User talk:Duk/Archive10

SVG Tiny
Hi,

I require an SVG Tiny 1.1/1.2 artist to design me some simple splash screens, waitscreens and menus for a mobile phone application. Can you help? User:80.218.245.156
 * Sorry, I don't know much about SVG Tiny 1.1/1.2. --Duk 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on computer program
The Computer program article is in need of repair. Would you comment on any improvement suggestions? I joined the talk starting with the thread talk:computer program. Timhowardriley 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Timhowardriley, I'm not the right person to ask about computer programming. --Duk 02:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Timhowardriley 15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkey
Please review. Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Hipocrite, I see the page has been protected. That's always preferable to blocking editors who are acting in good faith, which I think is the case here. Jeff is broaching contentious topics in a bold way - disputes are to be expected. Wikipedia will be better for it in the end, however it works out.


 * Since unblocking, I've concentrated on keeping the trolls at bay (not sure if you are familiar with the sordid history of this) and have avoided getting involved in the content disputes. I'm not planning to interfere with other admins in that area. However, if there is something specific you'd like me to do in that capacity, please ask.--Duk 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You could tell him to cease making baseless attacks against me. I am not involved in any content dispute, except to state that some website is not a reliable source. Bad behavior by trolls does not excuse bad behavior to trolls, but it certainly does not excuse bad behavior to me. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * left a note on the talk page. --Duk 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Stops now, or I pretty much promise someone will indef him. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration and hope that you can understand Jeff's. Wikipedia hasn't been very good about stopping the stalking and harassment of him, so it's understandable that Jeff is hypersensitive and might mistake long time editors with good intentions as trolls. I'm trying my best to address one side of the problem - stopping the harassment that originates from the SCOX message board. There isn't much I can do to help the other side. Can you try to start a discussion with him on his talk page or privately to ease his concerns, so you two can come to some agreement, or at least disagree respectfully? --Duk 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As you appear to be attempting to lessen this conflict, I will refrain from taking action against Merkey for this atrocity, but unless he begins following WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, I am reasonably confident that he will no longer be permitted editing privlidges. The ball is in your/his court.Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Atrocity" is a rather extreme overstatement... the Mountain Meadows Massacre was an atrocity, while Merkey's accusing you of trolling was merely an act of incivility. Let's all try to keep things somewhat in proportion here. *Dan T.* 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit. I consider removal of talk page comments then replacement a form of trolling and extreme dishonesty. I do not want to get into conflicts with folks, just edit, but I can see there are a lot of people with strong views and some with agendas. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=132715824&oldid=132715763 Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I don't think Hipocrite is a troll, you both are angry at the moment. I hope you two can come to some agreement, or at least disagree respectfully. --Duk 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll try to go and make peace with him. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You could start by not continuing to call me a troll. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Aim Here
I commented on User talk:Aim Here concerning your block, which I believe to be have been very unwarranted. If you have concerns about any user's actions, then please have the decency to discuss it with them directly. Don't covertly add them to some list of suspects. --MediaMangler 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaMangler, stop trolling. It's disruptive. This is your only warning.


 * For the benefit of others reading this, the only thing out of line here is that after a year and a half of stalking and harassment of Merkey, trolls still aren't being blocked on site. This is going to change.


 * If you have concerns about any user's actions, then please have the decency to discuss it with them directly. ... see


 * I've made some notes at User talk:Duk/SPTA for anyone interested. --Duk 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs review
Following your suggestion, I will not edit the most flamming POV article I have ever seen by Merkey. Please consult this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cornsilk or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cornsilk&oldid=132867021 before another changed it and give it your unbiased opinion as an administrator please. --Kebron 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One does not need to be an adminstrator to remove uncited and possibly defmatory information from biographies of living people. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I simply wished to make it clear "I" was not going to get into a mess AGAIN with Merkey. I want an Administrator's opinion on this first version and make it clear that "I" will not get in it with Merkey again. --Kebron 13:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kebron, I'm glad you aren't planning to edit that article, although you certainly aren't banned from it. Removing POV from an article is one thing. But following another editor around with the purpose of harassing them and making their life miserable is another. So how is an admin to tell the difference? Well, for starters when the editor dredges up completely unrelated documents, from an ancient court case outside of the wikipedia universe, and uses that to malign and "run down" another editor, that's a pretty good tell for administrators working the problem. --Duk 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine... now may I have you honest opinion on the first document that Merkey posted about David Cornsilk? Is this the work of an unbiased editor or the work of someone with a mission? --Kebron 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And now, he is putting all back as if it never occured. --Kebron 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we all have our own biases and views, even if we don't recognize or acknowledge them. That's one of the reasons it is so important to include different editors from different cultures and backgrounds, and then work on ways to develop neutral articles. Do you see the difference here; we need to work on the material to get it neutral - not going out and stalking, harassing and abusing people who we disagree with. See Ad Hominem.


