76.189.114.243 (talk) |
TennisAnalyst004 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
:::::::::Thank you, Jasper. If I encounter personal attacks in the future, would it be all right to notify you? My only concern is to contribute to the Federer talk page occasionally, not to become embroiled in spats. Regards, [[User:TennisAnalyst004|TennisAnalyst004]] ([[User talk:TennisAnalyst004|talk]]) 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::Thank you, Jasper. If I encounter personal attacks in the future, would it be all right to notify you? My only concern is to contribute to the Federer talk page occasionally, not to become embroiled in spats. Regards, [[User:TennisAnalyst004|TennisAnalyst004]] ([[User talk:TennisAnalyst004|talk]]) 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Jasper, as you can see, this talk page as well as [[User_talk:Schpinbo|Schpinbo's talk page]] speaks for itself. ;) And did you notice how he followed me to Dennis Brown's talk page, showing up minutes after I got there? Not to mention crashing THIS thread I |
:::::::::::Jasper, as you can see, this talk page as well as [[User_talk:Schpinbo|Schpinbo's talk page]] speaks for itself. ;) And did you notice how he followed me to Dennis Brown's talk page, showing up minutes after I got there? Not to mention crashing THIS thread I walds having with B-ranger. Tennis, you do understand Jasper can read this entire thread and see all the diffs and other proof I provided, right? And he can also see the comment I posted just below inviting you to participate with us on the Federer talk page. But for some reason, that's the only comment you didn't respond to. ;) --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.114.243|76.189.114.243]] ([[User talk:76.189.114.243|talk]]) 02:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::Yes, I know Jasper sees these threads. Did you see his statement above about "personal attacks"? Maybe you should take such warnings more seriously. I would encourage Jasper and any other admin to read the exchanges on the Federer talk page very carefully. They will be able to draw the right conclusions, I'm sure. [[User:TennisAnalyst004|TennisAnalyst004]] ([[User talk:TennisAnalyst004|talk]]) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Actually, that may be the problem. The Roger Federer page is the ONLY one you have ever edited. It has repeatedly been explained to you that while it's fine to be a huge Federer fan, like me, you must remain completely unbiased when you're editing so that the integrity of the article and this project will be adhered to. Insisting on saying he's the greatest player of all time is contrary to the mission. And of course attacking me, and others, with a multitude of insults makes it very difficult to have productive discussions and achieve our goals. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.114.243|76.189.114.243]] ([[User talk:76.189.114.243|talk]]) 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Btw Tennis, we've been having a very nice and productive discussion on the Federer talk page in the past several hours. Some great new ideas have been presented. When I started the thread there, that was the intention. If you are ever ready to contribute productively and with an open mind to making the article the best it can be, you are more than welcome to join us. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.114.243|76.189.114.243]] ([[User talk:76.189.114.243|talk]]) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
Btw Tennis, we've been having a very nice and productive discussion on the Federer talk page in the past several hours. Some great new ideas have been presented. When I started the thread there, that was the intention. If you are ever ready to contribute productively and with an open mind to making the article the best it can be, you are more than welcome to join us. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.114.243|76.189.114.243]] ([[User talk:76.189.114.243|talk]]) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:42, 28 July 2012
This editor is an Illustrious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge. |
as Aerobird - Jul 2008-Apr 2010 - May 2010 - Jun 2010-Oct 2010 - Nov 2010-Dec 2010 - Jan 2011-Mar 2011 - Apr 2011-Sep 2011 - Oct 2011 - Nov 2011-Dec 2011 - Jan 2012-Feb 2012 - Mar 2012-Apr 2012 - Apr 2012-May 2012 - Jun 2012 - Jul 2012 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
More S-76
This may (or may not) interest you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe if someone here gets someone from Sikorsky to comment directly on the issue might he learn something to put a sock into his socket for good. Supreme facepalm of destiny... --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Stubborn is he - even when some of my proposals haven't found the consensus I anticipated, I don't believe I have ever pondered proceeding to administrative action; it's just easily to accept that 'perhaps I wasn't right/the contrary stance is popular and thus should be left as is', dropping the stick, and just move onto one of a dozen or so articles that could be being worked on without disagreement instead. The sad thing is, I could have actually found myself agreeing and helping out with more minor variant merges, if he hadn't chosen to impale himself on this point. It would be nice to see him turn himself around. Kyteto (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah really - it's kinda like Ryan, if he put half the effort into improving his spelling and grammar (and availing himself of the WP:STANDARDOFFER) that he puts into socking he'd be a star contributor in no time... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Based on his latest tactic, since obviously gaining no support at Dispute resolution, of edit warring to add his POV text not supported by the refs he supplies and now a personal attack, despite many talk page warnings, I would request that you review whether a block is not now warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the 3RR rule has been broken by TTT, he doesn't seem to understand that shoving his own POV in and attributing it to sources that don't say anything of the kind is NOT accepted by the majority of editors, he just keeps reverting it to what he wants to see. Some of the content he is pushing it blatent guesswork/OR, such as "The S-76's tranmission probably has less torque" - either this should be stated for certain with a source, or not at all; personal theory/guesswork is not acceptable, yet it keeps on being pushed. There's no sign of any development in stance or understanding, he just demands everybody to stand out of his way, or "break the empasse" as he sees it. Kyteto (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Based on his latest tactic, since obviously gaining no support at Dispute resolution, of edit warring to add his POV text not supported by the refs he supplies and now a personal attack, despite many talk page warnings, I would request that you review whether a block is not now warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- He is just edit warring and vandalizing away there despite multiple warnings. I don't see there is any choice but a block now, given this history. