User talk:Garglebutt/Archive 2

Prodding articles
Hey there...um, is there a reason you're not providing reasons when you prod articles? It makes it hard for the contributor to know what you want them to improve. Even something simple like a link to WP:NOT would be better than nothing. Also, why would you mark a proposed deletion as minor (see Skip Beat!)? Maybe an accident?

Also, it would be great if you would notify the creators of articles, since maybe they can actually address the concerns you have and it is more in the spirit of "uncontroversial" deletions. You can use for convenience. NickelShoe 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, you reverted the prod removal on Razza chazza big willy wazza. Don't do that. The notice clearly says that removing the tag is the correct way of objecting to the deletion.  Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only.  The dude objects to the deletion.  If you still want it deleted, move it to AfD.  I'm just deprodding it for now.  NickelShoe 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I switched to {afd} instead and the article is rapidly going the way of the dodo. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Escape from the Hell of Eternal Voting.
Just to let you know, some of us had some fun with your comment. I hope this humor cuts through the tension. Arch O. La 04:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS: I also unvandalized your user page. Arch O. La 05:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations
You edited the image detail yourself and granted GFDL for this image. You can't turn around and remove it unfortunately. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that was not me and thus he who performed that action did not have permission to grant any change in licensing therefor you cannot turn around and put it back. Thepcnerd 06:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All of your image contributions were changed by your userid to GFDL in mid 2005. It is a bit of a stretch to suggest this was a mysterious impersonator rather than yourself. I note on your user page that an article you created about your own web site was removed, presumably deleted due to being non notable and you are now experiencing sour grapes. Unfortunately numerous articles are created about web sites that end up being removed because they fail the tests on WP:WEB. You've made lots of worthwhile edits and I encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, but not regrettedly, I am done. Although apparently so the things you have stated, they are not. I would never release my photography under GFDL. I sell it commercially, although not all of these shots specifically, but I sell my photography and the GFDL is not the place for it. Thepcnerd 06:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I am not clear on is why you are only disputing copyright for one of the images you contributed. Can you suggest an explanation as to how your userid was used to edit the copyright to GFDL on your contributions alone? Garglebutt / (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a need for me to do so? I am telling you that I did not permit this license change and you are bucking me on it. There is no case here. This is my art. I am telling you that I did not and would not ever permit GFDL licensing. Do not continue to edit my art against my will or you too will be responding to my lawyer along with Wikipedia. Despite this being my lower-end work I do fight for it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepcnerd (talk &bull; contribs) 006-02-28 17:55:37.
 * Sorry but this is nonsense. Your edit history shows edits in and around the particular edits that moved these images to GFDL and subsequently you then tried to revoke this copyright on the same day your article was deleted as non-notable. I understand that you are bitter about this but legally you gave up your rights to these images. Immaterial of whether you now regret this, the proverbial bird has flown the coop. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2006
 * Sorry, but you cannot tell me whether or not my almost always logged in username was used by me. I remember changes I make, and I attest that I would never place my photography in such an open license as the GFDL. Thepcnerd 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regretably your threats against me and Wikipedia will now lead to you being banned. I wish this had worked out better for you and Wikipedia. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't seen threats yet. You have only seen me state that I am having my lawyer contact you, and if this is grounds for bannation, than this is grounds for talking to the media about your inability to comply with copyright law. Thepcnerd 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for me mistaking you for somebody important. You have no say in any of this. Thepcnerd 07:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Video Game Museum
Hey, I'm not saying your issues with the creator of the VG Museum article aren't warranted, but as a long-time Admin of a video game forum I can say that the VG Museum is cited on a fairly common basis --especially if you count the number of links that are used from there. It is notable. Their collection of screenshots and ending screenshots are well known among online video game enthusiasts (including those of us who've grown up and become attorneys, doctors, MBAs whatever --I just am innoculating the annoying "kids" argument). Please, allow me to reference a few video game sites that are not the one I manage and I ask you to log on and ask their forums if they've heard of VG Museum (for better or for worse): GameSpot, GameFAQs. Shoryuken.com, IGN, 1up.com, etc. Please don't ax this article because of the creator's other mistakes. With respect, Bobak 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. May I ask, are you a video gamer? Bobak 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While the playing of some C64 games does make you to some extent a gamer, do you frequent video game forums, and if so which ones? The opinions of Wikipedians often strike me as unknowledgeable on a range of subjects (particularly when it comes to areas like the video game scene/community/what-have-you).  You should see the corrections I had to make on ROM images.  But back on my point: is there a way you could see the article changed to work for you?  I really don't want to see this article deleted, but I'm happy to hack/slash/edit whatever you think would make in "worthy". Bobak 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aright, suit yourself. I must say your unswaying, non-consensus building position on this is a bit odd.  I still sense a bias in your action, and one that is apparently against the inclusion of information in Wikipedia (and I guess mine is the opposite).  Your claim on being a gamer is loose because, honestly, I don't know any serious gamers that would hold your position (and I spend a lot of my spare time heavily interacting with them).  The article will likely reappear (not by my hand or direction) and we will have this same discussion in the future.  That is not a threat, it is not meant to be a personal attack (I have no issue with you and will not let this difference guide my opinion of you if we meet again on other matters), but it is almost certainly inevitable in this online culture.  I'm just trying to nip in the bud, so to speak.  Peace.  Bobak 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your Nomination of the deletion of KLOV has actually confirmed that you are completely unfamiliar with video gaming in general, considering that the site is cited commonly in such reputable sources as The Onion and Newsweek. Again, you did that in responce to the comment by the creator of VGM in it's own AfD, only adding key evidence that your reason for nominating VGM are tied to a dislike of that user.  Bobak 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You plan to learn chinese?
Well then you probably mean Mandarin_%28linguistics%29. Good choice. I plan on learning it sometime during my life, or at least trying. Besides indian food isnt as good as chinese. --x1987x 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to editing
Trust me; I know the feeling. Superm401 - Talk 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Public Transport Logo
Yes, I agree, the other picture looks like a badly compressed logo compared to this one. I'll upload (but not replace) the new version, but with the green background, like on the signs. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 07:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Redlink reduction

