User talk:Geo.plrd/Archives2006-4

Another heading intended to be titled "Motto"
Hello. I have come up with five mottos on Motto of the day/Nominations. Would you please review them and share your opinion? --Gray Porpoise 01:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin Academy
I don't think you've been here long enough to create an Admin Academy. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's going to do a CheckUser on Admin candidates. You have to say who you think a proposed CheckUser done on is a sock puppet of, so they can compare. A person with CheckUser capability is not just going to troll through all edits to find some that match. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto
It is an honour to be recognised as an overseer as something! Thanks. Also, I hope it's alright if I updated the schedule as I have. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Let us to it, Pell-Mell 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

help please
Hello -i have been editing an article about a flamenco guitarist,that has some errors, these are discussed on the talk page of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mart%C3%ADn

I was wondering if you could help mediate in this,as my citable material,from a world famous flamencologist [d e pohren] is being ignored as citable evidence,in fact i have been accused of making the information up. I dont want to start a flame war,and am stepping back from this so ask for your help in this. Thankyou.Ukbn2 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Ukbn2 19:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, is this official mediation or the cabal? My only involvement was in the last day, following a request by Ukbn2. For the avoidance of doubt, the issue certainly isn't references. Addhoc 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!!!
Hi -i am editing the Juan Martin article with guitar technique information,and user addhoc is deleting all my writing. Please,what do i do about this?Ukbn2 13:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

this is developing into a flame war - addhoc is simply editing out anything i contribute now,whilst not contributing any facts or info into the article itself -this is trolling ,please help!!Ukbn2 13:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that I have signed up to 1RR, that is somewhat unlikely. Addhoc 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello sax - i am again being what can only described as stalked by user addhoc on the juan martin page - his latest example for instance:- "Your comment that "zapateado is explained with the link" shows that you haven't grasped that all material has to be verifiable. In this case you are required to provide a reputable source that links "zapateado" to Juan Martín. Before making any further edits, I would suggest you read the most important procedures for this article, which are: WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Also you could have a look at WP:CITE and WP:RS. Thanks, Addhoc 14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)"

The link explains that zapateado means "tap, or heel tapping" it is a sound most of hear when listening to flamenco, and is on most flamenco albums. It is also on Juan martins more recent albums [the earlier article mentions the fact that flamenco dancers are on the album,this is why i have enhanced the article with zapateado reference]. This is getting tiresome,is there anyway i can stop this guy trolling my edits,as this is getting ridiculous. Is there anyway i can report this user? Thanks Ukbn2 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, I was following the advice in WP:BLP, which is "be very firm about high quality references". However, I am not an expert about this subject and consequently, my involvement is probably more useful elsewhere. I am pleased that UKBN2 has admitted his earlier edits were libellous. Addhoc 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock
What is the IP listed? -- Samir  धर्म 02:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) It is a block for Lordhighdumbass by Shanel 65.147.74.24 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) My IP has changed and i can edit. G e o. 02:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks, but I have to decline. I do not yet feel that I have addressed concerns in my last RfA. Computerjoe 's talk 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Requests for adminship/Geo.plrd 2 Best regards, Lordhighdumbass 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi Geo, I am just letting you know that I have closed your request for adminship as it was getting a little out of hand (it was 0/9/3 in the end). As all those who commented were making pretty much the same point there seemed little point in the process continuing into a pile on, which would have benefited nobody. Before you run again in the future, I would strongly urge you to consider the suggestions made by those who commented. Admin standards are very high at the moment, you will probably need at least a couple of thousand more edits before you are seriously considered by those who vote at WP:RFA. If you have any questions, or ever require any help, please feel free to ask me. I hope to see you around, yours Rje 02:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not too disappointed!
Hi there, Geo! I hope you're not too disappointed after your RFA. Your eagerness to help out with the backlogs that administrators must deal with on a daily basis is admirable, but usually, candidates don't succeed unless they have at least 2,000 edits, a good chunk of those in the mainspace (articles). You are a great user, and in 4-6 months, I imagine you'll be nominated for adminship and you will succeed. RFA is a gruelling process (your record is very carefully scrutinized by a large amount of editors) but I hope your first attempt at adminship hasn't been too hard on you. Your contributions and your willingness to help out as an administrator are both admirable. I hope to see you around!! If you ever need somebody to talk to, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or e-mail me. Happy editing, and enjoy the cookies! :)  Srose  (talk)  14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my friend, please do not feel discouraged by this. I also noticed that you have only about 720 edits on Wikipedia. Try to improve the quality of your edits here and understand the policies of this project. If it makes you feel any better, just take a look at my past RfAs! (First RfA, second RfA and third RfA). I hope this puts things in perspective. I also admire your sense of optimism here as well! I suggest that you have at least 3 000 quality edits first before considering for adminship. Don't give up hope and be strong! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And let me know next time you are up for Admin, I'll probably vote for you. User:Pedant 10:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request
Since Steve is out I have taken over assigning cases. There is a Request for assistance by mahawiki  (talk) on  belgaum & belgaum_district Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." Thanks Æon  Insanity Now! EA!  06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

