User talk:Cuddlyable3

Welcome to my Talk Page
==My policy is to keep my page open for any new contact or old friend with ideas on how I can help contribute to Wikipedia. Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict. WP:RPA is applied here.== ''Threads: I keep a limited number of threads open on this page and may move a fresh posting to the sender's Talk page. (added Nov 2010 ) Cuddlyable3 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LFSR
Please see the comment in the discussion page about the table of polynomials. Amoss (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FPC
Your animation Image:Kochsim.gif has been nominated for Featured Picture. Beacause it has recieved some complaints over size and aliasing, I wonder if you might be able to upload a larger, anti-aliased version. It certatinly is interesting, and I would love to see a better version. J    Are you green? 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added notes to the image description that may interest you.Cuddlyable3 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It really is an interesting illustration. Do you think that you could redo it as, perhaps, a 400 by 200 pixel animation in greyscale with antialiasing? I love the idea, and I would absolutely support a newer version. J     Are you green? 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Increasing the pixel resolution is easy and just makes the file bigger. Rendering in a greyscale however would need some arbitrary process which goes beyond what the Koch curve defines. Aliasing is the result of sampling in space or time (see my image description notes) so there are several possible sources to consider. Strictly speaking, we should not see a 2-D line at all, nor the structure of the fully developed Koch curve. For a beautiful image, search out (Google) the sphereflake! Cuddlyable3 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK - I just thought it might have a chance if you could do that. J     Are you green? 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To do anti-aliasing, just render it 3x as big as the final image, and shrink it down (e.g. with bi-cubic). Of course to do "perfect" anti-aliasing you'd need an infinitely large initial rendering, but it doesn't need to be perfect. A separate comment, there's too much white space as the bottom. —Pengo 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have the means to do this and see the result? The code to draw the Koch curve is rather simple and I can help you with that if you wish. However you could also take the existing image (or just one frame of it) and reduce its size to 67 x 34 pixels; that simple exercise might save you some time and possible disapointment. As to the white space, you are right that it could be reduced. Cuddlyable3 19:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reduced one frame - looks tiny but antialiased to me... If you upoload a new version of the Koch curve that is identical to this one except that it is rendered at, perhaps, 900 by 450 pixels, I can shrink it down for you to 300 by 150 pixels and get antialiasing as a side-effect, as Pengo suggested. J     Are you green? 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * J, please post your reduced frame here if you can, so we can all see it. Since the object is scaling invariant we don't need to push especially large files through the Wiki server, do we?


 * I note that the antialiasing process Pengo describes if done on a 2-colour (monochrome) image generates a 16-colour (greyscale) image. This is because one filters by taking 3x3 blocks of pixels, using 3 different coefficients for center, mid-side and corner.


 * However I think a quest for an "antialiased" Koch curve by increasing pixel resolution will only lead to huge image files (slow to load) and no new aesthetic delight, until one has magnified it so much that the finite iteration limit of the curve computation becomes visible. At that stage you are just seeing a monochrome line figure, which is where it all started. Cuddlyable3 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK; here you go. It obviously is tiny, which is why I am asking you to render the original at 900 by 450 pixels. As for file size, relax. Your GIF is currently 4 KB; I cannot see a 900 by 450 version being more than 85 KB, still a really small file. If you upload a large verision over the current one, I'll downsample it for you. J     Are you green? 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as for the resolution and limitations, its not really how much deatil is really there (especially for something like this where antialiasing will destroy that ultrafine detail) as how easy it is on the eye. To be honest, a 200 by 100 pixel image looks tiny on my screen (about 2 by 4 cm). I really wouldn't mind the lack detail so much as to have a larger, anti-aliased image. By the way, downsampling probably will destroy any visible limitations of the "finite iteration limit," so I wouldn't worry about that too much. J     Are you green? 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK; there you go J. Cuddlyable3 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my first time ever working with an animation, so forgive me if I did anything stupid... but here is my version. J    Are you green?  00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * J, I was expecting you to reduce Kochsim2 33% as you did with the tiny image, which has grey pixels. Kochsim3 is reduced only 66% and, from the looks of it, is still 2-colour (it's hard to see at the moment as I am on an office computer. I find that I can freeze the frame by jiggling energetically with the mouse!).Cuddlyable3 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reduced it to 66 % because it had a sufficient enough anti-aliasing effect for me. It is four shades of grey. I can upload one reduced to 300 pixels if you wish, but adding more shades of grey makes my computer play the animation too slowly. J    Are you green?  20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the big image with one that A) shows only the points along the finite Koch curve that I have been using in these animations, without connecting them with straight lines, and B) has a finer time resolution. I find it interesting that A) the thinning out of points density during the zoom can always be hidden by storing a higher iterated curve. (Mine has 4097 points which was adequate for the original 200x100 pixel illustration.) B) The subjective effect of the continuous zoom is not linear! We have self-similarity in shape but I think we need the time scale (or the zoom ratios) to be exponential to get a smooth zoom. Cuddlyable3 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC
Another of your animations is at FPC, if you would like to comment.  thegreen J    Are you green?  01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I added comments.Cuddlyable3 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sieve of Eratosthenes
At right is my new animation of a 2-millenium old algorithm. Bring popcorn and lean back to watch this little movie. Cuddlyable3 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ziggurat algorithm
Thanks for the image, but the caption and animation seem to imply that: Neither of those are true. Each layer's black + vertical hatched regions total a constant area A (except for the base layer, which is special), and the right-hand region is eliminated by multiplying a [0,1)-distributed random point by the width of the slice xi.
 * 1) The areas A under the curve are equal, and
 * 2) The right-hand (solid white) part is eliminated by rejection.

I tried to edit the caption to clarify the second point, but the first is pretty hard to fix.

Also, the fact that the distribution tail is, in fact infinite, is not clear from the graphics. It's asymptotic to, but never quite reaches, the X axis.

Sorry to complain, but to illustrate it accurately, you have to demonstrate: 71.41.210.146 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Choose a point in a vertical interval divided evenly into 8 regions.  This gives the slice number i.
 * 2) Map that region number, via a loojup table, onto a slice of non-uniform height and width.
 * 3) Choose a point x uniformly between 0 and xi−1
 * 4) Test if the point is less than xi, and accept x immediately if so.
 * 5) Otherwise, generate a random point y between yi−1 and yi and test if y < f(x).  If so, accept the point.  If not, restart from the beginning.
 * 6) (Step 5 is different in the i=0 case, but let's not try to illustrate that.)


 * Thank you anonymous user. I respond on talk:ziggurat_algorithm.
 * Further replies in the same place. That animation seems like a ridiculous amount of work to me, but if you are inspired, far be it from me to discourage you!  I have a script for a significantly different animation.  I apologize for asking you to re-do so much work, but I couldn't have imagined it without seeing your first effort.  71.41.210.146 08:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Eh, even though your images didn't make it to Featured, I still think you deserve one of these.

Computation of CRC
Hello there, I saw your excellent diagrams under Linear feedback shift register and would like to submit a request for something similar for the above page. If you can also find a way to work Galois LFSRs into the text then great, my brain's tired right now and just mentioning them in the lead section would be a tease. Thanks. -- Regregex (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hallo Regregex. Please can you describe some more of the diagram that you would like to have made?Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of an animated modified Galois LFSR to accompany Code Fragment 2 and calculate the same result as the long division example above. Also perhaps demonstrations of fragments 4 and 5 to show the difference endianness makes. -- Regregex (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put 2 animations at Computation of CRC. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They look great, thanks again. -- Regregex (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:193.156.194.5
Hello there, thank you for offering to help with any need to make contacts in Norwegian. At the moment there's no urgent need to do anything special unless you would like help with forwarding abuse reports to your network administrators there (Students can always create an account elsewhere and use it at school to edit). If so, you should take a look at Abuse reports. I can help with the initial report but you would want to coordinate with the investigator / contactor. You could also volunteer to become a Norwegian "contactor" in general (see Abuse reports/Volunteers)) if you have the time to do so.  Regards – Zedla (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Following your suggestion I have volunteered as contactor.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote you left on my talk page
Where does the quote.."War does not determine who is right — only who is left" come from? CadenS (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to [] the line comes from Bertrand Russell (but it is unsourced) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandelbrot set Z^n pictures set
Hi. There's error with set of pictures illustrating "Multibrot" sets. For Z=Z^5+c there are picture of Z=Z^6+c, and for Z=Z^6+c there are actually Z=Z^8+c set picture. These sets are easily identifiable 'cos they have n-1 (for Z=Z^n+c) "branches" of the Mandelbrot set. I could fix the image descriptions, but the line illustrating natural number progression in powers would be broken. I wonder if you can create correct pictures for Z=Z^5+c and Z=Z^6+c in the same style? (Or maybe you have them even stored somewhere, and the error was introduced at time of uploading?) Oh, and the same error is with negative powers. There are seem to be n+1 "corners", so -5 and -6 are wrong. Thank you. --89.113.78.50 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well caught. You are right. Do go ahead and change the picture captions for now. I can provide correct pictures for d = 5, 6, -5 and -6 later. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mandelbrot - fractional powers etc
I note that my edit has been removed and you say 'join you on the talk page' (is this now the right place?)

