User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive15

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of March 2009 to October 2009.

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

Cardiology task force
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC) T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The question you removed
It seems to me that she wrote "can anyone put in simple terms what osseous stucurs and soft tissue uptake, and osteo blasic lesions mean", she was asking for clarification, not advice. I fear that the medical advice discussion in talk may be causing us to see medical advice requests where none may be. – ClockworkSoul 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posting your opinions in talk page section titles
You must be well aware of the guideline this violates, yet you intentionally continue to violate it. Why ? StuRat (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope you guys don't mind the intrusion. Stu, I'd like to know why you think it's so important that this guideline be maintained on the reference desk talk page. How will it improve the refdesk? I've left a message before on your talk page regarding this and I still don't know how the reference desk is harmed when the thread discussing a medremoval has a title saying that the question seeks "medical advice". Your continued editting and debating regarding this inconsequential matter is far more disruptive and gets close to a violation of WP:POINT. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you find editors, like Ten, intentionally choosing biased titles to be "disruptive and close to a violation of WP:POINT" ? It's very much the same reason we don't say things like "the murderer is going on trial today".  There should be no presumption of guilt.  Wouldn't you consider it disruptive if we posted titles like "Improper removal by Ten of non-medical advice Q" ?  StuRat (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find editors who fiddle with, whine about, lecture over, and argue incessantly on minor semantics in section headers to be "disruptive and close to a violation of WP:POINT", really. Scoot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not find it disruptive. When someone posts a new section on a talk page, the title is part of their post, and it is entirely reasonable that their post express their opinions. You've even been known to do this yourself on occasion, as here for example. Do you think that the refdesk talkpage operates by different rules on this? Algebraist 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you find that "Article improvements needed" header to be my opinion only, please feel free to change it. I have no objection, and the policy clearly states that you can change it in such cases. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * StuRat's continued insistence on owning section headers strikes me as petulant. I've asked him to stop that before, with no useful results.  Friday (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't own it. Anyone who wants to change a heading to be neutral can do so.  Or, even better, the authors of the titles can actually attempt to make them neutral to begin with, rather than intentionally pushing their own opinions. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ten, you haven't answered me. Why do you insist on putting your own opinion is talk page section titles ? StuRat (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * StuRat, you're wasting my time, your time, and the time of all the nice people up above who have told you to stop beating the dead horse. Any further posts on this topic I will judge to be deliberate harrassment.
 * If you're interested in formal dispute resolution, I hereby declare that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. If you think that further discussion this issue is a worthwhile use of anyone's time, then take it to AN/I &mdash; but for your own benefit I strongly urge you to read our article on de minimis non curat lex first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Need your help with dispute resolution/RfC
I see in the past you were involved in a dispute resolution/RfC with User:Duke53 here Requests_for_comment/Duke53 I have tried to interact with the editor to work towards resolution, but this is clearly at an impasse. I would appreciate your help here Requests_for_comment/Duke53_2. Thanks Hoopsphanatic (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice and First aid
Hello

