User talk:CinchBug/Archive 3

Truce
Thank you for your good efforts. I cannot sign the truce in good faith without first receiving an apology from LaMome for calling me fraudulent. She can call me stinky, sh!thead, ugly or tendentious till the cows come home and I really don't care, but she assaulted my editing integrity and that is wrong. The links I posted did indeed have the phrase "Certificate Program" in them for all to read. ObserverNY (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Sorry to butt in, but since Cinchbug initiated the truce, I'll post here. ObserverNY, I've read and re-read the page you linked to the Dwight school and although they mention certificates for those who don't pass the diploma, I cannot find mention of the Certificate program. Is it linked from another page? Also, Cinchbug another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt. Here's the raw link: http://www.dwight.edu/academics/dp/DPAssandTesting.html Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * TK, no worries! I found a reference to "IB Certificate Program" in the "Graduation Requirements" section at the link. Having said that, I'm still not sure we need to include the various ways individual schools incorporate their own additional awards/programs on top of the IBDP in the article. But if the consensus is that it should be included, then I'm okay with that.


 * ObserverNY, I understand, but you and La mome have traded all kinds of nasty words over the last few months. I'd be hard-pressed to figure out exactly where it all started and who fired the opening rounds--but I don't even want to. I'd prefer that you two--and everyone else editing on this page, regardless of whether they've been uncivil to anyone or not--simply try to put it behind you. I hope you'll agree to do so. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cinchbug -- thank you! I just could not find that reference, and thanks for telling me which section to look in. Okay, in my view, that's helpful, and think the issue of certificates is very much a discussion for another day. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cinchbug - I am totally willing to wipe the slate clean if I receive an apology from LaMome for being called fraudulent for posting the above reference, which you good folks just verified. That is the main issue I am upset about. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * ONY, I've re-read the references as had Cinchbug. I've also reread this long thread and can't find that La mome specifically call you fraudulent. Again, Cinchbug, need your eyes, and ObserverNY can you direct me to the specific post calling you (the editor) fraudulent? Thanks. And apologies again for taking space on Cinchbug's page! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - Under the section "Certificate Programme", immediately after my fairly long list of links:
 * Please try to avoid sensationalistic language. IB is not being fraudulent. Just checked the link you provided for the Dwight School. Did not find any reference to "certificate programme." That is not really supporting your "theory." La mome (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent? La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, since actually that was the 2nd accusation, at that anderson link the reference to the Certificate Program is mentioned in the section for Sophomores applying. ObserverNY (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * And of course, once again trying to play Pollyanna and by avoiding common courtesy and all responsibility for the nastiness, LaMome has signed your truce without apologizing. Cheers! Please. I'm a very honest person. I am telling you that I CANNOT honestly in good faith sign that truce while still feeling highly slighted and insulted. You can make this right by asking her to apologize for calling me/my editing fraudulent. Just that. Nothing else. If you won't and she won't, based on the facts which you have witnessed here, well, no truce. ObserverNY (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * ObserverNY, first, it appears that you posted the same comments in two different locations on my Talk page, so I hope you won't object to my having deleted one set of those comments--I left the second set directly above my current remarks.


 * Second, as I stated on the IBDP Talk page, the truce was to have no other pre-conditions. Requiring some other action on La mome's part is clearly neither in the spirit nor the letter of this truce--not to mention requiring additional action on my part, which I really don't understand.


 * Nonetheless, I'll do you one better:


 * La mome, it would truly be a display of good faith if you were to apologize to ObserverNY, since it seems clear that the links originally in question do, in fact, contain references to a "certificate programme" and that ObserverNY was not being fraudulent.


 * ObserverNY, it would truly be a display of good faith if you were to apologize to La mome, since it seems clear that your comments about her IP address and presumed location were, in fact, inappropriate in light of WP:OUTING.


 * I hope that both of you can find it within yourselves to now apologize to one another, shake hands, and put an end to all this bitterness and animosity. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's an appropriate compromise and second Cinchbug's suggestion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded, if it'll mean that we can get past this... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see how mentioning that someone's displayed IP address lives on the same 120 mile Long Island as myself among the millions of people who live here constitutes WP:OUTING Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not., but if you say so, by all means, I sincerely apologize. ObserverNY (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
 * I agreed to the truce CinchBug posted on the IBDP talk page, without any additional pre-conditions. Given the post above, ObserverNY obviously can not apologise in good faith, even to just one of the several egregious comments s/he has made to not only me (cat in a litter box, persona non grata, etc...), but to all of you. Before CinchBug posted the truce on the IBDP talk page, I gave ObserverNY the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and she responded by deleting my post on her talk page. I agree to a truce without any pre-conditions.
 * La mome (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cinchbug asked me to give you an apology for WP:OUTING. I sincerely apologize for upsetting you if you perceived what I said as WP:OUTING. No apology from you for calling me/my editing fraudulent? No truce. ObserverNY (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Outing and COI
I've opened a thread at Talk:IB Diploma Programme to remind people about civility and bringing personal things into the discussion. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cinchbug! I believe you've tried very hard to mitigate the controversy on the IB series, but in my view, it won't stop. Unfortunately, good editors, such as yourself, Candorwien, and myself, lose interest in working on these articles, despite hours of work during the summer, which appears will come to nothing. In my view the course guides are fine to use as sources and do not present COI, but I've suggested to ObserverNY to find other sources for balance if s/he objects. Without the course guides all the good work you've done on the subject pages are for nothing. Again, thanks for trying, but it seems that everyone really is ready to give up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, TK. I'm afraid that I'm starting to agree with you that the animosity over there is not going to go away. It's a shame, since I was really hoping that the truce would help but, after all of that effort, it didn't even last a day before bad faith accusations were being tossed around. I agree with you that the subject guides are absolutely fine to use as we've done and there isn't anything at PSTS that contradicts such use, although the subject guides could certainly be abused. But there's been no abuse of the guides, so I don't understand the objection to them.


