User talk:Equazcion/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Your signature

Is strikingly similar to mine! ;) iMatthew talk at 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Mine has parenthesis. It makes all the difference :) Actually it's no accident... I came across a comment of yours somewhere and fell madly in love with your signature design. I spent a good amount of time trying to merely use cues from it without copying it outright, but that didn't really work out in the end. I'm not proud of what I've done. I'll understand if you want to report me to the board of signature review. Equazcion (talk) 01:38, 18 Dec 2009 (UTC)
It's ok! I'm glad that you like it. You're the second one I've caught! :) iMatthew talk at 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

Please see Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1 for a response to your questions re: compromise. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded there. Equazcion (talk) 22:06, 23 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent "Duh...!" on my talk page. I have done as you suggested. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 03:43, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanting to thank you...

I just want to take the time to thank you for bringing this added stress to my world at this time of year. I have a hard enough time dealing with Christmas since a close relative has died, add to that the fact that I just attended on Monday yet another funeral of another close friend. You know, I have been working so hard to just edit in peace and get along and do what I'm supposed to in order to be a valuable editor and then you pull this charge about my archives out of the air. And for what? Are you going to police everyone's archives now to see if they, too, have made an infraction they weren't even aware *was* an infraction? It's stuff like this that makes me wonder why in the world I'm even here at Wikipedia. Not only have I been a decent editor, I've made a number of good contributions with photo downloads, article creation, and watching pages for vandalism. And then, of course, there's the sizeable $$ donation I just made to Wikipedia...but who cares? No one remembers the good stuff - just the bad - and *then* they have to make sure they jump on the persecution bandwagon with everyone else so they can put in their two-cents as if it's the most valuable and most important opinion for the most important decision in the world. But, hey - as long as some people get to use Wikipedia as their own personal battleground that makes them feel as if they own their own little kingdom within the encyclopedia (I'm not suggesting you are one), I should be happy, right? Whatever. It's just the internet, right...? Feh. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You have to understand that the place has rules; rules that you might not completely understand yet. Your response when people inform you that you're infringing on any of those rules has been to lash out at them, which has, I think, created a more stressful situation for everyone than need be. When someone's trying to explain rules to you that you weren't fully aware of before, it would help to respond a bit more humbly than that. Perhaps assume you don't already know more than the more experienced people here, and that they're not trying to attack you.
That starts with your calling my nomination of your page a "charge". I'm not charging you with anything. I saw a page that violates policy, I asked you to fix it, you refused, so I nominated it. It wasn't personal and it wasn't even a commentary on you. It's just a page that needs to be dealt with, and MfD is the appropriate process. The fact that the person who created the page happens to be dealing with personal issues doesn't factor in to how those pages get dealt with. I certainly sympathize with your plight in life, especially when it comes to recent deaths. You seem to have brought that frustration here though. Not that I can really blame you, but still, there's going to be some resulting unavoidable unpleasantness from conducting yourself in a less-than-ideal state of mind. If Wikipedia adds undesired stress to your life, I'd suggest taking a break from it. I've definitely had to do that myself in the past. Wikipedia should not be such a priority when you have too many real-life things to deal with already.
To clear up the mystery, I was actually on a wiki-break myself, when I was contacted regarding your archive page. Someone felt they were too previously involved to objectively do anything about it (and considering your previous concerns about participants with grudges against you, you should probably appreciate that course of action).
To sum up, even people who make valuable contributions have to follow the rules, and while I sympathize with your situation, a smidgen of effort towards humility on your part would really go a long way. We're not out to get you. Try to assume the best rather than the worst intentions, even when people are informing you that you violated a policy. If you honestly can't do that, it may be time for a break. Equazcion (talk) 18:36, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
As I stated the other day, you could have handled this a whole lot better than you did. Suggesting I take what was there and keeping it on my own computer (which I never even considered because I didn't think I had to hide any of it since I didn't know what I was doing was a violation of any kind) could have been done sooner than after you nominated the page for deletion. When I brought this to your attention, you blew me off with something along the lines of, "I didn't know I needed to state the obvious to you". Yes, indeed, try to assume the best - did you do that with me? I don't think so. As far as a "smidgen of humility" goes...please don't suggest something that neither you, nor anyone else (save the one keep voter) in this whole mess has really taken time to demonstrate. IMO and experience, Wikipedia's notice boards have become nothing but kangaroo courts that Wikipedia hypocrites utilize and where they lay in wait to pounce according to their own agendas. Like I said above, no one notices the good, but by golly they are sure there to notice punish the bad. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You're really obfuscating things here. I repeatedly told you of the problems with the page, at which point both of the following occurred simultaneously: A) you did indeed "know what [you were] doing was a violation...", and B) it should have been obvious that although I was asking you to remove things from the page, that I would have had no issue or control with regard to your saving the material locally on your computer. You contest this now, by saying it wasn't necessarily obvious, since you didn't know you couldn't have those things on the page. But as soon as I told you, which was in my very first comment, you knew.
You still know, and yet you're still unwilling to do anything about it. You've essentially acknowledged the problem, but you're instead waiting for someone to force action as a result of the MfD. You're not interested in peaceful resolution. You're not interested in being remotely constructive. You like the fight. It helps you vent your frustrations. If I'm wrong then prove it. Resolve this now.
Barring such proof, I'm now through trying to help you, and I'm done being polite with you. I'm sorry for whatever life events have brought you to your current state of mind, but won't feed your need for drama. Find someone else. If you want to reply once more, make it good, because it will be the last time I allow you to post on my talk page. Equazcion (talk) 22:05, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
<sigh> I can't do anything to the archive page until the issue has a resolution,correct? That's the only reason why I am waiting (and because I seriously *don't* have time to weed through the thing right now - it's Christmas week, remember? - I already told you I would need time to do it. I told you what I would do - telling me I am "unwilling" is completely inaccurate and unfair considering that from what I understand I'm not to do anything to the page until the issue is resolved.
But, beyond all of this, I do want to apologize for taking my frustration out on you. I still wish you had handled things a little better - maybe along the lines of giving me some options other than what I read to be, "do it my way or else I'm reporting you" Honestly, I don't know a whole lot of people at my age (45+) who take to that kind of a demand well unless it's work related. Unfortunately, you were in the way of my great frustration and ended up being a target. I hope you can accept my sincere and humble apology. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion -- You may, and everyone is always encouraged to, edit the page in question during a deletion debate in order to fix problems (only certain edits are not allowed, like blanking the page or removing the deletion notice). I've already told you this more than once. If the only reason you are waiting to edit the page is because you thought you weren't allowed to, then you have no reason to wait anymore.

Your age has nothing to do with it. Many people don't like ultimatums; but if a concern has merit, you still need to address it, even if you don't like the way it was put to you. Push back at the person if you must, but at the same time acknowledge the problem and do your part to try and fix it.

The problem in this case especially was that I began by making a friendly statement, and only resorted to the ultimatum after you stonewalled me ("the rest of it is staying"), at which point I was forced to take a different route. Whether or not I pointed out an alternative option, I tried exhaustively to be diplomatic about this. If you still think I should have handled this better, I think your expectations for this place fall under coddling. It's not everyone else's job to come up with desirable alternatives for you whenever they need to point out a problem to you. If you expect that in every case, you're going to have a terrible time here.

At any rate, I accept your apology. If you don't have the time to fix the page within the next 2 or 3 days, then I suggest you copy the page code to a local text file in that time, because the chances look good that it will be deleted. Good luck. Equazcion (talk) 23:53, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)


???

What is your problem? Now you're gossipping about me all over Wikipedia because you and I didn't see eye to eye on a few things? Making editorial comments like you did (on the sockpuppet report page), "She generally chooses to pump accusations back at them instead of arguing the issues, so this particular accusation doesn't surprise me (nor will it surprise me when Skag accuses me of something as a result of this posting)" is just not necessary, not NPOV, and downright wrong. The comment you made about me at Rschen's talk page was out of line and POV as well, "She generally chooses to pump accusations back at them instead of arguing the issues, so this particular accusation doesn't surprise me (nor will it surprise me when Skag accuses me of something as a result of this posting)". Was that really necessary? As far as the sockpuppet report, why can't you just let those who investigate sockpuppet reports investigate? Making comments is one thing, but taking it upon yourself to provide information that they probably already have discovered and then adding your editorial comment, "Aside from which the case was very thin to begin with"...you think they can't decide for themselves whether a case is "very thin" or not? As it so happens, I realized myself that I either looked at Wildhartlivie's posting information incorrectly or incompletely late last night (actually very early this morning) after the report had already been filed. There was not obfuscation or dishonesty involved.

