User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive10

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of September and October 2006.

'''Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!'''

Brilliant comment
Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It had to be said, but I wish it wasn't necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED
Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My Civility
I kindly thank you for that reminder. I think I will just let the passions cool for a while before I start to find some ways to solve this problem. Thanks indeed! Arbiteroftruth 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:SuperJumbo
I noticed you used the phrase "Continued date edit warring" in your block. I couldn't see any evidence from his contributions since his unblock that he had edit warred at all. I don't find what he was doing particularly disruptive and wondered if you might reconsider the block. Thanks for your consideration. --Guinnog 22:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt and reasonable reply. --Guinnog 22:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're probably getting sick of this but I do think that Jumbo is being treated rather unfairly.
 * However, I think the ball is in Raul's court. I'm sure Jumbo will defer to Raul's view as long as it is clear and authoritative, and pending whatever further clarification has to be reached. The way things are the moment, I don't think anyone can unblock him until he agrees to whatever Raul wants him to agree to, but please bear in mind that he's had inconsistent advice in the past, some of which must therefore be incorrect, and I think he has tried to act in good faith on what he's been told.
 * Anyway, this was really just meant to be a heads-up that I made a further comment on Jumbo's talk page and another on Raul's talk page. I think the two of them will have to sort out how Jumbo will act if unblocked, and I'm not asking you to do anything. Metamagician3000 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted to thank you for shortening the block, and for your well-reasoned message on the user's talk page. --Guinnog 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Trolling"
No, I'm not. I've expressed my opinion sarcastically. If you make false accusations against me again, I will post the no personal attacks warning on your talk page. I'm taking this BS to Arbitration. freestylefrappe 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I may have leapt without looking
On reflecting over the events of the past few days, it strikes me that I may have been inadvertently rude to you. I have referred to you in the third person as "she", confusing you with another administrator of a similar screen-name. As another editor referred to you as "he", it seems to me that I am probably wrong, and that I acted without checking my facts, something which has got me in trouble before, and is hard to set right afterwards. If I have caused any offence, please accept my apology, because I did not mean to cause any. --Jumbo 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries; you hadn't any way to know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Nottingham
Should I assume that it was simply an oversight on your part that you didn't post any messages to the obnoxious person who said I had "vandalized" an article? Should I assume that it was simply an oversight on your part that you didn't post any messages to the people who had attacked me personally on the AfD page when I had never even interacted with them previously? Instead of replying to me first, you should first issue a similar friendly suggestion to Rebecca and Sdedeo, that perhaps they should have been friendlier in their approaches towards me. I never even knew who Rebecca was until she accused me of vandalism. So, since you didn't know me and sent me a message, why don't you send her a message as well? What about Emcee and the several others who are maligning me by claiming this is about an Edit War when Bobblehead, a very active Wikipedia contributor is the one who nominated the article for AfD and on his/her own user page says he/she was planning to put the article up for AfD before I was involved? If you are concerned about the Wikipedia community, enough that you left me, a perfect stranger, a message, then why don't you insert yourself into the situation as a voice of calm and reason? That AfD page has Emcee running blasting me personally all over it, spreading false garbage that this is about an edit war. Nevertheless, you have the nerve to post me a message about being friendly.

This leaves aside the obnoxious Snottygobble, who inserted him/herself into a situation between Rebecca and me. This leaves aside the obnoxious Rebecca (yes, I consider someone obnoxious when they accuse someone of being a vandal without ever having communicated with that person in the first place; Rebecca could simply have contacted me with a friendly question or two before jumping to an obnoxious, offensive, and very publicly stated conclusion).

--Nottingham 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)--Nottingham 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Nottingham
TenOfAllTrades,

Thank you for your previous comments to Nottingham. I wanted to bring to your attention that Nottingham's comments to Snottygobble and others I still do not think are meeting community standards of politeness and respect, even if they are not as direct and extreme personal attacks as they were before his block. I am also concerned that he has apparently not acknowledged any misdoings on his own part, or shown remorse; he apparently feels that he is now being wronged by many members of the community. Many of these people appear to me to be longstanding users, admins, etc. He also continues to blank his user talk page (having done it 4 times at this point).