I am uncertain what was incorrect about my comments.

It is true that if you stack the slices of the multibrot then you will get a new thing which could be called the mandelbrot 'shape'. It is also true that the many sites which refer to '3-D' mandelbrots are no more than specialised colouring effects which generate an image with a '3d' appearance via shadowing. Therefore I use the phrase 'no more than a pseudo contoured variant'. I would be pleased to see how to amend this statement to be suitable for the article.

Also I would appreciate help with the statement 'the behaviour of the Multibrot as it drops from 2 to 1 to 0 and then to -1 APPEARS more complex than the behaviour above 2 and below -2. Salisbury-99 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant join us on the Talk:Mandelbrot_set page where there are a couple of threads about generalizing the set to other powers than 2 i.e. multibrots.


 * I did not see threads on the talk or achive page which appeared to talk about this topic helpfully.


 * See these threads: Image of a mandelbrot generalization, Generalising to complex power and Negative power illustrations are wrong on the Talk (Discussion) page, not an archive.


 * You can look on the images shown for integer values of d as slices of a 3-D figure. However they have different rotational symmetries so simply stacking them is about as interesting as stacking different gear wheels. Our difficulty lies in the transitional slices between them: some arbitrary choice(s) are needed to operate the iteration because multiple sets rather than a single set arise. This video advances through some positive values of d.[[Image:Multibrot.ogv]] Mandelbrot's set has a mathematical definition that does not mention colour, which is always an arbitrary addition when rendering.


 * there is no requirement for an arbitrary slice-factor. Admittedly using a tiny slice would make the stack very large but for between say -6 and +6 offers an acceptable range and at a slice-factor of .01 requires 'only' 1200 slices.


 * I was not talking about the mere integer steps which would be tediously jagged. But can you visualise the video rather as a sequence of layers than as a time-sequence. For example the difference between mandelbrot 1.999, 2.000 and 2.001 is to me quite interesting. There is an evolutionary process as each bubble is emitted from the spike and rolls backwards creating a spiral effect. I do not have the skills to produce this as a viewable stack.


 * When one departs from an integer exponent to any fractional exponent there is no longer a single set in the complex plane.
 * i can't see how this can be. My analysis continues to have a single M-shape for every value of 'd' integer or otherwise 86.160.136.146 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to describe what happens for -2 > d >2 . Key values are d = 1 where no iteration happens, and d = 0 where there is this singularity: the set (of complex values that remain bounded when iterated) changes from filling the whole plane to none of it. This is the sort of issue taken up on the talk page.


 * I was unable to see discussion of the singularity or of the behaviour between 2 and -2.


 * The above mentioned threads show some images for d = -1.5.


 * The Mandelbrot set article is about the 2-D mathematical object and is not so suitable for original research or artistic renderings. I think it right to say that here the math comes before the image, while there are other pages for fractal art in both Wikipedia and Commons where the image beauty is paramount. If you can provide good images that are educational and/or beautiful then do be bold! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am uninterested in artistic renderings apart from the semantic impropriety of referring to '3D' when it is a mere shadowing effect. My research is not original although would liek to aim at getting a 3D display of the layers at intervals of say .01 from .01 to say 10.00 (and similarly negative). Would my notes on the Multibrot and the basic "JuliaBrot" as it evolves from -100 to +100 be of assistance?  Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are talking about some very small and very large exponent values, and your interest in 3D renderings. Mandelbrot and Julia sets have been computed in 3D quarternion vector space to give some remarkable "sculptures". Do bring anything that may improve the article to the Talk page since some of this is beyond me.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am really NOT talking about 3D renderings. That is mere artistic splattering and requires no mathematics. Who can we find someone who can deal with the video shown on the main article and show the mathematical structure which builds it into a 3D 'shape' where the spiral track of the lobes as 'd' moves from 0 to +7 can be demonstrated - or the clefts as 'd' goes negative.  86.160.136.146 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User 86.160.136.146 are you Salisbury-99 ? A non-integer exponent causes multiple sets in the 2D plane. I believe the video maker took arbitrary branch points to keep the sets single and that corresponds to the sacrifice of rotational symmetry. The continuously varying perimeter of these sets can as you suggest imply a 3D structure. Its surface changes from external to internal as the exponent goes negative.


 * Making a picture i.e. the rendering of an abstract 3D object involves the mathematics of modelling, surface radiosity and ray casting (or even tracing). I don't call any of that mere splattering. Some 3D fractal work can be found at YouTube.com and you might find someone there willing to work with you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Muphry's Law strikes again
This has to be one of the finest examples of Muphry's law I've seen for a while. "Keaves"? Regards, 86.141.37.25 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Love it! (I'll gloss over the fact that my comment was an even better Muphry's example in itself, as I'd forgotten I wasn't logged in &#9786;  . Tonywalton Talk 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment re File:Colour_Televisor.JPG
Hello

Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right way to respond - if not then please delete this post!

The image in question was probably my close-up shot of a colour Baird-style mechanical television system - one of only a very few examples known to be operating anywhere in the world. I took the photo myself, uploaded it myself, gave it the appropriate copyright tag (release to public domain IIRC) and then someone came along and deleted it. As you'll see from my Talk page it's not the first time it's happened to my contributions to Wikipedia and I'm frankly so peeved at the whole thing that I'm unlikely to continue contributing to the project.

Giles —Preceding unsigned comment added by G1MFG (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Radio navigation aids
I have started an AfD for the article Radio navigation aid at Articles for deletion/Radio navigation aid. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thread
Hey, I've started a discussion about your comment over here. --Sean 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the change. // BL \\ (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You Sir (or Madam)
...are to be commended for your demeanor at the sometimes contentious RDs. Keep up the good work - the desks need a voice such as yours. hydnjo (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hydnjo. You are clearly a gentleman (or gentlewoman). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Green laser pointer
You seem to know a thing or two about Laser pointers. Please tell me can Green pointers blast baloons or burn paper etc. I read they do, but practicaly they don't seem to...kindly reply on my talk page

Jon Ascton   (talk)  14:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pen guns
Belated thanks (likewise, wishes for a Happy New Year) for providing the helpful video clip on my recent RD query. It was especially thoughtful of you to indicate at which point in the footage I'd see the p.g. in action. It certainly illustrates the point I'm trying to make, that this term is being made to serve indiscriminately for improvised guns [presumably] made of pen parts vs. a manufactured device intentionally designed to resemble (i.e. disguised as, made to be mistaken for) a functioning pen. I'm inclined to move the discussion to the Talk:Improvised firearm page and pursue the discrepancy there. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A Happy New year to you. I think you make a good point. The article Improvised firearm mentions pen guns in the category "Cryptic firearms" but the adjective "Improvised" suggests something made without care to quality. That seems an unjust slight on the skills of this craftsman who plays an essential part in the James Bond universe that Johnny English parodies.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ASCII Art barnstar.
I hereby award you this ASCII art barnstar for your masterful picture of the shelf bracket on the WP:RD. /\        /**\ _______/****\_______ *.******/^^\******.*   *.***(  )***.*     *.**\,./**.*      /**.**.**\     /*.*    *.*\    /.*        *.\    '            `