You keep saying you're going to take a Wikipedia break, yet you keep coming back as if the place can't function without your help. It seems to me that you may not only need to take a break from Wikipedia, but you need to get over yourself, get over your idea of self-importance in this realm, and get a life. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? People are allowed to comment on, and even provide evidence for, things that don't directly involve them. That's the essence of a collaborative volunteer project. We all pitch in. People are going to make comments you don't like, and you're gonna have to real used to it.
Another correction for you: NPOV applies to articles, not editors' comments. See WP:NPOV. No one in a dispute has a neutral point of view, and they're all allowed to express their points of view as much as they damn well please. Get used to that too.
Stop complaining whenever someone says something you don't like. It's getting really irritating. Argue the issues like an adult, rather than crying "why'd you have to say that?!?!" every time. For the umpteenth time: People will say things you don't like. There's no policy against that, so get used to it.
Yes I'm finding it hard to stay away. Wikipedia is my addiction, as I said in my notice above.
Oh and "Get a life"???? ...and you're really complaining about everyone else's personal attacks? That's interesting. That is far worse than anything anyone has said to you thus far. Equazcion (talk) 19:03, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I realize that NPOV is for articles, however...it goes without saying that NPOV is part of good faith and that POV and personal editorializing doesn't belong in the Wikipedia report process. You want to tell me something about me to my face - do it. But don't start disparaging me all over Wikipedia just because "NPOV is for articles only". It's *not* okay (but you already knew that, didn't you...) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've continually been telling you my thoughts on your behavior directly to your face for quite some time now. NPOV is neither an explicit nor an unwritten rule for Wikipedia processes. Expression of points of view and "editorializing" do indeed factor legitimately into disputes. That's how cases are argued. If you find my comments disparaging, I suppose that's unfortunate, but also unavoidable. I'm not on a campaign to disparage you "all over Wikipedia". In processes that I've been made aware of, I state my honest assessment. If you find my assessments inaccurate, you may post your counter-arguments; but you may not reasonably demand that I stop commenting negatively on your behavior. Equazcion (talk) 19:27, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Overgeneralizing

Since the sock case is now closed, and I cannot defend myself against the falsehoods in your last statement to me there, I will have to do so here.

First of all, I want to briefly address your claim that I was believing there is a "rule" about who can and can't take part in a sock investigation. My point was never about a "rule", but about boundries. You seem to have a problem with understanding your boundries in Wikipedia. You don't have, IMO, a healthy sense of boundries and knowing when you should cross one and when you shouldn't. This is particularly evidenced in your seeming compulsive need to insert yourself in discussions that don't necessarily involve you, in providing evidence that would have been found by others in the sock case, in your obsession with Wikipedia, in your feeling that Wikipedia somehow needs you specifically, and your seeming need always be right and have the last word.

Now, back to the final claims you made about me in the sock-case comments.

You ended up overgeneralizing and making claims about me that are patently false. I have never said to you or anyone else in Wikipedia that others have "misinterpreted [my] communications" or that "everyone continually misinterprets" me. That is complete falsehood. As far as your understanding of communication having to be reinterpreted...no. Language is a code that needs to be interpreted by the receiver, however, what you are doing here is interpreting the code and then adding your own definition of what the code really means. You're interpreting the words but then adding to the meaning. That's dishonest and it's unfair to the one trying to communicate with you. I realize that in today's world there are people who no longer speak plainly or with clear meaning - but I'm not one of them. Why do you seem to think that in what I say I have mal-intent behind my words - even if my words on their face don't convey that at all? You did the same thing with tearing apart my reasons for having my talk-archive they way I did. I had them the way I did for the reasons I stated: they were there to keep chronological evidence of a chain of events in case I needed them for future reference. That was all. There was nothing more. There was no "list of wrongs". It was what I said it was. But you refused to believe me, inserted your own prejudices into what I really must have meant, and wouldn't take my word for it. That is wrong. It's unfair to me and it's actually doing a disservice to you in the end.

Do you see suspicious behavior and mal-intent and dishonesty in every person you encounter in Wikipedia? In life? Do you think that when everyone says to you one thing that they really mean another? It would seem so if you believe "all communications have to be interpreted" and the *real* meaning decoded (not your words - but it's what you have demonstrated with me over and over). My suggestion to you is that you really do take that break from Wikipedia (and not just talk about it this time - but seriously do it). From what I've seen, this "addiction" you have to Wikipedia and belief that Wikipedia needs you is quite unhealthy and has damaged your view of other people, yourself, and the world in general. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no boundary. I provided evidence to the case, and whether or not you think that evidence was obvious is irrelevant. IMO, your opinion that I've crossed boundaries stems from my having a point of view that opposes your own. There's a thin line between viewing someone as disagreeing with you and viewing them as an annoying presence that doesn't belong in the debate. I've felt like telling people to go mind their own business too on occasion, but on Wikipedia, you've gotta take it all, from everyone. People insert themselves into situations that don't involve them all the time here. That's the essence of the project. It's a collaboration, and we all volunteer wherever we feel like we have something to say or offer. Again: Telling someone to "just stay out of it" or that it's "none of your business" (not direct quotes) is a completely irrelevant, ridiculous and inappropriate gesture on Wikipedia, and will never accomplish anything.
As for the last word, well, that's a universal compulsion of which you're a victim too. This posting on my talk page would be evidence. The case is over, after all.
Whatever people are doing, whether you want to call it misinterpreting or "adding meaning" (a very fine and almost invisible line separating those), it's something everyone does here. You don't only have this problem with me. Whatever I'm doing, everyone else is doing too, and in the end you have found yourself being misinterpreted and having to "correct" people and admonish them for their "assumptions". After a certain amount of that you should think about whether it's really everyone else's fault.
As for the archive, the judgment wasn't one of intent but of content. When a page contains certain things, arranged in a certain way, regardless of what the author meant it to be, it can still be a violation. "Believing you" or "taking your word for it" was irrelevant. If we had to take everyone's word for it whenever their pages were threatened with deletion, nothing would ever get deleted.
I'm sure you'd love it if I took that break (you might get your wish), but suspect you'd be singing a different tune if I had "inserted myself" on your side in these cases instead. Get used to people butting in on your business. Take it in and argue the issues with them, rather than telling them to "stop" doing this or that (as you do a lot). It'll save you a lot of grief, on Wikipedia, and in the world in general. Equazcion (talk) 19:46, 27 Dec 2009 (UTC)
PS. Regarding the boundaries, I invite you to WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:AC, WP:COIN, WP:RSN, and any of the dozens of other Wikipedia processes, to test these boundaries you think exist. Provide your input on any, and as many you like, of the discussions you find there. I'm sure they'll all be glad to have you. If you get complaints that you're inserting yourself into matters that don't concern you, you'll know you were right about those boundaries. Most likely though, your participation will be appreciated, because the community is spread rather thin over all these processes, and they need all the input they can get. Equazcion (talk) 20:14, 27 Dec 2009 (UTC)
"There's no boundry". Sorry, but everything in life has boundries. The boundries I was speaking to specifically were life boundries, not boundries strictly within the rules and confines of Wikipedia. You seem to have a poor understanding of when it's appropriate for you to invite yourself into something happening in Wikipedia. IOW - you seem to think you are needed everywhere in Wikipedia.
"As for the last word, well, that's a universal compulsion of which you're a victim too". Wrong again. I have learned in my near half-century of life when to speak, when to listen, and when to just completely shut up and/or walk away. There have been plenty of times here in Wikipedia (as well as IRL) when I haven't even responded to something someone has said - that I would have been well within my rights to address and respond to - but felt it better to just let it go. Telling someone who has just pointed out something to you that you have difficulty with that they do the same thing is, well...a very immature answer that basically says, "I don't have to change because you have the same problem". Not.
My response here to you lying and misrepresenting me is not a compulsion nor evidence of anything other than I am not someone who allows others get away with blatant dishonesty. Posting here had nothing to do with me needing the last word - it had everything to do with righting a wrong.
"Whatever people are doing, whether you want to call it misinterpreting or "adding meaning" (a very fine and almost invisible line separating those), it's something everyone does here." Baloney. "Everyone"...really? Again, you're excusing your bad behavior and poor choices in communicating with others by using a child's answer: "everyone else does it so it must be okay!"...? Good grief.
"adding meaning" (a very fine and almost invisible line separating those)". Again, not. Anytime you "interpret" (as you claim you always do when communicating with others) in such a manner that you are totally twisting the meaning of the other communicator and then telling that person what they really meant, that's eisegesis, rather than appropriate exegesis. There's no fine, invisible line there - it's very blatant and it's very wrong (as well as arrogant and self-focused).
"You don't only have this problem with me. Whatever I'm doing, everyone else is doing too". Again...really? Can you cite your source for this information or are you, once again, over-generalizing? Children do that too, BTW (over-generalizing) - it's one of the benchmarks in early childhood behavior. Thing is, they usually get over it at by about age 2 1/2. When an adult insists on doing it - it's a definite sign of emotional maturity and the inability to exercise the give-and-take communication necessary in healthy, adult relationships.
"Believing you" or "taking your word for it" was irrelevant. Again...really? So assume good faith is only for newbies and then once you get your footing in Wikipedia you just forget all about it? Funny...I see others in Wikipedia (non-admins and admins alike) taking others' word for it all the time.
"If we had to take everyone's word for it whenever their pages were threatened with deletion". Excuse me, but who's "we"? You're not an administrator, so...? Unfortunately, this is another sign of you not having appropriate relational boundries.
"I'm sure you'd love it if I took that break". What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are you of the belief that I suggested you take a break because I would see it as benefitting me and my activities in Wikipedia? Dude - seriously, you need to get over yourself. My suggestion for you to take the break you keep saying you're going to take had everything to do with you obviously needing to take a break from your compulsion and obsession with Wikipedia and the apparent belief that the place just can't do without your assistance. Whether you are still around or not is neither here nor there to me. I'm an established editor who didn't even know you existed here until what? A month-or-so ago? And somehow, prior to a month ago I've been able to actually function without you all that time...go figure. (yes, that was intended sarcasm)
"but suspect you'd be singing a different tune if I had "inserted myself" on your side in these cases instead". Suspect all you'd like (you seem to have a lot of suspicions about me - why, I haven't the foggiest - more eisegesis, I guess), but you'd again be completely wrong. Be here, don't be here. As I stated above, my suggestion that you leave this place for a while has everything to do with you getting a grip on the reality that the sun still rises whether you see it happen or not, and that Wikipedia still functions just fine without you.
"Get used to people butting in on your business." That's never been a problem for me here. In fact, that's never been a problem for me in a lot of areas of my life. As someone who grew is a former Marine as well as someone who spent a lot of years working in corporate business, I don't have a problem with people scrutinizing what I do. What I have problem with is people who don't know when their butting in isn't appropriate (and now we're back to understanding boundries) or necessary.
"It'll save you a lot of grief, on Wikipedia, and in the world in general". Sorry to dissapoint you, but "grief" here and "in the world is general" isn't something I have a problem with.
Take care of yourself - and do consider a serious vacation from here (for all the reasons I stated previously - nothing more, nothing less). Unless we interact in regard to an article or something else Wikipedia-article/issue-only related, this is the last you will hear from me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Again: Collaborative project. We volunteer our opinions wherever we can. In certain other areas of life you can expect that only qualified or previously-involved individuals will involve themselves, but not here.
Re. The last word -- It was immature of you to begin with to basically say "stop trying to get the last word in" when you're doing the same thing yourself. I was just pointing that out. Your viewing this as needing to "right a wrong" basically applies to everyone who tries to get the last word in. Most people wouldn't say "I'm just trying to get the last word in". "The last word" is an external characterization of the behavior. You don't realize you're doing it, but you are. I'm doing it too at the moment. The difference is, I admit it.
I wasn't suggesting that because everyone else makes bad communication choices that I can as well. I'm saying that rather than characterizing other people's choices as poor, examine your own. "Everyone" was an exaggeration, but you've had this problem with multiple people. I could provide diffs if you like.
"Believing you" or "taking your word for it" was irrelevant. -- Again...really? -- Yes, really. Again, you're missing the point. The assumption of good faith is a question of intent, not content. Your intentions were irrelevant to the deletion discussion. The page's contents alone were the problem. You could've meant to praise the individual in question, it doesn't matter. The contents were a problem nonetheless, and there are plenty of delete votes in the discussion that agree with this assessment.
"If we had to take everyone's word for it whenever their pages were threatened with deletion". Excuse me, but who's "we"? -- "We" are the people who discuss and vote on proposed deletions -- which is everyone. Administrators only make the final call, judging the arguments put forth by regular users. Indeed, if pages were judged purely based on the authors' stated intentions, they would all have to be kept. That's just not how it works. I know because pages get deleted all the time, even when the authors say they didn't mean to do anything that violates policy. I'm not sure why you think that argument should hold up in your case.
What I have problem with is people who don't know when their butting in isn't appropriate -- I'll decide when my butting in is appropriate. Just as you will, and should, for yourself. Again I'm not sure what makes this case different from any of the dozens of processes where both our input would be appreciated. You can go comment on 20 discussions right now that don't involve you at all, and no one would tell you to stop (as long as you made a sincere attempt at providing constructive input, and had something useful to say). Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. When I'm miffed, my exposition skills are usually the first to go, so your clarification is very much appreciated by me. ;) Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah tell me about it! You were basically babbling incoherently :) Kidding. No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 14:34, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Giles_Corey_restored.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Giles_Corey_restored.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Equazcion (talk) 00:26, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines...

