User talk:TenOfAllTrades

Talk Archive:

Your comments

Your comments, were, respectively, bad misinterpretation, wrong, and false -- especially the last. Musical Linguist's prior reputation doesn't excuse her ridiculous, bad-faith, wildly out-of-proportion, and occasionally outright false attacks on me. It's "incivil" to defend myself? It's "incivil" to answer her baseless charges and her attempt to deflect attention from and excuse Gordon's continued and continual bad behavior? Her bad-faith mindreading of my motivations and her paperback psychology analysis of my state of mind is somehow excusable -- why? She -- falsely -- calls me a liar and that's a-okay? She insults me, but hey, so what? Is any gainsaying of what she says automatically "incivil" and blockworthy or am I required to mumble "yes, your grace" and tug my forelock every time she speaks? --Calton | Talk 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FISHING

Nice. :) Mango juice^talk 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about Calton and Gordon

Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thanks for your note. I confess to being somewhat puzzled by your request to describe actions (with context) but not ascribe motives, or to "make comments that can be interpreted as mindreading". I presume you are referring to this post, which is the only one I made, though I also posted on the ArbCom page, at the Community noticeboard, and at Gordon's page — all about the same matter. I described what happened — that Calton abused him, sneered at him, reverted him with popups (which should be kept for vandalism reverts, called him Gordy boy, accused him falsely of lying. I made absolutely no implication about Calton's motives. Nor would I wish to do so. I don't know why he treats Gordon that way. I simply know that he does, and I find it very objectionable. Calton has said, in the post above this one, that my charges are "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", and "occasionally outright false". Let's have a look at some of these charges, one by one, and see if any of them can justly be called "ridiculous", "bad-faith", "wildly out-of-proportion", or "outright false".

I said that Calton called him Gordy boy.[1]
I said that Calton falsely accused him of "sneaking in" something, and of lying. [2] [3] [4] (They're diffs to show that he made the accusation. I'll provide diffs to show it was false below.)
I said that Calton put "revert not-very-bright troll" in an edit summary.[5]
I said that Calton reverted Gordon with popups.[6] [7]
I said that Calton abused and belittled him, and shouted at him )(with capitals).[8] [9] [10]
I said that Calton posted a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon.[11]
I say now that Calton gloated when Gordon was blocked.[12] [13]

Okay, I think I've shown that Calton did call him Gordy-boy, did call him a "not-very-bright troll", did shout at him, abuse him, and belittle him, and did accuse Gordon of trying to sneak in a link and of lying. What I have not shown is that his accusation of Gordon trying to sneak in a link and of lying was false. So, let's have a look.

Let's imagine that User:A wants the Pope Benedict article to have a link arguing that the pope was a Nazi, and User:B wants the article not to have such a link. If the link is not in the article, and someone makes several changes, one of which is to remove the link, and User:A reverts all of those changes, right back to your last version, explaining in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, in that case, User:A's edit will involve restoring the link. His edit will show in the diff as being identical to yours. It will not be an attempt to sneak in the link, but one of the results of the edit will be that the link is there again.

However, if the link is not in the article, and another user makes several changes, and User:A opens your last version from the history, opens the edit box, inserts the link, writes in the edit summary that he is reverting to your last version, and presses save, the diff will show that his version is identical to yours, except that it has the link in it. In that case, it will be an attempt to "sneak it in", and it will be a lie to deny it. Is that what happened here?

The link was added to the article on 3 January, by Zenger, not by Gordon.[14] It is not a link to Gordon's site, but is to a site that he approves of. (Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[15])

On 28 January, User:71.141.252.50 made a lot of edits, including one which inserted a link to the North Country Gazette.[16] (Keep in mind that it's not Gordon's site, though it's one he likes, and that Calton doesn't. I have to agree with Calton on that.) On 29 January, Superm401 reverted to last version by Nut-meg.[17] Then Gordon reverted , saying that he was reverting to the last version from 71.141.252.50.[18] If Calton is correct in saying that Gordon was "sneaking in" the link (his "umpteenth attempt" to sneak it it),[19] then the diff will show that Gordon's version is idential to the anons except that it has the link in it. So, here is the diff. You can see for yourself. Gordon said he was reverting to the 71.141.252.50 version. And he was. The versions are identical.

