User talk:AulaTPN/Archive Q2 2007



Proxy autoblock?
This IP address has been autoblocked because of one bad user. I can't help but see this as somewhat cavalier as this IP is a proxy shared by literally thousands of machines, let alone users. Please undo the autoblock. Thanks AulaTPN 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, the IP addresses of logged-in users are not shown to admins. Autoblocks are 24 hour blocks of the blocked user's IP address and are automatically set by the MediaWiki software in an attempt to prevent further disruption. Thus blocking a vandalism-only account sometimes causes collateral damage. For more information, please see Autoblock. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we only blocked specific accounts, the blocked user could keep disrupting Wikipedia by simply logging out or switching to another account and it could be very difficult to keep track of the disruption. Mostly blocks of IP addresses do not cause collateral damage (some shared IP addresses are exempted from autoblocks) but regrettably "mostly" does not mean "always". --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Present tense in fiction
See Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29 --EEMeltonIV 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boxes
I'm glad you guys know how to figure this stuff, it's all Greek to me.--Alf melmac 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock again?!
Can we please be more careful when autoblocking IP addresses that serve 100,000s of users? I've already requested that this be added to the no-block list as it serves as the gateway for the whole of the UK National Health Service. Please unblock promptly. AulaTPN 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * yup --Selket Talk 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Selket, you are a star! AulaTPN 13:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I need some backup
It looks like I'm about to start an edit war and I really don't want to, so I'm hoping I can resolve this with majority opinion. There's a right-wing libertarian dude who's been editing Wiki articles to post opinions about JK Rowling's supposed socialist messages. He added a massive subsection to the Controversy over Harry Potter page on this topic, which I ultimately deleted on the (in my opinion correct) grounds that it constituted criticism, not controversy. A controversy is an argument or dispute, and there is no evidence of controversy in that section whatsoever. I made that point and merged the section with the Harry Potter section. Now he's back and he's reinserted his section, but he seems to have missed the original point. Before things get rough I would like to ensure that this goes over as smoothly as possible. Thanks. Serendipodous 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He/She doesn't need backup, he needs a backbone.
 * I was going to respond to all the critics of the Political Opposition section personally, but then I found that Serendipodous had solicited them and sullyed my name by calling me a Libertarian! (that is the Ayn Rand Society, not me). If you don't want to engage in an edit war then don't.  The information is all true and has citations, and backed by Rowling's own words.  You've edited the material for weeks and now suddenly deleted the whole section.  What do you find so threatening about keeping the information accessable? Libertycookies 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll play backup!! I just got involved in the Harry Potter/JK Rowling area of wiki...it definitely  needs attention!  Oh, and does your no change edit of my user page mean that you approve?

Could you do me another favour, please Aula?
Could you go over Libertycookies's recent addition to JK Rowling's page? I have gone into conflict so deep with this dude I can't be objective any more. Thanks. Serendipodous 08:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to offer my advice but I don't think this guy will listen to reason. I have explained to the best of my ability the flaw in his inductive reasoning but he seems to think that I'm a rabid right-winger victimising him for his political views and so won't take anything I say on board. It's all a bit ironic really; I come from a family of Chomskyite Old Labour socialists. Because I actually know genuine socialists, I suppose that's why I'm personally convinced that Rowling isn't one. Serendipodous 10:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * enable your email. Go up to preferences and then type your email address into the field. I think it's best if we continue this off site. Serendipodous 21:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done AulaTPN 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, my hotmail account is not picking up Wikipedia emails, so this has to be done out in the open. Very well then. I've just made a request for arbitration. Serendipodous 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow; you should be a lawyer. That was masterful. And I like my new name :) I was a bit worried it might be too long but I pasted it onto Word and did a word count and it's just under: 498 words :) Serendipodous 20:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good - brevity has never been one of my strong points! ;-) I hope you don't mind me taking dire liberties (no pun intended) with your username but I'm lazy and it's a lot quicker to type! We'll I guess all you can say is that we've shaken the tree and now we'll just have to wait and see what falls out. Although it did occur to me that our request for arbitration doesn't actually have a request in it! What are we asking them to do for us if they decide in our favour? AulaTPN 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After all I've been accused of, I refuse to the admins' job for them. I have no interest in calling for this lunatic's head. But, given that he has comprehensively and repeatedly violated every single established Wikipedia rule on conduct and practice, I can't see how they won't ban him. Serendipodous 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can! If I've learned anything from travelling the wiki it's to expect the unexpected. (Or should that be to expect the worst?) I have a horrible feeling they'll give him a slap on the wrists (which he'll doubtless ignore) and tell us to suck it up. Playing devil's advocate for a minute - what has he actually done to warrant being banned? He's not vandalised an article in the real sense of the word - just posted tons of mildly libellous garbage, tried to carve a niche in the 'paedia to pedal his fanciful notions and hurled some ill-thought-out insults. And even if they do ban him - he seems so hell-bent on forcing his agenda that he'll probably just reappear as a sock puppet and then we'll have to do this all over again. Still, chin up! After all as Tolkien said, despair is the greatest sin! AulaTPN 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken JK Rowling off my watchlist. I've gone to great lengths to bring Liberty's abuses to general attention, to a chorus of indifference. I can no longer edit that article. Serendipodous 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup I'm not going to be doing much to the Harry Potter article either. What particularly galls me is that the admins have sent this guy exactly the wrong message and now he'll deface articles with impunity. This is one of the things I absolutely hate about wikipedia - the governance around here is dreadful. AulaTPN 09:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling
I have little to add, except advice to fully participate in mediation, clearly and briefly setting forth the problem, listening closely to the viewpoint of the other party, closely examining your own behavior, especially from the viewpoint of the other party, and considering any solutions offered. Fred Bauder 13:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize
I do apologize if there is anything I've done wrong, I'm trying to get more acquainted with the wikipedia format and get involved in the discussions...I'll try to be quieter from now on. I didn't realize that joking was frowned upon. Sorry-- Solar Sunstorm  20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the rest of the list. I saw the bit about politics and a draft and assumed that was it/ That's why I stopped adding/reverting.AngielaJ 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange IP
No idea - some odd dog catching thingie. Anyway, no problem for the block - keep reporting! ck lostsword • T  •  C  11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Mature
"now he'll deface articles with impunity."

