User talk:Weighted Companion Cube

Welcome!

This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Weighted Companion Cube! I am Anetode and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

As a new user I would encourage you to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia. What you are doing could be construed as nothing more than trolling, I suggest you mark up a few hundred constructive edits before acting in such a bold fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is entirely constructive, and to accuse me of trolling is not a very nice thing to do. why are you so opposed to AfD as opposed to simply reverting all the time? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time. There is much to do. Please engage in constructive editing for a few months before getting involved in such controversial editing, as new editors who only engage in controversial editing often have their privileges withdrawn, and I wouldn't want to see that happen to you. So far you haven't made any constructive edits. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a waste of time because the result wont turn the way you want it to? also define constructive sometime - trying to protect people from deleting content seems plenty productive to me. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making an edit that improves an article is constructive. No, a waste of time because we have already discussed it at afd, and protecting content that the community has chosen to delete most certainly is not constructive, especially in a new editor with a non-existent track record. Please engage in something else here, there is plenty to do. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but the community did not choose to delete it at afd. do you even know what the debate entailed? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling as it won't be tolerated any longer. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what trolling? how is disagreeing with you trolling? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you disagree, it's that you've never done anything else. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so what? do you think its worth it? is everyone else here like this? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I do is worth it here, and yeah the encyclopedia is great. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is everyone treated like im being treated here? try to fix something and i get called a troll? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, quite simply, an edit-warring single purpose account. Those are indeed all treated like this and I have seen none that have not been blocked indefinitely for their behavior in the long run. I suggest you stop this counter-productive attempt at bypassing consensus and pursue some more meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia.--Atlan (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that makes no sense. i think your lack of discussion and ignoring of points is more counter-productive. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what Atlan says makes a lot of sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cube, it's nice to see you after that little misunderstanding at the Aperture facility. To expand on what's been said, there's a common trend with some new editors on Wikipedia. These editors are usually knowledgeable about the controversial aspects of Wikipedia as an organization and as a collaborative community, but have little experience in crafting articles or dealing with internal policy disputes. They usually enter into a stale dispute with a complicated background and question the status quo. At this point they run into long-standing Wikipedia editors who are skeptical, if not outright paranoid, of new accounts arguing over the merits of prior consensus. When challenged to provide a basis in policy for the dispute, the new editor becomes defensive. It may seem to the new editor that there's an insurmountable orthodoxy, or that any dissent is marginalized, so they fight back by asserting that they are being victimized. Usually, the situation goes downhill from there. Exchanges become less civil, malice is assumed on all sides, and it's not long before someone gets blocked for causing too much drama.

The cause for such escalation is a lack of perspective. Established editors perceive trolling and smugness on behalf of users who have yet to prove their capacity to work on building articles. The new editors perceive hostility and censorship because they are greeted with with unfamiliar editorial policies and skepticism.

The only way to ease tempers is through understanding and humility. You're going to have to accept that other editors are used to working with codified standards and thus rely on outside sources to substantiate any novel claim. The easiest way to do this is to become involved with editing a non-controversial article. Write something, interact with other users, see what Wikipedia is like when you're not in a constant dispute. When you have some background in sourcing and policy, your arguments will make more sense to other people and you may notice that Wikipedia functions as more of a meritocracy.

If you continue down your current course then I'm afraid that tempers will flare, good will will be strained, and you will in all likelihood be blocked as a single-purpose account. That may seem like a threat - it's not meant to, I don't really care about the dispute you're involved in and I don't intend to exercise any administrative measures in moderating it. Nonetheless, I wish you would take this advice as a plea for restraint and constructive contribution. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ive been constructive. the continued attacks are unnecessary, perhaps you may want to reign in the folks who are causing the problems. Regards, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is why he posted here. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its not my fault if he or she is missing the point. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your arbcom sanction is still in effect"

If you look at my edits I was removing vandalism. --8bitJake (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for you

New message for you on User talk:Athaenara#Happycat Image. — Athaenara ✉ 15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring

Regarding your statement. One of the traditional definitions of wheel warring is undoing another administrator's actions without prior consultation with them. The act of reversing the block and protection is sufficient, by itself, to conclude that George participated in a wheel war. Admins are expected to never overturn other admins' actions with discussing their concerns. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking at the page Wikipedia:Wheel warring. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see point 2 under possible indications. My point remains that a single reversal, when made without consultation and in a deliberate attempt to frustrate the will of another administrator, can constitute wheel warring and has been referred to as such in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible indications are not actual wheel warring, the term is clearly defined in the actual meat. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a single set of actions may qualify and has done so in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And those were apparently wrong. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What does this mean? --Jenny 15:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means whatever you think it means, Tony. Gonan keep disrupting the process or are you going to remove yourself before someone does it for you? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I take it you're accusing me of acting in a disruptive manner. Correct? --Jenny 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion re: [1]

The ArbCom case has nothing to do with WMC's edits or actions regarding global warming. Your evidence has nothing to do with the case at hand. I suggest you withdraw it as it just looks like an attempt to smear him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop protecting him. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or are you always a combative prick? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]