He appears to be leaving the Hong Tran page alone while the AfD on it is still active, but is now editing the Washington United States Senate election, 2006 page and its talk page with I think some of the same attitude -- while not overt attacks, his recent comments to me on the talk page indicate further hostility and suspicion of me that will make it difficult for us to edit cooperatively (e.g. saying that I am making false statements, asking whether I am a part of the Seattle media, and asking "are you hoping to use this article as a platform to spread this information?" -- I'm assuming he believes the information in question to be inaccurate or irrelevant)

I have highlighed Nottingham's recent block and uncivil actions on the AfD page because I think it is important for reviewers to be aware of this when evaluating the credibility of his arguments, and also that they are aware of the edit war that was gong on, rather than viewing this as a simple AfD. However, I have tried to keep these entirely factual and I do not think it is me maligning him; I have mainly been pointing people to things that Nottingham wrote, or blocks he has received for his actions, as they speak for themselves.

I have admitted on the AfD page and elsewhere that I was a party to the "edit war" on the Hong Tran article that included myself, Nottingham, and Bobblehead. My language there and on the Washington Senate talk page could have been less contentious (same for Bobblehead), although I don't believe that either of us sunk to the level of direct personal attacks, as Nottingham did. I was seeking mediation and external comment at the time that Bobblehead created the AfD (in my opinion, as an attempt to settle the ongoing edit war that Nottingham had a large part in). However, at this point, I am not optimistic about chances of success unless and until Nottingham adopts a more collaborative attitude. I hope that you can help me with this. I want to continue to be a contributor to Wikipedia, and I feel that unless this situation is controlled with some attention, I will face a significant and unneccessary burden in dealing with the edits and other actions of this user who I view to be uncooperative.

Thanks, Emcee 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Phenol red
Hello, I noticed that you uploaded a version of Image:Phenol_Red.gif. The picture does not show the correct structure of phenol red; see here. Could you upload a corrected version? Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt 20:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, I just noticed that the version you uploaded was correct; it was changed later. AxelBoldt 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops one more time; your original structure wasn't correct after all. See here for the two structures of phenol red depending on pH:. AxelBoldt 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti banned date
I presume you mean 2005 and not 2006? --Michael C. Price talk 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sahands ban
Blocked to cool down

We're quite serious here about avoiding threats – legal and otherwise – and grossly incivil behaviour.

I asked you not to gloat, taunt, or threaten, and you seemed to understand. Today, it looks like you're doing it again. All you've managed to accomplish is demonstrating to Sahands that he can get your goat, and drive you to angry ranting and threats yourself.

If you want to write articles, go do that. If you want to discuss legal issues, take it off the wiki and go through proper channels. Don't post any legal threats again on another user's page, and don't use administrative templates like (whatever I had used).

I've suspended your editing privileges for 24 hours to, frankly, keep you from digging yourself into serious trouble here. If you want to continue to interact with Sahands, do so privately. I will block you for longer if you go back to making legal threats and issuing ultimatums on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear to him that he is 1) complicating his situation, 2) has a chance to apologize and still make this go away. If you wish to side with a criminal, then so be it. That gives me a very strange picture about the ideals of at least one wikipedia administrator. Perhaps it'll be better off without my contributions, as it seems like it really is the demolition derby of information like one wise person once wrote. And it really has proven to be a sandbox where people have virtual pissing contests and admins who spend 24/7 on it like to improve their self-esteem by playing whatever games the situation suits. There was no gloating involved on my part. I just informed him of the ongoing situation as it proceeded. There were no legal threats related to wikipedia either - any legal issues will be handled offline from here. (Aside from possible authorities who might wish to collect more data on him than his IPs that I've already received, but that will not be under my control - and that is another excellent reason to let him have a chance to back down, to let him know that he can still correct things, so we don't come to that. I'm sure nobody wants that. And I don't wish that on him.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala  18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And again, this was all because I wanted to give him the chance to back down, and now YOU have taken that information and chance away from him. You've alienated one contributor, him, that's for sure, because perhaps he could have contributed again to Wikipedia in the future by using his common sense in this situation by backing down. But then again, I'm sure he'll create a new sock puppet or personality in the future if he needs the feel to continue on contributing after this incident. That has been made more than easy.

