User talk:Between My Ken/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Thank you. Sach (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie
Thank you for your vigilance. However, there does not appear to be a genuine COI here. The user in question only changed the poster from an uncleared version to a cleared version, which does not substantively alter the article's content. In addition, the rewrite you performed, while admirable, contained numerous "redlinks" with footnote citations to the actual websites (not acceptable Wiki formatting), as well as citations to IMDb, which is not permitted as a valid source on Wikipedia. Other changes, such as alterations to actors' names and credit order, do not appear to corresspond with the film's official credits and therefore there does not appear to be a productive reason for changing them. if you feel you can write a better article than the current one, then by all means feel free to do so. Please, though, avoid dead links, IMDb citations, or factual errors in the film's credit list. Thank you.166.205.130.225 (talk)
 * I have responded on your talk page. Sach (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:AGF and do not accuse users of sockpuppetry without hard proof. Your account is only one day old and someone could read potential COI into that as well, but that would also be assuming bad faith and is frowned upon here. As the editors you have an issue with do not appear to have introduced any controversial material into the article, your insistence that there is a COI is puzzling (rules about an article's subject editing said article only apply when the subject is introducing bias, which is not the case here, even IF they are socks (for which there is no proof).) Your rewrite does not actually change any substantial facts; just formatting; so if those editors have a COI, your rewrite does not address it.
 * In any case, some of your edits are productive as far as improving the article's formatting; but you also introduce needless errors into the article which I will address accordingly. Also, I reiterate that citations to IMDb are not permitted on Wikipedia.166.205.130.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I am well aware of the rules. In the meantime, please see the article's discussion page, where this discussion should more properly be held.  In the meantime, I'll post something on WP:Films to get some more eyes involved. Sach (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is rather obvious now that you have a COI here, in all likeliness some type of connection with the film or Filmmakers. There is no other imaginable reason why you would engage in reversion wars in an attempt to alter the spelling or order of the film's published credits, remove verifiable producer credits, etc. unless you have some type of personal knowledge. In addition, your egregious accusations against other users makes it particularly apparent that you have some type of bone to pick with those who objectively edit the article in the past.166.205.130.225 (talk)
 * It may be obvious to you, but it happens to be totally untrue. (Incidentally, nice work: turn around the attack and use it against your opponent.) No, I'm afraid you've run into the real thing, a person who edits because he likes to edit. I never heard of this film before this evening, and I wouldn't have been lead to it if the "Helicon" account hadn't decided to italiize "film noir" in an article I was working on.  Odd that such a trivial thing might lead to their lose of control of the film article they've shepherded for so long. Sach (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only one person breaking the rules here, and that is yourself. Reordering credits, changing names, removing producer credits, etc. serves no purpose other than to antagonize and distort facts. Accusing a series of editors of being socks, with mo admin checkuser having been performed, is simply appaling. I know you are new here but this is the quickest route to a ban I've ever witnessed.166.205.130.225 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, stop being silly. Sach (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest again that this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, and not here. Thanks. Sach (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside comments
I'm responding from the post at WT:FILM. There seems to be a lot of back and forth here. Some of the edits done I support, some I do not. I don't know what particular evidence you have regarding COI, but be sure you've posted your concerns at the article talk page regarding that. I'm not clear why you removed the producer credit, Chase Masterson is in fact credited as a producer on IMDB and on the official web page. The credits order is what is given both on IMDB and on the official webpage and I've verified that the article John Haymes Newton is the James Newton listed on IMDB and the webpage. I reinserted the citations you added, but a more specific page is needed for them than just the general webpage for the events. The Park City Film Music Festival link does confirm the film ran there and the Director's Choice Award, but not the dates. I found a more supportive cite for WonderCon. Mostly, this needs to be discussed and issues settled. There is nothing productive in edit-warring. (I am posting this to the article talk page as well.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. The original producer credit was for "Helicon Arts Cooperative" with a link to their website, so I removed that, since I could find no support for it anywhere.  In looking at the producer credits on IMDB, I couldn't decide which out of the list of 8 or 10 people should be listed, so I left it blank, pending further information  That I removed "Chase Masterson" later was only an artifact of the situation: my edits were being mass-reverted in toto, and I was undoing the reversion -- Masterson just got caught in the crossfire.  