SteveBaker (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you SteveBaker. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Snow, Ref. Desk/Humanities
Re "Roof-alanche". Damn, for a moment there I thought I had managed to be quoted in the media! :-) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Ape shaking head.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Ape shaking head.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ape shaking head.gif
A tag has been placed on File:Ape shaking head.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ╟─TreasuryTag► belonger ─╢ 08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking this discussion over here, rather than keeping it going on the Desk
Has this section of the talk page guidelines been deprecated, or has there been some discussion where it was decided it doesn't apply to the desks? Long sections are difficult for those with slow connections, as well as for me. Obviously the iPhone does scroll, but the only way to scroll in an edit window is very slow. I thought it was generally considered good practice to break up all long sections on all pages, as per the guidelines. Is there something different about the Desks? 86.177.121.239 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for drawing my attention to "Create subsections if helpful" in the guidelines. We don't usually see this done on the Ref. Desk pages. I don't know what previous discussions there may have been about this. Ref Desks are structured by having for each question a section that fills with whatever responses arrive in the course of typically 3-4 days. They differ from mainspace pages in that editing of previous text is unwelcome. They differ from Talk pages in that the aim of responder(s) is to give the OP a helpful answer, sign off and let the section go 'as is' to archive. The sections are not supposed to be fora for elaborated discussions or raising new issues (though that happens). I understand that your concern is with section length and not a wish to start a new topic inside a section. To get to grips with your difficulty editing with iPhone I think we need to know whether the main delay you experience is in downloading text (connection speed), manually editing the text in the phone or uploading a new post. While I don't think adding random dummy subheadings with their edit buttons is a viable workaround, I do think this is an issue worth raising at Talk:Ref. Desk and I may add my thoughts there if someone raises it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for deleting that bit from the 'driving backwards' question. it was a bit pissy of me. -- Ludwigs 2 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk/Science
Your response was brilliant. :-D AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

KJAV
Hey. What did you mean when you said, "KJV Bible, (a book that IMHO is not an entirely good one)"?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * KJV = Authorized King James Version. IMHO = In My Humble Opinion. Cheers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! No...I meant what did you mean when you said it's not a good book?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look into www.evilbible.com. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

LFSR
Hi, I just wanted to ask a question about a picture uploaded in the Galois LFSRs example in the Linear feedback shift register page. Isn't the tap with the number eleven supposed to be 0?Or i just don't understand how it works?94.71.1.225 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The diagram is correct. It shows a 16-stage register with the individual stages labelled 1 to 16 from right to left. In the Galois form of LFSR the XOR gates are inside the chain of registers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible indirect mention at AN/I of a comment you made at the RD
A comment you made at the RD may have been indirectly mentioned at AN/I. Just thought you might want to know. Regards, Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Original 3x5 image file for GIF?
Hi -- Could you review the discussion at Talk:Graphics Interchange Format? Basically, we would like a link to the original 3x5 image file, so people have an actual file to compare with the textual representation in the article. For a visual representation of the image in the article, it should be possible to use to blow up the 3x5 image to an easily visible size. -- Elphion (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Block notice
Cuddlyable3, if a user asks you to not move posts to their talk page without responding to them, and your reply is to do just that with that very message, because of your self-declared user talk page policy, is clearly disruptive editing. Your user page policy, "My policy is to keep my page open for any new contact or old friend with ideas on how I can help contribute to Wikipedia. Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict. WP:RPA is applied here." doesn't even indicate that this would be the action you were planning to take, so your justification is incorrect, and would have been unacceptable anyway. The block is only for 24 hours, but further instances of such uncooperative, disruptive behaviour will lead to swiftly escalating blocks. Fram (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail.


 * Why did you "nowiki" the unblock template? Is it just here for show, or do you want it to be considered? Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that means. Anyone reading this understands what I mean. There is an edit summary to help too. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily when somebody makes an unblock request, it automatically generates an entry in Category:Requests for unblock, and admins watch that page to know what currently unevaluated requests are open and need a response. The way you set up the template prevents your request from being listed.  Since your answer indicates that you didn't do it that way on purpose, I've taken the liberty of fixing the template -- I hope that's okay. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add that WP:RPA in no way justifies moving a comment to another users page, and given that the comment was polite and did not attack you as a person it does not apply anyway. If I said "You are a moron" that is certainly a personal attack. Saying "You move talk page posts to other users talk pages and I would like to ask you to please not do that" is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Beeblebrox. You have communicated to me twice in 9 minutes using two different channels. My talk page policy has been as stated for years and I think your claim that it violates Wikipedia policy is wrong. You won't enjoy hearing that I am laughing at your supposition that prefixing anything with the obsequious "I would like to ask you please" is what politeness consists of. No one ever posted those words to me. Your example doesn't demonstrate anything relevant to the post by Franamax who knows exactly what my page policy is, since I told him earlier. As I read it, he decided to taunt it to see what would happen. If he doesn't like his own text on his own page then he can delete it. Since you dismiss explanations so easily as WP:LAWYER I would like to ask you please not waste my time further with your ill disposed interpretations such as that me moving a thread is allegedly "stifling communication". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As he noted in that very post, you are free to remove any postings from your talk page. Why you insist instead on moving them to the poster's talk page is what the rest of us are having difficulty understanding. That it is your personal policy is not really an answer as it does not explain the underlying reason. As there was no personal attack RPA does not apply. There was no need to inform Franamax of their own posting to your talk page as they were obviously aware they had done it, and they also noted in the very post you moved. My invoking of "lawyering" was in response to your assertion that noting that you moved the post was in some way a response to the post. So, maybe you would have more luck being unblocked if you could explain why you feel it is necessary to do that even after you have been asked not to as it does not seem to serve any constructive purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall preface this with an apology for my sharp tone previously. Normally when I move a thread started on my talk page to the originator's talk page, I am expecting the thread to continue at that page, which I put on my Watch list for that purpose. (Just look at all the Talk pages on that list. I must get around to pruning them....) People don't generally complain because if we both know whose page we are discussing on, then is there a problem? Of course not. My underlying reason is not mysterious: any sort of discussion that is disputive or or looks likely to become so is IMO best kept off my page. I think that keeping my talk page "professional" is a constructive purpose but I don't dictate that idea to anyone else. My response to Franamax was effectively "This is what I do, you already know I do it, any more comment is superfluous", Franamax believes he is in a "fun game" (those were literally his words even before I posted to him!) about this. I have no objection to spelling all that out formally as I did here, if he really doesn't understand that that is the only response he'll get. BTW I plan to sleep a third of this 24 hour block, some hours are passed already and the rest just delays my next contribution a little. I have objected (rudely) elsewhere about blocks that admins exploit for "carrot and stick" negotiation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But Cuddlyable3, when you just move a post without making any substantive response to it, you are not participating in a discussion. What more am I supposed to add to further the discussion? I left you a message. If you have further questions, concerns, objections - by all means let's discuss them on whosever talk page, I think that is what I and others are referring to as communication. If the only response you have is on the lines of "I don't want this on my talk page", then just remove the message. That's really all that is being asked of you. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox, Franamax presumes that Franamax and I have a neutral relationship. We don't. I have pointed out that Franamax started out criticizing my page policy in the terms "fun game dance" which is mockery. Franamax is also suppressing a post by me at another Talk page and claims to be imposing an administrative process on me to prevent me alluding to a third editor... That is a nasty on-going issue to be discussed elsewhere, and it is why I regard Franamax's latest post to me as a taunt. With that in mind, I have nothing to say to Franamax about my policy and I don't seek any discussion with Franamax about it. I do not usually "just remove" messages to my page. When someone is expecting a response from me, I try to provide it. That saves them searching my page history to find out what happened to their message. In this (unusual) case my response was so minimal that someone complained, and you are not even convinced that I made any response at all. Franamax is not banned from my Talk page but he can not expect much satisfaction from being pointedly ignored, which is what I am doing henceforth on this subject. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do owe you an explanation of the reason for using "exploit of that fun dance" Cuddlyable3, and it is this: from an interacting-editor standpoint, having observed your previous interactions with others around this same topic, I don't see anything that distinguishes your methods from those of someone playing a game, for the fun of it. In my opinion, your methods represent a serious obstacle to communication. I was not trying to dare you to do something, if you read further I was trying to let you know that, since I'd just left you a very unambiguous blocking threat, I would definitely prefer that we not go through the copy-back-and-forth routine and just get on to clarify my original message, which has nothing to do with talk page style. It is unfortunate that you would take it as a challenge or provocation rather than an attempt to communicate, and really, all I'm hoping for is to get some meaningful communication from you. The situation will be the same 24 hours from now, I've given you a very clear warning on one certain issue and if you need clarification, I suggest we discuss it. The venue is of no great concern to me, but I want to be sure you are clear on the warning. Franamax (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What it boils down to is this: There are many accepted ways to archive your user talk page on Wikipedia; using someone else's talk page isn't one of them &mdash; especially after they've asked you not to do so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a Cognitive dissonance to suppose that anyone would rely on someone else's talk page, where that someone is both free and likely to delete text, as an archive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the characterization as "archiving" is tangential. I perceive the behavior in question as a rejection rather than a reply.  -- Scray (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the bottom line: if you aren't going to actually engage in a conversation with somebody who has posted to your talk page, please don't move their post to their talk page, just remove it altogether. The message is just as gone from your talk page in either event, so there is no need to insist on moving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox, that bottom line doesn't relate well to a situation where one is already in an interaction with the poster, such as the unsymmetrical interaction between a blocker and blockee.
 * It can be considered rudeness to delete a received message and make no reply. That deletion is supposed to be a legitimate action but I have seen it represented as "trying to hide the message". I wish to avoid that perception. I wish to give replies as soon as my home commitments allow and have them noted as soon as the other person's home commitments allow. If I simply delete a message, the sender does not get a "You have a new message" warning. How can he/she know what happened to their message to me? Answer: they have to go search their Watch list, which may be long and may not even have my page on it, or they have to search my page to find whether their message is there...and if not, go search my Talk page history if they don't want to miss an edit summary that I might have put there. Someone may be disapointed by not getting a reply that they wanted from me and that may be unavoidable, but I would be callous to add to that injury the burden of time wasted in futile search-search-search.
 * I assume that you use e-mail and are familiar with the "Reply" button. It is set up to return a received post together with whatever response you write. Why does that work so well?
 * I welcome WikiDao's contribution below. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
I hope neither of you, Cuddlyable3 and Franamax, will mind too much if I ask for the clarification that you, Franamax, have offered to provide concerning the "conduct" issue with which this all (most recently) started. (I am sort of following this, and am curious to know, and haven't gotten a very clear sense of it from the discussion here of things since that issue arose.)

