User talk:Bart 123

AfD etiquette
Hello

It is not good form to edit your message after it is replied. Minor edits can be ignored, but major edits, like those that can shift blame, are not.

You can study the AfD etiquette in WP:DISCUSSAFD.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am indeed not an experienced editor, as you have pointed out. On the other hand, I wonder if calling people socks is good etiquette? Cheers, Bart 123 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. Let me give you a few pointers then: "Comment:" is only for the first entry of the AfD. In your talk page, you don't need it. Everything here is a comment. (I removed it now to show you how, but you are allowed to revert anything in this page. You are the master here.)
 * And no, calling people "sock" is a serious bad conduct that must not normally happen. But throwing the name of a third party is far worse conduct. Put yourself in my shoe, or in Dsmatthews's shoe: How would you feel if your name was suddenly thrown into a discussion to which you were not even connected? I want you to understand that what you did was SUPREMELY suspicious. In Wikipedia, always discuss the subject matter, never name a certain contributor.
 * Let me tell you how you should react when you see a nomination similar to mine. It says "Non-notable computer program." You click on the "notable" link, study what is notability, and if the nominator is wrong, you reply, pointing out to the evidence of notability. (You can find all about it in that article.) If there is no mention of any editor's name, you never mention one either.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. That's the correct way of doing it. Of course, you must have left the whole sock matter well alone and not commented on it, but that's a huge improvement. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

About the K-3D mailing list
Hello again

I am sorry be bothering you so many times today. Thanks for letting me know about the things that Daniel Scott Matthews said on the mailing list.

There are a couple of things he said that are actually true, but not in the way he intended. He wrote: "Codename Lisa and FleetCommand edit the same pages very frequently, often within minutes or hours of each other." That's indeed the truth. But the catch is: It is the purpose of Wikipedia; it brings editors with similar interests together so that they can closely cooperate. "Collegial editing" is one of the requirements of becoming an administator here. Even canvassing is permitted, under certain conditions. That's how Wikipedia has 15,000,000 articles and has, in a very short time, swept aside other encyclopedias. Such a close cooperation eventually result in false accusations of unhealthy cooperation. I myself am accused of being the sockpuppet of no less than six different editors at different times. Other editors have faced similar accusations many times. And there are even satirical pieces written on this phenomenon, which you can read for fun: 1, 2 and my own piece 3.

The problem with accusing two people of being sockpuppets is that unless an admin fall for it blocks both, the accuser has to deal with two offended editors and face the consequences of false accusations as well. That's exactly what happened to Daniel. but here is gist: FleetCommand started a discussion on Commons; Daniel made the mistake of mentioning a priot dispute with me. Hence, I went there. Daniel then resorted to deleting other people's messages, rude accusations, vandalism, etc. Administrator threatened him with a block. Mind you, back then, his accusatory skills weren't as keen as today; he wrote outrageously childish things like I being in cahoots with not just FleetCommand, but also with an ex-Microsoft manager and Donald Trump, or that he has collected a dossier on me with the help of his daughter that he is going to take to the police! I believe the admins had the laugh of their lives.

He would have not suffered so much if he had done the right thing: He submitted an image that he thought was educational, but others didn't think so. If he had accepted the feedback as he does in a developer-customer relationship, everything would have been resolved by now with him having uploaded another more educational image and have become our hero here. Like every other specialized image website, such as 500px and Unsplash, Wikimedia Commons has its own rules about what is acceptable or not. One must not take it personally.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for sharing this history. I am in no position to judge any of this, however —Bart 123 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All the more credit on your part, sir. Happy editing. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)