhancement of the encyclopedia - and not caused by me. And now you want everyone to be nice to the perpetrator. Any wonder I finally lose patience? Warn all you like: I quit. RayGirvan 02:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Theo: Boulevard has been making ad-hominem attacks, copyvio and PoV edits for over a year, yet you drive Ray away for a relatively minor transgression, born out of frustration with the aforesaid. I hope you can fix this. Andy Mabbett 09:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo, you may be feeling a bit cheesed off now. I just wanted to say that I cannot see that you have done anything wrong and that the dispute illustrates very nicely the old "two to tango" rule. Filiocht | Talk 11:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem. Several of us have been trying to persuade Nick to behave properly through reasoned argument on talk pages, then through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, and finally through the RfC process. When we finally get an admin to get involved a long-running problem, what happens? We're told that everyone is equally to blame, and we should play nicely with him. Nothing effective is done about his persistent, deliberate flouting of policy and guidelines. Absolutely nothing. And you can't see anything wrong with this. I'm also on the verge of throwing in the towel, because frankly if the system here is unwilling or unable to deal with disruptive and abusive users, Wikipedia deserves to be left to the wreckers. I am going to go to arbitration first, though. I've got some experience of professional treatment of people who have social and behavioural problems, and the one thing everyone in the field agrees on is that you don't ignore breaches of agreed rules. That's absolutely fundamental - people never change their behaviour if they find they can openly flout the rules without any sanction being applied against them. Ray has been extraordinarily patient and forgiving towards Nick for months, behaving impeccably until the last few days. Theo should certainly be feeling more than a bit "cheesed off" now. --Brumburger 16:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fil: Thank you for the reinforcement. I am not cheesed off (which in my world means disillusioned and irritated) although I it is probably just as well that I had to concentrate on RL all day today. I regret that Ray has chosen to quit. However, if Ray chooses to quit editing because he has been called on posting offensive messages, I see that as his problem rather than mine. The loss of his expertise to the encyclopedia is regrettable; the loss of abusive editing by anyone is not. Nick and Ray have both behaved inappropriately. They have both been warned. My preference is that they stay and cease misbehaving; if anybody wishes to behave inappropriately then their departure is preferable to the disturbance of an arbitration. I regret that Ray or anyone prefers departure to civility. —Theo (Talk) 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brumurger: I have not said that everyone is equally to blame. I am not aware that I have expressed any opinion on the division of blame. For what it is worth, I feel that you have behaved appropriately throughout. I also did not suggest that the community should disregard breaches of the agreed rules although I can see why you read it that way, and I regret my part in that misunderstanding. When I started looking at this I found three people collaborating to castigate a misbehaving editor. This triumvurate either employed or condoned misbehaviour of their own. That this misbehaviour arises from exasperation is not the issue: the misbehaviour of one party never justifies misbehaviour by others. The focus of that collaboration appeared to feel bullied. In these circumstances (where trust has broken down) continued arguments about misbehaviour only serve to exacerbate the problem. You had all already agreed to cease your mutual attacks but these agreements were all conditional:"I will if he will". I asked you all to disregard transgressions by the others because any comment by any of you was likely to inflame another. I should have explained that better. Nick agreed but did not live up to this and made an explicit attack. Ray disagreed and made more than one explicit attack. Andy disagreed and made implicit attacks. You disagreed but refrained from responding to the misbehaviour, which is what I had requested. I warned Nick and Ray, and I am watching Andy. You continue to behave appropriately although I am concerned that you have not disavowed the personal attacks and abusive messages of your allies. So, no, you are not "equally to blame" but Nick's longer running misbehaviour does not mean that I should condone that of Andy and Ray. And, yes, I want you all to "play nice" and anyone who refuses to do so is, ultimately, likely to be sanctioned. —Theo (Talk) 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my lapse Theo, it wasn't meant with malice at Ray, I did not "make up" the story of a friend who died from a brain tumour last week and so when I saw Rays comment I found it hard to restrain and believe me I could have said a lot worse but out of respect to myself and your fairness to all of us here I stooped to sarcasm instead, It was difficult not to respond. That was an exeption, I think that we have all wasted much time bickering (not you of course) when we could have written half a dozen brilliant articles which is afterall all I come here to do. Thanks. Nick Boulevard 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nick: See my comment at [your RFC]. —Theo (Talk) 17:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This triumvurate either employed or condoned misbehaviour of their own.; Andy [...] made implicit attacks.. Kindly withdraw these unwarranted slurs. Andy Mabbett 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andy: In my opinion, your assertion "Another suggestions that he should approve edits before they are made; and that copyvio notification should have ben dscussed with him before being posted." under the title "Further abuse" with the edit summary "Cliams right of approval over edits" (this diff) is a simplification to the point of misrepresentation and, as such, is an implicit attack in the current heightened atmosphere. Similary, this, although softened here, is less than the full picture and, in the circumstances, is likely to antagonise Nick. I believe that you know this. I have no problem with you citing examples of what you perceive to be misbehaviour but to do so without accuracy or completeness (the whole truth and nothing but the truth) is inflammatory. I will not spend the time now on searching out and citing specific instances of misbehaviour before my request unless this comes to arbitration but I will remind you that Angela found cause to admonish you over your behaviour towards Nick.—Theo (Talk) 19:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The examples you cite do not justify your allegations. Furthermore, every such report I made has cited evidence. I can recall no such admonishemnt from Angela, but if there was one, it was certainly without cause. I repeat: Kindly withdraw your unwarranted slurs. Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)