First off, thank you for your thoughtful message; I appreciate the time taken, and the gesture. I guess the sticking point for me is that when I started on the RDs, the prohibition was on regulated advice of any kind, be it legal, medical, or animal-related (veterinarial?) and that's always been my rule of thumb. First aid, by its very nature, is not regulated advice; it's designed to be taught by and used by ordinary laypeople. When we switched the header information at the top of the desks a few months ago, that phrasing changed as part of an attempt to make the header a bit more inviting, but the old rule of thumb has stuck with me because it seems pointless to worry about advice that's not regulated in any way in the real world. For example, we do not hesitate to give advice pertaining to replacing computer hardware or high-pressure lighting fixtures (despite the possibility of shock), or on social/dating advice (despite the various ugly possibilities, however unlikely) and I've never had a problem with any of them because none of that knowledge is regulated. FWIW, I find this situation doubly-puzzling because I tend to favour a liberal interpretation of the removal procedure, though I don't bother to raise the subject much because it's all been hashed over so many times before. Anyway, thanks again for your input; I'll abide by whatever we end up deciding, though if history tells me anything, it's that nothing will actually get decided. :-/ Matt Deres (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Loomis
Hello Ten. I received a short, and very to the point, email from requesting his talk page be unprotected (for reasons unspecified). Since you protected his page, I figured I would refer it to you. Rockpock e  t  00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, mine was equally abrupt. I'll leave it to your judgment. Rockpock  e  t  05:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Magic Template up for Deletion
Hi Ten, as you were one of the principles behind the discussion leading to the creation of the Magic Template, I wanted to let you know that it is currently up for deletion.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Loomis51
Hello TenOfAllTrades. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein   09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Want to leave
I want to leave wikipedia, but every time I try people leave messages on my talk page and stuff, like I'm on a piece of string for this site. I'm sick of feeling like a f=====g fish. What can I do?Carrolljon (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You win
I can no longer cope with your, and you cronies', deliberate and persistent harassment of editors who disagree with your highly idiosyncratic interpretation of guidelines, and with your ownership of the RefDesks. I have therefore removed the desks from my watchlist, and shall not be contributing to them for until I feel better able to cope. I shall not be watchlisting this page, as your insolent and abusive responses to other editors who question your disruptive behaviour are too upsetting to me. I do not expect, nor do I want, any reply. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical questions on the refdesk
Hello Kainaw, TenOfAllTrades and Scray,

Please take a look at this thread, along with my response on SteveBaker's talk page, and my response and Tango's answer on Tango's talk page. I'm asking the three of you directly instead of raising the issue directly on the refdesk's talk page, because I feel the discussions there on such matters lately have been rather predictable and unproductive. Your opinions would be greatly valued. If two of the three of you feel that the OP is asking for medical advice, I'll remove it myself, with a note on the refdesk talk page. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, --NorwegianBluetalk 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was naïve of me not to move this to the talk page in the first place, the meta-discussion started building up on the refdesk itself. I've moved the meta-discussion now. Your opinion will be greatly appreciated on the refdesk talk page, instead of on mine as I initially suggested. Thanks. --NorwegianBluetalk 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect. You currently have NoMultiLicense on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Village pump (policy) if you have any comments.

Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Annoying behavior by desk puppets
See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. I am asking for your advice, as you spent (or wasted?) I don't know how many hours and cups of coffee collecting and categorizing puppets of another refdesk friend. Is it worth the effort? If so, I don't care mind doing this, but it will take some time. On the one hand I prefer ignoring, on the other hand I'm tired of seeing excellent contributors fall for his faux-naiveté, sophistry, and general mean-spiritedness. Thoughts? (Either here or at WT:RD, whichever you find more appropriate). ---Sluzzelin talk  00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my actions. I will apologise to Arthur Rubin and say yes he was right to call my contribution that Inflation is always bad for the economy nonsense.
Here are the facts of this silly matter:

1. I changed the Inflation article to read that inflation IS and not only CAN BE bad for the economy. Arthur Rubin reverted that and stated it is NONSENSE. 2. I left this message on his talk page: '''Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as not to use insulting language like nonsense as you recently did on the Inflation article.'''

3. He responded that the truth is sometimes insulting. 4. I deleted my first comment on his talk page and left a second that I will call him Mr Nonsense from now on.

I was being polite to Arthur Rubin. He carried on insulting me. I do not see you reprimanding him. Then I tried to put an end to the event with a joke. You do not accept that. Now show us that you are fair: Go and threaten Arthur Rubin with a banning order for stating that my contribution is NONSENSE. Or is fairness not a Wikipedia value. Or can I now freely tell contributors here on Wikipedia their contributions are NONSENSE when I do not agree with them?