 * Nice comment (on my talk page) - yes I have learned that there is an Ambipedia and a Wikipedia - but I moved of that ambivalent, hysterical goat track to the friendly freeway long ago. Cheers! [[image:VirtualSteve.png]] V  i  r  tual  Steve  23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh
There has just been a vote to delete or whatever the right term is. Please stop unilaterally deleting or merging articles. It does not make for a happy environment. DarrenRay 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. But you are quite wrong. There was an extensive discussion about the article. You did not participate in it which was your choice. Days later you seek to delete the article. Your right to unilaterally impose your view is no greater than mine, with respect. DarrenRay 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You have merged/deleted an article unilaterally. That's a fact. I think your conduct in this matter to be highly unfortunate and I call on you to stop it. DarrenRay 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steadman AfD vote.
Thanks for adding my signature from the log. I was about to do so manually, when I logged back on, but you beat me to it. Is there an automated way to do so? Thanks!--Beth Wellington 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I know about the four "~"'s, but infrequently I've forgotten to use it. Thanks for the instructions.--Beth Wellington 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Tried it today and it worked! Thanks again for the template.--Beth Wellington 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

VGM
At first I didn't think it was personal, then I thought it was and towards the end I thought again it wasn't personal. So don't worry about it ;) ReyVGM 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne University Student Union
Go ahead. I'm hands off at the moment. The more hands off I am there the better it seems. Thanks for the heads up. -- Longhair 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, You're deleting a whole page, that sounds like vandalism. Can you please explain how it isn't? It's like your deleting an essay or something out of political spite. Maybe not but that's what seems to be. Fewer threats - more explanation. --2006BC 08:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So be it? Do you write cheesy screenplays starring Chuck Norris? --2006BC 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New user
I think you are being too harsh on the new user, 2006BC. Instead of simple calling him a vandal, maybe you could explain to him the neutral point of view policy. --Dunlevyd 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome you not acting like you own any particular article. I have something to offer just like you and I find your threats quite unpleasant. So please just calm down a little and stop making threats of "blocking" when you are acting in a manner that would justify blocking. --2006BC 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So haven't you been in breach of the same rule you have warned me about? And engaged in vandalism? 2006BC 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reported your violation of the 3RR, a rule with which you are familiar. 2006BC 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay and crew
I realise everybody is a little cautious on their edits. I think they are possible of presenting a side of the story that is neutral. Without their input any article on MUSU matters is going to lean towards one point of view rather than another. I'm sure The Age has a barrow to push in this saga so using them as a sole reliable source in this instance isn't going to please anyone. So long as Darren and friends don't openly flaunt the established rules of the place, I have no problem with them being here.

