User talk:173.228.123.166

April 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Hadwiger–Nelson problem has been reverted. Your edit here to Hadwiger–Nelson problem was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/aubrey-de-grey-the-chromatic-number-of-the-plane-is-at-least-5/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Block evasion
You seem to be block evading. I should probably block you. Yes? I surmise you are the author of the Five Filters page. Would you care to disclose your identity or plead your case? Andrevan@ 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to do with Five Filters and never heard of it before seeing the Hacker News link to it that I posted in the "off-wiki mentions" section. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, but you're knowingly sending messages for a banned user - you just said that. My reading is that the policy actually does prohibit this. Andrevan@ 00:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What banned user are you talking about, and how am I doing anything for them? Look, I appreciate your vigilance in wanting to protect the site, but really your detectors are on the fritz.  First everyone is a Russian spy, and now this.  If you're wound up about stuff on Wikipedia (we all get that way sometimes) the best thing to do is quit editing til it passes.  You're simply way off base here.  Could you get some advice from another admin about this if you think I'm up to something, which I'm not?  Thanks.  173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/173.228.123.166 Andrevan@ 21:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you are just an anon and not a sock. Given the fact that there is currently a sock army attacking Philip Cross, and your editing similarity to the blocked user, as well as some of your comments, I hope the mistake is understandable. Andrevan@ 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not attacking Philip Cross, at least not on purpose.  I'm open to the idea that Cross is editing badly but a real attacker would be doing a much better job, by having much more knowledge of Cross's editing than I do, and using it.  See also my post on Cross's talk page. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Added: you might google the name "Mia Ash" for an entertaining story. The Craig Murray post got traction off-wiki because people were/are ready to believe Philip Cross was up to something like that.  But we can't get that spy-vs-spy on Wikipedia. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's definitely above my pay grade with respect to Cross, as to whether he is one person or many, but I will submit that I'm not having paranoid delusions about socking and meatpuppetry pushing pro-Trump lines. User:Mr. Daniel Plainview was already blocked as a recurring sock operator. Andrevan@ 00:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of the theory that Cross is multiple people rather than someone with too much time on his hands. But the case that he is a political agenda pusher (and we do get those, as you observe) is strong enough to warrant some investigation in my opinion.  Those investigations are a lot of work since you have to look at 100s or 1000s of diffs.  I can't be that kind of agenda pusher myself because I don't edit enough to make much impression among other things, and I don't have the energy to go grovelling through Cross's edit history.  Any real enemy of his (not that I want to give them ideas) would be working on that with glee.  Also there's a huge difference between Mr. Daniel Plainview being a blocked POV pusher (those are a dime a dozen) and being a Russian spy. Generally before making accusations at people you need some diffs of either specific disruptive edits, or analysis of enough edits to document a long-range pattern of bad editing.  I didn't find your report about Mr. Daniel Plainview but from related posts it sounds like his editing had significant problems of its own.  I like to think my own editing is mostly ok, so feel free to let me know if you spot any problems. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

away
I'll be away again for several days, probably the whole week. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a problem in that your new statement is too long to add to your old one. It's technically too long in any case, but I might be willing to replace your old one with your new one. But it looks as though you won't be able to comment. Doug Weller  talk 10:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's ok. I see that a case has opened.  I will make a few comments in it but won't be able to contribute much.  I have editing access for the next few days, but not that much free time. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * your edit summary says you had a question? If it was just whether to swap the statements around, it's moot now, but no prob.  If it's something else feel free to ask. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi 173.228.123.166, I have removed all links to off-wiki content in your evidence submission in accordance with the announcement at the top of the evidence page (The Arbitration Committee reminds participating editors that any off-wiki information should be sent privately to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org rather than being posted publicly on case pages. Arbitration clerks have been instructed to remove and revision delete any material related to off-wiki information from case pages.). You're free to submit any material to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org for full and complete consideration by the Committee. (I see that you've asked for responses on the case talk page but I am advised by procedure to notify you on your talk page.) Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

