User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2011


Thanks...

... for this, you are right. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah, he's already blocked and obviously digging the hole deeper. Best to just let it be and he'll only have himself to blame if he remains blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Pradip Baijal edits

I have seen the responses you have provided ashlonerider for the edits on the page of Pradip Baijal. As I have mentioned in the past, there is a major effort by certain people to implicate or insinuate people as part of the 2G scam in India. Ashlonerider is being paid to purposely malign someone's reputation and is pretending to do so in the guise of being neutral.

Here are the facts. 1. There are no proofs of any policy flip flops. All policies are by definition different from the past. A flip flop means that a policy was changed back after having being changed to something else. There is no proof of that. ashlonerider is quoting this from a newspaper article. The policy changes mentioned by him (license fees to WLL providers and full mobility are the same policies which have got several accolades from everyone including the US FCC 2. While Pradip Baijal did partner with Ms Radia, there is no evidence of any corruption. Ms Radia ran the largest PR company in India, which had over 100 clients. As a senior government officer, there is a high likelihood that some policy changes impacted these clients negatively or positively. Ashlonerider is just picking selective examples to insinuate something which is not true 3. There have been no denials of Mr Baijal working with Ms Radia, as claimed by ashlonerider. It is on his website. 4. As part of comprehensive investigation, Mr Baijal is one of several government officers under investigation. It is a blanket investigation, and his name is only highlighted further given his prominence when he was TRAI Chairman (having helped the sector grow from 10M subs to over 200M subs). Mr Vaish, Mr Behuria were called in for questioning; D S Mathur, who retired as Telecom Secretary a few days before the 2G spectrum was allocated in January 2008, and Manju Madhavan, former member (Finance) in Telecom Commission have been asked to appear on January 21 before the PAC in connection with the spectrum allocation irregularities, sources said. No wikipedia pages on these names have been written or introduced. 5. There is no proof or any facts that even Ms.Radia caused a loss to the exchequer. To call her a kingpin, when the real powers are with the minister - is absurd. She was a PR person for certain corporates. 6. Ashlonerider has also quoted Financial Express, where chief accused A Raja has alleged in his affidavit in the Supreme Court, that Baijal had helped Tata Teleservices Ltd get nine new UASL licences at 2001 prices in 2004 through a DO letter written to the department of telecommunications. Firstly, as a fact, the TRAI is a recommendatory body which has no powers to make any laws. It needs to get all its recommendations verifieid and ratified by the full authority. The minister is the key decision maker - so it is absurd for the minister to suggest that the TRAI Chairman led to any decision - one cannot be responsible for any decision if you do not have the powers.

Ashlonerider history is one of specifically targeting a few individuals. He is likely to be a member of a PR company, which is trying to use Wikipedia as the forum to spread wrong stories on certain individuals - likely on the behest of others. I would really appreciate you standing up for someone who has been praised for his work, and is an inspiration for all young IAS officers like me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunagra (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, unless you have clear evidence of wrongdoing, do not accuse an editor of being "paid" or a PR member again. That is a violation of our rules on civility and personal attacks. Further, your own employment as an officer in the department may constitute a conflict of interest. Just as much as Ashlonerider has been pushing to include the scandal information, you've been trying to glorify Mr. Baijal well beyond what Wikipedia allows. If you cannot leave your personal praise of Mr. Baijal behind, it might be best for you to stop editing the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lycos etc.

This is getting really nasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Macrakis&curid=1553169&diff=409349999&oldid=402178456 --Macrakis (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You forgot to timestamp this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bah. I probably hit too many tildes. If you put in 5 instead of 4, it signs without a timestamp. Annoying. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC) is 5, —Ryūlóng (竜龙) is 3.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it was three tildes. Regardless, I screwed up. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research board

You made a comment on the OR board here [1]

I thought that my original question was unartfully crafted and tried again. The reason I ask is because the only other uninvolved editor to weigh in on the issue has taken a certain position which is disputed now, because of your early response. I don't want to make you say something you don't believe, but this dispute is getting crazy and some outside input might be helpful.