From User talk:Nick Boulevard/Archive 1:

"He has no right to be reverting your user page. If you want it blanked, feel free to do so. If he continues to reinsert the text, it can be protected, though this would mean you couldn't edit it either. I'm sorry you find Wikipedia elitist. It really isn't, but sometimes actions can be misconstrued as vandalism, particularly if you are removing large parts of text without explanation. Please try not to get frustrated with this. There are problem users on Wikipedia, and we haven't yet found an ideal way of dealing with them, but our processes for doing this are improving slowly. I hope you will stay and contribute. Your edits to Birmingham and other articles are very much wanted, by everyone but Andy I expect. Angela. 20:50, May 26, 2004 (UTC)"

"He has no right to be reverting your user page" Your evidence for this, please? Andy Mabbett 00:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)"

erm... cough... dishonesty and vandalism v spelling and grammar, who would win?

QED. Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Andy, I have tried endlessly to get on with you here and I am willing to keep on trying, surely it is not beyond the wit of man for us both to exist here if not harmoniously then equally at least. Theo, I did apologise to Ray but I did so on his user page to encourage a response, he deleted it and so I have tried again more appropiately on his talk page, I am sincere and I do not wish for people to think that I have driven a member away without first trying to resolve our dispute with the advice you have given. Thanks Nick Boulevard 12:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The best thing I've done on Wikipedia for ages. Well done. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

A week is a long time in Wikidom. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't sulk. Seriously, I do so little as an admin, or as anything other than a writer, that I feel very pleased when my actions work out as well as this one did. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should just go delete something. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful candidacy! Kelly Martin 13:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well done Theo, you seem to be very even handed and that is a good quality in a person. Nick Boulevard 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo is my wikipedia hero :> More even handed and tolerent than I could ever personally muster. Leonig Mig 3 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

Theo, congratulations on your adminship and getting David Helvarg as a featured article. Sorry I haven't been much help. I have extra things going on lately. Take care. Maurreen 17:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monkey Dust

Do you know if there will be any more series of Monkey Dust, or if it will be shown on BBC2 again? We only saw one episode but it was great. Also: did you ever see "I am not an animal"? Charlie123 PLease reply on my talk page 14:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Queen's handbag

I never thanked you for answering my query at WP:RD and apologize for the oversight. If I can be of service, do let me know. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Double whammy