Now, Calton says in his post above that I have called him a liar. I have never called him that. Nor have I even accused him of lying. I have said, and I say again, that he made a false accusation against Gordon. I do not speculate as to his motives. He accused Gordon of attempting to sneak in the link, and of dishonesty, and told him not to lie.[20] [21] [22] If you look at those diffs, I'm sure you'll agree that he did say all those things to Gordon. I hope that if you look at my arguments above, you will agree that reverting to another user's version, which happens to have a link you approve of, while stating in the edit summary that you are reverting to that version is not sneaking or dishonest, and that in that case, Calton's accusations against Gordon were false. (Of course, it's more than possible that Gordon was quite happy to be restoring to a version that had that link, but that does not justify the accusations that Calton made.)

If you can show me that Gordon did lie, and that Calton was justified in accusing him of "dishonesty" or "sneaking", or that any of the things I said that Calton did to Gordon (reverting him with popups, calling him Gordy boy, calling him a not-very-bright troll, shouting at him), he did not, in fact, do, then of course, I'll withdraw it. I repeat that I am not aware of having stated any opinion as to his motives, and I do not intend to do so. If you think I have done so, then please feel free to show me where.

As I sincerely believe that Gordon's behaviour is in part due to his being upset by Calton's behaviour towards him, and as I believe that Calton made false accusations, and as I believe that a judgment from the community which does not take these things into account would be unjust, I think it would be irresponsible for me to refrain from stating these matters clearly, on the grounds that Calton would be "very upset". I don't know if he's upset or not. It's obvious he's angry, but he has a record of being angry when people question his right to abuse problem editors. I can supply further details, if you wish. I do not believe that anything I said was unfair, and I don't believe that I have been aggressive about it. Certainly, I feel very calm :-), even though Calton has accused me on your page of "bad-faith" "attacks",[23] and has questioned my motives for trying to partially defend Gordon.[24] I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have worded my post more carefully. But I cannot accept that it would be right not to point out how badly Calton has behaved in this matter, just because it might upset him. One might just as easily say that Gordon's behaviour should not be discussed because it might upset him. Both editors have behaved badly, and it would be utterly inappropriate for the community discuss Gordon without mentioning the abuse that he has received. I believe that I am one of at least five administrators who have criticized Calton's behaviour to Gordon. For the record, the other four are yourself, Proto, Marskell, and Sarah Ewart. Anyway, although I disagree with you, I appreciate that you're trying to calm things down, and also to be fair to Gordon. Cheers. Musical L inguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, you may be thinking "Oh no, I post a brief paragraph to Ann, and I get back a dissertation! This reminds me of Gordon!" Don't think of all this as a response to you. I think that sooner or later, this matter will have to be investigated more fully, and therefore, I've spent some time sourcing my statements and finding links, etc. So I'm sorry to inflict it all on you! The noticeboard has been archived. And I won't be around much in the next few days. I just want it all down somewhere, for the record. Musical L inguist 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