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Supreme facepalm of destiny. Not wanting to get WP:INVOLVED waved in my face, it's off to WP:ANEW for this chap, I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- And here's Johnny. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No prob. If only folks like TTT and Ryan would turn their powers to good... - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand why someome like Ryan would spend so much time writing articles that he knows will just be deleted. The research alone is a time-consuming process. There are far more efficient ways to disrupt WP than writing articles! - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bill, we need to familiarise ourselves with Autism. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This is exactly as what's been described in point number 3, 18, 39, 44 & 72 of WP:OWB but what surprises me was that he wasn't blocked earlier, as evident by his persistent edit-warring behaviour on another article page (archive page). --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand why someome like Ryan would spend so much time writing articles that he knows will just be deleted. The research alone is a time-consuming process. There are far more efficient ways to disrupt WP than writing articles! - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well he got himself a 31 hour block, but I expect Act II will come in...31 hours, since his unblock request shows that he has no clue why he was blocked and shows that he has no intention of changing his behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- And no comprehension of how WP:3RR works too. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I notice from TTT's last edits on the S-76 talk page before they got themself blocked that they still seem to think that the S-76 is a version of the S-70. I know we are meant to assume good faith, but attitudes like that really make it difficult to actually improve the article. I just hope that TTT does not decide to remove my expansion of the technical description because they think that it should be at his new S-70 article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not much comprehension of how helicopters work either, it would seem. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm the one that thinks that a helicopter transmission can have a 77:1 reduction in a single stage.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not much comprehension of how helicopters work either, it would seem. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm That didn't take long at all! Seems to be the same wording that's been rejected before. - BilCat (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled on this, and you so perfectly meet my expectations.
Now here's an idea. Why don't you, instead of wasting all your time bullying people, threatening them, and using the 3rr, and the hapless admins as your cudgel, why don't you put a tiny fraction of all that effort you're wasting creating conflict, and put it into a simple, easy debate on the talk page. "Does 'the s-76 employed technologies developed for the uh-60 including the transmission' mean that the s-76 transmission is a simpler version of the uh-60 transmission?".TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- The former does not preclude the latter. A better question is if the Sikorsky archive should be considered a reliable source, given that it is dated April 2012, is copyrighted, and clearly uses text copied from WP that was written several years ago, as shown in the archives, but without acknowledgment. Where did the other information in that source come from? Is that info copied from reliable sources? Until those questions are answered, the former wording is better. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you seem to have perfectly met our expectations as expressed here. It's one thing to jump right in and continue your edits as before the block. But dropping snarky notes on admin pages, and making personl attacks at WP:AN3, all within minutes of having your block released, certainly won't help your case any when your next block comes up for review, and will probably ensure that it is swift and quite lengthy. - BilCat (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yup User:TeeTylerToe is right back off a block for edit warring and right back into edit warring the same unsourced POV text again as well as carrying out personal attacks again. I don't think the outcome is going to be happy for some people. - Ahunt (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alas. (And with regards to Bill: if the Sikorsky Archive has copied text from Wikipedia, it cannot be a RS...) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- And it continues [1] - TTT continues to carry down the same path, ignoring what the references actually say.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- He seems determined to keep edit-warring and entering information contradicted by the refs cited. I am not sure where he gets this strange POV from but it is clear that no one else working on the articles, nor any of the available refs, agree with him. He seems also determined to get himself a much longer block. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- And it continues [1] - TTT continues to carry down the same path, ignoring what the references actually say.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I am following that conversation as well. You are commended for keeping cool under the barrage of insults and "cabal" accusations, but he seems determined to keep beating that long dead horse. The refs he keeps waving clearly show he is wrong, but he won't give up and move on, so the outcome is pretty much predetermined. In the meantime this is all keeping lots of editors from writing new articles, bettering old ones and generally working on the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
More Hccob...