 * We also have to make a distinction between people intentionally violating the projects goals by pushing POV, and those who believe they are correcting existing POV in support of the projects goals. It would be so simple to get rid of people we disagree with, but then there wouldn't be any editors left. A healthy community needs to tolerate some dissension, it needs a few gadflys and it needs people of minority views. On the other hand, a healthy community cannot allow packs of bloodthirsty jackals to run wild mauling people they don't like. I've mentioned this before, but editors and their work will stand or fall on merit, given enough time and eyeballs, but a prerequisite is that they get treated fairly. If we can't provide a level playing field, even for editors we disagree with, the the project will suffer. Maybe things will work out here for Jeff, maybe they won't. But its not up to you to take matters into your own hands and harass and abuse him.


 * As for the article (looking at your stable link), I though it was very interesting and the illustrations unique enough to merit fair use (maybe only one is needed instead of two). I'd remove the "John Cornsilks Banned by Wikipedia Community" and trim a lot of the "Political Commentary" section, but maybe not as much as this version. I don't have an opinion on deletion. So, to answer your question, yes I think the article had a bias, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the editor had a "mission" and was intentionally violating the projects goals. --Duk 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the ones you warned, and I did go a little over the line in my overzealousness; I tend to get a bit obsessive-compulsive. I'm trying hard to avoid playing any part in turning Wikipedia into a battleground now.  However, I wonder if you're not possibly going beyond creating a level playing field (a noble goal) and, maybe, tilting the field a bit too much in Merkey's favor; he likes to label anybody who disagrees with him as "trolls" and "stalkers", and while this is sometimes true, it's also possible for it to be used as a bludgeon against all criticism and opposition he ever receives.  Merkey deserves not to be incessantly hounded, and I apologize for sometimes being part of that; but he doesn't deserve to have all critics blocked or warned away to save his tender sensibilities either. *Dan T.* 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm going too far and tilting the playing field. I've removed some unsourced edits and disagreed with Jeff on some troll accusations, but mostly I've just reacted to blatant trolling. No, in most cases it's not productive to label people who disagree with you as "trolls" and "stalkers". But this is an extraordinary case - anyone who digs into it will find one of the most outrageous examples of long term abuse against any Wikipedian. Jimbo and some administrators have done a good job addressing it in the past and are still maintaining the JM article. I'm trying to work on current abuse, but the way wikipedia is structured makes it very hard to address. It doesn't surprise me that Jeff sees trolls everywhere, and that he is very often right. --Duk 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your indefinite block of User:Aim Here might be seen as an overreaction on your part, and apparently was seen as such by the other admin who reversed your block soon afterward. *Dan T.* 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I offered to unblock him by email if he agreed to leave Jeff alone, he didn't respond. If he abuses Jeff again I'll reinstate the block without hesitation. I don't think I overreacted, time will tell (along with Alkivar's unblocking). Even if he does manage to behave, you should consider that maybe this block is the reason. --Duk 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. I did respond via email (albeit unrepentantly), and explained every one of my Jeff-related edits that I had made since his unbanning, in a final effort to convince Duk that I had not been trolling or stalking. Maybe you didn't get the email. Might I suggest, in future, that for the purposes of clarity, you specify exactly what edits constitute wrongdoing, and why, (or URLS to off-wiki behaviour, if that's relevant) so as not to place editors in a Kafkaesque situation of trying to guess 'what exactly did I do wrong'? (Yes, you linked the single edit regarding my response to you on WP:AN/I but, to quote WP:BLOCK, "Blocks for disruptive behaviour should not typically be used in response to isolated instances of behaviour, but in response to persistent patterns of behaviour."). Anyways, I hope we can put this sordid mess behind us --Aim Here 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "unrepentantly" was important, and I got your emails, but not a response to my offer. Also, on your talk page you said you wouldn't troll Jeff anymore, while in the same sentence claimed you would carry on editing Wikipedia as you have always done. Do you see the problem here? And I did explain "exactly what edits constitute wrongdoing". --Duk 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I still contend I have not been trolling or stalking. I still don't see the problem. And you still have not explained 'exactly what edits' constitute a 'persistent pattern' of disruption. You repeatedly state I have been trolling and stalking, and you also contend that I am guilty of disruptive off-wiki behavior,  but I have yet to see a link, or a specific reference to one wiki edit, forum posting or anything I've said or done, prior to the WP:AN/I edit, that substantiates your accusations. That's what I mean by 'exactly what edits'. Show me the diffs. Give me an actual link that specifies one or more specific edits that I can explain, refute, or apologise for, as appropriate. 'Trolling' and 'stalking' and 'disruption' are conclusions. Anyone accused of such things needs to see actual specific evidence (wiki diffs, or URL links or whatever) that brings you to such a conclusion. --Aim Here 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. look at your talk page. --Duk 20:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a circular argument. I'm disruptive because I disagree with you threatening me and blocking me for disruption? You persistently and repetitively claim, as though it's self-evident, that I've been persistently 'trolling' and 'stalking' Jeff Merkey yet all you have to substantiate it is how I've reacted to YOU *AFTER* you accused me of trolling and stalking Merkey. I did say the words 'prior to the WP:AN/I edit too, there. The skirmish between you and me on my talk page happened afterwards, and as a consequence. Can you not see the double bind situation I'm in?--Aim Here 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on Aim Here. I'm not repeating myself anymore, or taking your bait for a wikilawyering argument. You were warned properly, trolled some more, got blocked, bitched some more and so on ... If you can manage to not abuse Jeff then you have nothing to worry about :) Did I say I'm not going to repeat myself anymore? --Duk 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll assume from your non-answer that you cannot or will not back up your accusations and I'll give up on you and this Alice in Wonderland gamesplaying of yours. I'll ask you to respect WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and refrain from making baseless and unsubstantiated allegations of trolling and stalking unless and until you can actually provide some evidence of same. I'm done with you. --Aim Here 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing Aim Here. You might not believe this but I am actually hoping that you prove me wrong - that you aren't a troll and that you won't abuse Jeff anymore. That's the good thing about Alkivar's unblock, time will tell. --Duk 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again
I have not done ANYTING at all and here I am being accused of being a troll. Please consult here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:Hipocrite.2C_User:MediaMangler.2C_User:Vigilant.2C_User:Aim_Here.2C_User:Kebron.2C_User:Jerryg.2C_User:Pfagerburg and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/trolls I am really losing my patience. With inaction, I am a troll. When I edit, I am a troll. What am I to do?--Kebron 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were you, Kebron, and I wasn't a troll, I'd leave a note there explaining as much. I'd do it politely, and perhaps apologize for my previous edits that weren't very polite, and I sure as hell wouldn't dig up unrelated documents from ancient court cases to harass and run down another editor. --Duk 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The notice board is frozen, explain to me how I can voice anything?--Kebron 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the box it reads ->Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.. However, I'd be inclined to just let it go for now. --Duk 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you do if you were me? . Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been you, Hipocrite. I remember cleaning up two complicated copyright violations and getting yelled at and stalked for months by the new editors who were posting them - just horrible things were said about me. 1) I ignored it, the new editors calmed down over a series of months, and I became friends with one of them.


