User talk:Irbisgreif/Archives/2009/October

Timmeh's RFA
You might want to reconsider now that CU came back as unrelated. Tim Song (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm glad. I was quite concerned about that. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 Btilm  20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

 * Moved from user talk Ikip:

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in harrassing either you or A Nobody. If the SPI reveals nothing bad going on, I fully intend to consider the matter closed and apologize to both of you. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, accusations of sockpuppeting are never received well. That is why I haven't opened one for years. I have asked the closing checkuser if A Nobody agrees, to confirm we are not sockpuppets, too close this one and for all. Quite frankly, if you look at our edits, we have completely different editing styles, and I would never pursue some of the arguments A Nobody has with editors who only want ill against him. Ikip (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologize. I only ask if you can, at least, see why my suspicions were aroused? You have, at least, admitted to having older accounts than Ikip, yes? Irbisgreif (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I find it funny. If I was a sockpuppet of A Nobody, that would be different. Thanks for your time, I find this issue closed. Ikip (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Original message here:

Re: Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody This Checkuser is going to be funny. I hope you have a towel ready to wipe the egg off your face. I look forward to the results. :) Ikip (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * already closed. Shame. I will ask the closing check user to confirm that we are not sockpuppets. Ikip (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the funniest things that I've seen on Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: My RFA
No problems Irbisgreif..You didnt have to apologize too..Sorry that I failed to see through your humour note. "RFA Stress", may be ? ;) Thanks for the kind words and encouraging support. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that the reference to opposite day and the sarcastic intent may not have been clear to a speaker of a different variety of English. I hope that any stress you felt was minimal. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, I found it funny, but I often have a misplaced sense of humour! Maybe you could move your comments and the thread beneath it from the oppose section to the talk page of the RfA, with a note on the talk page that the comments were moved? -- Samir 06:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave it struck-through, that's a clear indication of cancellation. If, however, you feel strongly that it should be moved, feel free to do so, I won't complain. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, with permission I moved it across to talk, as I think it was clearly a joke, and it would make everyone feel better if it was there -- Samir 06:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank folks, Have a great day ! --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral
Nice post to ANI re the above. I agree that he needs to have an eye kept on him. He's a Falun Gong single purpose account who has recently taken to gnoming in order to hide his true editing pattern and to shake off being called an SPA, which seems to really hurt him. Since the other known SPAs have ducked out, been blocked or otherwise know their number is up, Happy has come to the fore in Falun Gong advocacy. I am not aware of any significant positive contribution from him in the realm of Falun Gong. While I think that, in his heart of hearts, he is acting in good faith, he exists in a whole different paradigm to the rest of us that I find him irritating at best (because he hounds and pesters), and disruptive at worst. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably best not to comment here, I don't wish to get dragged back into Falun Gong issues. Thank you, however, for the support. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (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 based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. 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 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I asked for one myself. Hope I did it right. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It can take a while to show up. But it is quite handy. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Communism
Actually I came to your talk page, because just now I noticed your insight, placed here. Since there is a probability that we run into each other on pages, I think it is nice to state my view on communism. I just wish to state my view, so that we can respect each others views, I am not trying to convince you of anything.