I see little discussion from established editors who should know better, but I see a lot of reverting. I recommend, if agreement can't be reached, and drafts aren't created, to mark the offending paragraphs of any article they recreate with the  notice to alert those not familiar with the storyline to the obvious problems. Simply reverting all changes they make is only bringing them back, again, and again. It won't stop. If it was going to, it would have well before now. -- Longhair 09:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just be friends? I live compromises in my life, every day. I am always open to them. That said, I find your conduct in threatening Ben Cass (not an anonymous/pseudonymous editor like you) with blocking and everything else to be quite outrageous. I think this all very strange, I participated with many others in the discussion about whether to delete the Dean McVeigh article. There was no consensus to delete and yet that's what you unilaterally did. If this is a community, I believe (and it's just my belief mind you) that you are acting in a way that could not be described as neighbourly. Perhaps you'd like to explain why after you period of being blocked expires. DarrenRay 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My only edits to the Dean McVeigh article are maintence related, mostly adding categories, cleaning up self-referential links and the like. It's not like I've made any sweeping changes. I don't know this McVeigh guy, never heard of him and hardly care what he does with who overall. I'd prefer the McVeigh article was a redirect as well, but I'm not pushing it, and am willing to allow the article to develop, cleaning up as we go. I don't think McVeigh is anyone the world needs to know of on this scale, and if taken to AfD again, would likely find notability concerns. If an article on McVeigh must exist, and there's a growing number of editors pushing for this to happen, albeit, carrying a POV, I don't think there's any policy saying we can't let people McVeigh's taken to court or otherwise from contributing. If they push policy, that's another matter entirely. I'm not blocking anyone here for 3RR breaches, as I've offered a solution, and hope to see progress rather than bans. I'll give advice to new users, that's only fair. -- Longhair 09:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Darren on this. My head is spinning with the level of stress some seem to be showing about one article? Is this normal? Anyway, I suggest the article be restored, those breaking the rules be blocked and everyone be polite as the article is developed. I promise to be. --2006BC 09:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I know that a few of the prominent Australians here are radical-left student hacks, but are there a few new ones?? Tell me about them please. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr
Having just reviewed the 3RR report, I was on the verge of blocking you. Someone else may well still do so. Consider this a final warning. If (as you say) lots of people agree with you, then you don't need 4 reverts William M. Connolley 10:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the only option now is arbitration, but I do not have time. I am on the verge of taking a break for studying anyway, and this may just push me over the edge. Xtra 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest stepping back a bit: how important is this one article to you anyway? Just forget it, and do something productive elsewhere; come back to it in a month William M. Connolley 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

McVeigh redux
Hello. I was told about Wikipedia by a freind. He told me about the bias of the ones writing about Dean McVeigh. There was no article so I had to look hard to find it. AChan

OK AChan

I have interest in Dean McVeigh, I do not want you to delete any more. AChan

zzzz
ok. I'm going to sleep. Xtra 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind. We all get heated at times. If it's any way of making you feel better, he did place his image into the public domain :). Let's see if today can be a little less heated hey? It was disappointing to see a repeat of the revert war yesterday. Now that everybody has a firm grip of the rules, newbies included, bans will occur if the 3RR is ignored. Remember also not to bite the newbies, no matter how controversial they seem. There's other ways to stop them in their tracks and keeping your own nose clean at the same time.


