User talk:Tmobii

Graph database
Be aware that you just cannot continue to edit war at Graph database to insert content into the article where you do not have a consensus to do so. You should also always log in and not edit using IP addresses such as 72.2.235.253, 5.150.130.141, 172.56.6.25, 172.56.7.186, etc, especially when editing in a contentious manner. You appear to have abandoned the discussions at the article Talk page. There are also policies such as WP:3RR that make it clear that this sort of slow-burn edit war will not be tolerated. I have posted other warnings at various Talk pages along these exact same lines. You can take it that this is the third and final warning you will receive. Patience isn't unlimited. -- HighKing ++ 22:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I travel a lot, for instance I'm in Moscow right now and was just in Italy yesterday and the USA tomorrow. I am sorry if my frequent traveling offends you, but it is something I cannot stop, and your threats come off as condescending and discriminatory. Wikipedia is open to all people, not just people who live in one place. If you look at the consensus count it is not in your favor. Wikipedia is also community run, so patience and open discussion is an important principle and something you should not give up hope on. With public debate we can find the best solution for all and it is a noble pursuit, so keep it up!
 * You could still log in and sign your posts? -- HighKing ++ 15:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I try when I can. Your response here again seems like a non-sequitur, I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy of replying to my points not just whining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 03:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Link here -- HighKing ++ 15:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! The discussion you commented on was closed as resolved.  Please do not comment on closed discussions. If the issue comes up again or needs further follow up, feel free to make a new section or request unclosure with the original closer. -- Dane 2007  talk  02:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me, I hope I replied with my appeal in time - I was busy traveling from Russia to the USA and haven't had much time or internet. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 03:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have removed the closure. -- Dane 2007  talk  03:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why from November 8th to November 11th (today) an appeal can go from open to closed in just 3 days without hearing my case and given the situation I travel a lot? It would be really appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not see your response - you are fast! Thank you so much for hearing me out on this. Very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify as well, most things on that noticeboard archive after 3 days of inactivity. In the case of this dispute, I closed it as an administrator had taken action based on a review of the report and wikipedia policy.  They do not require or necessarily wait for input regarding it before taking action if they feel theres a policy supporting resolution. -- Dane 2007  talk  03:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful explanation, thank you for taking the time to help clarify things for me and being patient and courteous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Always glad to help. Also, just as a quick tip, when you reply on talk pages or the administrators noticeboard, type ~ after your reply to sign it (it keeps the bots from coming back to sign for you). -- Dane 2007  talk  03:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Testing: Tmobii (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of GunDB for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GunDB is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GunDB until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- HighKing ++ 14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this notification. I have added a comment in the delete discuss page requesting that you (as you agree here) back up your claim of insignificance. I provided evidence from UCLA, Forbes, WSJ, AllThingsD, HackerNews, angel.co, GitHub and others as evidence. So please at least do the courtesy of addressing why each source individually fails, your burden is just as heavy as my burden and I have actually already provided evidence and arguments. Thanks for your consideration, keep it up, and cheers! Tmobii (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually no - the burden falls on you to meet the criteria for notability as per WP:GNG. This has been pointed out to you on several occassions. The criteria is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My advice is for you to read the policy and especially read the bits that discuss Self-promotion.
 * On a final note, you continue to make false allegations that I have tried to get you banned. Nowhere did I threaten to get you banned - please go back and read carefully what was pointed out. It is common courtesy to warn editors about WP:3RR and to point out the consequences, especially to new editors, and besides, your behaviour was not reported and I did not look to get you blocked (btw, a ban is different). I requested admin intervention to prevent non-verified editors from editing the article because you were IP Hopping and not continuing the discussion. Afterwards I requested that the article is locked down because you continues to insert your version of the article while a discussion was ongoing. I did not request a block although I believe at that point your behaviour could have been reported as disruptive editing.
 * Despite the mental image you probably have created of me and other editors, we don't have anything against you or your product. Believe it or not, we're trying to help you and I'm well aware that the written word can appear overly combatitive and aggressive. -- HighKing ++ 14:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations, established news sources are legitimate. WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD undisputedly match that requirement. Therefore burden upheld. Lets continue the discussion in their appropriate places.
 * As I stated elsewhere, quotes like "this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat" come off as very threatening especially when you take admin action - you knew I was traveling so your IP complaints are irrelevant and that it would take time to reply and you exploited that fact acting like I had abandoned discussion and then you yourself then (you wound up not doing this, which I am thankful for) "best way forward is for me to disengage from responding to you ". Do you understand how that can be damaging to someone? I have admitted several areas that I was wrong that EdJohnston has corrected me on, but you keep enforcing double standards on my contributions. Have I not been calm, organized in my responses, and trying to promote clarity and reason? Tmobii (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't mind continuing a discussion here if it helps you learn and avoid the pitfalls of Wikipedia (of which there are many) but if you find this discussion unhelpful, just say so and I'll leave you alone.
 * When I said that "this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block", I specifically ended that with "Not a threat". A *lot* of editors don't realise how seriously WP:3RR is enforced, and especially newer editors. Check out the page and see the amount of people who are caught by surprise when their behaviour is reported. If you interpreted my statement as a threat, then you made a mistake and even now, I cannot understand how I could have been clearer. It is normal (nah .. encouraged!) to warn editors of a possible 3RR infringement in advance so ... I actually did you a favour.