You are right in your defense of Arthur Rubin: It is better for me to be insulted here on Wikipedia than to try and stop the effects of an insult by means of a joke. You are 100% right: I should just have taken the insult quietly. I apologise for my actions. I will apologise to Arthur Rubin and say yes he was right to call my contribution that Inflation is always bad for the economy NONSENSE.PennySeven (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seigenthaler controversy/your essay
I made this change as there's suggestion I'm aware of that the editor was a friend of Seigenthaler. You may have been confused by the fact that 1) The editor did it as a prank on a friend of his (I'm not sure if the details were ever revealed) 2) A friend of Seigenthaler discovered the vandalism and made Seigenthaler aware of it. Read the article for further details. Normally I wouldn't edit an essay in userspace without permission but I felt this serious enough to correct on the spot per WP:BLP (yes I appreciate the irony in this case but I'm serious here and not trying to be ironic or joking) Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your email response to me regarding William M. Connolley
TOAT, I sent you an email in an attempt to suggest that you mediate a dispute with William M. Connolley, in the hope that, as someone I expected would be sympathetic to him, you might be able to approach him to help resolve the dispute. Your response was less than satisfactory, and accused me of trying to "manipulate Wikipedia processes." I am copying my mail to you here; you requested that further communications with you be on your Talk page; I request permission to reply to your mail here, which would necessitate quoting it. Thanks. My mail to you follows. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#GoRight.27s_Follow-up_Questions. I'm looking for someone whom WMC might trust who would, upon becoming informed more fully about the situation, intercede to prevent him from being take to ArbComm over this. The situation is quite as clear to me as was the situation in January with JzG, but there is a difference now: ArbComm advised me to proceed more quickly up the ladder of DR.

I follow DR using minimal disruption, and this is why I acted to close the AN/I discussion over the alleged vote alterations, instead of turning it into a complaint about WMC. That discussion wasn't relevant to this ban. And I'm not planning on taking this to a noticeboard, because it will generate much heat and little light. There is now a basis for an RfC, but there are factions aligned, and RfC is unlikely to resolve the issue, so this might be a straight-to-ArbComm case. I don't think I'll lose, ToAT, but you are certainly free to disagree. Many expected me to be banned as a result of RfAr/Abd and Jzg, but I was more commended than even troutslapped, as I read it. Maybe I'm biased.

There is some background you might not be aware of. I don't want to distract you from your work, so I'm not sending it to you now, but I could. I'm trying to confine discussion to a few people who might be able to resolve this, most of it is off-wiki. A few words from the right editor to WMC might resolve this whole thing with no more fuss. WMC's action had the appearance of improving things, but, if you were to look at the full evidence, I think you would conclude otherwise. If you think you might be able to help, let me know.

I tried to do this with JzG, though possibly less effectively. He didn't get desysopped, but that's because he played his last get-out-of-jail-free card, and was put on a short leash, as one admin said to me, and he's completely stopped editing, unfortunately. I have no personal opinion as to whether or not WMC's admin bit is a net asset or net liability to the project, I've seen evidence for both, though, and, fortunately, the decision will not be up to me. But the hazard to his bit could be quickly averted, and if the feared disruption appears at Talk Cold fusion, and I were the cause of it, any admin could restore the ban or block me if necessary. Thanks for considering the situation.

One more note: I'm not suggesting that any admin attempt to reverse WMC's ban, that would be wheel-warring. There is process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban, with a proper close, but my judgment is that outcome would be quirky and the process would cause more disruption than it's worth. Wikipedia will not fall because I can't edit Cold fusion or Talk cold fusion for a while. The best way for this matter to be resolved with minimal fuss is for WMC to recuse, which, with an unlogged ban, as it stands, effectively undoes it until it's confirmed by another admin. That's my interpretation, anyway. To guarantee minimal fuss, he should lift the ban without prejudice. He can look generous, if he likes. "Okay, I've decided that there is no more need for this ban, and if Abd behaves himself in the future, I won't reinstate it." Thus postponing any need for escalation. I don't escalate moot points. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your repetitive approach to dispute resolution - "Let me do what I want or I'll have your admin bit" - is tiresome.