- See Talk:Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, he's back at it again. Someone needs to tell him that not everyday is Sunday... oh wait, we already did but the elephant gun just can't penetrate that thick hide. Facepalm... --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Roger Federer continual reverting of contentious sentence
B-ranger, in the past 24 hours three administrators, including you, have appropriately removed the "widely considered to be the greatest of all time" language in the opening sentence of Roger Federer, pending a consensus in the ongoing talk page discussion. However, users continue to revert what the administrators did. I reverted the most recent two reverts so that the objectionable language is gone. But I do not want to violate the 3 reverts rule. User:Gproteinb, who apparently just started an account, is the most recent user to put back the contentious language (with no edit comments), but I am very confident that he/she is a sock of someone either involved in the talk page discussion and/or one of the users who has reverted an administrator's edit in the past 24 hours. It is the ONLY edit the user has done so apparently he/she created the account just to make this edit. In our talk page discussion, it has essentially been unanimously agreed that the "widely considered" language violates WP:WEASEL (and WP:NPOV) and so no one should ever be putting that language back into the article, especially after there have been three administrator edits removing it. The only thing we're trying to do in the discussion now is agree on final, new language. Can you please do something to stop the reverting back to the weasly language? Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: It's been reverted two more times since my original message to you. The three admins removed the entire sentence, pending a talk page consensus. But all these editors continue put back the sentence with their own language preference. User:Wolbo is the latest to revert, even though he's been actively involved in the talk page discussion and knows very well from years of editing that you don't change text-in-question until consensus is reached. By the way, I think User:Gproteinb is the sock to TennisAnalyst004 who was the biggest advocate to keep the weasly language. B-ranger, this is out of control and needs to be stopped. The sentence needs to be completely removed until a consensus is reached. Otherwise, there's absolutely no point in having talk page discussions. Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, removing it again will just make things worse, alas. I'd suggest taking it to WP:ANI, since he doesn't appear to be interested in discussing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I think if would make things much BETTER if (1) an admin does it and (2) clearly advises in the edit comments not to put back the sentence in any form until consensus is reached. That's the part that hasn't been done. A very clear comment like that would not be argued among the talk page participants, except by TennisAnalyst who is the one person causing problems in the discussion. But other editors wouldn't allow him to put the objectionable sentence back. On his last revert, he put a false edit comment that says admins said to put back the contentious sentence until consensus is reached, which of course is completely the opposite of what was said. That is definitely NOT what admins and the discussion participants want. Thanks! --76.189.114.243 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think Wolbo might have a reasonable compromise wording. Ed, if you're (talk page stalker)ing here can you take a look at this too? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Wolbo's suggestion might be very reasonable. However, he still had no right to simply insert it unilaterally when we're obviously in the middle of a deep discussion and voting about it. At least not without asking first in the discussion. I saw your note on the Federer talk page. Sorry, but I've been putting up with TennisAnalyst's bullying and harrassment for the past 24 hours. You saw what he posted there (warning me, as if he is some authority here) and going around to people's talk pages trash talking about me, even though he's been told my intentions are good and my suggestions make sense. It's just that the other editors aren't willing to follow the WP guidelines as closely as I think we should. If I'm correct, that warning TennisAnalyst left me on the Federer talk page violates some type of WP rule. I remember an admin saying that somewhere recently that you're not allowed to use an article's talk page for something like that. If I'm right, can you warn him about it? And am I allowed to remove that warning post? Thanks for you calm, reasoned handling of this whole situation. Oh, one last thing. someone just edited Wolbo's wording from "several" back to "many"... can you at least put it back to several, since we agree his version for now is reasonable? :) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Glad to help how I can. He does seem to be somewhat...WP:OWNish. I'd suggest not removing it - I'm not quite sure if it fits the criterion for removal. I'll ping an other admin (The_ed17, he's a good guy) to take a look; I've been having major connection issues today and can't hardly get online. :( - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Wolbo's suggestion might be very reasonable. However, he still had no right to simply insert it unilaterally when we're obviously in the middle of a deep discussion and voting about it. At least not without asking first in the discussion. I saw your note on the Federer talk page. Sorry, but I've been putting up with TennisAnalyst's bullying and harrassment for the past 24 hours. You saw what he posted there (warning me, as if he is some authority here) and going around to people's talk pages trash talking about me, even though he's been told my intentions are good and my suggestions make sense. It's just that the other editors aren't willing to follow the WP guidelines as closely as I think we should. If I'm correct, that warning TennisAnalyst left me on the Federer talk page violates some type of WP rule. I remember an admin saying that somewhere recently that you're not allowed to use an article's talk page for something like that. If I'm right, can you warn him about it? And am I allowed to remove that warning post? Thanks for you calm, reasoned handling of this whole situation. Oh, one last thing. someone just edited Wolbo's wording from "several" back to "many"... can you at least put it back to several, since we agree his version for now is reasonable? :) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- FYI... this was my suggested version: "Some of the most successful players in tennis history, and others who have been involved in the sport, have called him the greatest tennis player of all time." I also said that I would be totally fine with "Several" instead of "Some". I just didn't think "Many" would be appropriate right now because the current sources just don't support it (even though I absolutely believe it's true). --76.189.114.243 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see you got someone to fully protect it. You're the best. Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, I wish you would have asked me to give my side of the story rather than jump to 76's defense. I should think impartiality would've compelled you to do so.
