Gold heart (talk | contribs) |
MarkThomas (talk | contribs) ==NPA== |
||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
==NPA== |
==NPA== |
||
Well MarkThomas attacked me rather visicioully the other day, see here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gold_heart&action=edit§ion=35], I hope you warn him. [[User:Gold heart|<span style="color: #6262FF; font-family: Bradley Hand ITC; font-size: 12pt;">'''Gold♥'''</span>]] 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC) |
Well MarkThomas attacked me rather visicioully the other day, see here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gold_heart&action=edit§ion=35], I hope you warn him. [[User:Gold heart|<span style="color: #6262FF; font-family: Bradley Hand ITC; font-size: 12pt;">'''Gold♥'''</span>]] 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Which bit of that do you regard as an attack Gold? If I have attacked you, I apologise and withdraw it. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:29, 24 June 2007
If you require the assistance of an administrator, please see the list of administrators. If you wish to report a problem, please see the administrators incidents noticeboard, the administrator's noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, vandalism intervention or the Community noticeboard.
ONIH
User:One Night In Hackney made this comment (aristofetishist) about me in an edit summary. I thought such a personal attack may be of interest to you and other administrators. --Counter-revolutionary 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course he never trolled my talk page... One Night In Hackney303 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't make a personal attack, unlike you. If you thought I was "trolling" you ought to have deleted the comment and not responded to it. The issue here is your personal attack. --Counter-revolutionary 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- See here. One Night In Hackney303 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia quite works like that. I have been blocked for an apparent personal attack, so maybe the (altogether higher) doctrine of forgiveness should be employed. Can murderers not be murdered? Thieves not stolen from? You have made a personal attack against me. --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- See here. One Night In Hackney303 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't make a personal attack, unlike you. If you thought I was "trolling" you ought to have deleted the comment and not responded to it. The issue here is your personal attack. --Counter-revolutionary 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You're both in the wrong. C-r, you left a provocative message saying perhaps ONIH hadn't read the article - of course, you knew he had, but had a different take on it to you. However, your subsequent post to his page was reasonable and rational. Nevertheless, you got things off on the wrong footing. However, ONIH, you should not use capitals, which is aggressive, and certainly not leave an edit summary "trolling from atristofetishist". You know he has a genuine disagreement, one which is far wider spread, involves other editors and needs to be addressed through achieving a consensus about this type of notability. Other editors have been criticised for the argument of "IRA memorial site". The use of the term "aristofetishopedia" is invalid for exactly the same reasons. There is no need to conduct such conversations on user talk pages anyway. It's better to conduct the arguments on article talk pages, where other editors can participate in the relevant place. If the other editor fails to notice this, then just leave a note on their talk page, pointing them to it. Tyrenius 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair comments. However you may also notice there was an ongoing discussion on the article talk page at the same time, so I regarded his presence on my talk page as an unwanted irritation particularly considering the nature of his first message. One Night In Hackney303 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you'd asked me to leave I would've been more than happy to. --Counter-revolutionary 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not very accurate response there, ONIH, from someone who is normally scrupulous in using sources accurately. C-r posts to article talk page 11.48. He posts to your talk page 11.50. You answer him on your talk page 12.03. So his post on the article talk page is still unanswered at this stage. You respond to it 12.05. He posts to your talk page at 12.06, presumably having composed his message before seeing your 12.05 post to the article talk page. Please both of you, use your undoubted intelligence to work out how to minimise such difficulties next time round. Tyrenius 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that he initiated two discussions, rather than just one in the appropriate place. It's all much ado about nothing really. One Night In Hackney303
- There's nothing wrong with posting in two places. You could easily have posted on your talk page that you were continuing on the article talk page. His first post on your talk page, whilst obviously expressing irritation and phrased ill-advisedly, was not trolling. You are obviously also irritated with him. You should both avoid personal comments. De-escalate. Tyrenius 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
And Again
