User talk:Licinius/Archive 1

Archives from previous discussions

Italic text CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents [ hide] List of 15 items • 1 In response to your rudeness (or shall I say, "putting in place") • 2 Re: Unacceptable • 3 Disagreements • 4 What are you talking about • 5 Rugby league • 6 Administrators & Policy • 7 Oyster Bay • 8 Oyster Bay 2 • 9 Bad Faith • 10 Oyster Bay, New South Wales • 11 Harassment • 12 Western Suburbs Magpies • 13 Oyster Bay NSW • 14 RE:POds, you are out of line • 15 Negative things list end

In response to your rudeness (or shall I say, "putting in place")

Nobody cares what I think huh? Sounds like after reading your TALK page and the TALK page of your alter ego, 60.225.202.61, that a few Wiki administrators do care. You have some serious growing up to do buddy. You attempt to be intimidating, but you're not; you try to sound intelligent, but you don't; and you have some strange belief that "revenge" tactics are effective. I mean, seriously, is this a joke? You show almost NO regard for official Wikipedia policy (which you should really read, by the way), and your attitude pretty much stinks. So no, YOU may not care about what others think, but that's really just a reflection of the amount of respect you hold for other people. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, then abide by the rules... I should not have to tell you that. = I am fully aware that this message will be met with some kind of cruel response on my talk page (here's the link, by the way... go nuts). Okay. That's fine. Consider it ignored... in advance. Happy editing! -- 24.85.245.200 08:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC) = = I know you and 60.225.202.61 are the same... I thought I made that clear. But honestly man, I sympathize. It sucks to have your stuff edited or reverted. It happens to all of us. I do not want to be your enemy. But here's what I think: I have reviewed CambridgeBayWeather's edits to your stuff, and they DO conform to Wiki policy. CambridgeBayWeather is an administrator, meaning that he is most likely a responsible editor (if not, he would lose his status). He does not vandalize. You must maintain a neutral point of view on Wiki, and you must not swear (even if you use symbols). PERIOD. Those are official policies... that's the way it is. CambridgeBayWeather only changed those things which broke the rules. Listen... I'm going to try to be nice to you (even though you called me a dimwit ;)... which of course, I will ignore), but I want to give you some advice. If you treat other users kindly, they will treat you kindly in return. I suggest you read Wiki policy, and I gurantee you, that if you make quality edits that conform to it, then your stuff will not get re-edited or removed. Cool? Can we all be civil to each other? -- 24.85.245.200 08:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unacceptable

Ah buddy, slander is also unacceptable according to policy, so removing it is NOT considered vandalism. Looks like you still have some reading to do. -- Tyson2k 10:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC) = OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICY: " No personal attacks". READ IT BEFORE YOU TAKE AIM AT ME! ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT "Do not like CambridgeBayWeather who keeps vandalising my contributions" DOES NOT COUNT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK??? -- Tyson2k 06:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) = = If you say so Licinius. I see that nobody is going to be able to change your ways. It's out of my hands now. Please don't leave me any more messages. Would you also please remove my name from your user page? I take personal issue with it and I will that I have been wrongfully attacked and insulted. Please have your admin. friend contact me if you can't respect this so that it can be sorted out in a civil manner. -- Tyson2k 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) = If you do not intend to launch a personal attack then you should choose better vocabulary (ie/ bullcrap is probably not the best choice as it is an offensive term). On the matter of CambridgeBayWeather, none of his edits constitute vandalism according to policy (this is pretty black and white), despite the fact that you do not approve of them. Therefore, referring to him as a vandal when this is not true is considered a persoanl attack. Furthermore, it comes down to phrasing... for example, regardless of his actions, "Do not like CambridgeBayWeather who keeps vandalising my contributions" is worded like an attack. Maybe a more appropriate wording would be something like: "It is my belief that user:CambridgeBayWeather has wrongly altered my edits" would be FAR more appropriate. I mean, just use common sense. Don't piss people off on purpose right? If you have an issue, take it up with them respectfully. I don't think this is too much to ask. -- 24.85.245.200 07:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC) = Interesting. Your "bullcrap" comment may not have technically been a persoanl attack, but I think it goes against policy on civility. Here's a quote: = Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment: = = = = List of 6 items nesting level 4 • rudeness • judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap") • belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice • ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another • starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." • calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. list end nesting level 4 = = = -- 24.85.245.200 07:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) -- 24.85.245.200 07:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements

I disagree with you Licinius. I think it sounds like an attack. Whatever. I'm actually glad you have chosen to contact an administrator, as it is a far more appropriate course of action than engaging in acts of shear rudeness. How about you, your administrator friend and I discuss this issue together? -- Tyson2k 07:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) = I have removed the personal attacks. Would you please have your administrator contact me as soon as possible thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about