Further, your persistent misinterpretation of the JzG & Abd Arbitration is going to lead you very far astray if you continue to rely upon it. JzG did not escape by the skin of his teeth as you seem to believe, and there was no substantive support from the Arbitrators for your demand to desysop. (To wit, the only Arb who commented on your Workshop suggestion - Newyorkbrad - stated quite clearly that your proposal was "Excessive and unwarranted".)

Your threats to WMC on his talk page, and now these sorts of backdoor attempts at manipulation, demonstrate a continued, persistent failure to see the effects that your own actions have on the way that administrators (and other editors) interact with you.

The evidence at Talk:Cold fusion speaks for itself. The editors there are talking to each other, rather than past each other. Comments aren't getting lost in massive walls of circularly-reasoned text. The article is unprotected.

If you want the ban lifted, try proving in mediation that you're capable of being an effective collaborator, per my suggestion.

Please don't email me again. If you wish to manipulate Wikipedia processes, do so on the record, on my talk page.

TenOfAllTrades


 * Frankly, no. I do not give you permission to use my talk page as yet another forum for your interminable wikilawyering, soapboxing, and rambling.  In your confrontation with JzG, you wasted six months of dozens of editors' time, including members of ArbCom who have better things to do.  In the remedies in that case, the ArbCom did not overturn any of JzG's actions, and they did not choose to desysop JzG: Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG.  Further, they didn't come close to it.  The lone Arbitrator who commented on your overblown and ridiculous proposal that he be desysopped (Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop) noted that it was "Excessive and unwarranted".  For some reason, you've chosen to repeatedly refer to this case as evidence that JzG escaped desysopping by the skin of his teeth.
 * Worse still, you've attempted to use this misinterpreted case as a blunt (and broken) tool to try to badger WMC into lifting your well-deserved ban from Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. You've alternately attempted to bully and cajole other editors on and off wiki into getting WMC to overturn his call here, because apparently "the process that could be used to establish -- or reject -- the ban...would cause more disruption than it's worth."  I'm sorry, but I can't help but read that as, "because it won't give you the outcome that you want".  You're threatening to skip straight to Arbitration - based on a non-precedent - because you don't trust any of the proper community venues not to tell you to quit the lawyerly walls of text.  Your oh-so-generous offers to WMC to let him keep his bit if he lets you resume your WP:OWNership of Talk:Cold fusion demonstrates a painful lack of self-awareness.
 * This is now the third time I've given you the same advice &mdash; put down the rulebook, and demonstrate through successful mediation (mediation which you had already agreed would be worthwhile!) that you can work effectively with other editors. With that evidence in hand, there's little doubt in my mind that WMC would be willing to lift your ban.
 * Stop wasting my time now, please. You are not welcome to use my talk page as yet another forum to repeat your threats and distortions.  If you have any issues about my conduct, please proceed to the next step at WP:DR; don't raise this topic again here.  You're not resolving a dispute by continuing to contact me; you're simply playing to the crowd.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. But you suggested I contact you here, and you made serious charges in your response to me. I've notified User:William M. Connolley that I no longer consent to the ban and consider it void. Do with that what you like, but please stay within guidelines and policy. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ramu50 Again/ANI Post
Since you are one of two blocking admins on the Ramu50 account, I bring an ANI post about Ramu50 to your attention. You can see it here. Thanks... NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism blocks