- I'm very sorry to bother you but I really don't think edit summaries like this, made by User:One Night In Hackney, are acceptable on Wikipedia. They are very offensive and totally uncalled for. --Counter-revolutionary 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- So, you think edits like this to my talk page are just fine and dandy then? I don't hear you complaining about that, very selective standards you have.... One Night In Hackney303 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the two, and nor do two wrongs make a right. You'd have been best to just remove that comment and leave it at that. --Counter-revolutionary 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Erm no. It just shows that you come running to an admin about anything you can about me, while not showing the same level of zeal about any other editor. One Night In Hackney303 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That user was expressing a concern, perhaps he could've done so in a more subtle way but your edit summary did not help matters one bit. There is no need to retaliate in such a way. --Counter-revolutionary 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- And there's no need for you to waste Ty's time running here with every minor complaint you have about me, which doesn't help matters one bit either. One Night In Hackney303 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- If he thinks that's so then that's ok. --Counter-revolutionary 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- And there's no need for you to waste Ty's time running here with every minor complaint you have about me, which doesn't help matters one bit either. One Night In Hackney303 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That user was expressing a concern, perhaps he could've done so in a more subtle way but your edit summary did not help matters one bit. There is no need to retaliate in such a way. --Counter-revolutionary 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Erm no. It just shows that you come running to an admin about anything you can about me, while not showing the same level of zeal about any other editor. One Night In Hackney303 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the two, and nor do two wrongs make a right. You'd have been best to just remove that comment and leave it at that. --Counter-revolutionary 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tyrenius
The other day (18 June?)I sent you a message; I don't think you replied, at least I didn't find any response. I realize you're very busy. I still don't know what to tell the writer of the article you deleted. He seems to be prepared to accept certain minor changes.
Something about "Susanna Roxmann" was floating about here recently. I tried to delete the name, as it was a typo -- it should be "Susanna Roxman". I'm not sure I was successful, though.
Best, Odetteodile 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page. Tyrenius 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Trolling
Please check with me before assuming bad faith, because "as far as you can see" isn't far enough at this moment. I suggest you look here, here and here (and there's more where those came from), for the trolling from a certain editor. He's shown repeatedly he has no respect for policy, so I'm not wasting my time explaining a policy I've already linked to when he'll just ignore it and say "IAR". I'd told him to stay off my talk page, and he posted there again. He's a troll, and I'll remove trolling because it is trolling. You're responding to trolls now even being here over absolutely nothing. I could find you dozens of similar examples from certain editors each day, but when they were brought here previously you did nothing so I'm not wasting my time or yours when you'll do nothing. How about that for starters? You'd be better off sorting out the trolls not the people bring trolled.... One Night In Hackney303 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was reasonable with him. They got a week's notice, for an article that's been tagged as unsourced for six months. You would agree that unsourced information can be removed at any time yes? So you would agree that I didn't have to give them a week's notice to begin with yes? There's actually more information on that that I'll email you shortly for beans reasons. You want explanation for the others? See Northern Ireland and the associated talk page for starters, then see this edit. There is absolutely no consensus for that flag to be in the infobox, it hasn't been there for months. After months of arguing and page protections, the consensus finally was no flag in the infobox and after a couple of months without the flag he ignored it and put it back anyway. Note I wasn't even involved in that dispute, I stayed well clear. I'm not willing to deal with editors who are that intent on being disruptive to push their preferred POV against any consensus, and although I could have phrased it much better my point remains the same, he's not welcome on my talk page. The other matter is irrelevant, as you've seen I've already responded to it on my talk page much earlier. So I don't see the point in going over ground that's already been covered? One Night In Hackney303 03:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Spamming
Tyrenius please check this editors User:Mike Lawrence Turner constant adding what looks to me like spam WP:EL to articles about and connected to Futurism (art) and Surrealism. I deleted them all the other day after I noticed that he put an external link on the John Baldessari article. Here is the link he added today - Modern art movement - Futurism I had a conversation with this editor about this spam on Talk:Surrealism a few weeks ago. If you think the links are ok then let me know, I think the link is BS. Thanks Modernist 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
User:One Night In Hackney
Glad to see you've finally seen the light re ONiH. His cadre of buddies/editors (and, unfortunately, at least one gullible Admin.) continue to either insert or refuse to permit the removal of POV in the following articles:
Can you pls. review the edit histories just so you can see for yourself? Also don't forget WP:IAR.