I find it quite interesting that a 'luke warm' supporter of essjay and a 'diehard' supporter of essjay felt the need to counsel me on civility; unless I tell lie here, make false accustions against someone or flat out deceive all Wikipedia members there is absolutely no way that I could approach essjay's level of not being cicvil. Let's not lose sight of that little fact.Duke53 | ^Talk 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!
:) pschemp (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My remark
This remark is skating very close to the edge of what counts as civil behaviour.
You're being utterly ludicrous: that's not even close to skating any edge of incivility, nor is it "gloating". If you don't understand what's being said or its context, don't project your prejudices onto my notification. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor aside
A close colleague of mine was just diagnosed with breast cancer; I just found out today. I didn't have the presence of mind to ask about staging or or other information at the time, but since she is scheduled for chemo, surgery, and radiotherapy in the next little while, I'm assuming it's not just one of the lightweight variants (DCIS et al.) but since treatment is indicated, I also assume that it's not an inoperable stage IV carcinoma.
Fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck.
Anyway, she doesn't drink, so I've gone and gotten drunk for her. Can't say it will help, but I don't imagine it will hurt. My liver might disagree, but I'm ignoring it for the moment.
I've got Melissa Etheridge's I Run for Life on the stereo. I doubt that will hurt either, as long as nobody with a great deal of musical taste listens in.
Anyway, if I've been particularly incoherent in the last couple of hours, that's why. Mind you, any comments more than a few hours old are just my regular run-of-the-mill orneriness. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*hug* pschemp | talk 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Don't mind me, I'm a sloppy sentimental drunk. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Subkoff
Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors. And resolved amicably. As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise." Then another editor came in and said they were fine. A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting). Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken. This is why I auto-reverted: Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute. I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest. Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page. --DavidShankBone 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Calton
Okay, what was that about? --Calton | Talk 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the hostility?
I'm truly at a loss. You seem to be implying that I'm sending you on some wild goose chase, to go through the entire wikipedia database without giving you the slightest hint of what I'm talking about. Quite the contrary. I directed you to a SPECIFIC discussion on a SPECIFIC page, and asked for your take it on. In case you missed it, once again, the page I'm referring to is the RefDesk talk page, and the discussion I'm referring you to is the discussion entitled "Not a soapbox". Doesn't seem much legwork to me. A couple of clicks and you're there. I don't understand your unrelenting hostility either. I keep sending you the most polite of emails praising you on your conscientiousness as an admin, and you only reply with hostility. Why?
In any case, it's all irrelevant now, so you needn't even make those two or three clicks requested. I've taken it upon myself to do the right thing, eat crow, and, at least on my part, end the whole problem here under the discussion entitled "Mea Maxima Culpa". It would have been nice, though, if you would have at least acknowledged my polite requests by doing me this small favour and checking out this very specified dicussion rather than continually reacting with undue hostility. But as I said, I've taken care of it, so I really don't care anymore. So basically it's up to you whether you even care to check out what I'm talking about, or just continue to ignore my small, polite request and go getting your jollies blocking as many users as your heart desires. Who knows, this post itself may even consist of something you find "objectionable" and warrant yet another block. I really couldn't care less. I know within myself that I did the right thing, acted like the bigger man, and gave Clio my unconditional and unqualified apologies. I had hoped that she'd respond likewise for her hurtful statements towards me, but I suppose my hopes were unrealistic. Knowing that I have the strength of character to do the right thing and apologize for MY innapropriate behaviour is really all that matters to me. The rest is bullshit. Loomis 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: A favour to ask
Hi Ten. I usually refrain from discussing third party users "behind their backs" (so to speak), but since you care enough to want to help resolve a problem, you deserve a decent response. I've recently given Loomis the benefit of my opinion about the way he's operating. That was not done because I altruistically go around helping randomly selected people; Loomis and I have established a kind of friendship, and we seem to have good rapport. If he has any respect for me, he'll give my counsel at least some thought. I'm not entirely sure he's taken what I wrote to heart, judging from his later posts - but I don't see it as my role to act as his Wiki-parent on this. He seems determined to stick around, which imo is a good thing. Whether he's sticking around for the best reasons is something only he is fit to judge. I know only too well from my own life experience that letting go of an issue can be the most difficult thing in the world. And it's particularly difficult if a person places too high a value on others' opinions of them.
I need to balance the equation though. I'm not in the business of pointing fingers, but if I were, it would be wrong to point the finger at only one person in this sorry episode. A lot of the escalation that occurred could have been avoided if both sides had taken 10 deep breaths, and said "Let's cool it before this gets out of hand. Can you explain your position in a different way, please - I really want to understand where you're coming from. I accept that you were writing in good faith and you didn't intend to offend me". Unfortunately it went way too far, and it's still going on, with Mutually Assured Contempt as the apparently permanent outcome (an unconditional apology notwithstanding). Both parties have good reason to reflect on that, because both parties played significant roles in arriving at that outcome. If that's a model for operating in a win-win way out there in the real world, pity help the real world.