The issue seems to be that Cuddlyable3 must not engage in anything that might in any way by anyone at any time be construed to constitute a "personal attack" on User:SteveBaker. A comment by Cuddlyable3 was removed from the RD talk page by Franamax which seemed to me at worst a slightly humorous and very mild comment regarding Steve. (Certainly much less offensive than a lot of comments I've seen made by Steve to/about a lot of people, myself included, not that that matters here but still). However, given the history of this issue apparently, Cuddlyable3's comment was deemed unacceptable by Franamax and was removed entirely from RD talk.

Could what is unacceptable on Cuddlyable3's part be more clearly defined, Franamax? And how long is that restriction on Cuddlyable3's interaction with/about Steve meant to last? Thanks, Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK first of all, admins are not mind-readers. We can't divine intentions, we work with actions and outcomes. So if I block someone for vandalism it's not because I can see into their heart and "know" they intend to vandalise, it's because I see a pattern of edits consistent with those of someone who intends to vandalise (after warnings) and I judge the outcome of not blocking to most likely be further vandalism.
 * Similarly with Cuddlyable3, regardless of whether their motives are pure, if I see a pattern of edits consistent with an intent to create a hostile environment for another editor, continuing after warnings, then if I or another admin judge the most likely outcome of not blocking will be creation of a hostile environment for another editor, a block can be enacted. The duration will likely take into account the first two blocks for this (or similar) behaviour, so one month is likely.
 * This does not have to be a total interaction ban (I'm not even sure I could do that if I wanted to). If CA adds to a RD thread where SB has also posted, it will likely be just fine. If CA does it in close proximity to SB's post and it is a helpful edit (say, adding a link to illustrate a point SB made), should be fine too. Conversely, if CA goes to every single thread where SB posts and inserts a contrary view directly under SB's posts, that will almost certainly be a problem. If CA had posted in the WT:RD thread that they thought SB had always been a net-positive at the RDs and they missed his presence, likely going to be OK. If they say "I'm glad he's gone" or use wording with a sub-text of "he sure thinks he's a big-shot, doesn't he" (the post I warned him for), likely going to be a big problem. No one single edit is "OK" or "not OK", the issue is whether it fits into a pattern of overall behaviour consistent with what our harassment policy is designed to address. If CA goes to SB's talk page and posts "You know, I guess I have been a bit of a pill, I hope we can both put this all behind us and start afresh, and even if you don't feel the same way I am still going to try to do so myself", well you tell me: does that fit a pattern of behaviour designed to create a hostile environment?
 * If CA has a question about specific edits he wishes to make, he can ask me first at my talk page. If I am not available and he really thinks the encyclopedia will be harmed by him not editing right away, he can consult another administrator for advice. (Using "he" for convenience here, assigning editors a sex is also not something admins are able to do, they took that button away from us ;) If CA is truly concerned that they will unwittingly fall foul of these terms or may let themself be baited into a violation, they can choose to avoid commenting on or having anything whatsoever to do with SB. It would certainly make it very difficult to construe an onging pattern. There is no "end-point" for this restriction in the sense of "after 3 months you can re-start a pattern of harassing behaviour". However given the time-scale of the problem, which I believe is at least 3 months, I would want to see at least that period of good behaviour before my concerns eased. And that really shouldn't be a problem anyway, if CA just relaxes, stops concerning himself so much with whether SB is/was right or wrong, then all this will go away. CA will be happy (the best revenge is living well), SB will be happy, I will be happy - and we will all have a smoothly-functioning wiki. :) Franamax (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added "Citation required" for post with alleged subtext "he sure thinks he's a big-shot, doesn't he". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the warning Cuddlyable3, here is where you used the "Tutnum" phrasing before with the same sub-text, and here is where I believe you may have first become acquainted with the fact SB displays that userbox, a thread where you assail SB's writing skill and indicate that you will personally review articles where he was given FA credit and hint that you may have found deficiencies. That is a pattern. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply, Franamax. I see what you are saying, and really do agree completely.
 * CA, I'm not sure what precisely your grievance with SB may be/have been. I wasn't around for the start of that, but I did really find User:JackofOz's comments informative about how some of that conflict has played out at the RD in the past (referring to the last link Franamax provided above, under "Balance"). But it would certainly seem best for you at this point to really just let that go now altogether. Franamax's position seems reasonable, and for what it's worth I'd counsel you to henceforth abide by it as cheerfully and genuinely as possible.  Let's aim for being just one big happy encyclopedia, eh?! Face-grin.svg Cheers, all...  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we're into claifications here, I'll light on a touching point, the issue of usage of ASCII character 39. The RefDesk community has recently expressed a pretty darn clear consensus that they don't want to hear anymore from CA on 'ol number 39, but have at it in the mainspace. That consensus may of course change over time and natural discussion may arise at WT:RD. It is conceivable that CA could take part in those discussions, contingent on community tolerance of their input. That is a separate issue. However, if it turns out the only possible way to adequately represent CA's position is to start including the same links and language regarding a specific editor, then we're right back to this problem here - so again, care and caution, ask if unsure. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Franamax was asked to cite a post and instead cited whole sections of Ref. Desk talk that are supposed to be closed to further discussion, at least to me. We are supposed to wade through these to extract my post that mentions "Tutnum". Franamax may be unaware that Tutnum is a meritorious Service award here in Wikipedia, and it has been well earned by SteveBaker to whom I referred. SteveBaker displays his award and I respect it, exactly as I would respect Franamax displaying such an award, supposing that he were qualified to do so. It is disrespectful to call the award "bigshot" and that is neither part of my vocabulary nor wildest fantasy. It is malicious to attribute that coarse slur to me as an alleged sub-text. If Franamax wishes to press his claim to have detected a pattern of behaviour centered on "Tutnum", he is welcome to cite the post of mine on which he has "mulled for a while". There he should have found that I correctly sourced my usage of Tutnum. I add that I respect all the other trophies that SteveBaker has earned, and his right to display them.