I have been on the Federer talk page for over a year now and have participated in many discussions about the opening paragraph. User 76 arrived just in the last few days. Just so you know, most contributors to the talk page going back at least a year have agreed that the "greatest of all time" line is essential in the opening paragraph. You should also know that, despite a 3-1 consensus having been reached yesterday about the wording, User 76 DELETED the whole sentence on two occasions. Wolbo and I had to warn him about his behavior.
Credit to you for taking time out of your schedule to help resolve this matter. I would also appreciate it if you could tell 76 to keep away from me and stop acting like an hysterical child. The guy strikes me as psychologically imbalanced. Thank you. TennisAnalyst004 (talk)
- Well, I looked things over and it seemed to me that (while perhaps taken a bit...vehemently), it did seem slightly strongly worded, hence my actions. However, I'll try to examine things a bit more thoroughly in the future - connection problems here made things difficult - and I'm glad to see that things seem to be working out. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- After that little rant by TennisAnalyst I think he might want to reevaluate who the "psychologically imbalanced hysterical child" is. Haha, my wife and I enjoyed that one. Hopefully, he'll learn the rules of editing an encyclopedia and how to participate productively in future discussions, stop going around to people's talk pages to defame other editors (as he's done here), and stop his edit-warring as evidenced most recently here, here and here. And based on this conversation that TA initiated with Schpinbo, it is clear that I am not the only editor who has been subjected to his outbursts and threats. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's see now:
- 1) You've littered the talk page with emotional outbursts and personal attacks -- and rather long ones at those.
- 2) You've complained loudly about the wording of the second sentence even though a 3-1 consensus was reached.
- 3) You've deleted the second sentence of the article on several occasions and had to be warned about the 3-revert rule.
- 4) When I suggested to the other contributors that the page should be protected, you attacked both me and my suggestion. And then, when somebody actually did protect the page (and the consensus wording), you acted as though you approved of the decision all along.
- After that little rant by TennisAnalyst I think he might want to reevaluate who the "psychologically imbalanced hysterical child" is. Haha, my wife and I enjoyed that one. Hopefully, he'll learn the rules of editing an encyclopedia and how to participate productively in future discussions, stop going around to people's talk pages to defame other editors (as he's done here), and stop his edit-warring as evidenced most recently here, here and here. And based on this conversation that TA initiated with Schpinbo, it is clear that I am not the only editor who has been subjected to his outbursts and threats. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say that the termites have been dining on your brain for quite a long time now. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, I strongly suspect that User 76 is Schpinbo. He tried 2 weeks ago to get the "greatest of all time" reference deleted in the opening paragraph, but failed to do so. It's very silly of User 76 to pretend that I've had issues with others when in fact I've only had an issue with him. Regards, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- BR, please have a check done to verify I am not Schpinbo. And then you can read Schpinbo's talk page to understand this is a pattern with TA. Like I teach my kids, bullies like TA need to dealt with. While my wife thinks the guy is humorous in a stalkerish sort of way, it's important to deal with irrational bullies head-on. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- As far his other claims, my editing history will show I reverted two times yesterday to put back the text agreed upon by administrators and others, pending a consenus on the talk page. Whereas, TA put back the MOST contentious ("widely considered") version THREE times in 24 hours (on July 14-15), plus yesterday, as his edit history will show.
- Mulitple other editors have been unsuccessful in their attempts to teach TA that the 3RR rule is violated when FOUR reverts are done to the same page within 24 hours. He doesn't get that two is not four, and that my two were good faith to adhere to what administrators had previously decided, whereas his was bad faith to purposely put back the most contentious version, and doing so while in the middle of a consensus discussion on the talk page.