Have I captured the source guidelines here? Thanks, MoodFreak (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth is I'm not really sure. My take would be that if the article is just stating something that happened in a video, then using that video as a reference is probably okay. In this particular case I'm not sure that the site the video is posted on really matters. It's more of a primary source; ie. No one can argue that what happened in the video didn't really happen based on which site it's posted on. Whereas with text claims, anyone can say anything they want, and the reputation of the site does tell us whether or not we can trust it. Equazcion (talk) 00:25, 31 Dec 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, there is a new discussion going on to see if there is a consensus one way or the other about the video or the Ann Rule book on the judge’s comments. This note is to let you know about this discussion so that if you wish you can voice your opinions. It’s time to put this dispute to rest so hopefully a real consensus will show up for one or the other of these references. If not interested, please feel free to just ignore. I am notifying every editor that I see on the talk page who has been in the recent discussions. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rev

I didn't explain myself fully on the talk page. I felt the edit request constituted an 'extensive quotation' because it was the entire message from the band's website. Quoting a thing in its entirety seems extensive to me. The same amount of text from a larger work wouldn't have concerned me. Regards, Celestra (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You should be aware that your name came up in a complaint filed at WP:WQA#User:Wildhartlivie where a "conspiracy of bullies" named by SkagitRiverQueen was listed, if you are interested. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty busy this week, so I won't be able to give this much attention. I'll try to read through it and comment at some point (if I think it has some chance of helping). Equazcion (talk) 22:04, 4 Jan 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since my talk page is busy

Thanks for trying to help. She won't listen and came with the assumption of bad faith and didn't even check out what it was all about. But thanks for trying to talk some sense into her. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, though I'm not sure if I'd call it trying to talk sense into her. I've tried that before and it didn't get anywhere. Equazcion (talk) 23:08, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hey, I noticed you reverted a disputed paragraph in Charles Manson recently[1], but you reverted to a version prior to my good-faith edits. At first, I thought you were purposely being deceptive (and my re-reverting edit summary might reflect that); after further thought, I remembered to AGF and I assume either you didn't realize you were going too far back, or you disagreed with my edits in the first place.

If, in fact, you disagree with my work, please let me know, and please try to improve the writing, or suggest how I could do so, rather than simply reverting to an older version. Thanks :) Eaglizard (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit wasn't intended to be deceptive at all. The revert was discussed on the talk page. In addition to reasons discussed there, my full revert of the paragraph was because I simply felt the older version was better-worded. I'm not too crazy about having mention of the book in parenthesis, for one thing. Parenthesis should generally be avoided, and the book is a prominent enough aspect of the event that it shouldn't be treated as a sidebar. I'm open to ideas. Equazcion (talk) 18:13, 19 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked

... you may find this edit of interest. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not seeing any evidence of that being from a similar source though, or even the same "medium". Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Eh? You asked that some other CU corroborate my findings. Another CU did. What do you mean by "similar source" or "medium" ??? ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. Thanks for your help until now though. Equazcion (talk) 18:55, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, that was the wrong diff. This edit to WHL's talk by Versageek is the correct one. Apologies for any confusion. Please do everyone involved the courtesy of acknowledging there that your request has been satisfied. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I do acknowledge that another checkuser corroborated your findings, thanks. Equazcion (talk) 19:44, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Please do so there, where you originally asked, if you have not yet done so. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Knowledge Generation Bureau

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Knowledge Generation Bureau. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Generation Bureau. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More opinions please

Hi, could use your opinion over at the Susan Atkins TP. There is a dispute there between two editors which you know. I am about to go there myself but if you have the time and/or energy, your opinions could be useful to the discussion. Hope to see you there, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully this is the end but I doubt it is as sad as that seems. I don't think the mediation will be used since it's more than two editors disagreeing never mind I doubt the one will be accepting more interactions. Still, thanks for taking the time, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I left a comment at the mediation page too, in case it does get looked at. Equazcion (talk) 18:17, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Dangling prepositions

You know, I seem to have a habit of leaving "dangling prepositions", since others have pointed that out as a problem in things I have written before. For the life of me though, I can't seem to get a good explaination for why it's a problem, or what the definition of a "dangling preposition" actually is. I'd appreciate it greatly if you could explain it! (don't worry if you can't though, as you wouldn't be the first by a long shot)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, surely. It's simply when you leave a preposition on the end of a sentence (or sentence fragment). Prepositions are supposed to link two objects together, so on the end of a sentence they are seen as a problem to grammar freaks like me, though it may be obvious to what they are referring. <- Notice there I could've ended the sentence, "it may be obvious what they are referring to", with the preposition on the end. It's more grammatically accurate to have the object, in this case "what", follow the preposition more immediately. Hope that clarifies things somewhat -- I'm not great at explaining these things. Equazcion (talk) 18:01, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha! That's a good succinct explaination, thanks! I'd argue about the applicability of that as a rule, but... now that I think about it, it's probably a good rule of thumb for formal writing. Nice work copy editing what I added, by the way.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem :) Yeah formal writing is all I meant; rest assured I make those grammar "errors" myself all the time in conversation etc. Your edits really fixed up that article too, by the way. Nice job. Equazcion (talk) 18:10, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for taking the time out to nip a conflict in the bud! You didn't have to put in the work but, since you did, things have calmed down and you came up with a great solution to please both parties. You deserve this for your time! Cheers, CP 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Always nice to know my work is appreciated :) Equazcion (talk) 21:34, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

A hand with a link

Hi Equazcion, I noticed the editor counter on your user page, noting the number of editors watching your page. I had the tool for it, but can't remember were it was, the last count I got was 79. Do you have the tool? If possible could you post it on my talk page? Thanks in advance, --Domer48'fenian' 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done :) Equazcion (talk) 21:27, 5 Feb 2010 (UTC)
That's sound a chara, thanks --Domer48'fenian' 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with your sig?