For some reason, his contributions before this incident seemed to be quite sensible, with just a few mild insults in his history, so it's very strange that he went totally nuts about a non-issue like this and behaved the way he did. At first I thought his account might have been cracked or compromised because his style and behaviour changed so eratically, but since he started e-mail bombing me with subscriptions to spam-lists from the same IP that the threats were made from (and where he contributed from earlier), there is no question that it is the same person. So, again, for me, still, an apology from him would do, even though he has already cost me several thousands of dollars in billable hours. (Hours I could have used to work for my clients instead of wasting time pointing out his threats, tracking him down and writing complaints to Universities and ISPs, which I had no choice but to do in a serious situation like this.) I wanted to make sure that he has a chance to know that, since I do not have his e-mail address yet. If I had a direct private contact channel to him, I would of course use that instead of informing him on the only place he surely reads - his user page. His university is still working on tracking him down and since the incident was during the weekend, they couldn't do much yet, that's probably one of the reasons I don't have a private contact with him yet.

Anyway, now I'm waiting for his University and ISP to take the appropriate actions. If they do not, the upstream provider of his University, Cogent, will, as I happen to know them from my work very well and have many long-term professional relationships with people who run that particular IP/Internet backbone provider, and they will certainly not accept this kind of criminal behavior to go uninvestigated on their customer networks and their contracts clearly obligate the customer (in this case, the University) to track down and shut down users who use their network to commit online criminal activity (so far three seperate criminal actions, threat of bodily harm, death threats to me and my family and e-mail spamming/harrasment.) I do not wish to spend any more time on this sandbox pissing contest, but he needs to understand, as do you, that even if it's the Internet or Wikipedia (as if there were a difference, there isn't in the real world, there's just an added layer of obfuscation here, like on any web site) - regardless one is still responsible for one's actions.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala &lt;jkorkala@gmail.com&gt; 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I didn't reply on your talk page because it didn't appear that a reply from me would have been productive. I have distinct difficulty reading your comments to me or to Sahands as those of a person who is genuinely interested in " [giving] him the chance to back down".  Rather, you decided to report him to as many ISPs and institutions as you could, and threatened to report him to the police unless he complied with the terms (a grovelling public apology) of your ultimatum.
 * If you don't want to spend any more time on a 'sandbox pissing contest' – one that you started, by making multiple reports to the administrator's noticeboard and the Checkuser request page – then I strongly urge you to zip up and climb out of the sand. If you want to request a review of my actions, you know where to find WP:AN/I.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You do seem to have difficulty reading comments, we agree on that. But life's too short to waste it on you and this, your attitude and support of criminal action online is obvious. Is Sahands your sock puppet? That would explain a lot. And by the way, you started pissing around (the contest) by abusing your priviledges to feel a little better about yourself. I understand your life must be hard when you have to spend every hour of your unemployment online nerding around in nerd-o-pedia, but it's no excuse. I wish you well and hope that the social security at least picks up the bills for the DSL line.

If you did not understand that the offer to back down included me pulling the reports from the ISPs and the University, you need help.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala &lt;jkorkala@gmail.com&gt; 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And of course now you can again make yourself feel better by banning me for let's say 1 week or 1 month, or whatever?

Watch me not care.


 * I am glad to see that the matter has been resolved to your satisfaction. If you require further administrative actions carried out in the future, please feel free to seek the assistance of another admin.  Do try to bear in mind, in future, that this policy is one of the most important in any community, on- or off-line.