- As far as his claim that I want "greatest of all time" removed from the sentence, the documented proof (the talk page discussion) verifies that I NEVER asked for those words to be removed; only that I wanted the words "widely considered" removed. The talk page will verify that my suggested text is, "Some of the most successful players in tennis history, as well as a few sports websites, have called him the greatest player of all-time." It was administrators who wanted the contentious text removed, pending consensus.
- TA, show Bushranger and I a diff to prove this claim you made: "When I suggested to the other contributors that the page should be protected, you attacked both me and my suggestion." The fact of the matter is that it was Bushranger who initiated the process of getting the page protected after he and I discussed the issues going on with the Federer article. And right after it was protected, I posted this comment to Bushranger: "I see you got someone to fully protect it. You're the best. Thanks." Look up ^^. So show us just one diff where I opposed or attacked the idea. We'll be looking for it.
- B-ranger, I would very much encourage a check be done to verify that I am not User:Schpinbo, and then once completed, have TA banned for this malicious, defamatory accusation, which he has also made on the Federer talk page. So when TA says he hasn't had problems with anyone else, you can take a look at Schpinbo's talk page and see very clearly what I'm talking about. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, I see that User 76 is now spamming your talk page. I would encourage you and any other admin here to read over the Federer talk page carefully; I think it should be clear who is playing the part of stalker and troll and who is not. You should also review the history of the Federer article itself. If you do, you'll find that User 76 has deleted the second sentence of the article on numerous occasions and refused to comply with the wishes of the majority of talk contributors. Regards, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- TA, show us the diffs to prove your claim that I "deleted the second sentence of the article on numerous occasions." And we're still waiting for the diffs where you claim I opposed protecting the article. I've already provided the diffs where you put back the "widely considered" version three times on July 14-15 and again yesterday, even after Wolbo put on the temporary "several" compromise version. Anyway, show us the diffs.--76.189.114.243 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- TA, some questions from my wife: (1) Do you actually believe that you can come into this talk page, in the thread of my and Bushranger's discussion, and make numerous unsubstantiated claims and insulting comments, without being challenged? Seriously? (2) Did you bully kids when you were in school? and (3) What makes you think that what I am doing is "spamming," yet what you are doing is not, particularly when I started this thread between BR and myself. Of course, you will never answer any of these questions or provide any diffs to back up your multitude of claims because that's what you've always done. But I think my wife's questions do a good job of sending the message. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- B-ranger, I wanted to make you aware of this harassment complaint about TennisAnalyst that Schpinbo reported on July 15, 2012. It almost mirrors what Tennis has done to me. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bushranger, you can also at this Admin noticeboard exchange in which Tennis turns hostile towards NeilN after Neil points out Tennis's trolling and his "provocative and misleading" talk page section header. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, here are the two occasions on July 25 on which User 76 deleted the second sentence of the article. Notice that Wolbo and I, as well as others, had to undo his deletions:
- 18:25, 25 July 2012 76.189.114.243(talk) . . (111,740 bytes) (+90) . .(You cannot revert to a version that has almost unanimously been determined to violate WP:WEASEL in the discussion. Multiple admins replaced it with a temporary/non-weasel version, but other editors inexplicably removed it.)
- 20:29, 25 July 2012 76.189.114.243(talk) . . (111,740 bytes) (+90) . . (Undid revision 504157252 by Gproteinb (talk)invalid rv - no edit comments given, language has already been determined in talk page discussion to violate WP:WEASEL)
User 76 was dead wrong to say that "multiple admins replaced it with a temporary/non-weasel version." In fact, only one did, an admin named Slakr. On July 24 User 76 begged him to alter/delete the second sentence, and Slakr replied to him, "No; other people will eventually do that as consensus is established. I don't engage in edit wars, and had I noticed that others had previously edit warred on the page, I wouldn't have even gotten involved." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr)
- NOW THE FACTS. I did not "beg" nor even ask admin Slakr to delete that sentence. What I asked him was, "Are you going to revert his (TennisAnalyst's) revert?" NOT if he would delete a sentence. Slakr then left this message on Tennis's talk page. Here is the original edit Slakr did on the Federer article, pending consenus. Six minutes later, TennisAnalyst defies Slakr by reverting his edit here and putting back the MOST contentious version. Just one minute after that, TennisAnalyst makes this hostile revert by removing the tags an admin had previously advised be added to the weasly words. Those are the facts. As he was told, he has has a long-term history of edit-warring in this article, even with very experienced editors and administrators. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- AND NOW ONTO HIS SECOND LIE. He said, "User 76 was dead wrong to say that "multiple admins replaced it with a temporary/non-weasel version." In fact, only one did, an admin named Slakr." Really? Well take a look at this edit. Well, look at that... yet another administrator who replaced it with a non-weasel version. And look who it is.... BUSHRANGER. Like I said, Tennis wouldn't know the truth if it landed on his head. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, just this morning a contributor named TheLou75 [2] wrote the following to User 76: "As a side note to 76.189.114.243, please refrain from personal attacks as I see that this discussion has been littered with them." (see talk page)
Please note that before Schpinbo/User 76 appeared on the Federer talk page I had gotten along quite well with previous contributors and admins. Nobody else but this guy -- these two? -- have sought to complain about me. I've been on the Fed talk page for over a year now. User 76 has barely been on the page for a week, and he's shown up for the sole purpose of deleting/altering the second sentence of this article. (Why hasn't he applied the standard of POV/weasel words to the Nadal article, for instance? He's nowhere to be found on the Nadal talk page.)