Thanks, 216.194.2.83 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'd like to sign your post with your user name. Tyrenius 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's because this is the banned user User:rms125a@hotmail.com. SirFozzie 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I am signing, Robert M. Sieger and proud of it.
'"Go fuck yourself you cunts. Block this account now. Right to vanish." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)'. Is the loss of someone who would write this over a mere 24 hour block really someone worthy of editing Wikipedia?? Or someone who keeps hit lists on his userpage? Or who "advocates the assassination of aristocrats"? And the Admins in ONiH's pockets (Alison & SirFozzie) are prostrate over the possible departure of ONiH). His block should be lengthened for the above!
Now that I have signed my name will you check out the POV on the following articles (remember WP:IAR and the greater good):
Signing again, Robert M. Sieger.
As per your advice I hope I am not screaming too loud.
- Comment. exceedingly harsh on ONIH. All I can see is an IP insisting on original research, and then going trolling onto his page. Wouldn't you be somewhat irked by that too. ONIH is an excellent editor and has given much to WP, and doesn't merit this exit, and IMO, he deserves more. I am sure that you are an excellent admin, but all of us get it wrong sometimes, and this to me seems to be one of those occasions, that upon reflection, could easily point to a different outcome. I would be very grateful if you could amend the situation, as he is a very fine editor. Gold♥ 10:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is a discussion above and there was a full discussion on ONIH talk page. I don't propose to continue one here. Your survey is somewhat partial and simplistic, but I have always commended ONIH's editing abilities. Tyrenius 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, sorry for troubling you. Gold♥ 00:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is a discussion above and there was a full discussion on ONIH talk page. I don't propose to continue one here. Your survey is somewhat partial and simplistic, but I have always commended ONIH's editing abilities. Tyrenius 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
I am very pleased, thank you Modernist 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Dammit (Janet)!
You were supposed to agree that the project was concluded and I was supposed to start hurling Barnstars at participants!!! Ah, well...
Thank you. Working with you was reward enough, but the little pointy thing is a nice momento. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
(cough, cough) gotta li'l sumfink fer yer, Guv'ner... no kwestyuns (cough) arskt!
The stolen from the Beatles WikiProject Wikifish award That's the way van Gogh planned it! 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
More thanks
Many thanks for the Barnstar.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks likewise: much appreciated. Gordonofcartoon 23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Very cool!
Thanks! Freshacconci 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Advice please
Hello Tyrenius, If I didn’t have a problem you would never hear from me! I’m currently hitting the unwatch tab on a number of pages, through absolute frustration with some editors. I find their petty, nit picking and pov pushing crusade is causing me to become short in my responses with them. If you possibly could, could you have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Groves , I do not want to get blocked because of this type of editor. Kind Regards --Domer48 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks as always Tyrenius, I will address the points you raised, and put them in the article. Kind Regards --Domer48 17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Would be a bit hard re Pic, since she is dead. Take care Regards --Domer48 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- No Problem Tyrenius, will get in touch with them. Regards --Domer48 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Interested," talk about nit picking (LoL) Thanks --Domer48 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, Regards --Domer48 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Archiving
When I got to the point where I realised that the more I read on the subject the less I understood I gave up. When I next come across an archived page I will go through the edit history to see it I can comprehend the process... Thanks for your efforts! LessHeard vanU 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You would not believe it?
Hi Tyrenius, what was that advice again about staying out of trouble? --Domer48 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Irish Famine talk
Fair enough, but would you not also regard Domer48's repeated use of terms like "bad faith edits" in comment lines referring to my edits as personal abuse? Just asking as I was making an effort to tidy the article without being offensive to anyone and was met with a barrage of such comments. MarkThomas 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
NPA
Well MarkThomas attacked me rather visicioully the other day, see here , I hope you warn him. Gold♥ 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which bit of that do you regard as an attack Gold? If I have attacked you, I apologise and withdraw it. MarkThomas 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)