An FA and an adminship within four days? As us kewl IRC kids put it, w00t! Congratulations, Theo! Bishonen | talk 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey congratulations Theo! You definitely deserve it! Now it's my turn to bite the bullet - but on Commons. Yours, --Silversmith Hewwo 21:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theo, that was fast! You're the best. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Impeccable judgement

Hi Mel: Just this very morning I was mediating upon how our impeccable judgement has led us to editing Thomas the Tank Engine articles.—Theo (Talk) 19:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ouch! Touché... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy enforcement indeed

Welcome to the riviting world of admin "discussion". ;) Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please note...

For a user talk page, there is a space between "user" and "talk" hence mine is User talk:Charlie123. But thanks for the feedback on Monkey Dust. Charlie123 13:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• cheers for that. Did you see Greg crash out last night? Unlucky for him. Also, are you an administrator on Wikipedia? Charlie123 14:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Are you online at the moment? Charlie123 (Talk) 15:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't use so much boilerplate text please... Charlie123 (Talk) 15:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Algaesave

Did you check to see if that had history that was used in any current article? That was the reason I hadn't done it yet - I was too busy catching up on archiving WP:AN (which I'm behind on - I'm about to give that up so I can focus on RfD, actually). Noel (talk) 19:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italo Disco

Why are you saying that me and User:Milk are developing great article ? He doesn't allow me or anybody else to contribute even one single word to this article and uses anonymous IP addresses in order to enforce his opinion.Vorash 12:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo, the reason I'm so frustrated with Vorash is because I think his edits aren't very cohesive, and aren't consistent. I'm sure you've noticed his sloppy style of editing that consists of making very many edits in a single row, while changing minor details/mistakes. Also, as you've probably noticed I, and at least one other member have told him to use the "show preview" button when editing in order to change many things/correct mistakes in one single edit. If you look on his talk page you'll see other members having arguments with him over changing/deleting things in articles. He also doesn't use the best English grammar when editing because he is not a native speaker, and of course this isn't his fault, but someone shouldn't make large additions to an article if they're not very familair in that language. So after he edits, I have gone in and fixed his grammar but then he will get mad at me and change some things back or change it to something different altogether. We have discussed our disputes on the talk pages but as you can see his reponses are quite immature, and again are full of incorrect grammar and come off as slight nonsense somtimes. From his edits you can gather that he is constantly online, changing things around, which makes it seem like he thinks it is his personal article that no one else canedit. Maybe I'm getting a little too worked up about this and might be overeacting, so I'm sorry if that comes out, but I just want the articles to be well written and good reflections of their topics. What are your thoughts on this? - Milk 18:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw your edits on the article. Thanks, much of it is improved but the only thing that bothers me is how you state "As of 2005 several online radio stations stream the genre ...". I think it is hard to know exactly when web streams started playing it. I know that the Cybernetic Broadcasting System started before that, at least in early 2004 when the forums went up. Plus mentioning Jeans Team in 2000 contributing to the renewed interest is a hard to judge too, because for one thing Legowelt's first italo-styled release was in 1998 and Hong Kong Counterfeit also had a release in 2000. I think it's better if we leave these topics on a more ambiguous tone. - Milk 18:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that important info should be added to history of "Italo Disco" term. "Italo Disco" term originally described an Italian dance music, because "The Best Of Italo Disco vol. 1" included only Italian disco songs from 1982. But in their further volumes ZYX started to mix Italian artists with other European artists, even so the majority of songs in these compilations were Italian. That's how all this Italo-Euro confusion began, and thats why people started to use "Italo-Disco" term as synonym for word "Euro Disco".Vorash 28 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

I also think that we should try to avoid telling people what does it mean exactly......we should only describe a story in article and give them possible meanings of word "Italo-Disco". This whole "Italo-Disco" issue is very complicated and confusing, and nobody knows for sure what it is !. Some people think that "Italo" is a "style", some think that "Italo" is a "feel", some may say that "Italo" refers to Italian artists only, some actually think that Italo and Euro are the same thing, some may say that it's a "trade mark" of ZYX. So the best solution will be to present in article different POVs, otherwise the "Edit War" will continue.Vorash 28 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Green Day certifications

Hi Theo,

I responded to your query on the Green Day album sales in the appropriate section.