I find your comment at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism quite profoundly worrying. Are you seriously suggesting that editors should be blocked for violation of what is only a guideline, and a hotly disputed guideline at that? Please reply either here or at the talk page, otherwise I will be forced to take the entire discussion to WP:MFD. Best wishes. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded at the talk page. Afterwards, I did a bit of poking around; I hadn't realized you had such a strong opinion on plagiarism.
 * "Wikipedia is not a class assignment, "plagiarism" which does not violate copyright is a meaningless concept...more resources wasted which could have been used to improve the encyclopedia."
 * We're obviously gazing across a broad ethical divide, here. If you've been unconvinced so far that plagiarism (even in the absence of copyvio) is harmful to the project, I shan't browbeat you; you've heard it all already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the divide is ethical, more practical. Hundreds of convicted criminals edit Wikipedia every day, I am not obliged to share their ethics to respect them as editors. A small group of editors has shouted loudly that Wikipedia should have the same ethics as a class assignment, that is to test the individual author. I reject this completely. Wikipedia is not a test for the author of an article, it is a collaborative mechanism to diffuse knowledge. The proposed guideline would have no practical effect, but would approach article writing more to the "class assignment" model: "you can't write this if it's been written somewhere before". As the guideline is useless, and would pull Wikipedia away from it's central principles, I must oppose it, and strongly. Physchim62 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't care about their personal ethics, as long as editors follow Wikipedia policies. If they tried to operate an ongoing criminal enterprise using Wikipedia, I imagine that they'd be blocked pretty quickly.
 * It's unfortunate indeed if you only had teachers who believed citing sources was an exercise in "test[ing] the individual author". In academia especially (though also in other areas to a lesser extent: politics, economics, corporate management, etc.) ideas are the coin of the realm.  One doesn't have to pay cash on the barrelhead for powerful words and concepts, for elegant turns of phrase.  The payment, instead, is attribution.  It's not a legal contract, it's a social one.
 * On a personal level, how would you feel if a coworker (or supervisor) took credit for your work without acknowledging your contribution? Plagiarism on Wikipedia is the identical problem, writ large.  If we choose to ignore plagiarism as a victimless (non-)crime, then we also choose to forever reject the participation of the subject matter experts, the old hands, the academics who could so greatly enrich this project.  We can choose to appear as lazy teenagers copying assignments from the Internet, or we can treat with thinkers, writers, researchers, scientists, leaders, and historians as equals.  The author who is cited in Wikipedia is predisposed to think well of us, and to endorse us to colleagues.  The writer whose work is plagiarized in Wikipedia writes us off as sloppy at best, thieves at worst.
 * The fact that WP:Plagiarism does (in part) overlap with so many other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:COPY, WP:V, WP:CITE, etc.) should suggest to you not that this guideline is superfluous or redundant, but that it touches very close to the core of this project's standards and collective values. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * TenOfAllTrades, I think you may be misunderstanding Physchim62's argument. I don't believe anyone here is saying that sources should not be cited, that content should not be attributed. I am certainly not saying that – I believe there should be at least one cited source at the end of each sentence in every WP article's body text. What I am less sure about is the notion that no sentence in the Wikipedia article must have a substantial similarity to the source wording. That everything needs to be reformulated to look completely different from the source wording, even if the amount of similarity fall short of raising any copyright concern. I believe this is what the debate is about. Or as Physchim62 wrote above, "you can't write this if it's been written somewhere before".  JN 466  17:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
You are mentioned in a Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that, your double ## led me to believe it was. –xenotalk 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I've responded at ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