Without necessarily pointing to Loomis or Clio specifically, I've been truly amazed at the display of ego-driven absurdity that we often encounter around the Ref Desk. People who, one assumes, make valuable contributions to articles often show different colours when emotional issues get raised on the Ref Desk. Some people seem addicted to getting insulted at even the slightest perceived provocation. I'm not entirely blameless here, though. I've also succumbed to what I thought was baiting - in some cases, I was indeed being baited; but in other cases, it was just a matter of an opinion not being expressed in ideally clear language. What my time here has shown me, more than anything else, is that any chink in an editor's skills with written English is apt to be misinterpreted, and in a negative way. This is one of my personal things, admittedly - I'm a stickler for good grammar, spelling, punctuation; but above all, writing what you truly meant to convey, not some colloquialised or ill-thought-out version thereof. Many people don't seem to understand that having an online debate is not like having an oral conversation. They require different (if overlapping) skills. I think a lot of the personal issues could be avoided if people could just learn to express a potentially provocative opinion in a way that does not actually provoke anybody to take precipitate action, or press their ego-buttons. I'm not saying it's easy - I've had to apologise for unintended slights on a number of occasions. (And that's another thing. Simply saying "I'm sorry; I apologise", and earlier rather than later, seems to be completely beyond the powers of a lot of people with otherwise fantastic skills. It would resolve a lot of issues; and with no loss of personal status, integrity, or respect. It takes courage, but it's well worth it.) But some people never even try to choose their words carefully, they just seem to blurt out whatever's on their mind and save their edit without the slightest review of what they're about to post. I'm rambling badly now, I know. But I think there are wider issues at stake here than what is ultimately a petty war between 2 individuals out of millions of Wikipedians.
In summary, I'm humbled that you think I could play any further meaningful role with the Loomis/Clio issue. The best I can hope is that they both read this and have a think about it. Feel free to send it on to them if you think it would make a difference. All the best. JackofOz 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ten. JackofOz 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International wheelchair symbol discussion
A discussion concerning how we should use International Symbol of Access on Wikipedia is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol. You are welcome to participate. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LC
Hello ToaT. You may not be interested, but the recent mention of Light current on the RD has inspired him to self identify from a few IPs and sockpuppet accounts, including 88.109.82.174 (talk · contribs), 88.111.79.170 (talk · contribs), 88.110.145.192 (talk · contribs), FunnyMunny (talk · contribs) and, just for you I guess, UnderTrade (talk · contribs). I blocked and reverted a few of them that have been used to !vote on policy and communicate with LC's associates. Its clear that he is continuing to contribute anonymously to the Ref Desk from that IP range and there is probably a paper trail to a few more accounts or IPs we could find. Personally, I have no desire to pursue him as long as his contibutions remain anonymous and he stays out of trouble, but I thought I would let you know in case you wish to investigate further. Rockpocket 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emmett Richmond
Good point -- I've restored, thanks. NawlinWiki 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TenOfAllTrades, I'd like to apologize to you for the misunderstanding. In the interest of context, I've explained my screwup in more detail on my talkpage. I hope you don't mind. Thanks and sorry again. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL vs. spam question
Hello - since you seem knowledgeable about some of the subtleties of GFDL, I was wondering if you could look at this AN/I thread and give me your feedback. I don't have a problem giving credit where it's due, but when the owner of another wiki inserts text from his wiki, then tags the article with a GFDL credit, it smells like vanity/spam. I'd appreciate your thoughts if you have the time - thanks. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
There are 4. I documented them - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me?! He violates the rules, 4! times...and you let him go?! I demand an explanation. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ten, I have tried, I have asked an admin to no avail. He may have beat the 24 hour part, but it is still a violation regardless. He asks for references, I give them, he reverts 4 times and gets away with it. You're an admin, how about you step in. I am sick and tired of him violating every rule possible with no real consequences. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit was the actual adding of the references not a revert, but you know what, I don't care. This user has driven another editor away and no one seems to care. I have added alot to the radio and TV sections, done my best to follow the rules and only blocked one for 24 hours. Never had an RfC against me and always tried to solve disputes with others in the best way possible, which if you look back, I have tried to do with Calton. I have always been polite (unlike Calton) and always tried to be as helpful as possible (again, unlike Calton) and it means nothing. I don't violate a rule, yet I get in trouble. He violates MANY rules and he doesn't get in trouble, ever. He is not a good editor, he doesn't follow the rules, he pushes many a good editor off this site and no one cares. Tonight, he pushes another editor away and you had a chance to step in. Goodbye. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it's not an entitlement. Honestly, I didn't even realize I had come as close as I had.
Orangemonster2k1, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what the actual rules -- and guidelines, practices, and policies -- are here, not just the 3RR. He knows what he wants, and make up stuff to justify it: witness his adding a 7.7K list of TV show logos, sourced to a fanwiki, and claiming that there's a "Wiki rule" making it okay, which doesn't even touch the issue of whether that ludicrous level of detail is called for, sourced or not. And yeah, it's listed -- and has been listed for a few days -- at RFC, which I had to do myself. He certainly didn't seem actually nterested in discussion, given his ignoring any discussion while the article was under page protection in favor of simply running out the clock.
His protests about his alleged good faith are also nonsense: every once in a while, in some fit of pique, he makes reversions of my edits he's not even bothered to read first [25] or tries to solicit allies from anyone who's crossed paths, including from abusive sockpuppets his guy being the latest. He also seems to be implying he helped drive off AMiB, and seems rather proud -- or at least happy -- with that result [26]. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ten, I took a couple hours and I realized I overreacted. I let this antagonist get to me and I was at fault there. He doesn't get that he is not always right and having to beat my head into the wall just to get him to understand the slightest bit of information is, at times, stressful to say the least. He throws the "psychological projection" article at me when it is obvious from my userpage that I have Aspergers...that's just a low blow. But this is what he does when an editor has a different opinion or doesn't back down to his incivility, constant berating, rudeness, and then low blows. This would set anyone off in a heartbeat.