 * Most clear abusers of the rules give themselves enough rope to hang themselves everytime without additional baiting from more experienced editors. That said, I'm openly neutral here, and am happy to help out either side if need be. Just pop me a note on my talk page if I miss anything that may require attention. Keep up your vigilant work. Cheers. -- Longhair 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just going to watch and in a couple of days I will go over all those articles with a finetooth comb. Xtra 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I again point out that Garglebutt has violated Wikipedia policy of 3RR, and in fact I now see has done even more. I feel thoroughly bitten, to use the phrase above and believe Garglebutt should be blocked.--2006BC 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Garglebutt, ignore these politovandals. Xtra 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Student organisations at the University of Melbourne then? Student services sounds to me like some overview of the things the organisations offer. In any case, though, thanks for helping deal with these student politicians. Ambi 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am taking a bit long for the afd on Luntz because I think there is a conflict of interest involving the author which is taking me a while to write up.Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism
I notice you have vandalised my user page. I have tried pretty hard to be polite to you but I think you are overstepping the mark. DarrenRay 07:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Ambi
if i upset anyone, then i am sorry. -- Zondor 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should stop vandalising Darren's user page and stop personal attacks. --2006BC 08:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration for DarrenRay, 2006BC, AChan
I don't realy want to get involved in arbitration. Xtra 09:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I might make a statement. If you want help writing up your evidence I may be able to help. Xtra 09:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think this is a little premature. Yes, there are some newbie editors with strong POVs that they would like to insert. But that's ok - they're not beyond hope, they just need a little guidance. And editors like Darren obviously have a wealth of information to contribute to the project - and the will to do it! We just need to supervise them a little. Stevage 10:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably should also include AYArktos. Xtra 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you writing about on my User talk? AChan 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure arbitration is necessary at this point, but there's some serious issues with involved parties editing this articles, and I don't see much hope of Ray and Cass stopping playing games on their articles without a ban from them. Ambi 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks also for giving Zondor a talking to - not only am I not the person he claims, but I'm getting really fucking sick of this rumor going around (and I'm fairly sure I know who is spreading it too). Ambi 23:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I came specifically to WP to construct and clean, rather than engage in sculptural history wars, so I am rather naive to RfC and ArbCom except for the User:Jason Gastrich. Unfortunately I stumbled on a hornet's nest of edit wards and ended up being accused on incivility and personal attacks. Don't we need an RfC first. I'm wondering if the other two are being somewhat hypocritical towards my one emotional outburst against their hundreds on continual and concerted revert wars. Also, something needs to be done about the obscene Paula Rizotto attack blog who is claiming to be Ambi and linking to her contribs, and whoever they may be need to be removed from WP for violating privacy guidelines. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Landeryou
I think we now have an Andrew Landeryou text which while not perfect is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Perhaps you should let it lie for a while and not provoke the other side with minor edits. I think the Dean McVeigh article is a much worse situation which needs to go to arbitration. Adam 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal comments
Garglebutt, could you please refrain from making personal attacks and comments like: " idiots ". I understand you're frustrated, but personal remarks and aspersions are making it very hard to collaborate and move beyond the edit warring and arguing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly re the POV issues, I just don't think the intensity of some of the dialogue is helping. I also agree with your MUSU edits and I've told them that I believe that quote should go into the article in some way, even if it's followed by a statement that the defendants strenuously reject the allegation. I do think, though, that if they can be steered away from the articles they're personally involved in, they could be beneficial to the site. But I have a feeling it will eventually take an RfA finding barring them from articles they're personally involved in. I don't think you should unwatch the articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 00:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, you've been listed on WP:PAIN. This links that were provided showed incivility and sarcasm and hinted at deep general frustration.  When dealing with others try and be as polite as possible, ok? -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I could of course counter with a selection of choice diffs but I had already stated my intention to avoid these POV editors so this is a somewhat unexpected aftermath. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Offensive user name
I believe that your user name is outside of Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to let you know also that it offends me quite a lot. Can you please change it? Thank you.--2006BC 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is approaching the conduct of a vexatious litigant. There is nothing wrong with this username.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Horse Meat
Thanks for your help in the horse meat discussion, its rather hard to rationalize with subjective people. We should keep working on it. The entire world buys exported horse meat from the US, that surprises many citizens. --ConradKilroy 16:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