Secondly, as an administrator, I'd like you to see this page: [link] and, after viewing the contents, would you be able to help resolve this issue? I'm fairly recent to Wikipedia, so perhaps I'm asking the wrong person...

Much appreciated.... PetSounds 28 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Hi Theo,

I was fortunate to have an understanding administrator who lifted my "block" prematurely. I just wanted to thank you for officializing the page in question. Let's just hope it stays that way. Somehow, I suspect it won't. Best to keep a close eye on it, I suppose.

Cheers....

PetSounds 29 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Wikiversity:School_of_Project_Management

Hi, have a look http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity:School_of_Project_Management - what do You think? --AndriuZ June 29, 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the note; most of my talk for the past day or two has been trying, nice to hear a friendly voice for a change. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Malcolm Bradbury

I've added a bit to this if you'd like to take a look.Alf 30 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello, Theo. 66.214.211.40 has repeatedly blanked and vandalized Kristin Breitweiser. See page history. As I cannot block him/her, could you please see what you can do? Thanks, Sango123 June 30, 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking action! I thought I was about to have a seizure from too many reverts. :) Sango123 June 30, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia

The article has been improved drasticaly, I think this is a good enough reason to reopen the FA status of this article. To be fair I am notifying all parties involved with the article on old candidacy. If I forgot one of you, its not intentional. Thats all for now --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Emma Goldman Quotes

When you deleted the quotes off the Wikipedia Emma Goldman page and substituted a Wikiquote template, you neglected to ensure that all the information was on the Wikiquote site. Not all quotes were there - and page numbers were missing from some citations. I'd appreciate it if people would be diligent about things like this before deleting stuff. The quotes did belong on Wikiquote, so I have not argument with the move, though. Thanks John Elder 1 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Cummings

Please look at Blankfaze's talk page. I'm taking a break for a week or two. Maybe you'd unprotect and keep an eye on things? Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 12:36 (UTC)

Theo, thanks for taking this on. I know that you will be firm but fair. As you can see, I have been trying to at least keep a lid on things, as I hate to see people implode. This is my last edit until July 11. Best Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Test template

Please point out the policy that says test templates shouldn't be on registered users pages. Google returns over 80 registered user talk page hits for all the test messages, so I'm not the only one. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

• "Any suggestion that an editor's well-intentioned edit is vandalism is likely to be seen as insulting." Maybe his initial addition was well-intentioned, but repeated reversions that went against all the talk page discussion were not, especially calling my reversions "censorship" and "vandalism". His original vandalism that started this was adding evolution to the list at pseudoscience. I put a {{test}} on his page for that, and he decided to escalate it. That was not well-intentioned. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Green Day dates

As you wish. I just found the dates in that particular order an eye-sore previously. Okay then, they can stay the way they were before. DrippingInk 4 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. My apologies, I guess I read your message incorrectly before. All right, I will do just that in the talk area. Thank you for the information. DrippingInk 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

Proto

User:Proto's recent edit to this page:

I didn't know Brumburger and Pigsonthewing were the same person. That does explain a lot. So the two-person attempt to hijack the Birmingham article as their own is actually a one-person attempt. Hmmm. Hmmm. :) (hastily hidden

is a defamatory and fallacious slur. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

As are Tho's recent comments on Proto's talk page; similarly hidden . Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

TheoClarke informed me it was a stupid comment to make. I agreed. Therefore, I withdrew it. Why bring it back up? Proto t c 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Also, please take any problem you have with me to my talk page, rather than cluttering up Theo's. Thanks. Proto t c 5 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)