But, I let him get to me...and that was wrong of me and I am better than that. I apologize for my actions on your talk page. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I may, point out that Calton's RFC was made on the 6th of April, the day the block was taken off the main Stoopid Monkey page, not days before as he has stated. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks for attempting neutrality~~
Ten, I just wanted to drop you a note to say I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral on Ref Desk debates. I detect a subtle lean in your position towards "having the Ref Desk be just like the articles in Wikipedia", but not the blatant advocacy of that one position I've seen from other Admins, like Friday. For example, Friday actually endorsed a poorly supported RFC filed against me by User:Hipocrite: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat, who quite obviously was just looking for a way to make trouble. You were able to see past the fact that Hipocrite generally supports your Ref Desk position and block him for incivility at one point, something I can't see Friday ever doing. I personally think that Admins should either completely avoid listing any opinion on issues, or, if they do list opinions, should hang up their Admin hats and promise not to block those of the opposing opinion, to avoid any conflict of interest. I have even suggested to Friday that he should try to emulate the way you (at least attempt to) remain neutral. StuRat 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people may find the above comment difficult to read with the strikethrough. I reproduce it below, for clarity's sake:
Ten, I just wanted to drop you a note to say I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral on Ref Desk debates. I detect a subtle lean in your position towards "having the Ref Desk be just like the articles in Wikipedia", but not the blatant advocacy of that one position I've seen from other Admins, like Friday. For example, Friday actually endorsed a poorly supported RFC filed against me by User:Hipocrite: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat, who quite obviously was just looking for a way to make trouble. You were able to see past the fact that Hipocrite generally supports your Ref Desk position and block him for incivility at one point, something I can't see Friday ever doing. I personally think that Admins should either completely avoid listing any opinion on issues, or, if they do list opinions, should hang up their Admin hats and promise not to block those of the opposing opinion, to avoid any conflict of interest. I have even suggested to Friday that he should try to emulate the way you (at least attempt to) remain neutral. StuRat 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the change itself was unsigned, the remark was struck through by StuRat at 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC). StuRat also rescinded an invitation to comment on his behaviour ([27]) after he discovered that I agreed with another editor that he was being rude with this remark.[reply]