By your request
Prohibition. Enjoy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost posted that in the thread. How do we know the stress of editing didn't drive him to drink.  Damned funny! :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! Okay, I asked for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Advise me medically please :)
Hi ToaT, I'm pretty sure there's no dispute here and the IP editor and I are cool with things, but I'd still appreciate your scrutiny and comment on my actions and justifications thereto. Basically, I removed comments from an article talk page here, which discussed poking a red-hot safety pin into your fingernail. I'm pretty sure this ia a time-honoured folk remedy, nevertheless, I removed it, from an article talk page no less. My reasoning is pretty much all laid out in this discussion on my talk page.

I'm pretty sure I violated multiple policies when I removed the thread, but I did it anyway. Your critique on this will be helpful. We have some well-established (and much argued) criteria on the RefDesks about medical advice, how far do they extend into the article and article-talk space? Thanks for any guidance you can supply! Franamax (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Shustov
I saw that you had previous dealings with the user and was going to ask for your advice on dealing with them. I didn't realise the fitness article was part of his conditions – the talk page is one of the longest I have seen in some time! This is the reason I was holding back on blocking, but I didn't think you were around. Thanks for taking decisive action. Phew! :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up: Thanks! – B.hotep •talk• 05:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Linksearch
Hi Ten,

Did you ever get a response to your question in January about limiting Special:Linksearch to the main namespace? I've been looking at links to Twitter: altogether, about 3,500 exist, but a large number of them are in userspace or talk pages. (They're not appropriate for ==External links== per ELNO #11.) It would be nice to focus on just those that are likely to be a problem, instead of the whole mass. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time or the energy..
Hi TenOfAllTrades, I've been having a conversation with Abd on my talk page that you are aware of. May I ask you to return and read what else has been added to give me a more rounded information? I am playing catchup with a lot of this and I've been reading so much the past few days that my eyes are ready to pop out of my head. ;) I just want a balanced idea of what is going on for this arbcom case and from what I could tell, you and Abd are on totally opposite sides of this that getting info from you too would indeed give me more balance.  I have been reading the case pages of course but I've also been reading contribution pages (boy is that fun, not!).  With all the research I am doing I think I am to the point of understanding everything and did a bit of an outline of what I think I've been told and some of what I've read.  I don't want to put down in writing everything I feel right yet because I am still not comfortable to make that final push, to make a decision about the two editors, WMC or Abd.  I have to admit that this is very time consuming and I haven't been able to do much of anything else the past few days so I'm about to give it up and go with what I feel in my gut on this.  Now I understand why people do not like to do these things, these cases are exhausting to everyone even those who aren't named in the case. Well if you can or feel like it I would love to hear what you think about the last group of comments but if you don't have time or the inclination to respond I understand totally. Thought I would just ask incase you do have the time. If not interested don't worry, just ignore or say so. My feelings don't get hurt that easy and like I said, I would totally understand. Thanks and I hope all is well, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistake
Quick FYI: You seem to have accidentally created a blank "statement" section at Requests for comment/ArbCom secret ballot.  hmwith τ   01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Action when a RFC has not worked for a user
At the Village pump (policy) you wrote: "If there is a persistent user conduct issue which has been resolved through polite requests on the user's talk page". Did you mean to write: "which has not been resolved"? --Lambiam 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly AfD
Bravo for the bravery in closing the AfD, as it was a doozy... however I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. We're working on a proposal in the thread you started on the talk page that may address many of the "Criticism of..." delete !votes in the AfD. Nothing personal, but I expect this will end up at WP:DRV if the AfD is used as justification to cull or whitewash the content. However, I think you made the right choice in leaving the discussion thread open for a few weeks and I'm hopeful that the community can collaborate to present a more acceptable solution. Again, thanks for taking a swing at this one (even if we don't agree)! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update
Just passing along a note that the editors have moved the "Criticism article..." to a new "Public image" article--the text remains identical. As the closing admin of the AfD, I wanted to inquire into whether you would be interested in giving this move your "blessing". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I have proposed FOFs and remedies: link
Since the /Workshop is both long and busy, I fear no one who's not watchlisted my talk page will know; hence the link. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some excellent proposals there. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note to Hersfold
You might want to reconsider your request to Hersfold. The arbs are smart enough to see GR's clumsy attempt at ingratiation for what it is. See the quote by Napoleon on my user page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

*Cough*
Did you intend to do this ? Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope; I fat-fingered the rollback button on my watchlist. (I immediately rolled back my rollback – before you posted your message here – but I appreciate the heads-up.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rollback is dangerous. There's no "confirm" window. I should take away your rollback rights. Wait, can I do that? Am I involved? Do I have to recuse if you ask me to? I'm so confused. MastCell Talk 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither
I neither dislike the direction the conversation is taking nor think it was in bad humor to post such a question. Your assumption that I was being uncivil is uncivil...no hard feelings though, and you should have any, as I'm also joking here. All the best, and you have some nice posts -- see you around :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the Misc Ref Desk to editorialize (WP:RD/MISC#?) when you dislike the direction that a Desk management discussion is taking.
 * How is that assuming my good faith? I do not like sour grapes any more than the next guy, and therefor don't and didn't offer them.  It as a joke...no more and no less than the guy responding to the chameleon question by asking why the questioner thought chameleons eat people's hands off.  It is not a waste of time -- no one had to respond.  In fact, people responding buttresses my attempt at humor.  People here want to contribute, but also have fun.  You're over-reacting...and that is the best assumption of assumption of good faith that I can make at this time.  Please have a great weekend and I look forward to seeing you around the reference desks.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Hypocrisy
In my talk page request for unblocking dated (UTC) 23:53, 11 August 2009 and addressed to TenOfAllTrades, I wrote: “While you’ve been hunting spooks of a self-promotion in my articles, on 05:06, 24 July 2009, an evidently promotional link was inserted in the Earthquake engineering, the main article of the cluster, and kept successfully living there until now. At the same time, vandalism by User:Gruznov inflicted a noticeable damage to another article, Earthquake engineering structures, while I was unable to fix it.”