I have not once touched your talk page. I don't care if you want to violate policy, I really don't. If you get banned from Wikipedia, then we can all celebrate, but I'm not going to edit your user page. I really don't care. Just get a life. -- 24.85.245.200 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) = Seriously though... this is funny. Are you sure this isn't all a joke? I have never seen such an insolent personal on Wikipedia before... please tell me you are not serious... I find it impossible to believe your actions are real. Funny though. -- 24.85.245.200 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rugby league

I haven't the slightest interest in rugby league. If you want to write comments on my user page, please have the courage to do so openly. -- Jack 18:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) = I've delved into the archive and found my original statement in the deletion request and I remember now that I argued RL should be limited to one WP article, because I didn't think it generates enough interest to deserve a whole category. The WP decision was to keep the category and I accepted that decision. This was months ago and I have not looked at RL on WP since then. I suggest you forget it and make use of the WP decision to develop the category as I am trying to develop the categories I'm actively interested in. I apologise if I have given offence but I don't see anything in my statement that was actually offensive or insulting. I had an opinion and I expressed it openly and honestly. I see your new season starts soon and I hope you enjoy it. -- Jack 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the subject of rugby league has already arisen and it appears that you have been posting childish comments on someone else's page besides mine. The comments of my learned colleague above say it all for me. I can accept that RL has a certain popularity in NSW and Queensland but the figures and facts that were quoted re RL in its so-called "heartland" (i.e., the northern counties of England) are accurate and indicate that RL in England (and Europe as a whole) is an extremely minor activity even at regional level. I have nothing more to say except that I will follow the example of others and refer you to the WP administrators if I receive any more drivel such as "RL uber alles" on my pages. -- GeorgeWilliams 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello licinius. I'm a member of the WikiProject Rugby league and have had my fair share of dealings with many rugby league related articles on Wikipedia. From what I have heard you have no been presenting a positive light on rugby league as a sport and the fans that follow it. Its people like you that give our game a bad name. If you continue you to act the way you do and vandalise the hard work on anyone of Wikipedia, I'll be the one calling for you banning. Wikipedia certainly doesn't need people like yourself. So shape up or ship out! POds 06:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrators & Policy

I noticed that you have commented more than once that certain editors should read the correct policy. However, you have not stated which policy it is they should read. So here's a list of the policies that I think you might be referring to: List of 8 items • Wikipedia:Civility • Wikipedia:Harassment • Wikipedia:No personal attacks • Wikipedia:Ownership of articles • Wikipedia:Vandalism • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view • Wikipedia:No original research • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not list end

Please read these and indicate which it is you think that the editors concerned have not been following.

Also you may want to review the following: List of 1 items • Wikipedia:Three-revert rule list end

Right now a quick review of your actions shows that you (or 60.225.202.610) have managed to flout nearly all of them.

Also, at [User talk:24.85.245.200 you stated "You have left your objections to it on talk. My point is firstly I will not alter it unless directed to from the appropriate place." Do you not think that when two administrators (myself and Peruvianllama) have removed the personal attacks that you have been "directed to from the appropriate place"?

Lastly, you commented on my talk page that it would take a week for "your" administrator to contact me seems a little long. So in an effort to speed up the resolution of this I have left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This means that not only will the administrator you are referring to be able to respond immediately but the other administrators will be able to review our actions.

Thanks. 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oyster Bay Stop_hand.png/30px-Stop_hand This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oyster Bay 2

While your edits may have been good faith in the begining they are now nothing more than vandalism. If you look at the history you will see that other editors besides myself feel that your edits are incorrect. You are adding POV, original research, uncited facts, nonsense and breaking valid links. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith

Your first edits to Oyster Bay I did not see as being bad faith. It is your revison and your vandalism (as was pointed out to you by other) and your aggressive attitude to other editors that is moving me away from being able to accept you with good faith. As to the Rugby League I have no clue what you are talking about as I did not edit anything there.

The problems with your edits to Oyster Bay: List of 14 items • You have georges' river I converted to Georges River, a valid link. • You have South east which should be Southeast both of us in error as I put southeast. • Oyster Bay in third paragraph is not required, just Oyster Bay (standard). • They are referred to by the locals as the "star gazers", "star company inc.", "star f%%^&ers", "dimwitted dancers" and also "star observers". is both point of view and attack and has no references and is un-encyclopedic. • exotic insects like the mosquito and the fly. While there may be exotic insects in Oyster Bay mosquitos and flies are not as such exotic as they are found all over the world. If the type of fly or mosquito is exotic then they must have some sort of specific name. • St Jospeph(Catholic) requires a space between so it should be St Jospeph (Catholic). Standard English. • Second(protestant) same as last entry. • memorable placard is point of view. • Locals speculate that this is acost effective form of advertising as it effectively covers all time. is uncited and un-encyclopedic. • Caravan Hd is an unecessary abbreviation. Make it clear to the reader. • You have round-about but the article is roundabout which means a reader can reference what it is. Not everybody reading the article speaks Australian or British English. • built to inexplicably uncited opinion. It's inexplicable to who? Again un-encyclopedic. • Ó at the end of the paragrah is a typo that you keep putting back in. • The last paragrah is POV, attack and un-encyclopedic. list end

I find it interesting that other editors (including at least one other administrator) saw fit to revert your edits.