student pollies
G'day Garglebutt,

in the recent flurry of personal attack stuff, I've received a complaint about your "student politicians" reference to Ben Cass. Now, I'm of the view (and I've checked with several others, who agree) that simply linking to a newspaper article is not a personal attack. However, it's not the nicest thing in the world to do, either, unless you've got a good reason for doing it. Could you please tell me (and 2006BC, and any other people involved in the Melbourne Uni Debacle who've invaded Wikipedia and are likely to be referenced by the article) why you've got the link there? Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, it sounds like your purpose could be equally achieved with simply a link to the article, with no potentially-defamatory (I don't care even if they're true) quotations. I don't believe the quotation comes under the heading of "personal attacks", but removing it and leaving just the link very definitely comes under the heading of "playing nice with others".  What do you say? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any point to the quotation that's not served equally by the link on its own? Other than the obvious (which I'd like to think you're above), which is trolling the student pollies?  fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd prefer to see the quotation gone altogether (with the caveat that, if necessary, it can be later placed in a relevant and neutral article), and the link gone within the week, but I guess that's good enough. It may not be enough to satisfy Ben, but he's placed enough complaints in enough forae that if I'm wrong and the thing needs to die right now, someone else will be along soon enough to pick up where I left off.  Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: warning retraction
I've retracted the warning for the moment, only because 2006BC posted his name on his user page. Even though the link isn't a direct personal attack, you're still giving out information about him that he doesn't want posted from Wikipedia. I suggest you read Fuddlemark's latest entry at User talk:2006BC and make what you feel is the right choice. I'll now be looking into this situation and I will act accordingly. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 11:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Lbmixpro
Could you send me the link to the RFC you're talking about? --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 11:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. The RFC's focused more on the article than the actions of those involved. Since you've backed out of RFAr, you may want to begin individual user-conduct RFCs for those you have a problem with, since this seems to be going beyond the article at this point. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 12:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you know that RFC's are created so others outside the issue can give their input about what someone should do. The politics RFC is fine, since it deals with editing the article. Both sides need to be fairly addressed. But as I said before, it's now stemming onto the user pages. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 12:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for helping me fight the vandalism that was being done to my contributions. Jedi6 -(need help?)  01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Rugs Galore
Sigh. I think Adam is right on this one - it should go to arbitration. Cass, Landeryou and Ray are way too involved to be editing anything to do with McVeigh, and there's probably legal issues involved as well. Ambi 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best to make a relatively limited request focusing just on MUSU and McVeigh, as they're cases where they clearly should not be editing under any circumstances (and are making a damned nuisance of themselves). The wider mess can be dealt with later if necessary. Ambi 04:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

student politics quote
G'day Garglebutt,

I notice the quote about allegations against your two favourite student pollies are still on your talkpage. While there may be a good argument for keeping a link to the news article somwhere handy, I don't think you need the quote to be right there, in the face of anyone who visits your talkpage &mdash; or, indeed, anywhere on display at all. I also note it's been more than the week after which you planned to take it down. Please consider removaing the quotation. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steadman talk page
Hi, Garglebutt, I'm sending this note about recent edits to the Robert Steadman article. First you put the notable wikipedian template on it, but subst'ed it, so that it turned into a text rather than a template. Then he edited it to say that he has never edited the article. I had a problem with that because, whether he likes it or not, the official finding of an ArbCom member is that two of the accounts which had edited the article were sockpuppets of his.

So I changed it back to an unsubst'ed template, which can't be edited. I think in the case of notices that go on pages, it's normal to use the unsubst'ed template. I use subst'ing for things like test1 or bv or unsigned, where it's just a quick way of getting the text on the page rather than typing it. I leave it as a template when there might be a reason to see "what links here" &mdash; how many notable Wikipedians are there? Then Alienus reverted my change, so I left a message on his talk page, which you might want to look at, and reverted back to the unsubst'ed template.

It's the next two posts that I'm sending this message about. You made a post about his sockpuppeting, and Alienus removed the post. Now I'll tell you frankly that I fully accept the findings of the ArbCom member who carried out the user check (and who also, by the way, voted the same way as Rob and the two socks). And Rob has done nothing to gain my sympathy, constantly making wild hysterical accusations about a Cabal, calling for other editors to be banned, etc. However, I do want to be fair, which is why I voted to keep the Robert Steadman article. Although I am not a fan of Rob or of Alienus, I think it would be better just to let the matter drop. The two sockpuppets were banned, he was humiliated, and that's the end of it. If people look up the composer on Wikipedia and then wander into the talk page, there's no need for them to see things about the sockpuppetry. So, although I very seldom agree with Alienus, and reject outright his snide insinuation that the admin who carried out the sockcheck was dishonest, I'd be happier not to see that post restored. If Rob or Alienus tries to put in notices about Rob never having edited the article, that will be another matter; but if they don't, can we let the matter drop too? Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Saw III
Maybe if you paid more attention to the article's history, you would have known that Cigammagicwizard's edits were unsourced speculations posing as fact. Its original research which is not allowed. Its been reverted countless times by other people, yet he keeps on reverting.