response
hi geo

sorry i did not respond to your comment some time ago on my talk page. i was advised to just let things be and it seemed like a fair path to take, but this admin "nandesuka" has continued to harrass me, and his 1-month block of me has been seen by other admins as a reason to impose longer blocks on me. just today he threatened me with a 1-week block and has conpicuously shown up at the oddest moments. i would like to take this misconduct to arbitration. i'd hope to

a) have user nandesuka desysopped/banned. if that is impossible, he should be forbidden from talking to me/talking about me/blocking me/editing the same articles i do

b) set precedents for blocks. no editor should have to go through what i did.   any admin that imposes a 1-month block for such spurious reasons should know that he will lose his sysop privileges, and associated admins should recognize it is their duty to undo such long blocks.

if you are not available to assist i can work on this on my own but i've found dispute resolution to be a maze of pages.

thanks for any help Justforasecond 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * do i need to file an rfc before arbitration?  i think arbitration asks for proof of trying to work things ou or something like that.     Justforasecond 03:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Articles on Wikipedia and Utz Chips
Perhaps I commented in the wrong place on your discussion page. Please refer to my (rather wordy) commentary posted above (entry 2, I believe). However, I wanted to add articles about the Biblical person, Utz, in the Haftorah (part of the Bible), when I discovered a Wikipedia article about Utz chips, made in Hanover PA. This article is nothing more than an advertisement! Why was this not deleted? Why is this article better than the one about Elaine Louise Zanutto or about R. S. Wenocur (Roberta Wenocur) whose work in mathematics led to repair of hearing loss in humans and also led to advancements in neural nets, or Daniel  H. Wagner Assoc, all of which were deleted. Please contact me at math_stat_woman@yahoo.com or on my talk page. Thanks. I care about being fair, about being just, and about creating an encyclopedia that is consistent, and as close to complete as possible, This Utz chips article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, in my opinion. MathStatWoman 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Utz
I shall start an article about Utz, the Biblical character. I want to do this for two reasons: (1) The Biblical character Utz and Buz are interesting, and (2) I'll bet that anything I write will be deleted, speedily or otherwise, because that is what has been happening to me -- so this is an experiment. Are you really there, Geo.plrd? Haven't heard from you. MathStatWoman 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neverending story
Other Wikipedians are still harrassing me in an inappropriate manner (see my discussion/talk page -- see comment accusing me of "Dishonesty" by User: Chris53516   Quote from  User: Chris53516

"Dishonesty You have not left Wikipedia. You are still contributing to it, so why are you trying to deceive us by telling us you have left? Chris53516 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)"

as an example of how I have been treated on Wikipedia).  Is this really appropriate from  User: Chris53516  ?  Is this the way Wikipedia is supposed to be?

This was how User: Chris53516 reacted when I commented on your discussion page. I had indeed intended to leave Wikipedia until I read your message to me, while I was reading an article on the Riemann zeta function. Is User: Chris53516 correct? Is this really dishonesty? Is User: Chris53516, who is one of those Wikipedians who has been sending me such messages, acting and writing appropriately, or not?

Anyway, thanks for your support and advocacy. How do I send you text of articles that might be appropriate to post? Why have certain Wikipedians taken a particular stance with regard to me? I do not understand this. I would call it "bullying", except that they will attack me with their words if I say this, yet it feels just like the bullying of school days.

Please tell me how I can send you the text of articles. Thank you again.

Yes, I shall indeed leave forever if Wikipedians like User: Chris53516 rule the waves.