 * As summer comes to a close and the school-year begins, I'll have far less time to devote to these articles. Hopefully they won't get torn apart and some other even-handed editors will pick up the slack. I'll still be around, though, just probably not as frequently. By the way, I appreciated your remarks about the capitalization issue--I wasn't aware of what the CMOS said and it seems I've long been guilty of over-capitalizing. I guess it's time for me to update my 1979 edition of Strunk and White! Regards, • CinchBug • 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My edition of CMOS is probably as old as your edition of Strunk & White and in fact I've been looking for Strunk & White this morning, but it's so small I seem to misplace it frequently. The capitalization issue is interesting (and I really tried not to be involved) because writers do tend to overcapitalize, but if you note text in books has relatively few capitalized words as it's been edited and copy edited. At any rate, the main rules are to avoid over-capitalizations and to be consistent, and as such I believe the IB's use of capitalizations is fine and doesn't break any usage rules. I too won't have as much time soon (the avalanche of work I expected during the summer has only been postponed but waiting to hit) but I'll keep an eye on the article, the Hanson article (which I'm still hoping to return to), and will be on Wikipedia continuing as a copyeditor. Thanks for your great work at trying to create a truce. Certainly, in my view, the effort is worthwhile, even if the result is less than satisfying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up,
I reported him. Could you back me up on it? I think he'll probably be blocked easier if you do Jordan Payne    T  /C  18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Since I haven't done this before, is there a particular format I need to follow? Regards, • CinchBug • 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Comments by ObserverNY
And if the two of you had any intellectual honesty you would LOOK at the Subject section of the IBDP and see that if you are going to insist on lower case usage, there are plenty of double capitalizations in that section which you are choosing to ignore (Further Mathematics, Mathematical Studies, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Design technology)making the whole article inconsistent ! But you'd rather whine about me than actually address the issue or what the Chicago manual actually says, not your warped interpretation of what should be. What a group - how you can put such energy into defending this fraudulent, scam of a program is beyond me. ObserverNY (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * I can't claim to know who the "two" of "[us]" are, especially considering the number of times you've complimented me in one way or another. So I'm not really sure where this is coming from, especially considering that I've offered you sound advice that helped protect you from being blocked--advice that you clearly took to heart. Regardless, I have no recollection of "whining" about anything. Can you point me to these occasions, especially "[my] warped interpretation[s] of ... [what?]" Is "capitalization" really the issue? In any event, don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty--I take that rather personally and I seem to recall that you do, as well. • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 00:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey CB, for some reason I thought I posted my above comment after reading a back and forth between you and Truthkeeper about the Chicago manual. I don't see that exchange now and can't be bothered looking for it, please just read what I wrote above. You're a bright guy. I'm sure you can see the discrepancies in the article yourself. ObserverNY (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why has my account been auto-blocked?
I noted a few minutes ago that HelloAnnyong was improperly blocked and, in the interest of helping correct this, I went to the blocking admin's page, namely Ricky81682. When I attempted to post a message to Ricky81682, I was blocked from doing so and saw the message in the following diff.

Hopefully some other folks have my talk page on their watchlist and can direct some attention to both me and HelloAnnyong, since I can't imagine what either of us have done to be blocked.

To the admin who eventually comes here, I'd like to say that, as a good-faith editor, I find this turn of events to be both confusing and rather disappointing. Please take immediate steps--CU, whatever--to correct this obvious error. Thanks. Regards, • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) ( regarding my striking of some of the above remarks, see the discussion below )


 * As I've never been blocked, I didn't think of attempting the following until reading the message at Ricky81682's page more thoroughly. Hopefully it works... • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been asked not to clear autoblocks for the time being so that they can diagnose the issue. I hope you don't mind being a guinea pig for a few minutes? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, xeno--guinea pig, I am! Thanks for looking into this.  I do appreciate it.  Regards, • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * xeno, I unwatched ObserverNY's talk page around the same time that I saw the problem at HelloAnnyong's talk page and attempted to post a message at Ricky81682's page. I have no idea if that might be important or not, but I thought I'd let you know, just in case. Regards, • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to xeno and NW for resolving the issue so rapidly! • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 01:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * lol, thanks, xeno! It was no problem at all--besides, once I heard that rubber glove go on, I figured I should just relax and breathe easy. ;) Thanks again. Regards, • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cinchbug! The bug is fitting and well deserved as you had to stay stuck on your user page as the problem was de-bugged! Congratulations! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for help
Hi Cinchbug! I haven't been able to connect to Wikipedia until a few moments ago. Sorry I didn't see your call for help sooner, but seems as thought all is well now. Just so you know, I do keep your page watchlisted (though I doubt such a strange turn of events will happen again....) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * TK, thanks! I keep your page on watch, too, and I agree that it seems pretty unlikely that something like this will happen again. But I greatly appreciate your quick response and willingness to help!  Thanks very much! • <b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b><b style="color:#93C">Bug</b> • 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)