User talk:Random user 39849958: Difference between revisions

Archives
Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Time to archive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Wikipedia:PROMINENCE for deletion because it is an underhanded way to twist policy to suit one's own interpretation. Feel free to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Thanks for that. Short of arguing it to death, what road would you suggest to solve the issue with ScienceApologist at both Deadly nightshade and Rue? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR has many options, but I think these problems, and those related, have gotten to the point where mediation would probably be best. I suggest you work with the editors to create a request you all agree to. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive advice. Last time I tried a mediation I got burned by incivility. So forgive me if I am a bit cautious with that route. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm suggesting something slightly different that should avoid such problems. If you can all agree first to exactly what you want mediated, then you've already resolved the problem that you (and most others) encounter when trying mediation. --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that is any different from last time. I guess I want a response from other users besides you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levine2112... Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your supportive comments over the last couple weeks regarding the whole "category:pseudoscience" thing on WP. And it looks like reason (as outlined in NPOV) may even prevail! -- at least, outside homeopathy, where lawlessless and chaos rule.... btw, speaking of 2112, have you heard the 1974-ish bootleg of Rush in Cleveland? Damn fine show. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It is much deserved. Have you considered adminship yet? I haven't heard the bootleg, but as you know I am a fan and now that I know it exists I shall track it down! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can find that boot on one of those ok-by-artists, live-recording Bittorrent sites like Trader's Den or Dime-A-Dozen. I discovered it by surfing around about Larry Williams, whose songs the Beatles covered a bunch of; Rush does this crazy Zeppelin-esque cover of one of them. Adminhood: to the extent that I've decided to stick around and work to improve WP, sure; I guess I'm as qualified as anyone. No great rush though (totally unintended pun until I typed it :-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Adminship is supposed to be not that big a deal, but in practice seems to have become an hours-consuming stressful "hazing"-type deal, which I'm not sure is really worth it... just to get a set of sysop tools that should ideally be available to all, yet hardly ever used. ("Ideal" is a long way off, of course.) I think that energy may be better spent editing at Citizendium. That site like a nice next step, and growing. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about the artist-friendly download sites. I am very sensitive to that as I have had friends lose their jobs as the record industry battled with pirates. And I hear you about adminship. I've seen it described as merely a software update. That said, I also feel that admins serve a greater purpose than policing. I feel they serve as interpreters of policies for the rest of the "civilian" editors because they are given a higher level of respect having earned their position. Generally, I agree with your perceptions into policy and therefore I feel that Wikipedia would be a better place with editors like you lending your view on policies to the hoi polloi. Whatever you decide to do, best of luck in all of your endeavors! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move my comment? Anthon01 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was in direct response to OrangeMarlin's and therefore I wanted mine to follow his. All I did is change your indentations for ease of ready. Feel free to change it back if it is an issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. You didn't think I was responding to his challenge? Anthon01 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. I will reread. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the bottom of my talk page.[1] Anthon01 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this [2] Anthon01 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Were you reported by someone originally? Sorry you had to go through that 8 minutes of confusion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a result of this.[3] and the section below. There is also this, added to the policy page of NPOV, without any consensus or discussion on the talk page. [4]

Please note. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Deadly Nightshade is under article prohbation per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Your edit here could be considered a violation of civility. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part? And considered by whom? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, me, for one. And I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the terms of the probation. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part do you think is not civil? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"you are just trying to disrupt this process" - comment on the content, not the contributor. "This is disruptive to the process," would be acceptable. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will change to what you suggest. Considering what he was doing, do you think he was being disruptive? Consider WP:SPADE. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you are being disruptive. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being disruptive? I am actively seeking dispute resolution and clarity while SA is muddying my attempts. Also, consider your comment about TDII's apology being "baseline". Was that not uncivil? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't stop responding. Every minute of every day you are constantly proclaiming you are right and he is wrong. You edit war.

No. If I had said "TDII sucks at apologzing" or "TDII's apology was insincere" then that would have be incivil. The fact of the matter was that the apology as presented was the baseline of apologies. It was not directed at the target of the personal attack, it was no where near the attack itself, he did not withdraw the attack, it was after substantial prompting and it was two words. He didn't go to his targets talk page to apologize, and he didn't say anything substantial about his apology. That's why it was baseline. I make no assumption about motive or skill in saying this - the edit itself was nothing more than a baseline apology. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are now being extremely uncivil with me with your characterization of my editing habits.

Second, I maintain that when someone swallows their pride and apologizes, it is a big step and we should encourage such behavior. Belittling TDII's apology as "baseline" is uncivil in my eyes. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way notice works, if somebody gives notice, they are also accepting notice. There is no need for reciprocal notification. I expect that every active editor within the homeopathy articles is going to be on notice shortly. Hopefully behavior will improve and no bans will be called for. Happy editing, Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are aware and may respond, you have been mentioned in a posting about ScienceApologist at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, working at home on a dial-up connection through a sticky-keys-laden craptop. The corrected deletion nomination page can be found here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can special pages be changed...by anyone?--Angel David (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Specialpages: Most of the content of these pages is automatically generated and cannot be edited. To suggest a change to the parts... -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What?--Angel David (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the Special:Specialpages link and read the opening paragraph. The answer seems to be "no". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You first introduced this policy to me. In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously wikistalking me. I'd appreciate it if you did not. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to look up wiki guidelines about "stalking" but I'd like to note here that I have myself included SA's Talk in my watchlist during periods of what I considered contentious editting. I don't mean to imply that SA has ever accused me of stalking, or that Levine is or is not doing anything similar; I just want that on the record as a concerned party. And it wasn't SA but his pal Ronz who stalked me, in the sense of spamming my talk after I had explicitly renounced further attempts to resolve our differences by direct conversation, and after I had explicitly asked him not to (the wikiquette item I introduced and following RfC were never addressed, and dropped for inactivity); however, at the time it certainly seemed that SA and Ronz had their metaphorical probosci deeply ensconced in each other's morphological tori. Pete St.John (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to inform you about the section.[6] Anthon01 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]