As to why I did not remove the other edits, they wer fine. If I had assumed bad faith then I would have done so. Also if I was not still assuming good faith I would be doing something other than replying to you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC) = Licinius, are you aware of the fact that your own personal knowledge does not count as a reference? You might know Oyster Bay better than anyone else on Earth, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't make assertions that you cannot back-up with a specific written source. Basically, Wikipedia policy states that if you cannot provide such a written source when requested, then the edit is fair game for removal. Period. -- 24.85.245.200 08:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) = One more thing: is it suppossed to be St. Joseph or Saint Jospeph? I ask because you seem hell-bent on changing it back to St. Jospeph whenever anyone attempts to correct it. Please enlighten. Thanks. -- 24.85.245.200 08:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oyster Bay, New South Wales

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC) = P.S. One such edit summary description, "fixing typos", makes it extremely difficult to believe that your edits are done in good faith. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) = Speaking of typos and such... I think you spelled you own name wrong on your user page. Just a head's up. -- 24.85.245.200 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

Although I know you disagree (your opinion, by the way, does not go far in Wikipedia), the accusatory comments on your talk page are considered personal attacks (refer to this line from policy: (Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.) You have certainly been repetitive. It is now getting to the point of harassment which could potentially become a very serious issue for you. This is particularly true as I have already stated to you that I find your actions extremely offensive. I should also tell you that I am discontinuing my role as an editor of Wikipedia, and it is my right to respectfully ask that other users such as yourself discontinue referring to me by name (see Metawiki: right to vanish). I suggest that you refrain from adding my name to your user page anymore. As you know, you have had no less than 3 administrators approach you regarding your behaviour, and so you are treading on thin ice as it is. Frankly, I have had it with your total lack of respect for this encyclopedia, its policies and for other users. -- Tyson2k 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Western Suburbs Magpies

If you look at the history you will see that your edit was first removed by Jessesaurus. I then edited your remarks to include the 5th win. You reposted the same remark 2 more times and both were reverted by Grinner. You then made a NPOV (a valid) edit and that as of this edit is still there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oyster Bay NSW

Comment copied from User talk:Gyrofrog " Perhaps you should look closer at the edits I have done. I was fixing the typos that CambrideBayWeather had pointed(The ones we were in consensus with thatwere wrong). Licinius"

In answer to your comment. Most of the edits you put back in were not consensus. You put Georges river which should be Georges River. Nor was there consensus to the un-encyclopedic remarks that you entered such as the name calling and the idea that flies and mosquito's are "exotic". I notice that here you logged out and used 60.225.202.61 to revert the article once again. I suggest that you look at the history and note that I am not the only one who thinks your edits are un-encyclopedic. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) = Licinius, please familiarize yourself with the three-revert rule (these were the 3 in question: [1], [2], [3]). And the edit with the misleading edit summary was this one, you were not merely "fixing typos." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC) = = I have reverted Oyster Bay, and left a note at the talk page. Happy to discuss more if you wish, but probably best on the suburb's talk page. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

RE:POds, you are out of line

First of all, you've showed little respect for wiki policy, people and thus already have a bad report with members and administrators. It's you that already have two "Last warnings". If it came down to you or me, I think I know who would be going.

Second of all, sorry for deleting your comments. I thought you had "disgraced" my page somehow because I didn't notice a new heading on my discussion page, which is how people usual start conversations on a discussion page. I can revert back to that page if you want me to, but I see little point.

Someone has brougth to my attention that you have been trying to make more of an effort recently. I hope this continues. POds 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) = I don't see how the immediately above comments are personnel attacks or threats. I can see how my first round of comments, under the heading Rugby league could be seen as threats, but attacks is stretching it. I'm sorry if I offended you. I guess I didn't do it in the official way. Next time, I will take the appropriate wikipedia policies into account. = Any more comments on my user page about personal attacks (because this is not one) or threats (this is also not one) will yield no response from me. If you wish to respond to this comment, I'd suggest something along the lines of, "I'm glad that's all sorted, good day". Don't you agree? I really do not wish to discuss this matter any further, I feel it has been sorted out. = I hope you continue to edit wikipedia and rugby league articles as you have been doing. Have a nice day Licinius. POds 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Negative things

Sorry Licinius. I did not mean to post negative things about you. I suggested that the user who contacted me should instead contact an administrator if he/she is having problems with you. Please note that I said very clearly that I think you are improving and that you show signs of becoming a productive user on Wikipedia. I say, good for you and keep it up. I didn't mean anything negative. I think you are definitely on the right track. Sorry. -- Arch26 10:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) = By the way, what negative things did I post anyway? I only talked about our past difficulties... and I won't lie that you have had your share of trouble. Nevertheless, I think you are now showing good effort. Keep it up man! -- Arch26 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Arch26 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)