 * Please don't leave any more messages on this page unless you are prepared to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If you have anything else to say about my use of administrative tools on Wikipedia, employ the formal dispute resolution mechanisms (see WP:RFC and WP:RFArb, or even WP:AN/I) available to you; paranoid ranting about me being a sockpuppet is not welcome here.  Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A.
I do nto see why you blocked A.J.A., he was removing content added by single purpose accounts which served to promote an unaccredited college. Neither of the two users he reverted has any edits outsid eof this subject, and both are identifiably associated with the college (one as principal and one as trustee and now indef-blocked.  I don't see A.J.A. doing anything wrong here, please point out the problem for me.  Thanks, Guy 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While both User:Gary Lorentzen and User:Enewberg are associated with the college, that does not – in and of itself – bar them from contributing to the article. I note that neither one of them has tried to hide their association with Kepler; indeed, both have expressly identified themselves as officials of the College.


 * As far as I can tell, Enewberg has never been blocked from editing . Lorentzen has been blocked, but not for spamming or edit warring; rather he made an ill-considered remark that was (reasonably) interpreted as a possible legal threat.


 * While some of Enewberg and Lorentzen's contributions to the Kepler College article were inappropriate for Wikipedia due to length, format, or tone, they weren't spam, nor vandalism, nor whitewashing. A.J.A.'s response to their edits has been to uniformly revert without comment, and with rude and misleading edit summaries ('rv', 'rvv', 'rvv', 'rvv', rvv') that suggest that he is simply reverting vandalism to the article.


 * A.J.A. was asked twice by me to avoid implying that the edits were vandalism, and to consider incorporating some of the useful factual material into the article rather than flatly reverting.  (See, for example, this removal, which included information about the College's founders and various dates in its history.)


 * I will note that prior to the involvement of Newberg or Lorenzen our article about the College focused solely on criticism: its lack of accreditation, and two quotes from officials at other colleges heaping on sarcasm and derision. For the record, I happen to agree with the critics that an unaccredited, online school of astrology is a pretty stupid (dare I say laughable?) idea&mdash;but I can also see how including a response (of moderate size) from school officials or other individuals might be appropriate in our article.  I can certainly understand why school officials would be concerned that they weren't allowed any comment at all, and that they were bitten so thoroughly by A.J.A.'s hostility.


 * Summing up, then, A.J.A. was blocked for using deceptive edit summaries, falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, biting newbies, and a general lack of civility in his discourse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Instant Karma
Precisely. --Jimbo Wales 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Structures
Hello. I noticed you draw formulas. I am a chemist/biochemist by training and I would like to contribute as well. Do we have a repository of structures so that people if they find a mistake they can just edit the file then convert it to png or even better svg? I use ChemDraw is there a GPL format that we can use? Is there a wikiproject? I have many articles in mind that need improvement. Thanks. --Kupirijo 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But is there a wikiproject we can put all this structures in a non-commercial format? What is the file format you save them in? --Kupirijo 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Drawing
What tools do you use to make all these drawings that are on WP? Thanks, --Venkatesh 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mattisse
Yeah, I saw your message and I was responding but got edit conflicted. I guess the whole situation was a misunderstanding. I did not know when exactly to put a sockpuppeteer tag on a user page, and I frankly didn't think it was that big of a deal before you brought it up. If you believe that my actions were unjust, then by all means go ahead and remove the tag. I received an email from Metros232 regarding another possible sockpuppet of Mattisse name Xampt. I really couldn't verify this, so if you want to look into the matter, be my guest. Nish kid 64  00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying in AfDs
Nice work, Smeelgova. Getting the attention of one editor here and there, is a nice thing, but lobbying in these cases is a frowned upon practice. I would suggest (really) not to engage in these practices. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "frowned upon practice"? And just what specifically does that mean?  And what specifically do you mean again when you say "I would suggest (really)" ?  Is this again just a suggestion or some sort of commandment or threat?  I do not understand this type of lingo.  Smeelgova 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC).