Lastly, if you observe User 76's behavior in recent days, you will see that he's spent a great deal of time trying to get the last word with others, overreacting to others' comments (you yourself had to tell him to take a deep breath), following me everywhere I go in order to post (often superfluous) rejoinders, and hurling insults at me. His behavior is way out of line, and somebody needs to call him out for it. Thanks again, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Here's what User 76 posted today on the talk page. Notice at the end of the post he tells me he and his "wife" are "amused" by the back-and-forthing. He's basically admitting it's all a joke to him. Notice the personal attacks, too:
- TennisAnalyst, unlike your continued whiny, unsubstantiated claims, I provide proof with what I say. You never do. Haha. Everyone knows exactly what you've done, so repeating your lies endlessly will not help your cause. You may have mentioned protecting to someone in this discussion, but I took it to someone who could actually get it done. And he did...You continue to amuse my wife and I greatly. Keep it going if you want to continue embarrassing yourself. You're keeping us entertained. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course we're amused. But not by the "back-and-forth" as you describe it, but by YOU. We've never experienced such unbelievably outrageous and paranoid behavior. We teach our children to deal with bullies, just as we're dealing with you. You may have gotten away with bullying as a kid, but not here. When Bushranger shows that I am not Schpinbo you will look even more foolish than you already do. Funny, if I was that guy, you'd think I would've cast a vote on the Federer talk page? Haha. Didn't think of that, did you? You need to think before you speak and go around making these wacky, paranoid accusations. It's also interesting Tennis that you still have yet to provide any of the diffs or other proof requested several times. What a surprise. And you say admin Slakr begged me? Interesting, no diff again. So I'LL provide the diff here, which shows that Slakr explaining (for your sake) that he was reverting to the NON-contentious version of the sentence until consensus was reached, NOT the "widely considered" version that reverted back to. Caught yet again in one of your many lies, Tennis. And of course your edit history shows your three reverts in 24 hours on July 14-15, as well as your talk page showing you being admonished by admin Slakr for long-term edit-warring. And your very rude reply to him, which got him so upset he refused to deal with you any more. You try to convince people that you get along so wonderfully with everyone, yet the documented records show a list of people you have pissed off. Your behavior pattern is very clear and consistent. As I recollect from your history, you have accused at least one other user, perhaps two, of also having multiple accounts. Finally, regarding my pal Lou75, it's interesting you chose to hide from Bushranger what Lou's corrected, follow-up comment said. Once he read more and discovered your hostile behavior, it was YOU that he admonished before he and I were finally able to move on and work together to try and improve the article. He understands that bullies need to be dealt with. You need to learn that honesty will get you everywhere. Dishonesty, as you've shown in almost every word you've written, will get you nowhere. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- A few of us here find you amusing, too. The line about being a Federer fan earlier is priceless. See, we were on to you from the beginning. We know why you came to the Federer talk page and why you follow me everywhere I go to leave comments. Alas, we know that you are a troll and should not be taken seriously. Good day, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course we're amused. But not by the "back-and-forth" as you describe it, but by YOU. We've never experienced such unbelievably outrageous and paranoid behavior. We teach our children to deal with bullies, just as we're dealing with you. You may have gotten away with bullying as a kid, but not here. When Bushranger shows that I am not Schpinbo you will look even more foolish than you already do. Funny, if I was that guy, you'd think I would've cast a vote on the Federer talk page? Haha. Didn't think of that, did you? You need to think before you speak and go around making these wacky, paranoid accusations. It's also interesting Tennis that you still have yet to provide any of the diffs or other proof requested several times. What a surprise. And you say admin Slakr begged me? Interesting, no diff again. So I'LL provide the diff here, which shows that Slakr explaining (for your sake) that he was reverting to the NON-contentious version of the sentence until consensus was reached, NOT the "widely considered" version that reverted back to. Caught yet again in one of your many lies, Tennis. And of course your edit history shows your three reverts in 24 hours on July 14-15, as well as your talk page showing you being admonished by admin Slakr for long-term edit-warring. And your very rude reply to him, which got him so upset he refused to deal with you any more. You try to convince people that you get along so wonderfully with everyone, yet the documented records show a list of people you have pissed off. Your behavior pattern is very clear and consistent. As I recollect from your history, you have accused at least one other user, perhaps two, of also having multiple accounts. Finally, regarding my pal Lou75, it's interesting you chose to hide from Bushranger what Lou's corrected, follow-up comment said. Once he read more and discovered your hostile behavior, it was YOU that he admonished before he and I were finally able to move on and work together to try and improve the article. He understands that bullies need to be dealt with. You need to learn that honesty will get you everywhere. Dishonesty, as you've shown in almost every word you've written, will get you nowhere. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- "A few of us"... lmao. No one even talks to you any more because of your outrageous behavior. And how interesting you didn't name these "few" people. If it was true, you'd be rushing on here to put their names. Again, zero proof to back up your endless bs. Got a diff? Didn't think so. You're pathetic. By the way, you seem to forget that NeilN said YOU were the one trolling. Oops, you forgot about that one, didn't you. Haha. "Good day"?... passive-aggressive, too. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- By "few of us here" I meant "on my end, watching what's taking place on the Federer article, and observing your behavior specifically." For somebody who's supposedly amused by these exchanges of ours, you certainly do sound agitated and cranky. And last I checked, the only time somebody has spoken to you was to express disagreement with one or more of your positions (e.g., Dr. Blofeld, Lou, GreenTree, and even Slakr, who later confessed that had he known better, he wouldn't have gotten involved with you). Ta, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- "A few of us"... lmao. No one even talks to you any more because of your outrageous behavior. And how interesting you didn't name these "few" people. If it was true, you'd be rushing on here to put their names. Again, zero proof to back up your endless bs. Got a diff? Didn't think so. You're pathetic. By the way, you seem to forget that NeilN said YOU were the one trolling. Oops, you forgot about that one, didn't you. Haha. "Good day"?... passive-aggressive, too. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please just reveal to us that your are like 12 years old and then we'll forgive you and let it go. Haha. Or you can keep typing these erratic comments so we can add them to the record. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know nothing of this dispute's content, but that comment is a borderline personal attack and probably should be avoided in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jasper. If I encounter personal attacks in the future, would it be all right to notify you? My only concern is to contribute to the Federer talk page occasionally, not to become embroiled in spats. Regards, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know nothing of this dispute's content, but that comment is a borderline personal attack and probably should be avoided in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please just reveal to us that your are like 12 years old and then we'll forgive you and let it go. Haha. Or you can keep typing these erratic comments so we can add them to the record. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jasper, as you can see, this talk page as well as Schpinbo's talk page speaks for itself. ;) And did you notice how he followed me to Dennis Brown's talk page, showing up minutes after I got there? Not to mention crashing THIS thread I walds having with B-ranger. Tennis, you do understand Jasper can read this entire thread and see all the diffs and other proof I provided, right? And he can also see the comment I posted just below inviting you to participate with us on the Federer talk page. But for some reason, that's the only comment you didn't respond to. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know Jasper sees these threads. Did you see his statement above about "personal attacks"? Maybe you should take such warnings more seriously. I would encourage Jasper and any other admin to read the exchanges on the Federer talk page very carefully. They will be able to draw the right conclusions, I'm sure. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Jasper, as you can see, this talk page as well as Schpinbo's talk page speaks for itself. ;) And did you notice how he followed me to Dennis Brown's talk page, showing up minutes after I got there? Not to mention crashing THIS thread I walds having with B-ranger. Tennis, you do understand Jasper can read this entire thread and see all the diffs and other proof I provided, right? And he can also see the comment I posted just below inviting you to participate with us on the Federer talk page. But for some reason, that's the only comment you didn't respond to. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that may be the problem. The Roger Federer page is the ONLY one you have ever edited. It has repeatedly been explained to you that while it's fine to be a huge Federer fan, like me, you must remain completely unbiased when you're editing so that the integrity of the article and this project will be adhered to. Insisting on saying he's the greatest player of all time is contrary to the mission. And of course attacking me, and others, with a multitude of insults makes it very difficult to have productive discussions and achieve our goals. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Btw Tennis, we've been having a very nice and productive discussion on the Federer talk page in the past several hours. Some great new ideas have been presented. When I started the thread there, that was the intention. If you are ever ready to contribute productively and with an open mind to making the article the best it can be, you are more than welcome to join us. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for Federer Talk Page
I think an admin should check in a few times a week, maybe more regularly, to supervise the discussion and try to prevent personal attacks and edit warring. It's clear to me that User 76 is trying his mighty best to get the "greatest of all time" reference in the second sentence deleted. I hope other contributors come forward and resist his efforts. (This was a prediction I made a week ago, and it turns out to have been correct.)