The original poster of that information, 81.99.182.121 said when I asked him for a source he responded "i am the source! cant give you any wevsite sources because it has not been released onto the net, i work for the studio."

I reported him to the administrators, so he said "y r u such a rat, bum head? :)" and "they have never had to deal with tattle-tales like you mr. bum head!"

So maybe you should be less hasty before reverting to fan fiction written by a bunch of thirteen year olds. (Literally...Cigammagicwizard is thirteen years old.)--CyberGhostface 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Image uploads
Apologies for the copyvios. I was only trying to make existing articles better. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. That has been very helpful, and now I know to avoid this sort of thing in future. Thanks for your help! --Sunfazer | Talk 11:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You know, it's not really that smart to make personal attacks against an admin. Especially when those personal attacks center on the admin himself making personal attacks. I've given you a three-hour cooling off period, I suggest you enjoy it. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Murray cod page
If current regulations are criminally inadequate for protecting wild Murray cod stocks, I should be allowed to say so in bold. It is an important and valid point. Codman 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Murray cod page
Look mate, I'm highly irritated at what you've done to Murray cod page. Stay out of what you don't know! Codman 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your mission in life?
What makes you think it's your mission in life to follow me up on everything I post? This smacks of arrogance. Stop bloody following me. Find another mission in life. I understand the I push the borders of the neutral-point-of-view thing on Wiki - but you, not knowing anything about native fish (but feeling free to interfere) - do not know how badly they have been neglected (often in favour of introduced species) and how irresponsibly they have been managed (often in favour of introduced species) and therefore how completely justified the strong opinions I hold on native fish are. Codman 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits re: Reflecting Telescope and Cassigrain
I linked you toward Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia because the pages both put forward the concept of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". What you may need to grasp in your edits is that even "providing practical examples of theoretical concepts" has to have a logical structure re: what article you drop it into (on other words "Encyclopedic). The right stuff in the wrong article does not work very well. I don't know if you have a problem with someone editing your stuff (if you do Wikipedia warns you off the bat that this may not be the place for you.) Your recent edits have been bold but indiscriminant. Moving stuff wholesale without taking into account where you move it, not adapting to where you are moving it, not making it work with other articles and inter-article structures that have been affected, and not even discussing it on the respective articles talk page makes allot of work for other people. Maybe you are planning to clean it all up in the future but a little more care would be appreciated. Halfblue 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * RE:User talk:Halfblue
 * Actually my edits are based on logic more than wanting to throw the Wikipedia book around. My logic is we have basic categories - sub categories - variations, all generic descriptions... and then maybe a reference or link to the commercial application if they are relevant. So I ask you what logical structure you’re basing your edits on? If its "thrown everything at the wall and see what sticks" that’s fine but be prepared for me and other editors to be bemused at your edits and probably remove them at some point.


 * If you say (for example) your VIXEN edit is "valid" because it’s adding "specific implementations", it brings up a few problems. Problem #1 is we only have one "implementation"... a commercial one... and that does have a name -> its called Spam. I'm not saying you intentionally spammed the page. But Spam concerns rise out of WP:NPOV concerns. A non-POV edit in that case would be to add several implementations and compare them one to another. When you add only one implementation out of all the ones there are out there then the article is not neutral. And when you add it to Reflecting Telescopes instead of Telescopes---> Catadioptrics --> Maksutovs--> commercial sub types then be prepared for someone else to move or excerpt it.


 * I assume you are saying your approach was "hey I'll add it and wait for other people to add the other examples". My approach was to move the content to the TALK page (as per Wikipedia policy) and note that it does not fit in the article for at least two reason stated above.


 * hey… articles build cruft and get superceded by newer more relevant pages. That leads to someone coming along and saying “hey--- does that still belong here?”. Halfblue 02:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)