I have decided to ignore StuRat's contributions to discussions on the Ref Desk unless and until he can comport himself in a civil manner. I will not be baited or goaded. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response from JackofOz
Hi, Ten. Thanks for your message. You're right, of course. I knew when I was writing that message to Orange Monster that I was breaking my own self-imposed rule, not to talk negatively about third-party users behind their backs. But I went ahead and sent it anyway - partly because I had a genuine desire to support OM, but partly because of my own history with the other guy, which after about 18 months still leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I didn't read your full interchange with OM, because I wasn't a party to it and it didn't interest me. My sole motivation was as I outlined above; however I should have realised that any intervention could have created the impression that I was siding with him against you. That certainly wasn't the case. My apologies. This is a lesson in letting go of old wounds and moving on to new challenges. All the best. JackofOz 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Name
How many times have we conversed and I JUST got your name....9, 10, Jack, Queen...of course "Jack of All Trades"....Duh. I am kinda slow sometimes with these things :) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades is obviously my long-lost cousin. See my user page here about the origin of "Jack of all trades". :) JackofOz 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals
Hi TenOfAllTrades. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edition the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hey Ten, how long does something stay on AFD before a final decision is made or someone comes by and counts the votes? - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie....I figured it was a round number like 5 or 10. Of course you know which page I am watching closely. With the overwhelming votes, I thought that it would be closed early, but I can wait those extra 2 1/2 days. Rock on...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian flag
I really hope that you were not really saying that the "Palestinian flag is as inflammatory as the Nazi flag" as you did here [28] and that you do not repeat something like that which can easily be construed as being hate speech. Thanks Baristarim 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I replied to some other posts there. My main concern is not at all Palestine, have a look :) Baristarim 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your last post. I am sorry, I did go a bit overboard with that one but I had never run into you and really had no idea if you really meant to equate them or you were using it in context with that particular user. In that respect, yes you are right - I should have checked in with you. I should put WP:AGF somewhere high up on my userpage :) Listen, I apologize if I offended you with that, and I later took back that post from AN/I (before anyone could notice it - or so I hoped :)). As for the political statements thing, if you just take a look at my userpage maybe you can see that I have had enough of all sorts of soapboxing in userpages and can't stand it to be honest. Again, sorry if I overdid it. Cheers! Baristarim 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Take care... Baristarim 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. I appreciate your comments about Brandt's continued harassment of Slim, and I absolutely share your views. However, in keeping with the rulings here and here, I have removed your the link. I hope you don't mind. See also, Fred Bauder's clarification here. (Jayjg has also endorsed that clarification, although I can't find the link right now, and he was one of the arbcom members who voted in the MONGO case.) My own personal stalker put up a website with stuff about wanting to marry me, stuff about the size of my breasts, my parents' then home address and phone number, my workplace details, stuff about the hairs on my toes, and lots more. I didn't like when people posted links to his pages about me, but I also didn't like when they posted links to other pages, from where one could easily navigate to the specific attacks on me. Incidentally, the person you are defending is in favour of a prohibition of links to sites that try to "out" Wikipedians, as I am, for obvious reasons. Thanks. Musical L inguist 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
shortcut|WP:FISHING
Hi... I read that you were one who placed the '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing', I was just wondering if its possible that we transfer the #REDIRECT to 'Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing' instead of 'Do you ever go fishing'. Could you kindly suggest other possible options in this action iif its not possible. I would just like to do this merely to organize all the Fishing Articles. Thank you! Bu b0y2007 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edit on proposal
Why did you do this? A.Z. 05:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corruption and spin
Ten, I ask you to note that former User Loomis is using his talk page to take words I have written out of context, adding a corrupted interpretation. I have no intention of entering into any debate in the matter: I have simply posted the entire thread in full (Nazi Racial Philosophy, Humanities RD, 19 November 2006) on his page, to ensure that other editors are not misled in any fashion. A similar message has been posted on Friday's page. Regards, Clio the Muse 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]