It wasn't until you re-added the credit that I went back to the film's website, where I saw the credit for Masterson as producer, so I have no problem with that. In fact, in general, I have absolutely no problem with the adjustments you made, and I thank you for stepping in in what was becoming a pretty crazy situation.  Best, Sach (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is a crazy situation. The WP:3RR warning needs to be given to all of you because no one edit-wars in a vacuum. Please try to talk this out on the article talk page, and deal with the COI at the noticeboard. From the history page, it is clearly obvious that the production company edited the article, although I can't say about the IPs. If it can't be sorted, a WP:SSI case can be opened, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily sock-puppetry, it could as well be meat-puppetry, so I have my doubts whether a SSI would be worthwhile. Besides, I'm not vindictive or anything like that, I simply would like the article to be neutrally edited, so if the Helicon-related accounts stop editing it, that's enough for me. In any event, I think semi-protection of the page is worthwhile, and I look forward to seeing what happens to the COI complaint.  Thanks again for your intervention, which is appreciated. Sach (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Yesterday Was a Lie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I understand your concerns. Please note that all of the involved parties here have been given a 3RR warning and in fairness, I should also give one to you. I am requesting full page protection until this is sorted out. Please try and sort this out on the talk page and not the article itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the warning, but deleing a talk page discussion without explanation and removing a COI tag without explanation are both, by definition, vandalism, and the reversion of vandalism is not subject to WP:3RR. Best, Sach (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The COI tag was removed with the stated reason that it was baseless and defamatory. The talk page appears to have been blanked improperly; however, the content that was blanked was a AGF violation and should not have been there in the first place. You are entitled to call this "vandalism"; but others may view your bad faith baiting as vandalism as well. Regardless, you have no right to revert more than twice just because YOU believe something is vandalism. You are not an admin and not entitled to give yourself a 3RR pass. The thrust of my entire argument has been that NONE of this defamatory stuff should have been posted on the article or talk page to begin with.166.205.130.225 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're being silly again. I don't really see any reason for you to post on my talk page anymore, so I'm asking you to please refrain from doing so in the future. Any further discussion can take place on the article's talk page, or on the COI board, where you can accuse me of bad-fath and policy violations all you like.  Thanks. Sach (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, there is a very strong case for COI concerns at WP:COI/N, and perhaps a strong foundation for a sock puppet/meat puppet case. Please address your issues to the noticeboards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
You are being discussed here. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. Sach (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Response
Sheesh. There are several things going on here, some of which I really don't want to deal with because of the stress issues involved and my health, but I do have some comments. WP:SSI is the place to go to present a sock case, and the 69.231 IPs certainly are involved in that, as may well be the Helicon Arts account and perhaps the Sorrywrongnumber (or whatever those are). I'd certainly make a SSI case on that. However, I have to say that I would agree that identifying who that account belongs to can be considered outing. Personally, I would let that part of the situation go, it is sufficient to show that the accounts are all related and they end up blocked because of the sock/meat puppetry. We aren't obligated to show who someone is, only that they are related or are the same entity. Having said all of that, the 166.205.* doesn't on the surface traceroute to California, but to areas more in the eastern US and apparently to a mobile network, although that means nothing in the light of IP masking software, etc. It can certainly be included though, if for no other reason than to exclude it as directly related. I think the overwhelming issue is to settle the problem more than triumphing, although I'm not saying that is anyone's goal. Is any of this intended to promote the film? Yes, I think so. The 166.205.* person appears to have a lot of inside info regarding the casting process, what films qualify as a given classification, etc. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! A mobile network -- that would explain a lot. One traceroute gave me Valencia, California (nothern Los Angeles), while another gives me Oakley, California (Contra Costa County, up near San Francisco), and you apparently got something in the east.  A 4-G network, perhaps, for a I-Phone, or equivalent? In any event, yes, there's no way I can consider 166 to be a neutral third party any longer, since their attitude and stance has become increasingly combative and aggresive.  