Where you’ve been since that? Haven’t you seen those indisputable violations? Why you, TenOfAllTrades, have not made fixing the articles right away while keeping thinking whether to unblock me or not?

Strictly speaking, I supposed you either did not care of Earthquake engineering or/and just provoked me. Therefore, I decided to help you and undid the bad edits mentioned above.

To my surprise, you dashed out in a matter of minutes and without any hesitation restored the bold commercial in the Earthquake engineering and destroyed three unique images from the Earthquake engineering structures which had nothing to do with my own research. Due to foregoing, I request the following:

1.	Please, back up with you last edit.

2.	If you really found any spooks of my alleged self-promotion, explain what bothered you there. I may help!

3.	Anyway, will you stop your hostile blockade and give me a break, please? Let's act intelligently. 69.227.176.187 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly page
Just FYI, the "merge" decision appears to have been overturned, for the most part by apathy. It appears that there's enough support to retain/rename, which I'm fine with as long as it's not just the same POV-pushing under a different title. SDY (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, it appears that some folks are resisting implementing the AfD decision. Have you had some conversation with them outside of the project pages?  SDY (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi. Re WP:ANI would you please clarify what exactly it is I've done to merit inclusion in your list of editors introduced with "Based on their mutual sniping, insults, accusations of bad faith, and incivility in the thread above, I'm inclined to block all of the participants in the discussion above, for at least 24 hours. As an independent admin with no knowledge of any of the parties, I would welcome some sort of clear, concise, polite presentation of why that wouldn't be an optimal solution for Wikipedia. During their break, perhaps they could go read Unclean hands. Right now, I'm utterly unimpressed by the postings here by..."? In particular I'd be interested in whether you made any attempt at all to look at the background, or are responding purely to the ANI thread. Are you even aware that I'm an admin attempting to mediate the topic Domer edits? Thanks. Rd232 talk 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, I see your edit summary was "Either present your complaint clearly and civilly, or take your bickering somewhere else". I thought I had presented it clearly and civilly. What was unclear? What was uncivil? Rd232 talk 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for your reply. I gave reviewing admins just one link to look at that summarises the issues, plus a second link to the old WP:AN thread which has the same themes with diffs. Are you seriously telling me you couldn't take a couple of minutes to skim those before commenting? Incidentally if you had bothered to skim the AN thread, you'd have seen why I responded as I did to CoM.

Now if you would take a moment to look at the substantive issues, would you care to comment on those? Rd232 talk 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also just look at the history of Domer's talk page: - my posts and his responses. Rd232 talk 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And don't try threatening me either, please. I often get more done here in a single hour than you do in a day. Half  Shadow  19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop shifting and ignoring the actual issue at hand: Friday. Not me. We are discussing Friday's contributions, not mine, so kindly stop discussing me at every opportunity. If you have an issue, take it to my talk page and we'll see how things go from there. You haven't actually responded to the issue at hand at all, only made snipes at me. This is most unfair. I am simply the messenger here. There are many who are fed up with Friday. I might not deliver the message in a kind way, but I am also fed up with him, especially as I know the message will be totally ignored.