 * ASCII code is for controlling machines not people. Please do not use it inappropriately on my page. When you mean "apostrophe" then say so in English. This kind of obfuscation does not hide the fact that Franamax knows which guideline he violated at the Ref. Desk in twice deleting my post. That was followed by a somewhat defiant public challenge  to anyone to request a review of his actions at ANI. I doubt that there is enough interest in Franamax's career as an administrator to merit that escalation. He has wielded the mop for only a year, with the sort of results we see here. We'd see that his run at mopstership adminship was opposed as a bad idea by 33 Wikipedians, that's over 30% of the number who supported. Now I find reason to add my concern about Franamax as admin to theirs.


 * For historical interest this is the text that an admin "encouraged" me to commit to:

"(cuddlyable3)...to commit to two things. First, he would agree not to comment on the grammar employed by other editors on Talk pages or on the Reference Desks. Second, he would avoid contacting or commenting on SteveBaker. (I would support a narrow exemption to the first condition for good-faith requests for clarification in situations where an error of grammar renders a passage utterly incomprehensible; such an exemption would need to be applied extremely sparingly, as such genuine cases are exceedingly rare. For the second condition, there would be an exemption for threads where SteveBaker comments on Cuddlyable3 first, thereby opening the door;..."


 * The above amounts to a single-editor Gag order. I continue to reject that utterly, as well as a semi-total interaction ban comprising recipes for what I may and may not say, which Franamax constructs here at length. Incidentally, Franamax's chosen link when viewed from the top is very upsetting.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @WikiDao, I think User:JackofOz's posting and the subsequent discussion under Balance was discussion at its best i.e. spirited without incivility, no flying mops, and SteveBaker gave there one of his clearest expositions of the Logical positivism that he strongly espouses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote provided by Cuddlyable3 comes from this diff, a comment made on this page by User:TenOfAllTrades last month. Is that in fact the basis of your present administrative engagement with CA3, Franamax?

The specific basis for that action (the removal of text referring to SB from RD talk and the warning that CA3 will be blocked if further such references are made) is what I have been asking for clarification on. Your comments above, Franamax, had led me to believe that the basis was your own perception of a pattern of harassment by CA3 of SB. That it was "harassment" in an actionable sense was not clear to me from the specific text deleted from the RD, but then I understood that it was an administrative perception of a larger pattern of behavior that was actually being acted on, of which that text was just a part.

I'm still just getting a sense of how things work here at WP in general, so, again, thank you for the clarification. I'm finding this process right now to be interesting – and, I trust, not too unduly "influenced" by any of the sort of "disbalance" Jack was describing having perceived around this issue in the past... Wiki Dao &#9775;  (talk)  20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your understanding appears correct WikiDao. I am speaking only of the actions I am willing to take as an administrator, for reasons which I have determined independently. As regards balance, fairness does not require symmetry. Issues with other editors will be brought up with them independently, by myself or any of the many other eyeballs out there. Normally (in my experience), behaviour can be influenced with a polite personal discussion with the editor concerned. It is only when that communication process breaks down that escalation becomes necessary. Franamax (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A plea
I reported verbatim a statement by SteveBaker that concerns an identifiable team of people, and I am one of them. My post that was deleted  cited another statement by him. Both statements are properly sourced and relevant to the context of the discussion about "Where is Steve Baker". Therefore I as an "honest messenger" have no qualms about reporting them. HOWEVER it is unfair that I should isolated to bear the brunt of resolving whatever issues arise from SteveBaker's vigorous prose. THEREFORE if you know of any admin contacting SteveBaker in connection with those vigorous statements, or any clarification that SteveBaker has given about them, (or is willing to give now), then I shall be relieved to regard my involvement as over. If not, I see a rocky future ahead where Franamax may even convince the community that WP:NPA is not a BLP problem because Wikipedia editors are allegedly not living persons. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noo, you posited that there was some identifiable team of people, and voluntarily included yourself among them. You chose to specifically raise yet again your issue with another editor, and that is precisely the area of concern I raised with you. If you have an area of dispute with someone, you can follow the channels of dispute resolution, right to the bitter end if you want. You cannot continue to endlessly refer to a wrong which you consider unresolved and wish to be made whole from, not if it is presented in inappropriate venues. If you want to do it, then do it the same way everyone else at Wikipedia does/should do it, follow the process.
 * And as before, I am not concerned with your assertion that you are just an honest messenger. Since I have no way to evaluate the veracity of your statement, I can only evaluate actions and likely outcomes. AGF is not the same thing as trusting absolutely whatever you say. I am not trying to convince the community either, I'm just stating to you the basis on which I am prepared to take administrative action. I'm very well aware that if I choose to take such action, I will be answerable to the community, and that every single statement I've made here is wide open to community scrutiny and comment. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All contributors at the Ref. Desks volunteer to do work there. There is a list of them. I am on that list and so is SteveBaker. SteveBaker observed the handful of volunteers who are active on the Ref Desk Talk page and characterised them. They are not, as you pretend, just some team that I have posited. We are real people, known to each other through our shared work, and you disrupted our civil discussion by deleting my post.
 * Here is evidence of you additionally trying to silence a colleague who asked a fair question that your deletions and block threats prevent me answering.
 * It is profoundly regrettable that you dismiss the WP:AGF principle with your excuse that you have "no way to evaluate the veracity of my statement". Without AGF by both parties, the meaningful communication that you claim to seek becomes impossible. Fortunately I don't need your AGF to defend correctly sourced information.
 * I have functions that you know nothing about and never claimed to be "just" an honest messenger. That "just" is purely your own interpolation added to what I really said. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have anything more to add as clarification. I understand that you do not accept my interpretations. I believe you are aware of your options going forward (including your options for appeal against me), so I'll leave it there. Franamax (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

On another subject
The number of animations running on your talk page can slow down some web browsers and make it difficult for them to load this page.

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. once your block expires. You don't have to, but it would be nice if you did. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for Meritorious Service to the Miscellaneous Reference Desk (2010)

 * Thank you WikiDao. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

License on File:CRC8-rx.gif
Hi!

You have added Template:ImageLicenseFreeUse on the file. The image ends up in Category:Free use licensing Wikipedians which is a category for Wikipedians and not files.