 * A suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Suggestion.  "Suggestion" rejected.  :)  Smeelgova 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Jossi was being rather too gentle for your own good; when he says 'frowned upon', he means 'people might get irked enough to block you, particularly if it turns out that you start recruiting editors to a contentious dispute'. Just don't go messaging lots of people about an AfD again, 'mkay?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the Wikipedia Policy which states all of what you just said above. Smeelgova 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Reverting my talk page
Understandable mistake but it wasn't quite spamming in this case - he'd already asked me to look into the alleged NPOV pushing. Cheers, Yomangani talk 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can answer this question
I can't seem to find out if there is anything I can do about the old Sockpuppet template being put on article talk pages such as Talk:Maratha clan system where it was added after my entries at least twice and remains to this day. It's not relevant to the page. Is there a way I can get it removed? To refresh your memory, this was the reason for me wanting to remove the thing from my user page. See link below: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Any suggestions of places to go for help would greatly be appreciated. I have tried all sources I know. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the templates. They aren't meant to be used on article talk pages in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! That has been periodically bothering for quite a while. Mattisse(talk) 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a word from you . ..
This constant harrassment isn't letting up. Should I complain somewhere? It now takes up a good part of my day. Today's reverting and removal of a few unsourced tags prompted me to as this question: Old stuff: Newer stuff:
 * ] where I was told removing tags can be consider vandalizm. I followed the advice and left polite notes, and it just got worse with more people involved.
 * Sock puppet/Mattisse(2nd)
 * Sock puppett/Mattisse(3rd}
 * Recent Incident on removing Sock puppet tag
 * User:BostonMA
 * ]User:Hanuman_Das
 * User:Ekajati


 * User:Aguerriero
 * User:Tvccs

These are just the few I have seen. User:Netsnipe at one point left notes around telling them to use Checkuser. As did User talk:JzG I have now found out. Both are Admins. Nothing works. Mattisse(talk) 21:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus this just now on User talk:Aguerriero's page:

Do be aware that this is not the first time Mattisse has gone on a tagging spree. The first time she tagged every article listed in Starwood Festival. She then created multiple sockpuppets to continue tagging the same set of articles. Several of us suspect that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet being used by Mattisse to do such tagging now. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that whole list of restrictions, etc. on checkuser is completely intimidating. I would prefer if this came to the attention of an admin who could file the checkuser. I noticed that Hanuman Das tried to open a sockpuppetry case on it Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) but got shot down, even though there are two similar earlier complaints that got confirmed: Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse & Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd). Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a Sockpuppet check which was closed as not similar enough to demonstrate a sockpuppet relationship. --Salix alba (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, AFAIK, a checkuser has never been done. After reading all the restrictions on the use of checkuser, I prefer for an admin to file the request. The users in question seem to think that my pointing out the similarity of pattern between the two users modus operandi plus the overlap in the articles targeted is harrassment. Can an admin please follow up on doing a checkuser and/or looking into this further? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Attention everyone on this thread
I'm not the place to handle sockpuppet or checkuser requests!

Please file a an appropriate request. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with this dispute, and there are no doubt better qualified individuals who are more familiar with the situation. Regards, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

yo
look, that article was unsourced was it not? Perfect T 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here I thought we were striving for a higher standard. What makes someone walking on the street very knowledgable? In my experience your average "man on the street" has been a total and utter fool. Is that where we are as an encyclopedia? Eschewing citations in favour of asking the street lumpen? Perfect T 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you simply verify it by "walking down the street," you are indeed guilty of violating the "No Original Research" policy. So I'm going to reinstate my contributions now.Perfect T 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

pardon plz
And while we are at it why do you change my edits on the South Beach article? Can't you tell its better in its totality. Such things are art my friend, they can't pleaxe everyonePerfect T 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)!!!!


 * See this :) Raul654 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RFCU on Mattisse
Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse. Thought you might want to take a look. Metros232's suspicions were indeed correct, and Xampt was used as a sockpuppet by Mattisse just six days prior to the whole tag-removing incident. Do whatever you want here, but I just wanted to let you know first. Nish kid 64  22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp TC 09:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello
"please discuss major policy changes and rewrites on the talk page first"
 * Have not made "major policy changes." Please see my user talk page or explain your reasoning at my talk page. Thank you.

Please also go to the Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules where I have started a topic for people who ave problems with the improvements.