User talk:Thesoxlost

For those who are curious, the handle predates the 2004 and 2007 World Series wins and expresses what used to be the central tenet of Red Sox fandom: we love the team, but damn it, we know they're going to f*ck it up. The Red Sox Lost... Again.

Greetings from WikiProject Statistics
Welcome to WikiProject Statistics

I noticed you recently added yourself to the list of participants, and I wanted to welcome you to the project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on statistics-related articles. You may like to add the project's userbox to your user page: User WikiProject Statistics. We also have a statistics portal that's worth a visit.

Here are some suggested activities that you may consider tackling.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page.

&mdash;G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Neuroscience
Hi, welcome to the project. If there's any way I can help you contribute, please let me know. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing others' talk page comments
Hi,

Please do not edit section headers left by other users, as you did at talk:dog. While users are encouraged to edit articles as they see fit, users are encouraged to "own" their words on talk pages, and editing them to change the tone or meaning is frowned upon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thumperward, You are mistaken about wikipedia guidelines. The wikipedia guidelines explicitly stated here (Talk_page_guidelines state the following:
 * Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who  started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.

Per this guideline, I did not change the tone or meaning of the post; If the original author, SoundBlast, took issue with the edit, which was in good faith, then he has the right to address it. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi OrangeMarlin, the changes I made were to improve an article that had dubious POV statements.  I made pro-creatonist changes, I suppose, but I am not a creationist. I have no bias.  My changes were motivated by improving the article.  Please use your warning flag more conservatively.  Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever someone says they are "not a creationist", they usually are. Your changes were POV, and will continue to be reverted by any number of editors.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin, I am a grad student in neuroscience at an ivy league university. I study vision. Please re-read WP:NPOV.  Also read about weasel words.  Saying "some creationists use term X to mean Y" without a solid reference violates the weasel word guidelines.  You are clearly involved in debates with creationists, and biased by a desire to discredit them.  Please read WP:etiquette, where it talks about keeping biases in check. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin, check the history for that page. I have not made more than 3 revisions. Please read WP:etiquette about keeping biases in check. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OM was warning you that you are editwarring, which is true, and that you have made three reversions and are close to violating 3rr. He did not tell you you were over, there's a different template for that. You are editwarring against multiple parties for no good reason instead of discussing your proposed changes on the talk page. This will get you absolutely nowhere. Please do not revert again, and start discussing your issues on the talk page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aunt Entropy: No, I am being accused of being POV, and am getting hit by a drive-by of evolutionists that are overly enthusiastic about accusing people of being biased creationists protecting their views. I have been ranted at, flamed, and now I am being warned in an attempt to bully me to leave. OM has made this clear elsewhere.  Also, have you not noticed the dialogue on the talk pages? My FIRST revision was labeled: "see talk page." A discussion was started there, and there it continues.  --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution
First, I'd like to thank you for your attempt to provide oversight in a case of administrative misbehavior. It shows good judgment, integrity, and a sense of fairness.

Second, I'd like to warn you off. Run away, run away! This is your big chance to save your own skin; all you have to do is disavow me.

I've done a good deal of research during my day of enforced silence (Wikipedia Review was especially informative) and I've learned that unfair blocks are not a one-time beating. Rather, one wound attracts the attention of other predators, so they're followed by more unfair blocks until a permanent ban is "justified". The more you complain about the unfairness, the more excuse they have to ban you for being uppity. At this point, I have the mark of doom on my forehead and it's contagious; anyone who tries to help me becomes a target. So, please, consider your own safety.

Third, any form of conflict resolution that requires me to pretend that I did something wrong and promise not to repeat the imaginary offense is a non-starter. I did the right thing and would do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing I would get an unfair block for it. I am not going to eat crow in a pathetic attempt to prevent a lifetime Wikipedia ban.

In the old days, trials involving noblemen were decided by other noblemen, so commoners never did get their fair shake. That's pretty much how things are here, except with administrators as the new landed gentry. Spotfixer (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Personal attacks
None of my edit was a personal attack, and I am rather offended that you think it is. None of my comment was ad hominem, it was directed at his edits. I would like to hear, if you feel it would be appropriate, why you feel that such a comment is a personal attack. Happy new year, by the way. :) &mdash; neuro (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied. Happy holidays! :) --Thesoxlost (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concede that my argument would probably had no effect other than to exacerbate annoyance. You're probably right. Thanks again, &mdash; neuro (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Dog
Thanks for the work you have started on this article. I've been wanting to get more work done on it for a while now, but my internet access is currently very limited. I'm hoping to get it to GA some day soon. Elucidate ( light up ) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Elucidate, I've been trying to improve the Dog article as a means of improving my understanding of dogs, wolves and their behavior. I think we've made some major improvements to the article, and addressed all of the initial concerns in the peer review by User:Dana Boomer, so I've nominated it for WP:GA status. Cross your fingers, or better yet, put in your 2 cents on the review page! --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionism and disputes there
I understand that you have disagreements with other editors on the handling of the Evolutionism article, but placing inappropriate warning templates on the pages of established users you disagree with isn't an appropriate way to handle the dispute. While it may be disconcerting to have other editor point out that they feel you are belaboring the point, it is certainly not a personal attack. Please try to resolve your issues through proper dispute resolution. Shell   babelfish 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded on your page.