As I understand it by adding this template you agree to Template:GFDL and Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. Is that correct? --MGA73 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk Removal
user:Mwalcoff has deleted a question, including your response, here. This removal may be discussed on the Reference desk talk page, here. Buddy431 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. Diff. As I mentioned directly before, is there any reason you think these kinds of contributions help us create a better encyclopedia? Nimur (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Final warning
Cuddlyable3, I see that you proceeded to make reversions at WP:RD/Miscellaneous after my note at the associated talk page. If you do so again, I intend to remove your editing privileges for a time. The edits you are reverting cannot be construed as vandalism by any definition, rather they reflect the outcome of the consensus process of discussion. (And I'm still trying to figure out the bit where you accused yourself of vandalism, although you certainly did include a confusing link   - am I reading something wrong there?) Seek consensus on the relevant talk page that you should be permitted to include your "editable" link as an experiment, and abide by that consensus. Please. You may refer my statements here elsewhere for external review, i.e. at WP:ANI and also at WT:RD, but for now I must insist that you respect consensus. Franamax (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:GIFPAL.gif
I though it's better like that. Can you revert it? SWFlash 14:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I'll do it instead. SWFlash 14:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Simultaneous Equations
Seeing as you seem to be the only one wants to continue the arguments surrounding the maths reference desk page; I shall move your talk page comments to my archive. It's nice to see that you're such an active editor. I've been reading some of your talk page messages. Fly by Night on Tour (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Zondervan
Thank you very much for your input on the Zondervan Talk page. However please review the financial issue again. Jsharpminor writes "tens of millions." You can't find that term in either source he supplied, unless I missed it which I'm willing to take lumps for. While the mention of financial issues has sourcing, the comment "tens of millions" doesn't. Again, he's trying to generate criticism for the sake of just generating it. Why exaggerate the source? Basileias (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a friendly reminder to remove the listing from WP:3O once you've provided a third opinion :-) I've already done this one for you.  Thanks, Mildly MadTC 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Don't panic, I didn't report you for anything. I did mention your name, though. :) Toward the bottom of the page there's yet another debate about hyphens and en-dashes, within the section called "Request of 1RR and strict WP:BRD at Mexican-American War article". I find that debate to be an extraordinary waste of time, but I think the core problem is a lack of clarity on when to use which. I expect the average citizen doesn't know, but someone who's an expert might. So I've suggested (and been ignored so far) the idea of having some kind of specialty committee to sort these things out and clarify the rules, rather than having these constant lame battles. I made the assumption you might be an expert on this subject (or at least might know more about it than I do, which automatically makes you an expert in my eyes), so if you're willing, please add your ideas to that discussion. Try to avoid the muck in the process. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I added a note. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They've already boxed up the discussion. Your comments seem clear enough. I don't think anything's going to come of it this time, but maybe next time. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to re-open the discussion, but I'm not optimistic. I have the odd feeling that nobody really wants to fix this problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already been blocked
I asked a question at the reference desk, got two answers, but got blocked so I cannot reply. Maybe here, but I would prefer email. Thanx.Heyboowemissyou (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You had no problem posting a message to me here. I am not an admin and have not been involved with your problems. I see only that you had an unfortunate dialog with Jayron32 and that there is an allegation of sockpuppetry. I think you may be on a hopeless quest to start a personal dialog with an "objective admin" about "admin culture". Your contributions show nothing to Wikipedia articles, and summaries such as "Why am I hated?" are provocative. May you have better luck in the future. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Cervix2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cervix2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Striking out, warning, Please see the ANI thread about this image... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RD/S Frenchmen
Frogs...hopping mad? Ha! DMacks (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) :-)) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded
here.

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 31 hours
I assume you know your way around an unblock request template. I am blocking this account for your response at User talk:Franamax, following their raising of that same concern on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Kipling
You have mail. Bielle (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered by mail. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref Desk Removal
User:Jpgordon has deleted a comment you wrote on the reference desk. It is being discussed on the talk page, if you'd like to discuss it. Buddy432 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you Norwegian?
--Belchman (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeg snakker norsk flytende hvis det er det du lurer på. Men nei, jeg holder ikke norsk statsborgerskap. Har det bra! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk
Cuddlyable3, if you continue to discuss things like you did at Reference desk/Humanities and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, you will get blocked again. When things were deleted, or you were blocked, it was not "Jayron taking very good care of himself", it was your unwillingness to follow basic civility policies. If you feel that a deletion was unfair or incorrect, bring it to WP:DRV, don't use it to make negative comments about another editor. Fram (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Aspects of these two comments   (specifically, the "diff suppressed" and "diffs from me are explicitly or implicitly suppressed" bits) were particularly confusing and, ultimately, annoying to me, and I suspect others.  They may make you feel better, letting the world know how cruelly you've been mistreated, but the misleading innuendo they contain is quite confusing to others.  This wastes people's time and advances neither the discussion nor the project. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And since you just continued going after Jayron32, posting three times to a discussion that was already closed by an uninvolved editor as "heat exceeded light long ago here. This is not a productive discussion-", and before that changing another person's comment in that same discussion, I have blocked you for a week. Fram (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail.

These abuses have no place in Wikipedia:
 * Taunting any editor or RD questioner in terms of "nazi", with or without a crude swastika-derived sketch
 * An Administrator that puts a ban on their own posts being cited, who routinely swears at people and who has now been caught lying. A consequence of the lie is that the community is denied a proper MFD hearing of the circumstances behind the same admin's wish to get extracts on my page concealed
 * Offensive accusation that I am involved in, or wish to encourage, meat puppetry.

None of the above will be changed by blocking me. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, if you disagreed with the deletion of your talk subpage, you could have gone to WP:DRV (where "the community" would have had a "proper hearing of the circumstances"). You are again accusing Jayron32 of lying: all I can see is him making the mistake of misremembering the events, thinking that he had gone to MfD when he didn't. He only started a discussion on your talk page, asking to remove his statements from that page. He didn't ask for the deletion of that page, I did this on my own per our policies, and afterwards he thanked me for this. If there is anything more to this, please express yourself clearly and unambiguously, instead of making people "guess" what the supposed lie was. Fram (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The link proves that when you read "I brought it up at MFD, and it got deleted." you knew that was untrue, and kept that information to yourself. While I am blocked I can offer you a lonely sailing ship to look at. You probably know it by name. Norwegians built a museum around it. Visitors can only guess about the many peoples' contributions that lay behind it, which is another thing that you are keeping hidden. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cuddlyable3, please clarify exactly what it is you think Fram is "keeping hidden". Franamax (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire content of my page that he deleted. I am forbidden to regenerate it, hence the "keeping". I think you could have worked out that yourself. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)I deleted the earlier version of that page, after which he recreated it with that image. I ignored that piece of baiting. "the many peoples' contributions" is in fact 14 contributions by Cuddlyable, and one minor one by Baseball Bugs. Cuddlyable repeated on that page other peoples' posts, against their explicit wish and against user talk space policy. As for "you knew that was untrue, and kept that information to yourself", um, no... I don't remember offhand what were the circumstances with a page I deleted months ago, whether that was after an MfD or by a speedy of my own initiative or something else. I checked what happened after you pointed out Jayron's mistake, he indicated that he indeed had misremembered, and you then accused him of lying without indicating what that lie was supposed to be. Only then did I see what had happened, and posted that here. Perhaps you can stop assuming the worst motives in what other people do and apply our policy of assume good faith a bit more... Fram (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * CA3, I often have trouble parsing your exact meaning, as you tend to be quite cryptic. Your page was deleted as an "attack page in user space". This is very much standard procedure across the project. Can you see the dichotomy here? We can't have a policy that indicates that such pages should be removed, but also permit such pages to be retained. That's not "hiding" anything, it's straightforward site maintenance. As Fram has indicated, your option is to request review of the deletion. On it's face, the page was designed solely to disparage other editors. Yes you seem to be pursuing a campaign to get everyone on the wiki to type properly - but the community has spoken definitively on that, and not in your favour. There is no conspiracy and no hiding, you've been asked many times by many editors to cease your efforts. It really is time for you to take this on-board, block durations typically escalate when the behaviour is repeated. Fram, thanks for the summation, I was already aware of the exact sequence of events. Perhaps CA3 is feeling singled out or stomped on as a person, whereas actually what you did was pretty standard stuff. Franamax (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sailing ships aside, I hope you realize that the issue here is not whether your accusation (that Jayron was lying) was or wasn't correct! If you're still focused on that sort of issue, I fear that you and Wikipedia are never going to be able to make peace with one another... —Steve Summit (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Now both Jayron32 and Fram are having memory lapses about how they did what they did, we are lucky to have diffs that can't lie. Fram's deletion conceals both my page and its history, that he uses to count the contributions. Fram says that the contribution by Baseball Bugs that Fram also deleted was "minor". Is that supposed to mean "unworthy"? When Baseball Bugs posts to my page and the post is sensible, as it was, then no third person may delete it. But to Jayron32 and Fram, BB's post is merely collateral damage. Access to my deleted page, which I have asked for and been denied, will reveal that I was interrupted in the process of scanning the Ref. Desk archive. Anyone can do that because it's publically accessible. I became a humble recipient of The Reference Desk Barnstar (scroll up to see it) when I showed objective results. The first result showed Jayron32's contribution of references at RD/M to be among the highest, which likely gave Jayron32 satisfaction. That is understandable but I and many others cautioned that the measurement does not assess the quality of answers. The software I use may be improved but it would lose all credibility of objectivity if I allowed it to be biassed by anyone's feeling of being flattered or attacked by its output. @Fram, if you want AGF then stop hiding the page you deleted and it will be seen to be not just about Jayron32, it doesn't even contain the word "mistake", and it has a portion still under construction. An aside to Franamax: if you cannot write better things than "On it's face, the page was designed solely to disparage other editors." then it would be nicer not to see your posts at all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand you might not welcome my posts, it does happen when I act in an administrative cpacity - unless I'm taking the subject editor's "side", in which case I'm just the greatest. I'm trying to sort out whatever technical-type questions you might have. Fram is correct in the sequence and in the content of the edits. Bugs made a minor and valid addition. That has nothing to do with the acceptability of the page, he just linked to where he corrected a typo. You can't maintain pages in your space indefinitely which only point out the failings of other editors. It's pretty simple. And why are you bringing up your software survey now, the one that showed you at the top of the ranking, that you refused to give source code for? If you have a problem with Jayron32, you need to work it out formally and accept what the community decides. Then move on. Franamax (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your post was unwelcome mostly because you wrote "On it's face" when proper English would demand "On its face". —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, crap. Long ago I thought of making two userboxen. One would be "This user is Canadian, so whatever spelling variant he uses is automatically correct" and the other would be "This user doesn't completely understand all the rules of apostrophes but tries hard and has the vague impression that the fewer the better, and what the heck is this strophe we need to apo. ;) That's out the window now after this dogged campaign. CA3, is that what you were referring to? If so, once again, please be less cryptic. If you deem a post completely invalid because of one minor error, I'd have to echo Ummit above in the fear that you and WP are not meant for each other. Franamax (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that point of mine didn't have anything particularly to do with apostrophes or minor grammatical errors, so perhaps I was being cryptic, also.