 * And no, I did not know you were travelling at that time and it was only when I read back over some of your contributions that I saw your comment. This is another aspect of your responses that you need to be more careful about. You are lumping all editors together and treating what one said as the opinion of all those you see are "opposing" you. This is a battlefield mentality and is not conducive to collegial editing. You have attributed comments to me that I never made and never endorsed. Nor does this make my "IP complaints" irrelevant.
 * You also need to take care about "ad hominen" comment. You have been guilty of this nearly every time you post and you will simply rub people up the wrong way and find it difficult to get support. If I look through your contributions this is a common theme throughout. Now .. you might feel that people have been doing the same with you but this is actually not the case. Compare how you have phrased things with how others have. Most experienced editors are very careful with their phrasing to avoid falling foul of making personal attacks. For example, in your very first post using Tmobii, you go to an admins Talk page and make the following statements:
 * Many of the members (like Michaelmalak for example) are employees of proprietary databases (like Oracle) or have associations with colleagues at other vendors or strong biases. Some of them are actively trying to prevent specifically Open Source (MIT, Apache) database solutions from being listed.
 * Other members (like High King) keep reverting changes and have only given "my way or the high way" reasons on the talk page. In particular they reject community peer review as a notable source but won't explain why other than "must be sponsored by trade journals" (which naturally favor corporate proprietary databases compared to Open Source ones). Meanwhile I have engaged in the talk page with many reasoned arguments, yet they keep on reverting first.
 * Finally, they recently started using intimidating, false, and threatening language like "we will ban you" and "you are advertising spamming" rather than justifying their view and proving their points. All of this indicates an abuse of power and a disregard for community discussion and negativity towards diversity (open source compared to proprietary) and very discriminatory.
 * So, you publically assuse an Oracle employee (who you don't know and who has never published any comments here that are "against" open source) of actively trying to prevent specifically Open Source database solutions from being listed? You have no basis for this comment and it is wrong of you to even suggest it unless you can back it up with a diff!
 * You say that I have only given "my way or the high way" reasons on the Talk page. Really? If you can't be honest in your comments you lose credibility very quickly - especially those who are actually trying to point you to the relevant policies and guidelines. Did you read half of what I pointed you to? Because if you did, you'd know that "user or community generated content" is covered in the policies and guidelines and this coveres the content on GitHub. You need to understand that sometimes people are putting forward an "opinion" (but based on policy or guidelines) and point you to the relevant place and this lends strength to the opinion expressed. You, on the other hand, just reject what has been said and use ad hominen arguments, but what you don't do is point to a relevant policy or guideline that backs up your opinion. This, I believe, is the main reason for your frustration.
 * Your last point falsely accuses me and others of using "intimidating, false and threatening language". I'll be blunt - but that's a straight lie. That entire last bulleted comment from you is baseless and untrue. I predict (based on my personal experience) that this will rebound on you if you continue with this line of personal comments.
 * I could disect every one of your comments in a similar fashion but I would only be repeating myself. You might not believe that I (and the other editors) are trying to help. You might object to some of what I've said above. My advice is to dial it down, go back over what has been said to you and read it in the spirit is was written in rather than trying to winkle out an unintended meaning or personal insult. Read the policies. Read the guidelines. If you're pointed at a policy or guideline (and I've linked some above), follow through and read it. If you need help, ask. Remember that Wikipedia is "unstable" and things take a while to settle down but they eventually do. Always phrase your opinions and arguments in terms of policy and guidelines. Don't make personal attacks. Be nice. -- HighKing ++ 14:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't find it ironic that an anonymous IP started the revert war and you continued it? WP:3RR applies to you as much as anybody else.
 * I stated I was traveling, I'm glad you saw that when you read back over my comments. Reading what I say before replying or jumping to conclusions helps discussions be conducive.
 * Being an employee of Oracle is quite a career achievement! I am not sure why that would be an ad hominen, but WP:COI is a fact, not an insult.
 * You may not see it, but you have been WP:HOUNDING, WP:BADGER, WP:BITE, WP:HUSH of me - but I could care less (I don't expect internet commenters to be nice), and am slightly amused at how much time you are spending following me around, deleting and reverting everything I do, and your failed attempts at reporting me to admins. I know you don't see it that way, and I encourage you to push harder for your views - that is what public discussion is about, and I'm flattered you are engaging with me so much. So thank you, keep it up!
 * Policy is applied with reasoning, not just who can quote the most WP acronyms (which I'll be humorous here: BTW, WP:POLICY). Frankly, I am quite good with reasoning which is often to a detriment, because humans seem swayed more by politics/emotion rather than reasoning. But oh well, I'll still fight for what I believe is correct, right, and true - just like you should too!
 * I would love it for you to dissect more of my comments! This would certainly help our discussions. I am having a hard time phrasing my next sentence, so warning: But I think your advice is great - I know that won't change your opinion, which is why I strongly encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe (I wish everybody took the time, emphasis, and passion that you do). Cheers! Tmobii (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of GunDB
I wanted to let you know that whatever review I made of the aforementioned article was to ensure that the page was not some kind of vandalism or non-constructive editing practices. It had nothing to do with reviewing whether the article meets notability guidelines that exist to determine if an article belongs on Wikipedia.

I see that there is discussion about whether the article belongs on Wikipedia. I cannot comment on that as I do not have enough experience on the subject matter. Regardless of the outcome I hope you can continue to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and help ensure it is the premier source of information. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 18:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No1lakersfan, thanks! Yes, I assumed you weren't necessarily opinionated about the subject and you are correct that I was thinking "review" included checking citations. So thank you for clarifying that the review is only checking non-vandalism and non-constructiveness. Thanks for pointing this out! Have a great one. Tmobii (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)