The formatting on this page Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology looks odd to me and it seems to start with your signature, i.e. it looks like the font is leaking into text it was not intended for. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that was odd. For some reason the RFC bot cut off the closing font tag in my signature. I fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. Equazcion (talk) 11:52, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. The RFC bot removed my closing font tag. I have an irregular signature, with a formatted date, so that may be why. I hope the font doesn't bother people too much, because I don't know if there's anything we can do about it, short of changing my signature or asking the bot author to tweak it. Equazcion (talk) 12:05, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Into the sunset?

I take it we'll all live happily ever after as well? :P Swarm(Talk) 05:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, but it's a nice thought :) In my opinion we've all been poisoned by those fairytales. Equazcion (talk) 11:31, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Revert to Korn

You have been reverted. (C. A. Russell's 2010, February 9, 02:13 edit to the "Korn" article, removing the use of the Cyrillic Я in place of a Latin R.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So have you. The official Korn website uses the character, so it's probably safe to use it in our article. Also see the talk page and make any pertinent arguments there, please. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 02:26, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that...

I've just restored my talk page. Thanks for pointing out those other socks! I'll take care of him ASAP. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Your note

No, I was not trying to hide any facts. I am not even sure it was a mistake, since the combination of the vandalism filter, excessive length, and the misformatting made it seem like a vandalism edit, of which I revert quite a few. As a general point, when you communicate with others on their talk pages, I think it's a good idea to retain the style they set. So in this case, you posted on my page, then I on yours, which set a style, which is "each message on the respective talk page". By moving the entire the thread to mine, you effectively set another, more awkward, style, which is "move the entire thread to each talk page to keep it together." The best would have been for you to just respond on my page, and let me respond on yours. This way we both get message alerts, and the communication is most efficient. Also, posting a comment about an editor "hiding mistakes" is uncivil, even if you think it's true, because it violates WP:AGF. Crum375 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right (on WP:AGF). I apologize. I've been dealing with one too many idiots tonight and got testy. I disagree though on the style thing... Dicussions should generally be kept together so they can be read through easily in the future. I know that's not policy (yet... fingers crossed), but I do have this request in my talk page's edit notice. Equazcion (talk) 01:19, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted, thank you. I guess the messaging style is a matter of personal preference. I see a lot of apparent vandalism, and depending on my other ongoing activities, I make a judgment call based on circumstances, deciding whether to just rollback or to pursue it further. The good thing about WP is that if you get it wrong, it's easy to undo. Crum375 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

I removed the information citing WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. Rewriting the information so that it accurately reflects what is reported in the source material is well and good but why would you override my edit summary without even commenting on it? I gave a specific reason for removing the information but you haven't given a reason for restoring. Rossrs (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even look at your revert. My edit was in response to the ANI report, which didn't (as far as I saw) make mention of WP:UNDUE. There were mostly BLP, 3RR, and "vandalism" summary concerns, all of which could be taken care of by editing the statement for accuracy, which I felt was a good compromise. You should discuss the possible inclusion of the information on the talk page (I just created a section for it), rather than reverting again. I also think it would be a good idea to let my version of the incident remain in the article for some time, so that people can see and base their decision on an accurate version, rather than the bad version that was originally fought over. Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I did not intend reverting you, and I have commented on the talk page. The main basis of the ANI report was about the relevance of the content rather than the sourcing - everything kind of flowed on from that, but it was buried in a lot of diffs and extra information. I can understand what you're saying, but you should have looked at the edit history before reverting, otherwise you don't see what is contained in edit summaries. I was a bit miffed that I linked to a couple of guidelines, and hey presto - you reverted it, but if you didn't see it, that's fine. I know it was all in good faith. I agree the best course of action is to allow discussion to continue with the material in the article, so I will not remove it. Rossrs (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Just as a minor point, I didn't exactly revert you. I inserted an entirely new summary of the event. When someone comes to ANI complaining of a revert war, the last thing I'd generally do is revert again. That's why I made the effort to craft a new paragraph -- so as to specifically not revert. Equazcion (talk) 04:54, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I apologise. "Revert" was a very poor way to express my thoughts, and I'm glad you pointed that out. "Revert" is a very specific word and it's very loaded and I used it carelessly. What you did was fine, although I didn't see it that way at first, to be honest. Thanks for pointing out that WP:TRIVIA was the wrong page. I was thinking of WP:Handling trivia. I appreciate you letting me know. Rossrs (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all :) Equazcion (talk) 05:51, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Gibson ref

Hi Equazcion, I tried the ref you added to gibson , and it did not work. It says :"sorry the video is not available" Does it work for you?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't tried the video, but remember, the video itself isn't all that important. The text of the article is what's most important to us. The reference you inserted doesn't contain any actual report of the incident, as far as I saw; it just had the video clip, which wouldn't source the incident well. Equazcion (talk) 04:40, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I believe the video is important also because some people claimed they watched the video and heard nothing. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what people claim about what they see in a video, if we have a reliable source where the incident is reported. As long as we have that, users' interpretations of the video are pretty much irrelevant. That's why the text reports are so important -- they make it so that Wikipedia editors don't have to argue over what they see and don't see. :-) It is good to have a link to the video clip, but it's not as important as the textual report from a reliable publication. Equazcion (talk) 04:50, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie

I don't see why she can post to my talk page but I can't do likewise. Anyway, she's apparently stopped, so I'll stop, as I said I would. —Chowbok ☠ 07:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, Chowbok, I asked you to stop posting to my talk page. Is Equazcion the person to whom everyone complains? I responded to your posts and stopped and would appreciate it if you would stop. I do not watchlist your talk page and don't much care who posts there. I simply posted to you that I didn't upload the Black Dahlia image and asked you to notify the original uploader. It wasn't an argument, it wasn't a debate and I didn't much appreciate the argumentative nature of your responses to me, which included charging me with hunting down your posts to verify that you'd notifed Jennavecia, so thus, I do not want you to continue to post to me. Your comment you left here did not approach basic common courtesy and included snarky, snide commentary about my "hanging out at WP:WQA" which was an improper characterization and flatly untrue, and this one left here in which you stated that you intended to continue posting to my page, as if it were a race to post last and the last poster won some prize or got the last word, and this one to your page in which you forged my signature and managed to sneak in an unfounded accusation of forum shopping when I was simply looking for any response 10 hours after a post, led to my ending discussion with you. Do not post to me again, your tone and attitude toward me is completely unwelcome and inappropriate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
He didn't complain to me. I commented on the situation on his talk page first, and he responded to me here.
Anyway... Debate/argument, argument/debate.... does it really matter? Anyone's comment will, more likely than not, turn into an exchange of some sort, as this one did, with each of you replying 3 times. Though you have the right to delete things off your talk page, it would make it easier on everyone, and show you're willing to work with people, if you'd be prepared and willing to carry on the exchange somewhere and not just delete their comments, even the ones you find irritating. Show that you can rise above, take an "argumentative" comment and fire back with a cool-headed answer. Let's act as though we were adults, or even diplomats. Rise above. Show that you're more mature than the other guy.
And Chowbok, as I said on your talk page, if someone has deleted your comment twice, just stop posting to their talk page. Just because you have the right to post there doesn't mean it's a super idea. You of course realized you were annoying her, so just answer her on your talk page instead.
If you both heed this advice in the future, similar incidents can be avoided. Equazcion (talk) 13:58, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Ping you have mail, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replied. Equazcion (talk) 13:59, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I did

I think there must be some sort of misunderstanding. I did take my concerns to Unitanode's talk page before I came to ANI. He has since blanked the thread, accusing me of harassment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk

I saw your comment on this at ANI, and responded there. Yes of course I didn't see that the discussion occurred there since it was blanked. Sorry about that. Equazcion (talk) 14:32, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to discuss slurs on other editors at the talk page of an article. ANI is an appropriate place to have this resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
What slurs? This is about a template removal. It belongs at the article talk page. If someone makes characterizations of another editor as a result of that discussion, that's not a reason to go to ANI -- unless you're calling for sanctions regarding the slur itself. If you want to resolve the template issue, ANI isn't the place. Equazcion (talk) 14:56, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
The editor who added the template has now been accused of self-aggrandizement and violations of WP:POINT. Those are serious accusations. To be clear, I have also now been accused of harassment and baiting, of reverting without discussion, that I do not try to discuss issues with editors before I take to ANI (which is a point you yourself found lacking) and of disruption to make a point. None of these things are accurate, fair or warranted. This is indeed something that should be reviewed on ANI. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Accusations of self-aggrandizement and violations of WP:POINT don't automatically belong at ANI, as "serious" as you see them. And, it's up to the accuser which forum he uses to handle the accusations, not you. And, being accused of something is also no reason to go to ANI -- as an administrator, you should be telling people who accuse you that it's up to them where they'd like to complain, and try your best to resolve the issue outside ANI first. If you're that bothered by "false accusations", to the point that you feel they all belong at ANI? Then you've got a major misconception, and I think you need to grow a thicker skin. Equazcion (talk) 15:03, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Since you have just asked here is your answer [2].  Giano  15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plaxico