 * My point was that we were -- and still are -- talking at cross purposes. Cuddlyable3 is still arguing about why he was in the right and/or others were in the wrong. To some extent, Fram and Franamax are arguing with him on those same points, albeit from the other side.


 * But that all concerns events of the past, which we all ought to have moved past. It's the moving-past part that is, I think, one of the real points here.


 * Cuddlyable3's latest block is not because he accused Jayron of lying, or because he maintained an inappropriate user subpage, or because he is or isn't following proper process in lamenting the deletion of that page. No, Cuddlyable3's latest block is because he wantonly added three comments to a closed discussion -- and they were pretty provocative comments, at that.


 * The more fundamental point, then, is whether this editor can ever understand, respect, and accept the sorts of consensus agreements that are vital in order for a large, cooperative venture such as this one to function. If he can't -- if he continues to rail against the wrongness of the consensus, and to pugnaciously assert the rightness of his own actions, then yes, he and Wikipedia are never going to be able to make peace with one another. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia data mass has been a suitable object for Data mining. Please read that article or you probably won't understand what I am working on. I have identified the Ref. Desk archive as fruitful to study because Here's why I look into the distribution of Ii, Tt, Ss and apostrophes: Some interesting questions are: This is ongoing OR. I shall not publish results or code until I am ready so don't ask. Neither Jayron types who mock disruptively nor Canadians (whom I know as admirable people, from my visits to their lovely country Canadia) have special significance in the statistics. If you read this far then thank you for your attention. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a large homogenous text accumulated from educated English speakers in academia
 * It exemplifies contemporary online chat that is not consensus edited
 * The data mass is fragmented in spontaneous posts from different writers in near-random order with at present only a crude indexing by desk subject
 * In spite of a request at the top of every RD page it is obvious that questioners do not avail themselves of the search engine. That failure needs to be studied if it is ever to be corrected.
 * All the text is freely available under GFDL from an efficient server.
 * Their occurrences in 3- and 4- character known combinations lend themselves to fast automated search
 * Their orthodox English usage is abundantly documented, not least by Wikipedia
 * A hypothesis by several respected editors is that we are seeing an evolutionary change in English usage of ITS and IT'S. I think we have a golden opportunity to apply Scientific method here. There is a prediction that can be verified quantatively.
 * What proportion of educated speakers combat the orthodox spelling?
 * What is the threshold for a contra-orthodox language trend to enter or change orthodox English, given the unprecedented speed of dissemination online and into Wikimedia?
 * This is excellent news! Any respectable researcher, or even anyone who understands the basic tenets of research would go out of his or her way to avoid tainting the data. Clearly you are now forbidden, by your own ethics as a researcher, to point out, correct, criticize, or in any other way attempt to influence the way other people spell or ask questions on the Reference Desk. APL (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my research on pigs I can resolve any ethical concern by eating bacon. Once upon a time a pig with a l-o-n-g nose for snorting answered 3 questions at RD/M. Question #1 was "Without using numbers, represent the number 9." "Without numbers?" the pig says, "Dat is easy." And proceeds to draw three trees. "What's this?" the OP asks. "Ave you got no brain? Tree and tree and tree make nine," says the pig. "Fair enough," says the OP. "Here's Question #2. Use the same rules, but this time the number is 99." The pig picks up the picture that he has just drawn and makes a smudge on each tree. "Ere you go." The OP says, "How on earth do you get that to represent 99?" "Each of da trees is dirty now. So, it's dirty tree, and dirty tree, and dirty tree. Dat is 99." The OP says "All right, last question. Same rules again, but represent the number 100." The pig picks up the picture again and makes a little mark at the base of each tree and says, "Ere you go. One hundred." The OP says "How does that represent a hundred?" The pig points to the marks at the base of each tree and says, "I come along and crap by each tree. So now you got dirty tree and a turd, dirty tree and a turd, and dirty tree and a turd, which makes one hundred." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I find your post above, in which you suggest that you were compiling evidence of users dissenting from traditional spellings in text on the Reference Desk for purposes of a scientific study of the evolution of written English, to be disingenuous. It is clear to me that your purpose was to mock or harass editors with whom you were involved in petty disagreements, by picking on minor typographical errors or grammatical infelicities in their posts. This is uncollegial, inappropriate behavior and you should not return to such practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the article Linguistics to better understand active studies in the field. My ongoing work will continue and any statistic I publish may cite Wikipedia as data source without knowingly identifying any individual user name. (My compliance with GFDL may be discussed exclusively by e-mail.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference going forward, if you attempt again to create pages within your user space which do not either serve the purpose of directly improving this encyclopedia or are in imminent preparation for a dispute resolution process, they will be removed. Your novel explanation of conducting "linguistic research" won't work here, this site is privately owned and sets its own policies for page content. You may certainly collect all the informtion you wish from the user interfacea provided you observe &maxlag=5, but publishing those results, different story. If you continue in the same disruptive pattern, you should expect longer blocks. I'll informally advise you too to not try the "research" defense, I've seen "researchers" end up in a site ban more than once. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Academic studies about Wikipedia frequently access the Wikipedia database and publish their results. Expect that to go on, WP:DWAP and please attend to your own multiple spelling errors. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I fear I may be rehearsing the very, very obvious, but besides the issue of appropriate use of Wikipedia, one of the concerns here is that (I gather) the former incarnation of User:Cuddlyable3/English was anything but anonymous in its treatment of its experimental subjects. In any continuation of this alleged research, you'd be doubly advised not to host it as a work-in-progress on a Wikipedia user page (or probably anywhere else on-line, for that matter). —Steve Summit (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I take no advice from you about what I may publish on paper or on-line outside Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are free to publish anything you like outside Wikipedia, but it may have repercussions on your status as an editor here of course. Whether you take that advice or not is up to you... Fram (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem, notwithstanding your ominous Ellipsis, because Cuddlyable3 does not exist outside Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What should I read at that link to "physics arXiv blog"? Is this a new subject? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Two week block
You have been blocked for two weeks. Again and again dragging up the (distant) past, personal attacks against the same users, in general a continuation of the type of behaviour that lead to previous blocks. Specifically, two incidents, this edit and the lack of a complete response to this question about it (no explanation of who you are referring to when you say "whim of an immature (acting) editor" or why you would choose such language), and the discussion at User talk:Franamax. If you can't stop going on about these editors and events, you will get blocked for longer and longer periods. Either take it to accepted forms of dispute resolution (an RfC for user conduct, a DRV for deleted pages) or drop it completely. Fram (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your block just introduces a delay until I can post to WT:RD. I save below what I am in the process of writing. If you want to know who posted something when the diff link is provided, please try clicking and actually looking instead of bothering me with a question. It looks like you only asked in order to find a provocation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My interrupted post follows.