 * No contentious article debate is solved quicky at wikipedia. 2) You can lessen the drama by posting just once per day at the article and talk page. Rapid fire exchanges don't solve the problem quicker, the just get people mad and sometimes blocked.


 * New editors who are bold usually don't stay that way. They either calm down as they get more used to getting things done easier by working differently, or they get blocked, or they leave in disgust at not being able to do what they want. 3) wait.


 * So, that's what I would do, Hipocrite, 1), 2) and 3). --Duk 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To the extent taking your advice does not damage the encyclopedia, I will do so. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I invite your comment here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! --Duk 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Monster Pig
Hello, I am the creator of the Wikipedia and Wikinews article on this topic, the editor User:Squeakbox deleted half the article before his stuck the afd +tag on the article. I reverted it back to the point where he did this, it would be to difficult for me to reconstruct due to the number of edits. I requested a Semi-Protect, which you did add to the article "pp-semi-protected|small=yes" Would you kindly replace the +tag and advise Squeakbox not to perform major edits like this without first discussion them on the article talk page to gain group consensus and prevent edit wars. Thank you in advance for your assistance and sorry for the inconvenience. PianoKeys 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag is back.


 * I happen to agree with Squeakbox's removal of off-topic stuff. Take it to the talk page. --Duk 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, feral means the animal was once domesticated and is now living in the wild. I had this happen with a pet cat once, it is not uncommon.  Monster Pig was once owned by someone then escaped and was living as a feral animal in the wild, then is was hunted and killed by Stone. PianoKeys 12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should go read the references again. And quit hogging the pig, dammit ;) --Duk 13:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice
Hi,

The MfD discussion of your user subpage closed as a "no consensus" result. However, noting your own remark on the page that you wished it deleted, I have speedy deleted it per CSD U1. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Duk 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

navbox collapsible
hey, thanks for the tip! I can't figure out how to do it though, i tried to put "collapsible" in there, but it didn't work. Cheers! Murderbike 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

cool! Murderbike 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC
Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?&mdash; Rod talk 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look :) --Duk 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sky Dream Fukuoka
Name calling is so adult. Edit war would be your choice. But don't make an entry lack charm. - Sparky 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Opinion requested
Hello Duk. Well, I guess I'm a well-known defender of diacritics... :-) For this article, I naturally support the current name, "Ångström". It's named after Anders Ångström and its symbol is Å so it can't be otherwise. In fact, I would recommend removing "or angstrom" in the first sentence of the article. It is not "angstrom", only miseducated or careless people would type so, and the fact that many do shouldn't be a reason for introducing a mistake in an encyclopedia. My opinion. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)