Please, try to concentrate on what we're actually discussing instead of trying to turn everything round to make it all my fault.  Majorly  talk  20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Checkuser needed
Sorry, the pixie dust seems to be short on the magic today. Nothing's coming up, although something does smell rather socky about all that. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD/Talk
Given how many IPs regularly edit the Reference Desk, isn't protection of its Talk page for four days a little much? It strikes me as a "one day at a time" sort of situation. A look at the history does not make clear to me why it was protected, nor is there any discussion on the page about why it was protected... could you please make that clear, if not un-protect it? Ref Desk talk isn't exactly high-traffic or high-exposure... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

{{User_talk:Debresser|Notability||

Refdesk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20091002004141&limit=4&user=J.delanoy

J.delanoy gabs adds 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

LC
I'm pretty sure this is LC Special:Contributions/79.75.59.155  (basically all the contribs is similar nonsense). Not really sure how you usually handle him/her. I've removed all the nonsense except for one with replies where I warned the editors Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh nevermind, already blocked by J.delanoy Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious behaviour
Hi there! You've just blocked this user. Well, after I deleted this user's comment as vandalism and posted a warning on his talk page another IP user that has been editing similar articles has popped up and has started to antagonise. His comments seem to be border-line bad faith. Take a look at this section of my talk page. It seems quite suspicious. Maybe they're just Wikipedia buddies, or maybe the first user has access to two machines.   Dr Dec  (Talk)    16:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Awww :(
I felt so good that for once I made a contribution to the Science Reference Desk :P ! I'm disappointed it had to be reverted.... :(
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In your attempts to revert the IP on my talk, you reverted SineBot, not the IP :P . . . . Now it just looks like I'm maniacally answering you! Haha, I can't stand it when I roll back something and it hits another wrong revision :) !
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Will be careful from now onwards
Yes, you are right. I did copy and paste a lot of text which i now realize was not the best of contributions to wikipedia. I will take care not to do so in future. Thanks for a timely reminder. I will make sure to rewrite myself when starting new topics/editing older onesAKY 11:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amityadavigib (talk • contribs)

Thimerosal
I believe the generic name should be referenced in the article, but the tradename which is commonly used in all lay literature on the topic, should be used for reference purposes. Thus, I stand by my change to "thimerosal."ChriSchmidt (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) indicates that the International Nonproprietary Name is preferred. Also, please put comments like this at Talk:Thiomersal rather than the talkpage of an individual user. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll echo and endorse what 2/0 said, and concur that if this requires further discussion it should be moved to the article's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

actually..
This one was for 2 articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Already done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, my cache was slow :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll look like a crank if ....
You'll look like a crank if you omit the colon when creating User:TenOfAllTrades/You'll look like a crank if... &mdash; RHaworth 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned user
This edit in which you speculated that a particular banned user has something "wrong with his brain" and you hope he "gets the help he needs" seems to be a personal attack. I see nothing in WP:NPA that says such statements are permissible toward banned contributors, however annoying it may be to have to remove their edits. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you do not find my comments "helpful or reasonable." I call your attention to the statement in WP:NPA, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Saying someone has something wrong with his brain, or "there's something not quite right in his head"  is a personal attack, whether on a banned user or any other user. Please discuss the problematic behavior and refrain from such labelling or the making any lay diagnosis of mental illness. It is our work to keep the encyclopedia in a good state, not to make lay diagnoses of mental illness or to advise treatment for the same. Edison (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Light Current was banned because he did not observe policies and guidelines. All should observe policies and guidelines. No one is above the law. Enough said. Edison (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See email. Edison (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note
I spent about two hours improving the Budwig article today and my edits were reverted in the space of three minutes (including deleting the references in PubMed and then inserting an {{unreferenced tag). Seems like pretty destructive behaviour to me. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Action on Brews ohare Talk page
Thank you for your remarks to the editors Dicklyon, Michael C Price, and Snottywong. I see that DVdm has been involved as well. These activities are not of recent origin, but have prevailed for months wherever these editors show up. This type of activity is not directed only upon myself, though most noticeable in my case. As you may imagine, indulgence in such behavior is a frame of mind, and is not specific. Brews ohare (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)