For the record, I think the fact that so many legends (Laver, Sampras, and the others) have said Federer is the "greatest player of all time" is pretty noteworthy and must be included in any redaction of the second sentence. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Lmao, are you EVER going to leave Bushranger alone? You actually started a new section on his talk page for this? Do you really think he gives a crap about that sentence or what legends said it? And this is "User 76's" suggested text, which is clear as day in the voting section, in bold print: "Some of the most successful players in tennis history, as well as a few sports websites, have called him the greatest player of all-time." Do you see the words "greatest player of all time" in there? So stop with all the paranoia. We're glad to hear about the prediction you made a week ago. One little problem, though. I wasn't on Wikpedia a week ago. Haha. Well, I offered you the opportunity to work productively with those of us working today to improve the article. I guess you'd rather continuing this ranting. And for the record, you might want to open your mind to the suggestions of others who DO want to remove all traces of weasly language because they want the article to be as credible as possible and believe that only objective, sourced facts should be used. Even if we had 30 sources that said he's the greatest, it wouldn't eliminate the fact that there are many more players who have not said it, not to mention the fact that many people in the world simply feel that someone else is the best ever (Laver, Borg, Sampras, etc.). It is not even close to being an open and shut case. I think it's Federer, but I understand there are those who just don't agree. When I'm working on the article, I'm not a Roger Federer fan; I'm an unbiased editor. Interesting that you've been fighting everyone so hard on this and refusing to accept this fact. Your choice. Just please stop disrupting our efforts. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- IMHO, the "greatest of all time" shouldn't be in the lead at all. But that's what the discussion on the talk page is aimed to resolve. And please discuss it there, not here. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, it should be in the fourth paragraph, where it was for quite awhile. Did you know that you are widely considered the greatest Wikipedia administrator of all time? Is that weasly? Haha. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
User Fastballjohnd
You were a participant in the ANI discussion[3] about what should be done in regards to this user. I'm just letting you know that he may have created yet another sockpuppet account. I have opened an investigation[4] and have asked for a check user to be done. TB, if you could check the new SPI for me, I'd appreciate it. This message is a heads up. If you have any reply for me, write it here or at the ANI . I will keep a lookout....William 14:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can't run the check myself, but this one does carry the scent of orange sauce... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
When renaming a category following CFD
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 15#Category:Heathen organisations was closed by you with the nominated category being renamed to Category:Germanic neopagan organisations. Shouldn't watchlist preferences be transferred between the source and target categories? The move was done by Cydebot. __meco (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Er...I'm not quite sure what you mean by watchlist preferences? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh.. sorry! I thought I maybe wasn't making myself sufficiently clear. Anyway, I mean that I had the old category on my watchlist. The new one isn't. __meco (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ahhh. Well, sometimes the new category will be watched 'automatically', sometimes it won't - I've never been able to figure out a rhyme or reason to it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh.. sorry! I thought I maybe wasn't making myself sufficiently clear. Anyway, I mean that I had the old category on my watchlist. The new one isn't. __meco (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
TennisAnalyst004's accuation of 76.189.114.243 and Schpinbo being the same user
Bushranger, here you go... Read Schpinbo's comments on his talk page. Can you have some sort of check run to show we're not the same person. And then when it's confirmed we're not the same person, can you ban or suspend TennisAnalyst for defaming us by falsely reporting it here and on other pages? And this proves his behavior is a pattern. 76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a checkuser; you want to file at WP:SPI for that. Also, careful with using words like defame. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, that only applies to threats or implied threats of legal action. I asked for him to be banned or suspended, not taken to court. ;) Can you please get someone to do the checkuser process? Please settle this particular issue. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, just letting ou know "defaming" is a loaded phrase around here. For a CU check, you should ask User:Dennis Brown - I believe he's a CU clerk. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, just letting ou know "defaming" is a loaded phrase around here. For a CU check, you should ask User:Dennis Brown - I believe he's a CU clerk. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, that only applies to threats or implied threats of legal action. I asked for him to be banned or suspended, not taken to court. ;) Can you please get someone to do the checkuser process? Please settle this particular issue. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)