My view on communism is that I agree with the "Nine commentaries on the Communist Party", see here: and while I read it I noticed that it is truly about communism (as I live in Romania, a country with communist history), not just communism in China. Please note in my mind there is a big difference in Communism and Socialism, the latter I think it's OK, and that there people truly have the wish to help each other, and actually I'm all for that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a libertarian and market socialist, all I can say is that my views represent a completely different view of how to establish a utopian society from that of the PRC. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will check out libertarian and Market socialism, as I'm also interested in the topic of Utopian society. My initial search lead me to ideas presented in the Foundation series, however right now I think that the most important part is the underlying moral element. Do people want to do the right thing or not, because that can be swayed by education. For example right now I see that the difference between capitalism and socialism is the same as the difference between apple and pears, actually they are both good while they are fresh, but when they get rotten they are both bad. And I think that in a society what makes it good or rotten is the comprising elements that is people's morality. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you nominated Impeach...
... here's a similar template for your consideration and perusal: BrownGordon. Cheers! 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif
Sorry for being grumpy earlier on. I've checked out your contributions and you appear to be a genuine wikipedia editor and not another pseudoname for an environmentalist. But seriously, if you are genuine there's no point bashing your head against a brick wall and until there is unequivacable evidence in the form of dramatic cooling, there's not a chance in hell of getting NPOV on global warming when the same people act as judge, jury, executioner and tea lady for the "evidence". There are much better things to do and if you do get involved, all you'll end up doing is getting sucked into the catch 22, that "it's a scientific article" so "the only valid references are from the 'scientists'" and as most of those 'scientists' are represented amongst the editors of wikipedia (there may be a few missing - but you get the idea), you may as well just let them carry on as they are now. You'd have to be a fool like me even to attempt to try to balance the article given odds like that against you. All I'm hoping is that I will still be around to watch and see how long this gang manage to maintain the pretence that the temperature has not dropped when we get a serious swing downward! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, all you need to do is find a RS. Just find a paper in a scientific journal that talks about what you've present. In other news, please consider making an article, it gets you taken much more seriously around here. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After a week trying to get the global warmers to accept 'any description of the hockey stick that any ordinary person would understand I realised this was not part of a normal "dispute", but was clear tactics on their part to prevent certain information getting into the article. (And at the time I accepted manmade global warming). I have since discovered that the same people write all the key papers, sit on all the key bodies, feed the journalists the same key stories which our gullible press take as "science" rather than political environmentalism. You will also notice that some people writing on climate are able to work at this as if they are in a full time job. How on earth they do this without being paid to do it I have no idea. As for the "fossil fuel funded lobby" ... don't make me laugh. If such a group exists, I've seen no sight of them in the last many years just a stream of well intentioned people with no particular political mindset who are faced with a well organised well resourced "inside job" which makes it impossible to balance the article with contrary views. Seriously, DO NOT GET INVOLVED, it is a thankless task, you will up against some very professional well funded lobby organisations. Fortuntely, I'm not adverse to a bit of higher tax on petrol heads, so whether or not the world believes this nonsense I win either way. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are fighting both scientific consensus. So it is only natural that your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is the bar on wikipedia for science. Scientific papers from reputable journals. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Irbisgreif, what claims? You seem to think I'm claiming anything. I simply want the global warmers to back up their extraordinary claims with the kind of evidence that any decent scientist would expect a fellow scientist to produce ... more importantly, I want to see the kind of peer review, the normal skepticism of science, the cut and thrust of challenge against new claims that is totally missing from this subject - nothing can't be claimed as caused by "global warming" ... and that is not science. If you really want to see the kind of standards that this "science" uses have a look here (and its nothing to do with me!) it totally blows out the water their claims of the 20the century being anything unusual, all they have is a coincidental rise in two variables and a lot of failed forecasts and models. But the real point I would like you to take is not that there has been highly dubious practices by the kind of people we see editing wikipedia ... but that some idiot thought they could take on this crowd and has literally wasted 10 years of their life on a fruitless push for openness, honesty and basically sound science and that such people simply will never get the support they deserve. So, please don't become another martyr to honesty. And to be honest, I'm not sure I want to see the Global Warming article amended. The chance of getting anything remotely balanced is zero in the current POLITICAL climate, and in a strange way, it is better for "balance" for people to see a very obviously imbalanced article rather than give a thin veneer of respectability and thereby give some credence to their political distortion of what should be a scientific subject.(Anyway I should be working...)88.110.76.120 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

MedCab - Capture of Gibraltar
Hi there! Someone has suggested that we should hear you out instead of going on and on (and I agree). Maybe you could drop by and help us out... Thanks! --Imalbornoz (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review
"not pinging editors you don't know to give you an editor review" is my advice. I'm normally fine with reasonable requests, but not [|being randomly poked for no apparent reason]. Take the same attitude at RfA and you'll wind up at the bottom of the listings. Ironholds (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to ask a group of regulars whose RfA judgement I value. I especially value your opinion after several IRC conversations I was a party to that you were also a party to as well. I am sorry if I bothered you. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 06:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Saltine cracker challenge
Hi Irbisgreif, you nominated Saltine cracker challenge at AfD with the rationale "WP:MADEUP sums this up pretty well." I've since improved the article to the point where I think it addresses your concern. I'll appreciate it if you revisit your recommendation on the AfD and update it as you feel appropriate. I'll be leaving similar messages on some of the other editors' talk pages as well. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Friendly
Why are you adding welcome templates to talkpages that don't need it? --Elonka 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was simply trying to encourage the user to register for an account. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that the list of things that can only be done while logged in might convince the user that creating an account is a good idea. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That account hasn't edited anything in two days, and has in fact already hopped to a new IP... So I'm curious, where did you harvest the address? --Elonka 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Harvest? I don't think I harvested anything. I saw the user arguing about something on a noticeboard that I check periodically. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I said "harvest", I meant "gather addresses from a discussion". In the case of that particular user, they've been editing for years, so adding another template (especially when they weren't even using the IP anymore), is pretty ineffective.  Perhaps you'd like to just post a comment in the discussion, stating your opinion? --Elonka 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion was an argument on sourcing, and not really applicable to a “please get an account” request. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zen wisdom
A novice was once curious about the nature of the Edit Count. He approached the Zen master and asked, "Zen master, what is the nature of the Edit Count?" "The Edit Count is as a road," replied the Zen master. "You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you." And the novice was Enlightened.