I am willing to move it to User:Equazcion/Plaxico but only if it is courtesy blanked for now. WP:BLP applies even in userspace. You can restore the language that's fine, but I'd say do not use the first paragraph with his name. Not that I'll be watching really though =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Yeah I'm very aware of the problems with the essay as I was a big proponent of deleting it in the first nomination (the only reason I didn't comment on the second nom was that I wasn't aware of it). The page can be blanked, I can just use the history, and will of course avoid any reference to the person. Thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 21:21, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI I moved the relevant "general" text to User:Equazcion/Footshot. –xenotalk 07:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much to you both :) Equazcion (talk) 15:41, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban on tbsdy

Thank you for alerting me to the discussion, Equazcion. Please don't forget you're supposed to notify editors who have expressed disagreement with you also, as well as those in agreement. (If you're simply notifying everybody who's commented at all, then that's OK, too.) Bishonen | talk 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

I know, thanks. If you check my contribs you'll see I've basically alerted everyone who participated at the article talk page and the ANI thread. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested/

There is a link under the Arbitration section to the case. I filed it to get this over with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt it'll be accepted as is though. It's not completely clear what particular problem the case is regarding. I don't think ArbCom will want to rule on whether past blocks were right or wrong. A case regarding the future, ie. whether or not Proofreader should be banned, would have a better shot. Equazcion (talk) 03:34, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Yes but as you point out this can end the documentation crap. It's a means to a end. He can make his case here or shut up at which point a better case can be made for disruptin if he doeesn't take the hint. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Ummm... you got into a dispute with me over trivia sections. Would it not be a good idea to disclose this on that ban thread? I can provide the diffs if you like. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's true then it was years ago. I think it would be a little petty and ridiculous of you to feel such a need or to think it's actually relevant. I'm going to leave it entirely up to you. You can let everyone know if you feel you must; but you should really think about what this need says about you, and whether or not that's the kind of guy you really want to be. Equazcion (talk) 15:21, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, it's just that you said that you had never had any interactions with me. You did. Seriously, I'll leave it up to you, but I knew I remembered you from something-or-other. Look, you've not gone through dispute resolution on this, I don't really appreciate it and I'd have thought you experienced enough now to know that you are escalating something that has now come to an end. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If you aren't trying to get me to disclose this previous interaction, why did you bring this to my talk page? Equazcion (talk) 15:40, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I never said this. I asked you to clarify the fact that you said you have never had any interaction with me. I was trying to give you a chance to do this yourself! That offer is still open. Seriously, this is looking bad dude. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you said. I'm asking why you brought it here if you weren't actually concerned with it. Tbsdy, your behavior continues to suggest your priorities don't actually lie with a peaceful resolution, but rather with extending the fight. There was no reason to bring this here. Being a stickler for accuracy is a poor reason for this concern to have come here. A dispute is ongoing and starting up new exchanges doesn't help anyone. I think you know that because you don't seem that stupid. Again: If you weren't actually concerned about this, why did you bring it here? As you say, "seriously, this is looking bad dude." Equazcion (talk) 16:02, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I answered that already. I want you to have a chance to disclose this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Why? I asked if you feel this must be disclosed and you said "no, not at all". So then why was it so important as to risk further inflammation of the situation by contacting someone you're arguing with yet again? Explain it to me, please. Equazcion (talk) 16:22, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • On a point of information, Tbsdy when reclaiming admin tools stated that he had not retired under a block, when in fact he had. I hope he will extend the same understanding to others with less than perfect recall that was extended to him. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Certainly. I'm sure that Equazcion will be happy to clarify that he has interacted with me before. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not panning on it since I don't think it's relevant. I'm again not against you doing so if you feel it necessary. Equazcion (talk) 17:36, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And another thing.

It appears that you were canvassing all the supporters of the previous ban attempt, but none who opposed it. I don't suppose you have an answer for this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I notified everyone who participated at the ANI thread and the article talk page thread. None were spared. Check my contribs and compare against the names in those threads. Equazcion (talk) 16:06, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

For the record

This canvassing claim is roughly the third ill-considered accusation you've brought against me. You've accused me of not waiting the requested 24 hours before posting my proposal, which was shown to be untrue; you've accused me of something involving off-wiki activities, which was ambiguous, groundless and also untrue; and now of canvassing, which has also been shown to be untrue. In addition you seem to have accused me of not fully disclosing our previous history, when our only contact was a dispute that occurred years ago, which neither of us actually recalled. Muddying the waters with groundless concerns is part of your behavior issue, Tbsdy, and I hope you think seriously about how you handle disputes in the future. Equazcion (talk) 17:14, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Show me the diff where you informed Ludwigs2. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall Bishonen being part of the discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Bishonen is from this thread, all the participants of which I also notified. I don't see Ludwig at either thread. Equazcion (talk) 17:31, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Given you moved it here, with the edit summary "refactoring Ludwig's comment to first section-- Ludwig may revert me if they want", I find that a bit hard to believe. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. I said I notified everyone from the article talk page thread (here), the ANI thread (here), and an ANI notice thread on Giano's talk page (here). Ludwig is at none of those, as far as I can see. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
So you didn't bother notifying anyone from the other ban thread? Whyever not? Very selective of you. Why did you think it necessary to message them anyway?!? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Notifying those who participated in the first AN thread seemed unnecessary, as it seemed likely they were already watching the page. It wasn't selective. I made no distinction based on who was on which side. I sought to notify people only to ensure that those who might not be watching the AN page, but who nevertheless might have an interest, could come participate. Equazcion (talk) 18:13, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I think it was entirely out of order for you to have done that at all. But as you have, perhaps you would like to notify the rest of the participants of the other threads? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You're allowed to think that. I, however, think you're wrong. Canvassing policy allows for the notification of parties indiscriminately on both sides of a debate if the notification is worded neutrally. And I'm sorry you now think it was out of order, but since you were the one who was concerned about advertising the ban proposal and getting enough participation, I should think you'd be glad I took that initiative. Again there was nothing selective or otherwise against policy about my actions, so if you feel anything further needs to be done, you need not suggest I do it for you in rectification of some unknown violation. Do what you feel must be done yourself. Equazcion (talk) 18:23, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

So again, that's three groundless accusations following my proposed ban on you, four if you include this previous interaction nonsense that neither of us remembered and has no bearing on anything. You'd do a lot better for yourself if you'd discuss the relevant issues rather than attempting to attack the credibility of your opponents or technicality of their actions. This crap gets no one anywhere, and that's partly why you're in this mess to begin with. It's the very definition of "muddying the waters". You would do well to re-examine your behavior and take people's suggestions to heart, rather than brushing them all off. Equazcion (talk) 19:46, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanna thank you too Equazcion for your help in notifying me. I sent you an email since I had problems with my user page. Please do notify me when you read it and tell me if there is a problem with the user account. Thank you in advance and all the best! Empathictrust (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I actually can't find any email from you though. I see you've posted a response on your talk page so I'll have a look there. Equazcion (talk) 20:06, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Hiding an Image

I noticed you also find that "peeping Jimmy" image annoying. Take a look at User:FeralDruid/vector.css for an idea on how you might hide it from within Wikipedia.

From My Preferences, above, select Appearance. I'm using the Vector appearance, and use the aforementioned CSS to hide the image. I don't know if it'll work for the other appearances, as I haven't tested it.

I also like having my visited links be red, as I have trouble distinguishing the default blue and purple on my watchlist. -FeralDruid (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've actually already got it hidden using FF3/Adblock/Element Hiding Helper though. Very handy to basically instantly hide any element on any web page permanently. Thanks for the tip though :) Equazcion (talk) 11:44, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand any of the above that the two of you are saying. So being unsavy on the computer would one or both of you care to explain how an idiot like me could do what the two of you are doing? I am on IE7(?) and I really don't care about blocking images though the Jimmy head is definitely annoying but FeralDruid, the changing of the blue/purple would be lovely since I too have trouble telling the difference at times. How can I get the color changed in my watchlist so that when I read something it isn't that light purple that is so hard to see? Thanks, (you can take it to my talk or email if you don't want to clutter this talk page, :) )--CrohnieGalTalk 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Moving over to Crohnie's talk page. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Eh, can you explain this edit, User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/TalkNoJimbo? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I've provided a copy of SRQ's talk page so admins can review her unblock request without the Jimbo pic that has thus far prevented it. I just commented on it at her talk page. Equazcion (talk) 18:33, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Since you know about things

Hi, I thought you might have some input here]. Since you know the editor, I thought you might be interesting in giving them an idea about what is going on around this editor too. Being a bit cryptic I know but I don't want all the heat that usually follows. It just seems like these administrators could use the full understanding of everything that you are aware of. I've got to go and thought since I've been a target of some of it, that it would be better for someone like you who have only tried to mediate situations to clarify things if you feel this is needed. If not interested, please feel free to ignore. I just think both editors contributions should be looked at to be fair. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been up to speed on the SRQ/JoyDiamond rivalry, and never really was, aside from a couple of isolated article disputes. Until SRQ got blocked I thought it had been completely replaced by the SRQ/Wildhartlivie rivalry. I don't really have any useful input to contribute in that discussion cause I really don't know anything about it... sorry. Thanks for letting me know though. Equazcion (talk) 20:21, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
That's ok, but you are thinking along the same lines as I am. Anyways, I thought you would want to know to sort of stay in the loop of things. No problem though, I do understand, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It does seem that way :) Though saying so would be rightly viewed as ad hominem if I don't actually know the details of the Joy situation. And I do appreciate your keeping me apprised. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Mention at ArbCom RfAR (appears dead case, but fyi)

  1. Note: The arbs are quickly declining, but as I just got unblocked today I did go ahead and add some documentation which includes that collapsed topic in which I addressed questions to you. I have also included a partial quote "I bet they made fun of you in high school [...].
  2. Also note: Newyorkbrad changed his mind from decline to accept because he believes a motion rather than a case might address my behavior. Some arbs were following his lead, but it appears this version of the case is done.

