User talk:Ollieplatt/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have to ask you to stop engaging in personal attacks - it's not allowed here. See No personal attacks and Civility. Please discuss your changes rather than calling people names. Rhobite 06:43, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are vandalizing articles. Please stop. Last chance. Rhobite 06:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please take the next 24 hours to peruse and digest Vandalism and Neutral point of view. Rhobite 07:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're unblocked. Please remember to be civil and do not vandalize articles in your future edits. Rhobite 06:45, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite RFC
I just looked at the RFC and this is the entire certification section:

start Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~ )

Rhobite deems things he doesn't like to be "misinformation", and uses that as an excuse to block in a way not envisaged by the rules. This is a blatant abuse of his powers.Ollieplatt 08:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) end

Users may have signed in other sections, but only the above section counts towards the two user threshold. Carrp 23:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you disagree, but unfortunately it's not really a matter of interpretation. For an RFC to be certified it necessary for two users to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. Users can endorse your statement or Rhobite's or an outside view, but they won't count towards the two user threshold. Unless another user signs that specific section, the RFC will remain uncertified. Carrp 00:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following is from the example RFC: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it..."

The RFC template has a section clearly marked "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". You are the only user to have signed this certification section. If you believe a user signed the wrong section and intended to certify, please ask them to sign the correct section. As for my interference, I believe it's best for an outside party such as myself to make a determination of whether an RFC is certified or not. Carrp 00:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User Comments
You recently posted a message on User talk:216.76.240.40 saying, "Rhobite should stop being the enforcer of rules he clearly doesn't know." Did you even look at the edits in question? In four of his five edits, he unquestionably vandalized the pages of Abraham Lincoln and John Kerry,. Please don't spam users just because of your current conflict with Rhobite. I realize that Rhobite is currently the subject of an RfC, but in the meanwhile, this particular user is still an admin and can use the powers associated with being an admin as needed. Thank you very much. Aoi 03:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please could you stop making accusations against Rhobite on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson page, which is for discussion regarding the RfC about Iasson. I am not aware that Rhobite has had any involvement in that dispute, beyond a singular comment on the talk page. As of 00:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) he has not certified or endorsed any summary on the RfC page. Thryduulf 00:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jeeves-n-wooster.jpg
Hi, thanks for pointing out that I'd forgotten to give the source. Please see my comments at WP:IFD, and as a courtesy please leave a message on my talk page if you list one of my images for deletion. Also, discussion shouldn't really go on an image description page at all. I don't want to move your comments around too much, but you might want to relocate them to Image talk:Jeeves-n-wooster.jpg. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 01:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair warning
Please don't throw around accusations of "vandalism" so lightly. You're having a content dispute; this is not vandalism. You've already been asked to be civil; please reconsider this request. You should also be aware of our Three revert rule: If you revert the same article more than three times in a 24 hour period, you can be temporarily blocked from editing. Fair warning. -- Hadal 07:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have just requested arbitration to deal with your behavior, as a sockpuppet of Libertas (along with Salazar). You are free to respond at Requests for arbitration. RadicalSubversiv E 09:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edits to arbitration pages
You don't remove arbitrator's votes from the pages, ever. Do it again and you'll be blocked. - David Gerard 10:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollie, I suggest using a sandbox to complete your arbitration request, so it can be made more-or-less in one edit. This would eliminate the problems you seem to be having with (accidental) premature votes. Khanartist 11:04, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Their bias shines through. Ollieplatt 11:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've moved your comment from Requests for arbitration to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence. Please also see that page for a reply. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dean Scream
You've reverted this article four times in 24 hours. If it were not for the fact that there is no warning on this page, I would have blocked you. Don't do it again. RickK 06:37, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