away
I'm outta here again, probably all week as usual. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your distortion of record at BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop
173.228.123.166, your claim that I have not submitted anything privately to ArbCom is false. Please stop distorting the record, of which you are clearly ignorant. KalHolmann (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I request that you strike my name from your comment at that page, and explain in the edit summary that what you wrote about me is false. KalHolmann (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but note that I stated it as a belief rather than a fact. I'll post a fix.  I'm glad to hear that you submitted something and I hope it had some diffs. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 173.228.123.166, please stop using the pronoun "they" when referring to me.
 * Or better yet, please stop referring to me. KalHolmann (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the pronoun, thanks. You don't get to participate in a public discussion without your comments being noted. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 173.228.123.166, in case you haven't noticed, I am not participating in BLP issues on British politics articles. Due to my conduct, I was re-added as an involved party in this case and fully expect to be sanctioned. I'm not about to post anything that might give ArbCom more ammunition to use against me. I ask you again: please stop referring to me. KalHolmann (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 173.228.123.166, in case you haven't noticed, I am not participating in BLP issues on British politics articles. Due to my conduct, I was re-added as an involved party in this case and fully expect to be sanctioned. I'm not about to post anything that might give ArbCom more ammunition to use against me. I ask you again: please stop referring to me. KalHolmann (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've seen a lot of these cases and I don't think you are likely to be sanctioned. I do think it reflected poor judgment, but not misconduct, for you to press so hard for the case to be opened and then not bother to present any useful evidence as far as I could tell.  Obviously I haven't seen your private submission though, so maybe it is useful.  I hope that it is.  Huldra gave useful evidence at the end of her evidence section and that's the kind of thing that works.  Her diffs were about Tim Hayward.  If your evidence was about George Galloway, then it probably wasn't useful, since the Galloway dispute is already resolved by the tban.  Useful evidence should, in all likelihood, 1) include concrete diffs, and 2) should relate to people or topics different from Galloway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FiveFilters evidence page
173.228.123.166, don't understand why you find a simple web page so difficult to read. Links are clearly dated and signposted right at the top of the page. I'll point you to the most recent piece, seeing as you couldn't find it. I'm sure you'll find that lacking too: Philip Cross: More Evidence 196.245.151.83 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I originally only looked at the main page. I do remember seeing that other page and thinking it was helpful, and I presume arbcom has looked at it.  It would still be nice if additions to it were labelled with dates. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Added: WhoColor looks like a very nice tool. I can tell you from having wanted to do something similar that whoever wrote it had to overcome significant technical obstacles to make it happen (added: if it is accurate since the obvious approaches are easy to confuse).  The stuff I use is crap by comparison. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Meat
Thank you for this! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Np. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
&#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm keeping an eye on the page so don't need these talk messages though.  173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

away
Might be back tomorrow or thereabouts, not sure. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for analysis!
Thanks for User talk:173.228.123.166/Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and User talk:173.228.123.166/pc-analysis. That was quite a lot of work! --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC) I now wonder if the George Galloway topic ban was made in too much haste also.


 * Thanks for the kind words. Fwiw, the pc-analysis page was a lot of work (probably not worthwhile) because I examined every edit by hand until I gave up.  But the Antisemitism in UKLP page was almost no work at all (I just ran a script to generate it, and made no attempt to hand-examine the individual edits) so I can do more of them if there are any you'd like to see.  173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

away
Leaving til mid next week probably. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
for fixing that stray reference. I use Clipmate which keeps all my clips and clearly chose the wrong one.

However, I don't think your edit actually made it more neutral, all it did was force readers to look at another article to see what was meant. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear what "biblical inerrancy" means at the surface, though the new phrasing probably isn't ideal and I'd planned to look at it again. The old phrasing (and the current stuff about Southwestern Trinity) was pretty painful.  The CSBI is rather nuanced and one really should read the article to find out what it says. Anyway, the biography is about the person rather than the institutions and we can't really infer someone's personal beliefs from their institutions' doctrines.  So that stuff (and the part about the schools' accreditation) seems like an indirect way to attack Collins's credibility about the meteor explosion thing.  And that, itself, is a bit mistargeted since the meteor explosion theory actually came from his student Phillip Silvia.  I might post some more on the Collins' article's talk page about this.  173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
&#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  10:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Circling the wagons and the GiantSnowman Arbitration
This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. 92.8.218.107 (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

away
Will be gone for about a week probably. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments at Tanis (fossil site) talk page
Thanks for your multiple comments, I've collated them and responded on the talk page. Look forward to seeing you there! And here's a small gift in appreciation, as well! FT2 (Talk 01:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks! See you at the talk page. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)