 * No actually you didn't (unless that's in progress) and you've now gone and templated another editor . If you have any questions about how dispute resolution works or options you have to resolve content disagreements, please ask. You need to stop misusing Twinkle to toss inappropriate templates on other editor's pages. Shell   babelfish 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its interesting that you mention using templating as a bludgeon to drive away other editors - that's exactly what I'm asking you to stop. Given the incredibly biased note you left at another article talk about the ongoing discussion, its really not surprising that editors have asked you to be more objective in your dealings.  Your warnings to OrangeMarlin and  KillerChihuahua were highly unnecessary and the excuse that others have done so in the past isn't going to fly.  Let the discussion run its course. Shell   babelfish 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't deleted anything from my talk page - other editors have left messages after you, if you'll look back up a section or two, you'll see your earlier message there. Again, I can't think of any clearer way to put it: another editor's behavior is not an acceptable excuse for doing the same yourself. Shell   babelfish 18:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake.
 * Regarding use of templates, I've provided substantive justification for their use. I consider this matter resolved. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I've explained that your justification doesn't wash. If you continue, you will find yourself blocked for hounding other users and disrupting the consensus building process.  So long as that's clear, then yes, this is resolved. Shell   babelfish 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you have not explained yourself at all. KC was not assuming good faith.  It was reasonable for him to be reminded of that. That is what the template is for'.  If you have a justification for KCs behavior, then you have not yet stated it. Before you posted here, I had warned KC, nothing more.  You consider that hounding? Your behavior here is worse.  I have never hounded a user, nor disrupted "consensus building," whatever that may mean. Threats are totally uncalled for and achieve nothing.  Shell, calm down and look in the mirror.  Behave yourself. Be civil and focus on the content. --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution articles
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, post here. Don't template my talk page with an inappropriate message. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KC, WP:NPOV is to be used in response to edits. NPOV refers to content of articles. You should not use NPOV warnings when no edit has taken place, as you have in this case. If editors show a persistent pattern of failure to keep biases in check, you should bring WP:EQ to their attention. But, as I put on your talk page, you should first assume good faith whenever possible.  I assure you my edits were in good faith, thus the "inappropriate message" on your talk page is good advice. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to get involved where it's none of my business, but part of this is simply following directions. (that is, this is in regards to KC removing your messages from her page) There are two messaging philosophies on wikipedia. Some people like to keep discussions all in one spot, other users don't mind the discussions being split up due to message notification or a desire to not watchlist someone else's talk page or whatever. Neither one is any better than another. However, you should try to note other user's preferences and follow them if possible. For instance, at the top of KC's page, it says "If I messaged you on your page, please reply there." User talk:Kbdank71 and User talk:Karanacs are just two examples of other admins whose names begin with K that have a similar preference. I'm just writing this note to you so you understand, because it could be interpreted that you are trying to be disruptive by purposely ignoring simple requests like these, and we wouldn't want that. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the post, Andrew. Of course I wasn't being intentionally disruptive. KC hadn't opened a dialogue with the warning, so I had no reason to think she was watching my page.  But I did misunderstand her deletion of my post. I thought she was referring to the rule of being civil, and had misinterpreted my post as a personal attack.  I'm pleased to hear that there is another explanation. I'll just assume KC read the post, got the message, deleted it and moved on with life, as will I.  Thanks for clearing that up. --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to get into the habit of reading edit summaries as well. Had you done so, you would have already been informed this was why I removed your post. Cheers, KillerChihuahua?!? 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, have you read the thread that lead up to this? Your response is nonsense and unnecessarily snarky. You can rule with an iron fist over your own talk page; please be polite here. --Thesoxlost (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dog
Try:

Lee, Rawdon (1894): A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland (The Terriers) (online here),

which should source pretty everything as it was written shortly before the breed went under - though Lee did of course not know modern genetics and thus he was limited to a reasonable guess on what was wrong with the breed (going extinct after such a short existence, there appears no modern quality source on this breed, or perhaps rather: lineage). I do not do inline refs, because IMHO they create messy and hard-to-read code, which is contrary to a core principles of Wikipedia (accessibility to everyone, including users with no previous knowledge of the markup). (I use shortened notes, because it keeps the maintext code clean) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, Dysmo. I think the modern dog world's focus on dog breeds to be pretty ridiculous and on occasion offensive, so perhaps I'm biased in thinking that the purebred dog page should point out issues like this.  Its written like an editorial, and pretty out of date.  It has a hilarious statement about Boston Terriers:

"In the United States an attempt is being made, or has perhaps in a degree succeeded, to introduce a so-called new variety the Boston terrier Darned after the " hub of the universe." This animal is, from a description I have been given, and from illustrations forwarded me, nothing more than a very bad strain of the old-fashioned fighting bull terrier, and I fancy has nothing to recommend him, still it is being " boomed " in America, and at some shows special classes are provided for him."

Anyhow, as long as the harsh language is toned down, it should be a fine contribution to the article. --Thesoxlost (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

re: seed article
I think you mean Special:Whatlinkshere. :) &mdash; neuro (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :) &mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Sorraia GA review
Thanks for your note. I've read through your review, which I thought was very thorough, and taken a look at the edit history of the article. Your comment towards the bottom of the page, where you point out criterion 5 (article stability), is dead on and for me, the tipping point of the process. Your willingness to complete the review does you great credit, but my personal feeling is that I would have terminated the review when it became clear there was a content dispute on the article. The alternative is to be forced to act not only as a GA assessor, but also as a mediator and perhaps even a content arbiter, and those roles don't mix very well in my experience. Your frustration comes through a little as the dispute progresses; you may well be right that there are motivations other than simple content disagreement at work, but it's probably not helpful (although very understandable) for you to post to that effect on the review ;)

An WP:IAR solution - if you really don't want to fail the article right now on criterion 5 - might be to suspend rather than end the review. You could give the editors some time (not too long; a week perhaps?) to sort out the content dispute, and then resume where you left off if they're successful. If not, the GA assessment will unfortunately have to be failed. There are various channels they can follow, but as reviewers we must remain neutral and uninvolved - not easy, I know, especially when we're encouraged to collaborate too!

I hope this helps, and you shouldn't be too disheartened that your first review has gone off the rails through no fault of yours. If you made a mistake it was not walking away early enough (and dedication to getting an article through its GA is no bad thing). However, these things happen, and they're honestly not all like that! You've performed a high-quality, thoughtful and intelligent review, the article has been improved as a result - which is the sole purpose of what we do anyway - and I really hope you decide to stay with us. All the best, and if you need anything else, you know where my talk-page is. EyeSerene talk 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for looking this over! I will take your advice and put the article on hold. I believe that the stability problems are manufactured, but cannot be ignored. Also, thank you for the kind evaluation; Overall, I'm glad that my actions were interpreted in this way, and I'll take the points about frustrated comments to heart. --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, you're very welcome. I think a hold is a good compromise to allow the dispute to either resolve itself or burn out. As for the other, I'll say no more than that one of the editors involved appears fairly regularly at WP:ANI. This is the first time I've seen a GA derailed this way, but I think there are enough contibutors to the article to come to a consensus and enforce it if they decide to do so.
 * I forgot to add in my earlier post that I also read the article with the GA criteria in mind, and spotted a couple of minor prose issues with WP:WEASEL ("...considered undesirable", a couple of "thought to be"s) that could be worded more specifically or attributed so they don't come over as quite so vague. Everything else looked pretty good; I think you caught it all. EyeSerene talk 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. This article is certainly at risk for weasel words as critics start to water down stronger claims. In a week, I'll screen for the weasel. --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for your note on my page. I will add my commendations to EyeSerene's above on how well you are handling such an unusual dispute at a GA review, especially as it is your first review. In the probably over 100 that I have conducted, I don't think I have ever seen something like this happen. I will continue to work on the article as more views come in, and try to continue my good faith effort to involve everyone's contributions. The final decision, of course, is up to you, and I will accept your decision whichever way it goes, because I realize that you are not the one causing the problem :) I haven't had a chance to look at the review or the article in the past few hours, but will go do so now and see what has happened since the last time I was online. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sox, you are to be commended for how you are handling this to date. To add to the above comments, all I have to say is that you may want to look at this process by which Horse got to GA.  Sadly, this little incident is not unprecedented, and for the same reason.  I'd do more on this here, but my real life at present is making it hard for me to spend a lot of time on wiki.    Montanabw (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Thesoxlost. I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your efforts on the GA review of the Sorraia.  I think something is very wrong now, maybe, and that probably my source contributions and earnest desire to see the article improved has only fanned the flames of certain revealed conflicts among editors over content.  In the end, I still hope that a dang-good article will result and I'm thankful that we've all had to look deeper into things.  What a learning experience for the both of us, eh?Selona (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been following the talk page of this GA review and I wonder if this editis acceptable? It seems out of line and over the top to me. - Josette (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I liked that comment too. Una has a gift for diplomacy. I feel like I'm sinking deeper and deeper into a debate I don't belong in, but I'm stubborn and don't like to leave things half finished. I reluctantly posted my response with my reviewer hat on. --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in. I sympathize. - Josette (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang in there Sox. This is why we have IAR.  This is definitely the weirdest GA run I have ever seen.  You must be a really special person to be the one who got this dropped in your lap!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * HI Sox, sorry I got off topic, and I beg your forgiveness, but I must say that it WAS due to an attack there against me and Kim by Una. We are taking up HER time?  Lordy, she is wreaking utter havoc over about five different articles right now.   Montanabw (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note to let you know I left word about a correction that should be made in the history segment of the article. It's on the article's discussion page...don't know if editors are checking there much any more and I didn't want it to get overlooked.Selona (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thesoxlost, I just wanted to thank you again for such a great GA review. Especially with it being your first one, you handled the drama and confusion with a light but firm hand. The article appears to be fairly settled, although there are still a few points being worked out, nothing serious. I hope you have not been permanently scarred by the experience, and that you stick around as a reviewer. The process needs more cool heads like yours! Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dobermann Pinscher
Hi Thesoxlost. When you edited the intelligence section of this article, you did not fully cite three of your references - Hart and Hart, Tortoral (1980) and Howe (1976). They are currently listed refs 16 to 18 respectively and link to nothing. Could you pop back and fix this please?