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 07:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PS (I've gone overlimit in size). Don't know if anything will be left regarding above. (Analyzing) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me all this, but thanks I guess. Equazcion (talk) 13:18, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Note

Just to note that I replied to you last night on my talk page, per your talk page instructions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw, thanks, I just hadn't gotten around to deciding how to respond. I suppose as long as you plan to use the page soon in some process, it's alright. Just keep in mind that SRQ is probably going to continue using its existence against you in the interim, and if it's still up in say another month, I'll be making the same request again. Good luck though. Equazcion (talk) 13:23, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode

Look, I'm not at all happy about the ban discussion, but Unitanode still does good work. So do you. Unitanode was readding the tag, and I know that he was trying to remove a personal attack, but he did get warned not to war on this. But given that the block was done for something that had died down, and Unitanode was happily doing some good edits the more I saw that block the more unfair it seemed to me. So as talk was ongoing on ANI I unblocked. I don't think that's wheel warring, that's a straight decision reversal. But I take on board the points others have made about discussing the unblock. I do note that I doubt that Unitanode will be blocked again, if he does I will strenuously object! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A "decision reversal"? That seems like a pretty original synonym for "disagreement". I'm glad you'll be taking the advice in the future about discussing unblocks first, as I'm pretty sure that's a policy or guideline somewhere. Might be best to leave it at that. Equazcion (talk) 13:17, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed. I will make sure I do so. Do you feel that the unblock was unfair (aside from not discussing it with the admin)? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the last bit. I'll move away now, if you have an issue with the unblock itself then feel free to message me directly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd never describe an unblock as "unfair", since the only person it might hurt is the blocking admin. It might be "unwise" though if it allows someone to continue disruption etc. If you're asking if the block was warranted to begin with, I don't have any position on that, as I stated at ANI. Equazcion (talk) 13:41, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I've sent you an email. :(--CrohnieGalTalk 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, one nice thing...

...about this whole mess is that I discovered the Wikipedia toolbar by looking at your userpage. How cool! Thanks for making that.—Chowbok ☠ 21:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'd glad you like it :) Equazcion (talk) 22:51, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This

is beautiful. Just wanted to say. Mackan79 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was nice to hear :) It would've been nothing without your original thoughts coming first though. You've been making good additions. Equazcion (talk) 01:19, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Understood, thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 13:39, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User:Caro 08 cleanup

User:Caro 08/Canada is still sitting around as a result of your laudable but doomed effort to get this editor on track. You are the only author of the page (well, almost), it's kind-of a GFDL vio, and it's cluttering up the what-links-here tables. Do you still want it there or can I nuke it as house-cleaning? Or maybe you want to move it over to her new account, Caro7440 (talk · contribs)? Speaking of which, could you take a look at that account? I skipped the SPI step 'cause it's really quite obvious they're the same, but always nice to have confirmation. Franamax (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You can nuke it, by all means; no reason to keep it around. Based on the name, and the comment at the rollback request page, I'd say they are indeed the same user, so, good block I say :) Equazcion (talk) 20:44, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

I came by to thank you for this. I found a similar bon mot left on your talk and rolled it back. I hope you don't mind me butting in. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the rollback. You can butt in to undo vandalism anytime :) Equazcion (talk) 12:31, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, there is an important email I sent to you this morning. Well important to me. :) Just want to make sure you see it. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you have trouble getting my eamils so I just want to know if it was received? I really want you to see what I had to say. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I got it, I just hadn't figured out how to respond yet. I'll try to do so tonight. Equazcion (talk) 21:58, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

What's with the archiving? You know that DMSBel isn't going to let this go. --NeilN talk to me 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

so, you simply decided to close the discussion unilaterally? not like it was going anywhere, mind you, but there was no need to get pissy about it. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone smart decided the discussion @ ejaculation should be archived since it's not getting anywhere, to which DMS responded by carrying on his points at the VP page. In the interest of truly closing the matter I carried the archival over to VP. I agree, there certainly is no reason to get "pissy" about it, Ludwig. Equazcion (talk) 21:34, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Hah! sorry, I have a piss-pot life lately, so I claim exemption from the rule (within reason). still, I do hate those presumptuous closures - they are the kind of thing that almost invariably lead to nasty thoughts and comments. doesn't look good at all form any perspective (except maybe that of the closer). --Ludwigs2 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. How much you wanna bet this will go up to WP:MEDCOM? --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It probably should have in the first place - it's not a subject people are inclined to be reasonable about on either side. but it would have been nicer if it went there on the merits rather than because people are getting pissed off at each other. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:BEANS, Neil :) Ludwig, things rarely end up in mediation because both sides mutually say "This is a complicated issue and should probably be mediated." It's generally because people are pissed off and deadlocked. As far as the VP proposal goes, I don't think that belongs at mediation -- a policy proposal either has wide support or it doesn't, and this one didn't. The ejaculation page might possibly benefit from some mediation, but I have my doubts there too. Consensus there appears to fall on inclusion of the content, IMO. I acknowledge I haven't looked thoroughly through the discussion there so I could be wrong. Equazcion (talk) 22:11, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)
lol - damn, now I have no idea what to do with this plate of beans on my table. Thanks a bunch, EQ!
Honestly, I have been studiously avoiding the ejaculation page because I am tired of squabbling with people fruitlessly (I don't mind squabbling fruitfully, mind you, but there has to be some progress for it to be worthwhile). I think the idea itself will eventually need to go to mediation - I really don't think that NOTCENSORED was intended to be carte blanche for any gross image that someone has a hard-on for (and can justify in some trivial way), and I don't think reasoned voices will ever make any headway on that. I'm just trying to decide whether I'm currently up to the task of pushing it. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if MEDCOM mediates on policy issues (rather than the contents of specific articles). The list of parties involved in a WP:NOTCENSORED policy dispute would be quite interesting to put together. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
interestingly, the policy thing seems to be a bit of a vacuum. medcom deals with user problems on specific pages, which doesn't necessarily expand to policy; Arbcom deals with policy, but won't deal with content issues - where do you go for decisions about content policy? but I don't want to keep cross-talking on EQ's page. unless he expresses an interest in this discussion, let's move it elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation isn't for policy proposals. With a policy proposal, there needs to be a clear demonstration of wide support. Here we have no wide support demonstrated, just a few parties arguing endlessly over it, which doesn't mean there's any more of a chance it has wide support. Mediation is irrelevant for something like this because it doesn't matter how our argument turns out; the support isn't there either way. Equazcion (talk) 15:34, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant by an '...Com' vacuum. This is an issue that has (potentially) broad implications for the nature of wikipedia - i.e. is wikipedia as a whole going to give the appearance of being a bit stuffy or a bit skanky? - but everyone is so reactive about the issue that meaningful discussion is largely impossible. I suppose ArbCom would be the better choice, except I suspect that any attempt to present it will get misrepresented as a content dispute and rejected.
well, like I said, I'll consider my options as the goatse thing works itself out. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not for Arbcom either. I think they'd reject the case as forum shopping, if you presented them with your policy proposal. If it didn't gain enough support at the venue where it was originally presented, Arbcom isn't going to let you try pushing it through there instead. Equazcion (talk) 20:21, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
It'd have to be a community-wide RfC like the ongoing BLP matter. Loads of fun! --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
well, as I said, I'm considering my options. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

wallpaper

Hey, you also got that image as a wallpaper! That use is being very popular.  franklin  04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying it on, might still change it again. Great photo though. Equazcion (talk) 04:53, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, the way you used it gave an idea that maybe solves a problem. In your page I can only see a portion of it. Is it because you are using a version of it or is it because there is a way of showing a portion of an image. I'm interested in doing the latter. Having a picture uploaded show only portions of it in different articles without having to upload different files with the different crops. Do you know how to do that?  franklin  17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually copied this code from someone else's page where I saw it done. It looks like the image is enclosed in a "div" with a "width" specified that's smaller than the image, and "overflow:hidden" specified. It might be possible to create a template that does this, but it would be a complicated process of trial and error with position and dimension parameters to try and get a particular portion of an image to show up without the rest. You could try contacting User:iMatthew for input, as his userpage is where I got the code from. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I'm not using a custom version of the image. The cropping effect is done with code. Equazcion (talk) 18:39, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

re: AN/I

Thanks. Some of that has been percolating for a while. Other parts of it just came today. I want to wait for the RfC/U until Lar comments on the identification we submitted and (probably) when the AN/I thread has come to a close. An RfC/U will detail the 25 pages that I mentioned where she suddenly showed an interest. The Kate Winslet appearance was over the top. Appreciate your comments and I have through the whole discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Halvorsen brian

