User talk:Hamsamich

Please read No original research: anything that you post simply because you did it or saw it done is prohibited. If the National Park Service posts it on a website, that's different: simply reference it properly, and it will stand, but your own research (or mine, too; it's not just you) is unacceptable. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may not post your own personal information, and an email isn't good enough. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The map of which you speak is indeed a reliable source, but it is too low-resolution to use for the information that you're trying to put in (not to mention that it doesn't label Allakaket or any other community with legible letters), and anyway you continue to post text beginning with "I just canoed the Alatna River..." — blatant original research. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference, It looks like you posted a semi-personal anecdote here, characterized by the phrase "I just canoed...", which was reverted. You re-posted the same information here, here, and here. You then posted a one-line notation that the cited distances are wrong, and provided an alternate figure here, which was reverted. You re-posted it here. If the distance is wrong, that's one thing - but, quite honestly, you've overreacted a little bit. Edits such as this and this are unacceptable, whatever the circumstance. You'll get much farther, and have a much better experience on this website, if you take a deep breath and calm down. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, I have marked the article as disputed. When your block expires (or when you are unblocked), you are welcome to make your case at the appropriate talk page. For the record, I wouldn't oppose unblocking you if you promise to calm down and use the appropriate venue instead of edit warring. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A little elaboration on the issue. I think I understand now, but the problem here was that you were very pushy about trying to post your personal experience about the river in the article.  Nyttend was right about that, it doesn't belong there.  As for the map source you quote, I can't look at it myself, but my belief (based on other maps I've looked at) is that it simply shows the river and has a map scale, and you estimated the river at 140 miles based on the map.  That's really not a reliable source either.  Now, if that had been your first post, I doubt that Nyttend would have bothered reverting.  But in the meantime you got so agitated and yelled at him so much that he became quite reasonably suspicious.  This never would have happened if your approach hadn't been so belligerent.  That said, our approach could have been more welcoming.  But your unblock request here still misses the point -- it's about your extreme agitation and aggression in trying to force the changes you want.  Wikipedia can't work in that kind of atmosphere, which is ultimately why it's appropriate that you were blocked.  Mango juice talk 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The map of which you speak is indeed a reliable source, but it is too low-resolution to use for the information that you're trying to put in (not to mention that it doesn't label Allakaket or any other community with legible letters), and anyway you continue to post text beginning with "I just canoed the Alatna River..." — blatant original research From Nyttend. THIS IS NOT TRUE, THE MAP IS NICE AND HUGE AND DOES LABLE ALLAKAKET. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT MAP.


 * Though "truth" sounds like a wonderful heuristic, at first, it's very difficult to run a collaborative encyclopedia on that principle -- everyone has a different idea of what "truth" means, and it is often difficult to resolve disagreements on that basis. Therefore, Wikipedia's golden standard is not truth, but verifiability, in order to reduce infighting and limit the ability of cranks to push opinions (I'm not at all accusing you of being a crank, but I hope you can understand how vulnerable we would be to that sort of manipulation if anyone could post information just by saying "it's true!"). If you truly believe the current information distributed by the National Park Service is dangerous, I would think your first port of call should be the NPS? – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's real great, you don't keep to get asking for what you want. Ok, hmmmm. Yet I'm blocked so I can't use all the other stuff she advised on. Thanks jamie, that is a great idea. So, I can't contact the admisistrators now, because I'm not allowed to appeal the unblock since most of the other ways to contact wiki are now blocked, and now I'm not allowed to appeal the unblock. This is getting funny. And I have another administrator who thinks I haven't contacted the NPS yet. I see people are really listening to me. Why do I keep doing this? Hoping to find someone who might get it. The last sentence there by Luna, although she seems nice, really sums up my problem with this whole nightmare. Nobody listens, cares, or they really just want to pull the power card. I don't know which, but certain administrators are easier to guess about. At least mango did the right thing. I'm pretty happy about that but now a morbid sense of curiosity casuses me to see how deep this rabbit hole goes! The safety issue WAS the belief of this website that the Alatna was only 85 miles long. My issue now was the way Nyttend ignored that, amongst other things, yet nobody cares.


 * The content of the edits is immaterial, at this point - the problem, and one which you continually refuse to acknowledge, is that you repeatedly re-inserted the material into the article. What should have happened is that you, once reverted the first time, should have posted on the article's talk page "Hey, the article says X, but I was there and it's actually Y..." and then Nyttend or someone else would have discussed the matter in a calm fashion - and, quite honestly, the article would probably be more accurate now. But by continuing to re-insert the material, it becomes less about what you're adding to the article and more about the disruption that those edits are causing. In addition, you were fairly incivil when you attempted to discuss the matter with Nyttend. You have now requested unblocking 5 times, each time blaming Nyttend for your error; your requests are essentially the same, which is why yor talk page is in danger of being protected rom editing; each time you post an unblock template, you ask a new admin to review the situation, which is just about the same as keeping asking until you get what you want. Again, take a deep breath, step away from the computer, and please be more careful when your block expires. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra - I already acknowledged I was wrong have you read my posts? One thing at a time so we don't get confused, but it is very frustrating to be accused of "continually refusing to acknowledge" when it is obvious in my above posts that I have ack. by admitting I was wrong. Can I get some truce action here, or will I continue to be bombarded? I'm not even getting met 10% of the way here if you accuse me of things that arent true.


 * It's all too easy to get bogged down in a dispute; the question immediately at hand, I think, is what you plan to do on Wikipedia if unblocked. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

well, i wouldnt be going thru all this if i was that type of a person. there are easier ways to cause problems than this. funny how i answer one question, ask for satisfaction on it (the fact that ultra said untrue things about me) and the spotlight is switched to another negative aspect about me. is anyone but me going to help build the bridge here? I've already said what i would do in my previous posts. We keep going around in circles hear, back to things you want from me that I have already said, without focusing on what I actually said in my latest post. Can we stop doing that? One thing at a time. You answer mine, I'll answer yours. Is that fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.124.65 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A fair request, although I should point out that I can't speak for Ultraexactzz and don't think I made the claims you're asking to have clarified (do correct me if I'm mistaken on that count). I personally am a bit more inclined to assume good faith and unblock, with the assumption that everybody will "play nice" moving forward. It seems to me that you understand the block rationale and are trying to get to know "the wiki way," so I'm not really sure what more we can ask for. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, the block is expired anyway. Mango juice talk 12:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, that works, too. Take care, Hamsamich. :) If I didn't already link these to you, I found the introduction and community portal pretty helpful when I was first getting started. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Take care. I think if I would have been dealing with you, mango and maybe one other right off the bat most of this wouldn't have happened. No, that doesn't mean I don't take PARTIAL responsibility for all this silliness. For the record, I truly was worried about people using the badly inaccurate data contained on this site to go down this remote and possibly dangerous river. That is the only reason I started that war, although I went about it badly. If it would have been any other entry, I would have made a better entry and if struck down by an administrator just said "oh well". There are people out there that actually care you know...


 * I still find it hard to believe that Nyttend hasn't had his administrator status revoked due to his arrogance, blatent edit wars, and overall rudeness.Dsly4425 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)