Also you wanted feedback on the canine heroism part. I think this comes across as "the lady doth protest too much". You can stop at the paragraph preceeding, which ends on a very true and publically accepted note - blame the owners for choosing a "tough dog" and then neglecting it. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Elephant, I know I left those unfinished. That page is a work in progress. Over the next month or so I hope to improve it to GA standards.  Re the heroism, I found it amusing. If there is a way to make it clearly tongue in cheek and yet still encyclopedic... nah, it needs to go regardless :) --Thesoxlost (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog
Hi, Thesoxlost. Normally I'd say "yes" without hesitation, but I already have a few GA reviews on the go (but losing patience with a couple), and I really ought to finish what I'm doing on Ctenophore - that article's been hard to structure, and at present it's half-way between the previous content and what I'm producing. If no-one steps up to review Dog in a week, can you please remind me. --Philcha (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor
See my edits to that case you created. I need more info. ——  nix eagle email me 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mistakes. They should be fixed. Thanks --Thesoxlost (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thesoxlost, I'm not quite sure what you find "evasive" about "I have posted from two addresses," "I edited the article just once for this change," and "I post from only two IP addresses" (my three comments about it); but they mean that I have posted from only two addresses, and that I edited the article only once for this change. I don't know how to be any straighter to the point than that. Somebody else is apparently making all these changes you are referring to. I honestly have no idea who, or even which changes you mean.JeffJor (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop
Thesoxlost, please stop accusing me of sockpuppetry. While somebody may be doing it, it is not me. If you truly believe in "civility" and "assuming good faith," as you claim on your user page, you will see that you can't do this. I will start looking for remedies if you continue. JeffJor (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JeffJor, an IP user has been making disruptive edits to this article for some time. 5 other users have reverted his edits.  Those edits correspond precisely to the points you made on the talk page; when your points change, his edits change. Your most recent post reflects the most recent edits he has made.  Please understand what WP:civility and WP:AGF mean; in this case there need be no assumption, there is the fact of disruptive editing.  That cannot be denied.  The only thing that can be denied is that you are the disruptive editor.  You have said you are not.  I do not believe you, but honestly, I don't care; it just needs to stop.  You'll of course notice that I have never advocated banning you for any period; I have advocated protecting the page to force the user to login. That violates neither a commitment to civility nor WP:AGF.  In fact, if you are in fact innocent, then you should support that proposal in the hope that a substantive discussion of the content of the page can proceed without disruption. --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

re James Branch Cabell
I did not say any section was copied. But the sourcing could certainly be improved throughout the article. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ZOMG NPOV!!111!!one!!
haha just kidding. Stumbled across your userpage and read the disclaimer, which i think would be cool if more people had. But, I gotta point out that you refer to people who accept evoloution to be true as "evolutionist", which is a creationist perjorative way to refer to them. So...some people (NOT ME) might call you creationist for that. Just pointing it out. PerfectGentleman (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)