You're right. I was trying to be conciliatory and came across as condescending. Sorry about that. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 01:35, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

the filmographies code

Hi. The core bit of bad code is this:

{|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 90%;" border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9;
|- align="center"

The table declaration is malformed; the background: #f9f9f9; is not in the style attribute and will not be used, and the border, cellspacing, and cellpadding are all taken care of by "wikitable". And the align="center" is not needed as what follows are th-elements and they get centered by the class, too. This whole mess was started by WHL messing up the code when, ironically, she changed it to 95% here. These tables should properly be be ordinary "wikitables" and any "standard" enforced via template a implementation. See also the thread she archived and the further whinging at User talk:Lar#Your note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Jack. I replied at WHL's talk page. Equazcion (talk) 23:07, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Gee, was that so hard to say? The table heading was changed over from the previous style which didn't use wikitable style. All that was necessary was to say that, rather than be told I'm too stupid to understand it. The sizing is used on the preponderance of tables on actor articles. And I do resent being talked down to and disregarded because anyone thinks I'm incapable of understanding and blatantly says so. If you mean "whining" instead of "whinging", my complaints are valid, even if Lar didn't care to deal with it. And we still aren't mentioning that changes he made implemented British date style to an American biography, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity I took a look at a few random filmographies, and they all seem to have 90% font size specified: Jon Voight, Steve Martin, Sarah Jessica Parker, Tom Cruise filmography. I'm not saying this is necessarily indicative of the majority of actor articles, but is there any counter-evidence, that the 95% size is the consensus practice? Equazcion (talk) 23:18, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Not that I know about. It's the size that WP:ACTOR specifically approved, and was commented on when the table was approved. The table heading was changed to wikitable format when it was brought up and I have never seen anyone comment or complain about it, or use other prior to Jack Merridew's involvement. Consensus was for 90% and 95%, which I inadvertently inserted from some example sent me by someone, was never considered for consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in this prior discussion:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Queenofthejews

Someone "new" to Wikipedia generally doesn't as their first edit, add themselves to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed... HalfShadow 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. But, WP:AGF and all. Equazcion (talk) 23:46, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

User:Qpwoeial

Hey, thanks for the comments on my talk page. I feel that Qpwoeial (talk · contribs) is now starting to harass me. For what, I don't know but I have absolutely no knowledge on what to do. I think if you looked at my contributions, you can tell I have no need for protection. I attempt to better baseball articles, and that's all I want to do. I feel that it is unproductive for me to have to deal with this nonsense. Hope you can help. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can try. How's he harassing you? Are you just referring to what he's saying on your talk page, or is there more? If so link me to the other pages where he's been harassing you. I left a comment on your talk page regarding his concerns. Equazcion (talk) 06:13, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Q's comments on Brian's page are over the pale. Woogee (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Harassment is a bit more relentless than the comment or two made there. Let's see how Q reacts to me explanation there before we pull the harassment card. Equazcion (talk) 06:57, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I think starting a administrator notice board discussion about me, then editing my user page, and finally coming dangerously close to threatening me on my talk page are some signs of harassment. I also think that I should have been notified that there was a discussion about me by some one. I just happened to stumble upon it. All I want to do is edit. I shouldn't have to deal with any of this, especially if I did nothing wrong. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually you were notified, by me and another editor -- but I later decided to remove the notices and some useless discussion about what should be done with your user page. The consensus seemed to be that no one should ever have bothered you with that stuff so I thought removing most of it would be the way to go; maybe not the best decision I guess. Anyway, as I mentioned above in reply to Woogee, I think we should wait and see if Q continues criticizing you following my explanation to him about usernames. There's really nothing anyone can do in the way of punishing him or preventing him from contacting you right now. If this becomes actual harassment (extended, relentless criticism) then we can take it to WP:ANI. Equazcion (talk) 18:43, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I see no reason to even attempt to tread carefully. Thanks for the notice, but I don't take threats easily. Woogee (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

policy about racism

Hi. Where can I find about Wikipedia's policy about racism? I mean, not racism against users but in articles. 99.231.81.164 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy in particular that deals with racism in articles, as far as I'm aware. If you mean presenting a topic with a racially-biased point of view, WP:NPOV would probably cover that by default; though talking about the phenomenon of racism is okay, as long as it's relevant to the topic and verified. Equazcion (talk) 11:14, 9 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Aromatherapy

Good edits on that article, it's slowly becoming vaguely readable! :-) My only qibble is that Aromatherapy may be a form of alternative medicine, however 95% of the public's interraction with it is via consumer products. The key thing is that aromatherapy is a non-regulated term which means that anybody is free to their product an aromatherapy product. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be open to putting that info in in some form, as long as it's sourced; but even then, it really shouldn't be the defining paragraph of the article. We shouldn't be defining things based on a judgment of them. Although many forms of alternative medicine are sold as unregulated products, that's not their defining characteristic. Hope that makes sense. Equazcion (talk) 00:40, 12 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Actually, yes it does. The logic is perfectly clear. My point was not so much that aromatherapy is defined by it's lack of regulation but that aromatherapy is really more about the non-regulated products than it is an alternative medicine. It's not a very important point in the grand scheme of things
Also, did you notice that somebody tried to re-add that story about a french guy curing gas-gangrene with lavendar oil. It's such a preposterous story but if we could find a source for that I'd love to re-include along with a reference to what gas-gangrene is (the only known cure is amputation). :-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I didn't see that story, but I agree it does sound like it would make an interesting addition. Equazcion (talk) 01:25, 12 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Check this out, look at the edit under history. Interesting eh, obviously false but most probably one of the founding myths of aromatherapy. Now if only a WP:R citation can be found. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion Do you know what child porn is?

Equazcion Do you know what child porn is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's no child porn in the talk page comments you removed. Equazcion (talk) 05:54, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Question re:ANI report on Tom Reedy and Nishidani

You suggested my report would be better as a RFC. Is moving it there something I should do now, or so wait for further input. Or does an administrator move it. This is my first ANI filing and it would be my first RFC. Please advise. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You should move it yourself. There seems to be some agreement that the report doesn't belong at ANI, so eventually someone might take the initiative and move your report(s) off that page, but you can do it yourself. I would start by moving them onto a subpage in your user space, so you can work on making them into an RFC (or RFCs). Equazcion (talk) 15:17, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Due to the lengthy discussions already undertaken, and continuing abuse past the wikiquette report, I do not think further discussion will do any good. As an alternative, I greatly shortened my report and refiled it at ANI. Since this involves long-term and escalating abuse, and teaming up of the offending editors, I truly think ANI should take a look at it. It needs a resolution. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Long-term abuse is exactly what RFC is for, and what ANI is not for. With respect, you say this would be your first ANI report, so you should listen to people who are more experienced with it. You will have a much greater chance of success at RFC. People don't want to read very much at ANI, and you're not likely to get very much participation from uninvolved parties. Equazcion (talk) 16:07, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been hesitant to start editing for a long, long time, out of fear that Wikipedians were jerks and I would do everything wrong. So I covered my bases all along the way, making comments, waiting a few days for responses, being civil when folks reverted but didn't engage me.... And I still got some backlash. Anyway, it was nice of you to respond to me kindly on the Atkins talk page. I was actually hoping for some interaction, and while I didn't get what I was hoping for, at least one or two of you were helpful. Ok, gushings over. Katiedert (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help make your experience at least a little satisfying. Sorry about the drama that ensued; you had the misfortune of stumbling into a rivalry between two editors that has been brewing for a long time. Both editors have actually been put on restriction since then, so they basically aren't allowed to talk to each other anymore. That should hopefully make the Atkins article a little more welcoming in the future. If you need anything feel free to let me know and I'll try to help. Equazcion (talk) 00:06, 16 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Re: Quotations

While we're going back and forth over on the Quotations page, I thought I'd drop by here and say:

  • (a) While we're disagreeing, I really respect the calibre of your argument and your contributions on Wikipedia generally and it's a pleasure to debate with someone like yourself. (That goes for the other contributors on the thread too.)
  • (b) So I'm clear, your argument is essentially the ISO view of policy - that guidelines are about formally documenting our current practice, rather than providing a prescriptive set of rules governing practice? I'm coming at it from the other end, that guidelines are effectively Wikipedia legislation and as such shouldn't be introduced without a clear rationale detailing their necessity. If you're able to point to documentation showing that your view of the role of guidelines is the Wikipedia-preferred one it could very quickly end our disagreement.

Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

- Never mind, a quick re-reading of WP:GUIDELINE makes it clear your approach is the preferred one. I'll go amend my position on the quotations discussion accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it's stated but the general credo is that policy should be "descriptive, not prescriptive". The merits of that can be debated (it's sometimes pointed out that it's a fallacy, because then you have the question of "what's the purpose in describing...", and the answer invariably ends with prescribing action to someone in some sense...), and are, endlessly, but it's still what we go by, at least for now.
Anyway, thanks for the compliments :) ...and for amending your position. The best collaborators are the ones who are actually open to the possibility of changing their opinions, which is rare. Equazcion (talk) 02:08, 17 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I just feel that editors need recognition when they work hard.

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this for all the good work you have done to help the project and its volunteers. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) Equazcion (talk) 17:22, 17 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line

Since you think it's ok for an encyclopaedia to have large numbers of players nationalities listed incorrectly , would you be happy to ignore it if it was their squad number, position, age, height , sexual preference, martial status? Why is it ok for an encyclopaedia to wrong on one set of facts and not an other? Maybe you just don't believe in WP:V and would be happy to make up every fact about a player ? Gnevin (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ok" is a complicated word. It's not as simple as "ok" and "not ok". While I'm not necessarily thrilled that there's possibly inaccurate information in the encyclopedia, there's a sliding scale of what kinds of problems warrant which measure of response. You're suggesting sending out a bot to plaster {{unref}}-type tags on a lot of articles just because the little flags next to players' names could be unsourced. I can't justify that response to the given problem, and from my experience here I really doubt that proposal is going to gain consensus. Sorry. Equazcion (talk) 15:18, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
No I'm not I'd suggest you read the suggestion again . The suggestion is too change Fs start to show a unref template if no reference is provided Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Talk pages

Hi. Would you explain why you redirected Talk:Coke mini? Redirecting the Talk page of a merged article isn't in either WP:Merging or Help:Merging. I had added {{Copied}}, and {{merged-to}} would also be appropriate. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy and help pages are bit vague on this. My understanding is that talk pages of merged articles are generally redirected to the new article's talk page. This is done for the same reason that the article page itself is redirected -- so that if anyone seeks out the old name, they're redirected to the now-relevant talk page on the topic. When articles are moved, their talk pages become redirects then too, if that gives us any clue (since merges are a similar action to moves). Anyway I copied the pertinent discussion to the new talk page, so I don't see the need to maintain the old talk page, and would see it as only serving to confuse people. Equazcion (talk) 07:17, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Redirecting the Talk page is not uncommon, but I disagree that it is general practice. If there is nothing meaningful about the article redirect (e.g. move), it's fine to redirect the Talk page also. Mergers are not the same as moves. A merger creates an attribution dependency that should be recorded with the appropriate tags. How will someone navigate to Talk:Coke mini and be confused? I think that anyone reading it would have gotten there deliberately. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Having two talk pages for discussion of the same content is what might be confusing, and I don't see any need for it. The tag on the destination talk page is enough to address attribution. Equazcion (talk) 05:12, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like either of us is convincing the other, so I'll try one last time.
  1. There is meaningful information regarding the redirect itself: attribution and {{oldafdfull}} with a link to WP:Articles for deletion/Coke mini.
  2. Accidentally navigating to Talk:Coke mini is unlikely. The user must type it directly into the search box, backtrack the article redirect, or follow one of the few direct links (Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Coke mini).
  3. If information about the redirect was not desired, the merge destination's Talk page is only two links away.
I would like to restore/add the tags I mentioned. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The afd discussion can be found through the merge tag on the destination page, along with the redirect and attribution. It sounds to me like you're recognizing the general practice but trying to change it, and I really think you should start a discussion at WP:VPP or WP:VPR for that rather than just doing it and attempting to convince one person at a time. If people generally agree with you in a centralized discussion then maybe the practice can change, but I believe things are the way they are for good reason, and I think consensus for change should be demonstrated first. Equazcion (talk) 10:17, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Another discussion with outside input is a good idea. I'll leave a note here if/when I start one. Thanks for your time. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Toolbar

Hi Equazcion. I have been using your Wikipedia toolbar for a few weeks now and I was wondering why you ended development on it? —Mike Allen 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The coding for Firefox addons seems sort of convoluted to me, so even the simple features of the current version were a real uphill battle to get working. Also, my last revision got blocked at Mozilla pending my fixing a bug present under Linux, and I know next to nothing about Linux nor do I even have any Linux machines to test with, so dealing with that would be more trouble for me. I've been waiting for some more experienced developer to take an interest (I once had a section at WP:WPTB where they were welcomes to "sign on" to help out), but I never got any bites.
So I guess the short answer is I got lazy :) Maybe I'll take another look at it again sometime, but I don't have any plans to as of now.Equazcion (talk) 18:55, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I've had no problems with it in Firefox 3.6. :) —Mike Allen 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban?

I guess, as an alleged "harbinger of negativity and disruption" I won't make a comment there again. I missed all of this, having just got on WP today for the first time in days. I don't know how a community-banned user can continue launching personal attacks on a page owned by the project; doesn't seem right to me... Doc9871 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not gonna be the one to make that call. Those probably are personal attacks, but I'll wait for someone else to notice it. You can notify User:SarekOfVulcan if you want, as he's the admin who's been dealing with her mostly. Equazcion (talk) 22:28, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's over (for a year). My comments to SRQ were never designed to get her to "freak out" as she and others like to characterize what were attempts at rational conversation; I kind of resent it too. While the many names and judgments were hurled at me often, I never reciprocated. Rather, I've always tried to stick to the issues, as is clearly evidenced in this lengthy discussion. If attempting to reason with an editor on WP issues is wrong, then color me very wrong. Cheers, Equazcion Doc9871 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think most of us resented most of her characterizations. I'm not gonna claim I never reciprocated... I'm no angel. But I tried. Anyhoo, it's over now, time to move on. Equazcion (talk) 19:50, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Beans

Lol: http://tlt.fandm.edu/2010/03/24/wikipedia-pushes-for-users-to-add-videos-wired-campus-the-chronicle-of-higher-education/ –xenotalk 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

rm

I figured instead of filling up his page with that crap we’d let some other people get in on the fun. —Wiki Wikardo 04:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

I'd like to close this; if there is a reply from someone else to what I just posted, please do not answer it. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Equazcion (talk) 00:09, 5 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Stefano Borgonovo

Hi there EQUAZCION, VASCO here,

Thank you very much for your help and assistance in this article.

From Portugal, keep up the good work,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 03:01, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I may have just edit conflicted with you, I hope I didn't cut out any of your comment. SGGH ping! 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't cut anything out. Equazcion (talk) 18:02, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Thank u very much for the courtesy

flowery obscuration, love it. being linked with cults, wonderful. and my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true. as for not having a Teacher, that is not the intention of what I wrote and taken out of context. I have had innumerable teachers and still do, i have a root Guru in body, but that said my principal guru resides in my heartmind in secret aspect and I no longer need a teacher in the way that it was being presented to me is mandatory. It amazes me that a fervent, unaware, bigot has the floor in an Administrator thread, frightening really that these people are my peers, well nonduality is peerless and I have no fear. thanx for the headzup it was appreciated.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could be of service. If I can be of further service, I would suggest toning down your eccentricities while on-wiki, if possible. Because if not, it may really end up costing you. We had a user who was recently blocked indefinitely, due partly to incessantly communicating via poems even in tense situations. You seem to be headed down a similar road. Just friendly advice. I won't be the one to block you (I don't have the ability), so this shouldn't be seen as any sort of threat. Just advice. Equazcion (talk) 11:50, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Noted. You are the first editor for quite some time that I have encountered on Wikipedia that is good-natured. I am not eccentric, I am a straight shooter. I am really focused on theology but I'm not preachy. Most of the dross that the editors were talking about in regards to me is misattribution, misdirection and untrue. It amazes me that a person can escalate a matter to the Administrators' noticeboard when they have no editing history of providing any cited inclusion upon Wikipedia. It amazes me that Mitsube lies out of spite and removes appropriate, reputable cited content from articles that I have qualitatively improved. I am perplexed. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Village pump thread, forgotten?

Hi Equazcion,

Thank you for supporting the suggestion for improvement to the logo and/or tag line ("...that anyone can edit"). This is just to remind you that the thread still exists and that someone asked if we want to draft a proposal. As nobody has replied I'm afraid you forgot about it. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28development%29#Users_who_don.27t_know_what_Wikipedia_is_are_being_misled

Best regards, Xnquist (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't really forget about it, I've just been too lazy to craft a proposal. I might soon, but anyone else is welcome to give it a go. Equazcion (talk) 17:54, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)
If you'd like me to give it a go, I don't have any experience with making such formal proposals. Is there a tutorial or guidelines for that? If so, I might try it. Thanks. Xnquist (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Before WP:Village pump (development) came along a month ago, all you could do when you had an idea was present it at WP:Village pump (proposals) directly; no one expects any kind of special format or anything. There's no tutorial, and no trick to it really. You just try to present the idea at WP:Village pump (proposals) clearly and concisely, while providing a convincing argument for why it would be an improvement. Check out the other proposal discussions on that page to see what they look like. Equazcion (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, as I really don't have any experience with this, I've come to the conclusion that it'll be better to let you do it. Hopefully, you will find time for this soon. Thanks again. Xnquist (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just FYI, a proposal has been posted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Improve_the_WP_tagline Xnquist 13:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've commented. Equazcion (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_5&oldid=1136190038"