My user page
See Protected_pages. Why do you care? How can it possibly make any difference to you, unless you plan on vandalizing my User page? You can discuss anything you need to discuss on my Talk page. That's what it's for. Editing other people's User pages is, indeed, vandalism. RickK 07:52, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle
I agree that it is not productive to use "known troll" as an edit summary -- having viewed the diffs, I'd say I agree with some of Dave's changes and disagree with others, but it's not a case where you are clearly vandalizing articles (unless I'm looking at the wrong diffs), so I don't think he should be doing what he is. File an RFC to see if this user has been doing this to others, or look at his contributions and contact other users he may have reverted. I'll leave him a note asking him not to use that kind of edit summary, and to generally exercise care and common sense in reverting. Jwrosenzweig 00:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy
Do not remove information from articles without explaining why, and do not give misleading edit summaries. Doing so again will get you blocked. --fvw *  06:10, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * And having been warned, you never the less falsely used the section label "Views on abortion" and "this repeats what is in the first paragraph" in an edit summary. RadicalSubversiv E 06:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Ollie, you don't seem to understand what NPOV is, and when you cut the Kerry and re-election parts from the article and stuffed them in the lead paragraph you not only unbalanced the article but changed tenses and moods in the middle of a sentence. How about running your ideas past the discussion page next time so if you do change something we'll only have to fix your English? Blair P. Houghton 06:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand what NPOV is. I write good. Anything else? Ollieplatt 06:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you do understand what NPOV is, then your edits are purely trolling; so you should admit to either trolling or failing to understand NPOV. There is no third choice.  That's not a false dichotomy, it's a fact deduced from your behavior.  Oh, and you write very poorly, but if you bring facts instead of your own mocking POV, others will fix your writing.  If you continue to troll, you know exactly what you'll end up with.  Blair P. Houghton 06:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WHy did you delete the Melissa Joan Hart Archive link?
Why did you delete the Melissa Joan Hart Archive link at http://www.obkb.com/ ? It is a good external link.

Mesa, Arizona
Just curious, I'm somewhat familiar with Mesa and Phoenix in general, but don't know what the picture (Image:Mesa-thumb-lg-3.jpg) you added to the Mesa article is of. Could you add some descriptive text to the thumbnail? Also, leading pictures are typically very important culturally (mountain ranges, cityscapes, aerial photos, prominent buildings, etc), so if the image is of something important (and I'm in no position to judge since I don't even know what it is) it's fine. Else, you might want to consider moving it down the page and adding a cityscape or aerial map, etc. --ABQCat 08:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes I'll add the caption, it's the temple. Any thoughts about a better pic for Mesa? Ollieplatt 08:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Tell you what - caption the pic and make a note on Talk:Mesa, Arizona that a headliner picture for Mesa, Arizona would be nice. Someone can probably come up with something.  In the meantime, I'll take a look around too.  Nice find on the temple pic - it definitely belongs in the article somewhere.  --ABQCat 08:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

e-mail
You've sent me an e-mail asking me to unblock you, but I don't remember blocking you, and there's nothing in the log, unless you also go with the IP 64.170.195.250, right? GeneralPatton 10:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Miss Kitty Fantastico
Actually, I've been thinking about that article. In truth, I still don't see a problem with adding "profane" words to articles if they are related to the topics in question. However, if you find it offensive then I'll respect your views and won't revert the article back again. However, please take a look at the profanity category on Wikipedia, just in case you weren't aware of it. In addition, if you search with Google with a profane word as a search term, you'd be surprised how many articles pop up. Thanks. Aoi 11:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits
For future reference, you might want to look at Wikipedia's policy on minor edits. Aoi 11:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Stop referring to edits you disagree with as vandalism. RickK 00:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

You troll, you vandalize, you edit war, expect to get blocked. I don't see anybody has agreed that the blocking wasn't justified. And expect to hear from me when you need to. RickK 00:35, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Unless you are an administrator, it is not appropriate for you to threaten people with blocking. It looks like a minor content dispute, so there's no reason for it to get so heated. Gamaliel 01:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Reading
Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision &mdash; Davenbelle 01:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
You've been blocked for a violation of the three revert rule at Democratic Underground. The five edits in question (these can be verified using the "compare selected revisions" button in the page history) are, , , , and , made between 09:52, 21 Jan 2005 and 01:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC). Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I certainly am, but keep in mind that I'm a rookie mediator. Andre ( talk ) 02:59, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction
Pending a final decision on the case aganst Libertas, you and numerous alleged sockpuppet accounts are prohibited from editing any pages except for those that relate to the case, your user pages, and your user talk page. If this is violated, any or all of the accounts in question may be blocked for up to 24 hours at the discretion of the administrators. Please see the injunction for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:15, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Blocked
Ollieplatt has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3 RR rule on Democratic Underground in just over an hour. Note that three different Users have felt the need to revert his massive deletions. Note also that two separate sysops have blocked him for this violation. RickK 20:41, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

And when you do come back, Ollieplatt, stop threatening people with being blocked. You have no authority to do so, and it's highly unlikely people will be blocked for fixing your vandalism. RickK 20:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching and reverting youself at WP:AN, but this is your requisite fair warning: refrain from editing pages unrelated to your arbcom case. Cheers. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind - I see fvw has already blocked you. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)