As I expressed, that was my intention, to leave Wikipedia, and contribute nothing, except that when I saw your message to me, while I was looking at the article on the Riemann zeta function, I had seen your message. I thought it would be rude not to respond.

Am I indeed "dishonest" by responding to you? Is User: Chris53516 correct? MathStatWoman 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I send text to you?
How might I send text to you for proposed articles?

Do I send all the verbiage to this page? The articles are long.

Some of the articles began as short summaries, but because they were proposed for deletion, and I was asked to provide citations, reasons for being noteable personae, etc., they became long.

Please advice. Thank you. My discussion/talk page might be best. MathStatWoman 21:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What should someone do about insults on Wikipedia
Sorry; I do not know what to do about things like this on Wikipedia. Please help.

1. Why am I called a "ban" "sockpuppet"; this is not the case. I use one user name only. I was planning to leave Wikipedia, but I had some hope due to your messages. Why do I have these wiki-enemies?

2. Quote to me:

'''You're a liar. You haven't left Wikipedia. You probably just set up another sock puppet. It's pathetic that you have to turn to deception. User: Chris53516 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)'''

Is this appropriate from the above Wikipedian? Should I just leave? Why is this happening to me? MathStatWoman 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and help please
Thank you for commenting that I need not leave Wikipedia, but this is what happened, and I am intimidated and frustrated:

I had truly planned to stop editing Wikipedia. Yet due to some kind words and encouragement from Wikipedians like you, I tried, timidly, to return.

This is what transpired: I always sign in, even when reading articles. I had been reading articles on the Riemann hypothesis and the zeta function, when I was alerted that there were messages on my talk page. There were several messages advising me not to stop editing and an offer to discuss the content of proposed new articles with other editors. Therefore, I decided to attempt to contribute again.

The response was that User: Chris53516 vandalized my discussion/talk page and sent me at least two messages (and I quote) that I was guilty of "dishonesty" (this was posted on a vandalized version of my discussion/talk page)  and was a "liar" (posted on User: Chris53516's own page), simply because I had decided to contribute to Wikipedia again.

Moreover, I am not a "sockpuppet" nor a "sockpuppet master". I always sign in, and I always use the same user name. I do not at all appreciate this nomenclature on my user page; it is an insult, implying that I am using underhanded, sneaky means of editing via aliases. I do not do so. I share a computer and a network. Strangely, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of people who have different IP addresses, whom I have never met. On Wikipedia, is it standard to be assumed guilty without proof? to be assumed guilty until proven innocent? to be assumed guilty without an attempt to be proven innocent?

Hence, it seems, that I am truly disliked on Wikipedia and that the way to settle disputes, for me at least, is to leave. If you think otherwise, look at what happened to my discussion/talk page, due to User: Chris53516 who was aided by  User:  Chan-Ho Suh in restoring my talk/discussion page. This is ironic since User: Chris53516 urges Wikipedians to "be nice". Hence, in my attempt to contribute to Wikipedia again, I have confirmation that it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and ruled by those who have a different concept of "being nice".

However, I would like answers to my questions above, so I truly understand how Wikipedia operates.

To review and summarize, the questions I would like answered are these:

1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?

2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Wikipedia, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?

3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?

4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and  User:  Chan-Ho Suh  and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?

5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?

6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.

7. What does "be nice" mean on Wikipedia, as  User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Wikipedia and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?

8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)

9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!) Again, thank you.

But now you might have an idea why (a) I had decided to leave Wikipedia, and (b) was concerned about trying to re-join and edit again.

I suspect that this experience that I have had on Wikipedia has affected other Wikipedians, probably who are people with valuable information to contribute, but who have decided to stop creating articles or to edit because of similar experiences. This would lead to an incomplete and inconsistent encyclopedia, which is not what Wikipedia should be.

Sorry for the long message, but Wikipedia is an internet phenomenon, and these issues are important, to me and to others, including students in university, grade school, and high school.

Moreover, I had wanted to use my time to contribute actual content and learning more about the markup language: articles about topics in maths and stats, bios of persons, and other topics that interest me; i.e., spend my time on useful endeavors for Wikipedia, not being involved with disagreements nor wasting time on matters such as these.

Thank you again. MathStatWoman 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOTTO
I give you full control as I no longer have much time for wikipedia. Just like to say you've done some good work and i wish you look in the future. -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)