With best wishes, Bundesrechnungshof (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:119.173.81.176
Hi there. You blew way past the three revert rule on User talk:119.173.81.176. 3RR actually exists to prevent things like this from happening, ridiculous edit wars that have no basis in reality, but are just a result of tempers flaring or editors thinking that having something be *immediately* corrected is more important than it is. Whether the removal of the shared IP and/or whois template was appropriate or not under whatever policy, what was clearly inappropriate was your constant string of reverts on another user's talk page against them. Please, next time, get other opinions, whether it's via WP:ANI or whatever else works for you before continuing. The encyclopedia will still live even if a single IP user page doesn't have the shared IP template. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm dropping the issue and leaving it alone, but I have to say. I believe the editor was intentionally violating policy as the reasoning was explained by several users at ANI. The fact that this editor continued to remove a tag that several other editors had agreed should not be removed was, I am sure, clear vandalism. Just because the editor has done well elsewhere does not give the editor permission to dictate themselves as exempt from a policy. I try and AGF with everyone, even IP's, and I try my hardest to take criticism well, but I'm going to have to say I disagree very strongly in this instance. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 09:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comments show that despite your claims of assuming good faith, you are doing exactly the opposite. You assume good faith, but you think my actions were "clear vandalism" (vandalising my own talk page? WTF?) You try to assume good faith with everyone even IP's ? I am sorry but why even IP's ? I am lower than you in the pecking order, just because I have not registered an account? Should it be assumed that I am more likely to cause problems just because I choose to edit with an IP? The shared IP template is there for problem IPs, in particular when soft blocks are needed due to the IPs being allocated to many different people, or one IP being shared on a large network. You were trying to prove a point, it did not help wikipedia by putting that template on my talk page, all it did was annoy me and waste time that could have been spent more constructively. I hope to put this behind me and I also hope that the next time we encounter eachother on wikipedia, we can be a little more productive than on this occasion. I don't hold grudges and unless you have something negative to add to this conversation, I consider this finished. Thanks for your time spent reading my little rant and good luck with your edits in the future. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, many people do consider IP lower on the pecking order. I make a special effort not to do so. I do this because I edited for quite a while as an IP. I eventually realized that in order to be taken seriously around here, you have to make an account. It's just a fact of the social structures that are wikipedia. Given the problems that several users have had with your account, such as with this and the number of warning templates on your page, I believe that you are doing exactly what I used to do, low-level disruption combined with running carefully under the radar. I hate to say it, but I will come right out and admit that I no longer feel inclined to WP:AGF with you.


 * So, you believe that the same person has been using this IP for long enough that you think that all of the warning templates on his talk page are aimed at that person? Doesn't that contradict the whole idea of the IP being shared?  If you believe that it's the same person, then why insist on the shared IP template remaining on the page? kmccoy (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since everyone is insistent that this be assumed, I am doing so. If the IP editor hadn't wanted those removed, in fact, I might not have cared about the other tags. I would like to drop the issue, if that's okay. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you can't understand why your treatment of this editor was so dreadful. I hope that in time you'll reexamine your attitude.  Regardless, if you edit war like this on someone else's talk page again and I see it, I will block you for a 3RR violation.  Removing tags is not vandalism.  Page blanking is only vandalism when it's done to an article page.  Please be aware.  Thanks.  kmccoy (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. However, I will state, “for the record”, as it were, that I believe this to be one of those cases of "the rules" being bent for long term editors even if their behaviour was inappropriate. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For whom are the rules being bent? kmccoy (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to take a break, as this event (combined with my first attempt at being a mediator failing) has stressed me out quite a bit. However, I will explain: I am annoyed that you came and warned me for violating 3RR (I dispute it, but I'm not trying to push that.). However, no admin has similarly admonished the IP editor. Last time I checked, when there's an edit war, two people have done something wrong. I hope it's at least clear why this would annoy me? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR doesn't apply on one's own talk page. Enjoy your break.  I'm sorry that you feel stressed out.  Let me know if I can do anything for you.  kmccoy (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)