I'm sure you are educated, but still could be a bit wiser. Bigotry (of opinion) and making rash assumptions usually leads to personal mistakes and self-fulfilling prophecies. You and Seren went into this assuming conflict and rallying people against me by trying to define my politics, rather than evaluating the value of my contributions and suggesting different approaches. That put me on the defensive and made it hard for me to view you as anything other than an adversary.

If you will look at the Charity section, it pretty much hits all my points, but just in a slightly different angle. Calling it defacing is insulting. And while I've apologized to Seren, I've yet to hear anything back from him. Libertycookies 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: your response. I'm not doing this to win friends, but because I'm fed up with every news article mentioning Rowling and devil worshiping, and none acknowledging her good works and, to me, her obvious attempts to make the world a better place.  If wikipedia had this info, then I wouldn't be here.  The early deletes of the material by Seren, way before he got you involved, riled me a bit.  Then he called in the troops.  Then everyone hammered on me.  But I'm a newbie, and admittedly often a jerk.  What's your excuse?


 * You might be the wrong generation to get the Mind Bomb reference. The The was very popular in the time frame that Rowling was growing up.  I thought it was a humorous reference to her anarchistic sentiments (find the quote) and a nice way to explain that bombs and exposives are not just physical ones.  Go and listen to a few of the tracks on Mind Bomb like Armeggedon Days are here again.  Watch the movie V for Vendetta(also popular as a comic in her day) and see if you can find a reason for Dumbledore having a scar.  Rowling is a great artist, and as Picasso said, "Good artists borrow ideas, Great artists steal ideas."  Everything she writes has a reference, which is why the 8th book will be an encyclopedia. Libertycookies 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement taken ...
You said that statement could be taken wrongly but I don't understand which statement you were talking about...so far as my statement, it was what I believed to be true; I've seen no evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solar Sunstorm (talk • contribs)
 * What I meant was that your comment was worded badly - POV-pushers could easily have misinterpreted your comment as meaning that you believed there was evidence of her books converting people to witchcraft. I know (think I know!) you didn't mean that so thought I'd provide you with the opportunity to clarify.  A u l a T P N 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't me who said that 'it should be mentioned'. I said that it 'shouldn't be mentioned because there was no proof'.  And did I not sign the above?  I'm having trouble with my username, so I'm sorry.-- Solar Sunstorm   03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. my mistake - must have completely misread what you wrote. Sorry about that one.  A u l a T P N 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just don't want to be profiled wrongly...do you think you could help me with my username? It looks to me like it should work, but it won't link to my page. -- Solar Sunstorm   00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, try taking out the &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; tags - like this: Solar Sunstorm  in fact you could just copy/paste it into your signature box. You could even split it so that 'solar' linked to your user page and 'sunstorm' linked to your talk page like this:  Solar  Sunstorm  which is a similar thing to what I've done with my sig.  A u l a T P N 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough
Yeah, I kinda consider scolding me in public an attempt to discredit my points, even though that might not be your intent. Sorry, I blog more in political forums where there are no holds barred. I repost prior to total consensus, with an attempt to address the concerns, because delay tactics are common way to suppress undesired viewpoints in the political forum. I don't necessarily like my style either, just a product of environment.

But if you don't mind, unless it on the subject being discussed, throw it at my Talk page. Can't promise I'll follow the advice, I'm big on civil disobedience, but at least I won't feel a need to publicly defend myself and counterattack.

If I could ask, can someone archive the mess of sparring on the J. K. Rowling talk page? I tried once but was scolded. Some of the stuff is worthy of discussion, but I think we are all in agreement that my behaviour often is "unbecoming", for want of a better word. Libertycookies 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)