Here's a person, I think, with something at stake. Sach (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I got connections in Kansas and New Jersey. However, since mobile networks bounce around based on availability, it means little. I'd be glad to take a look at the sock case. Make sure you include sufficient diffs to support that one IP/account reverts or restores to versions done by the others. Outing is a funny thing here and of every, it seems to something that is taken quite seriously. I know that action is taken very quickly, as I discovered when a sock account editor finally uncovered my name and address, after a year of searching, and posted it to the talk page of an article that I routinely edit. It was removed and the edit salted within an hour. The trouble is, that when it happens, it can expose a non-public figure to harassment in real life, which is bad. I'm glad you think it best to let that particular line drop. It upsets a lot of people and actually isn't the goal in the long run. Let me know when you have the sock material ready. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is not the goal. Interesting thing here is that the name I'm being flailed at for "outing" is not (yet) a public figure, but obviously very much wants to be one.  That puts a whole weird spin on the situation. Sorry to hear that you were the victim of a real outing.  I imagine that can be quite distressing. Sach (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you admit you know the individual you are accusing personally! I think you just verified what some of us have been suspecting for a while now. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, 166. It follows directly on from what I've been saying. No, I do not know the individual personally. I extrapolate from their behavior here, and from their chosen profession. BTW, I did ask you not to post here, and I renew that request now.  Thanks. Sach (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) (To Wildhartlivie) The most interesting news is that a member of Arbcom has gotten involved, so I'm anxious to see what comes of that. Sach (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your COI report


It seems you would like this case taken further. Some of us who occasionally post at this noticeboard are suffering general fatigue from this issue. Why not make some proposals at Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie for how the article can be improved? What problems do you still see in the article? Is anyone preventing you from making it better? I would propose that the COI complaint be closed, without prejudice to reopening if further bad edits occur. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the case has gone exactly nowhere, so any forward motion on it would be nice -- but I will accede to your sage advice. Sach (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing references to notes
Please do not mass change references sections to notes without gaining consensus. I'm currently having to go through your contributions to revert the appropriate changes. Should you continue this matter will find its way on ANI for disruptive editing. Thanks! Jeni ( talk ) 10:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Sach (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There was nothing in my commentary in ANI that was even remotely "pugnacious", and your suggestion that it was is a bit of an affront. I had distilled a lot of discussion into the key points that had already been pointed out.  It was short, clear and to the point.
 * Just because longstanding editors don't quote a specific policy (ie the MOS), they are aware of standard procedures, and we all politely tried to advise you of that. Trying to negotiate was a bit ... odd.
 * An extra note so that someone doesn't jump at you in the future: not a single one of your posts on ANI had an edit-summary. A quick visit to your contributions show about 33% or less use of edit summaries.  Edit summaries are required for all edits.  Enjoy!  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for visiting my talk page. Sach (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Quiet American
Could you explain how saying "This allows the inbox to be at the top of the page, space isn't wasted" covers a complete revert of all the edit changes I made, including restoring unnecessary spacing mark-up, moving back an image for which unneccessary coding was placed in the cast section to allow for it, or why the image has to be in the cast section? LEAD is fairly explicit on this: "Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags, infobox or image". Why would reverting everything be helpful when MOS says clearly that disambig goes at the top? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation links are the first element on the page as rendered, they simply are not the first element in the code that produces the page. As for other changes, I didn't see them, if I reverted other changes of yours, that was an error.  However, according to this discussion on ANI, the "stability principle" (which is expressed here) mandates that when one or more styles are allowable by MOS, one should not change them, which is why I reverted to "Notes", instead of "References", which was the state of the article before I started editing it. Sach (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on J. Wellington Wimpy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NW ( Talk ) 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. I've been trying to get the other party to stop reverting and discuss, but that only just started to happen. I look forward to other editors contributing to the discussion and trying to find a consensus. Sach (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitespace
Please do not add whitespace to articles. Using or other means to add visible whitespace makes for a bad browsing experience for many people. Thanks Miami33139 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Sach (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding way too many see also links