 * I saw the question about homosexuals fondling and decided not to respond. My reasoning was that the enquiry seemed to be relevant only to someone planning to market pornography, on which I have nothing useful to contribute. Six other editors did respond (including a joke or two). I think it important that everyone who read the question could be trusted to reach their own decisions about it without being overridden by a censor. In this way we can give an OP the benefit of a diversity of knowledge, references and opinions and our answers that are in the archive can now be referenced with no fuss whenever a similar question arises. Incidentally, I think a response like "That's a silly question because " can be tolerated but a response like "You are this idiot (because I say so)" is unacceptable. Those here who want ref. desk questions censored should know that censorship has these side effects: chilling effect and forbidden fruit effect. The chilling effect may give the censor a pleasurable impression of serving a wider good but in reality nobody will ever know how much human creativity it has smothered. The forbidden fruit effect can be the latest signal to every apprentice troll that they can stampede the ref. deskers simply by posting a question about an enema. (to be signed when posted)


 * It wasn't clear whether your personal attack was directed against the author of the post you linked to, or someone else. Instead of immediately blocking you, I gave you the chance to reply and/or refactor. Since then, you made five posts to that talk page, some about that discussion, some about another one. You were reminded early on that you hadn't answered my question. That you just happened to be writing the above may seem unfortunate, but even if you had posted the above, I would have blocked you, so it doesn't make much difference. You used a current discussion to make a personal attack on a user who wasn't even involved in this discussion. You have been blocked often enough, and enough discussions have been had, for you to have been aware of the consequences of your posts. Fram (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fram, your only entry into the dialog thread that developed after Imgaril had suggested a new rule or guideline was to direct a suspiciously predatory question at me. I would rather have ignored that question, had not Steve Summit kept pressing for it to be answered. The phrase "slightest whim of immature (acting) editors" is not mine, it was quoted by me, in quotes just like I did here, to make it clear which statement by Imgaril I addressed. I would like not to see you around here much more because your attitude to me is consistently nasty. Will you now interpret that as a death threat combined with a personal attack on your white-haired mother? Sigh. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my only input. I am an uninvolved editor wrt the ref desk, I don't interfere in how you (plural) handle things there, what to respond to or what not, and so on. As an admin who has blocked you before and warned you about your behaviour, I keep sometimes an eye on your edits to check that the problems don't continue. My question in that section was not "predatory", it was a chance for you to explain what you were doing when you linked to that post and added that quote to it. It appeared to be a personal attack against SteveBaker, rather out of the blue considering that he wasn't involved in that thread (or in any other recent discussion with you as far as I know). That you took a quote someone else made about a different post and editor, and applied it to this post and editor, doesn't make it any more acceptable than if you had invented the personal attack. If you don't want to see me around much anymore, just change your behaviour, and stop going after the same editors over and over again. Fram (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Imgaril is understood to be seeking a new system (rule or guideline) that penalises OP's. Since the way that might work has not even been hinted at, probably because it is a non-starter, it could only be applied to as yet unknown future posters. The point I made was that a number of ref. desk regulars have demonstrated that they answer silly-seeming questions with no complaint, and that would possibly be a reason to object to Imgaril's idea. I do call your interference in that thread predatory because you have no interest in that discussion and your only motive to enter the thread is your on-going stalking of me. You were eager to find a personal attack so of course you did just that, as you say "out of the blue" and blindly irrelevant to what editors were discussing. So you actually want me to comment on a particular old post so you don't miss any dirt? Okay, I just looked again at that post that you pretended to need clarification on. It's a stupid post. Does it make any sense for me to attack the poster? That's a funny question because I would then have to attack myself, because just a few steps along in the archive is a post of mine with almost identical (and stupid) title. I am also unimpressed by your pretence that "I gave you the chance to reply and/or refactor" which is just the bluster of a bully. I was not given a "chance" to reply, instead you and Steve Summit pressed me to give the answer that you already knew so you could interpret it as a personal attack. Your text "chance to refactor" makes no sense and must be a notion you have dreamt up. Your alphabetical sidekick Franamax temporarily damaged Wikipedia mainspace when he also tripped over himself while stalking me (he has since retreated into a dark hole for fear of diffs, which is okay by me). Your interferences in my work at the Ref Desks are equally pointless. I suggest that you make yourself scarce while I spend a fortnight doing non-Wikipedia things to which you are not invited. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason people review your edits is your persistent pattern of harassing other editors, extending over years now. That is not stalking, read the 2nd paragraph of WP:HOUND, the "administrative purposes" part. As Fram points out, if you would curb your behaviour, you would find that others would take remarkably little interest in your edits. If there was an equally "stupid" or "immature" example in the archives created by yourself, why did you not use that as the example? Instead you chose to once again attack SteveBaker. He has long since ceased providing his extremely high-quality RefDesk responses, you may recall that he stopped right around the time of your grammar crusade against him. Yet you still continue to single him out. I was ready to block you too. If you don't reform you will find yourself with lots of time to do non-Wikipedia things, it won't take too many escalating blocks to get to a one-year duration. Franamax (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK that's enough Cuddlyable3. I've reverted your latest bit of personal-attackery and removed your ability to edit this page. Your privilege to edit your talk page while blocked is to discuss the block, not to engage in threats of bodily harm. If you have anything further to say, try . Franamax (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1 Month block
Your fifth post after the end of your previous block, and it is obvious that you are not willing to drop the whole thing at all. Excalating block length from the previous two week block to this one month block. Fram (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail.

And because you continue posting the same thing that got you blocked in the first place, I have now revoked your talk page access as well. Fram (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated your talk page access to give you the chance to discuss a way forward, if you want to. Note that continuing to address other things will get your talk page access removed again, this time for the full duration of the block. The only purpose of this talk page during your block is to make unblock requests or to discuss how to avoid further blocks. Fram (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You will restore my page (as already requested). Alternatively if you don't care for this fresh invitation to demonstrate without threats that you might be part of any way forward, then just "Scram" (as already requested). Take whatever time you need, keep or delete your ship picture as you wish, but the restored page and the work it contains shall not be mutilated or censored. I shall review your action next month. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want that page back, take it to WP:DRV after your block expires, like I suggested repeatedly already. In general, follow the normal steps of dispute resolution for anything from the past you feel needs action or correction. Otherwise, you will get longer and longer blocks here. Note that e.g. User:Newyorkbrad already examined the deleted page as well, and his reaction was this. So, after your block expires, either take the page deletion to WP:DRV and accept the outcome of that discussion, or drop the subject completely. As for the edits that got you blocked this time around: are you planning to avoid similar edits (and the resulting blocks) in the future, or do you intend to continue with it, come what may? Fram (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Indef block
Since you are again discussing (in an extremely negative way) the very same issues that got you blocked the last few times, I have now blocked you indefinitely, as it has become clear that you just can't leave it alone. The ref desk talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_88 contain enough examples of your continued disruptive attitude towards this and towards some editors involved with this. User talk:APL only makes it worse. Fram (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that the reason why this user could not leave whatever it was alone at the time, that something which needed to be resolved remained unresolved? I do not condone users attacking one another, but I do find the capriciousness and the paternalising which is going on around here to be concerning. And there is something else that just dawned upon me. Private conversations, which are regularly used by administrators, who remain with no formal training or independent accreditation whatsoever, to justify banishments, are not supposed to be held on talk pages. This approach however has been maintained and users are activelty being encouraged to lead conversations on talk pages, instead of using private messages. And this represents a noteworthy violation of privacy. --lmaxmai (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__