hello. You seem to have been adding vastly too many see also links to various high-IQ society articles. I have pared down the sections to the manageable levels at which they were prior to your edits. Please be careful as to not overlink articles, especially as we have categories such as Category:High IQ societies, of which all those articles are already members, to take care of such relationships. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the See Also with a navbox. Sach (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Template states
Question I noticed that you amended Bipolar disorder to have the state. How is this different than having ? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes
You maybe interested to know that in the near future the default thumbnail size is going to increase and is dynamic based on browser references. Forcing the image size is unhelpful when mobile users have their client resize on their slow device. So please don't force image sizes. Your own preferences can be set to show large thumbnails if that is your own preference. Miami33139 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on talk page. Sach (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy Miami33139 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sach (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the cited thread with interest, but it's not really relevant, since it says nothing whatsoever about forced image sizing. Do you have anything that's actually on point? Sach (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The guidelines state that most images should be left at the default thumbnail size.
 * You are forcing image sizes because you think the default is too small.
 * The default will soon be larger.
 * QED, you should stop forcing image sizes and the default catch up with you. Miami33139 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is logical, but unfortuately incorrect, since it stems from faulty assumptions. I am forcing image sizes to make an article look visually atractive and harmonious, to avoid whitespaces caused by the various peculiarities of how text and images interact when a page is rendered, and to insure that each image is as large as necessary to be worthwhile being included in an article.  Images are not, and will never be, one size fits all, so a discussion about increasing minimum thumbnail size is not terribly relevant to my concerns. Sach (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are not those of the projects and your views on visually attractive take a backseat to consistent image use on the project. This is a collaborative project. If you do not understand how your aesthetic sense cannot override the community standards and stubbornly insist on imposing your style on the project you will continue to attract the communities attention. If you want to argue how your vision is better, you need to present this to the wider community before making widespread changes. It's not about one person's opinion of "better" in a community. Miami33139 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments assume that I am not aware of, and do not appreciate, the collaborative nature of the project, and are for that reason, incorrect. Further, your evaluation of the needs and priorities of the project are your own and are not, I believe, reflective of the community as a whole.  Sach (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The community writes guidelines. You ignore them. I don't need to make a value judgement. Miami33139 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The community writes guidelines, that is correct. It seems to me that this discussion isn't serving any particular purpose, except perhaps to allow you to vent a bit. Could I ask you not to continue unless you have something substantive to say?  Thanks. Sach (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes and warning templates
HNP. Hatnotes belong at the top of the page before infoboxes. Your edits moving hatnotes below the first infobox presents several problems. First, it makes it appear as though hatnotes are part of the content of the article because they appear inline with the start of content. Second, they appear below the infobox on single column browsers. Third, they also get parsed after the infobox by assistive software and devices.

Warning templates also belong at the top of the article or section, not in the references section. Discriminating users who do not want to read unverified content on Wikipedia wish to know before they start, not at the end. The way you format these in the references section with multiple hard returns for whitespace also presents a problem for some users who browse with assistive software or devices.

Please stop doing these things. You may mean well but these edits are not constructive. Miami33139 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. There are some things which I would have discussed with you, because I believe you are incorrect in your pronouncments, but you seem to have posted concerning me on AN/I instead of waiting for me to respond, hardly a collegial act -- so let's see where that leads. Sach (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification
There is currently an Administrators' Noticeboard thread open about you, here. Regards, Jamie  S93  17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. Sach (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/H Debussy-Jones. Thank you. 2Misters (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for as a sockpuppet. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW ( Talk ) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion
I have started a thread about you on the administrators' noticeboard. The thread is located here. Exactly one of your accounts may be unblocked to allow you to participate in this discussion, if you so choose. NW ( Talk ) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)