My clarification question is below:

Well, let's say we take the two citations above and assume that they are RSs and otherwise meet all WP criteria for making an article. The first lists major consoles from the first generation to the sixth generation, but doesn't mention the seventh generation as it was published before the seventh generation began. The second source lists some consoles from the sixth and seventh generations. I guess the question is two-fold:
Frankly, the whole concept of console generations is so vague as to be useless. I don't see any point in applying the label at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

re: reference desk "vulnerability to radicalization"

I realize that the speculation portion of the discussion was closed, but I feel that there is a neutral, cogent answer that can be provided to the question. I thought I'd ask you first. What I would like to say is:

Leaving aside speculation, it's clear that "radicalization" as you put it was a fear of the founding fathers. The authors of The Federalist Papers talk more about "tyranny of the majority" than they do about tyranny by a minority, that is the fear that an impassioned public could abuse the power of the majority. This was arguably a factor in many of the design choices they made. The fact it takes many people to enact a law but comparatively few to block it is one manifestation of the principle (through means such as veto, filibuster, ect). Another is the intentional instability of the American political system, short terms of office for most governmental officials and non-elected positions changed by re-appointment on a fairly constant basis ensure it is hard for a radical group, even a majority one, to seize and keep power indefinately. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this User:Inning? Otherwise, I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No I'm not Inning, I prefer to edit as IP. I was just saying that I realize the discussion went off the rails but I think that the above might be a coherent answer to anyone that actually wants one to the question. I really don't know what Inning was on about, honestly, but maybe someone else cared about the question. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, gotcha. Still, you never actually asked me a question, and I'm not sure which of Inning's "questions" you're referring to. I kinda lost track, as he keeps spamming multiple topics that honestly only seem driven by his desire to see people puzzle out what he actually meant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HandThatFeeds. You have new messages at TehMissingLink's talk page.
Message added 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't think you understand my point at ANI

I replied to your comment one last time on my ANI but I think you are missing the point. I understand what the bot rules are and I understand what consesnsus means but my point is that 2 editors, administrators or not, who disagree with a change, do not constitute a lack of consensus. Consensus does exist for the changes even if Xeno and CBM believe it does not. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Been offline for the weekend. But where did you see consensus for the changes before you started implementing them? Where did you seek consensus for the changes? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy

Please stay off my talk page until you have calmed down enough to stop comparing me to a conspiracy theorist. Should you be interested in my specific concerns, please review my remarks, particularly this: "I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted."

I will continue to work to study all the issues in this case, and refuse to be bullied into either leaving it alone or posting prematurely. However, I absolutely have listed specific concerns, and you pretending repeatedly (along with allegations of me behaving like a conspiracy theorist) are not acceptable. WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have been calm this whole time. I have no stake in this whatsoever, aside from improving the encyclopedia. In fact, I'm bewildered by the anger you've shown in your own replies.
The edit you point out is concerning. But, aside from asking the blocking admin, I don't see how anyone else can answer for it. The edit itself was reverted because all edits by sockpuppets are summarily reversed. If it's a good source, it can be added back by someone else (not simply reverted).
I know you must be stressed by the response you recieved. I was trying to point out why you got that response, from an outside editor's view. And I've not seen the "specific concerns" laid out clearly. When you make a statement like:

Is it true that people have been banned for completely neutral edits? Yes. It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes. None of that is acceptable. I am not arguing for reinstating any of the badly behaved accounts from before - they are irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that badly behaved accounts are no excuse for bias.

People are going to take it as an accusation of wrongdoing. Especially from Jimbo Wales, a "voice from on high" as many people see it. You may not like that, but it's there and not liking it isn't going to change it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And, now I see you decided to nuke the entire conversation, out of what I can only assume is a fit of pique. I know you're human but... that's rather disappointing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing disappointing about responding appropriately to bullying. You are way out of line here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted. You considered my comments bullying? How in the world did you get that out of it? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You compared me to a conspiracy theorist putting forward wild theories about aliens on 9/11. You accused me - falsely - of refusing to point out where I think problems in the article lie. You accused me of all these things in a hostile tone that I didn't deserve. So yes, I think that's bullying, but I also think there's an easy solution to it in the wiki context: I deleted your insults. I don't apologize for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I pointed out that your argument had no more strength than a wild conspiracy theory. I pointed out that you hadn't put forth specific problems with the article, which you hadn't. You pointed to one edit from a user who got blocked being reverted, which is normal for edits by blocked users. You've been claiming problems of bias, but not specific issues with the article itself. Do you see the distinction I've been getting at?
Honestly, if you were any other user, you'd have had warnings by now for disruptive behavior. If you believe sources have been kept out of the article, why haven't you suggested sources to use, instead of simply repeating accusations of bias? That is what's getting you so much grief right now. You're not editing, you're just throwing out accusations and expecting other people to fall into line.
All I've tried to do is point out to you why other editors have been reacting to your posts like they have. And that's "bullying?" — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's completely wrong. I'm afraid you are the one being disruptive, while I'm engaging in a productive discussion with other editors on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
... right. So, just flat denial? That's all we get? Okay. I won't bother your talk page. Frankly, this seriously makes me concerned for the future of Wikipedia, if you're simply going to rule by fiat like this. I'll avoid that article as well, since there seems little point in attempting constructive dialogue with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendly poke

Listen, I didn´t intended to take the conversation between us on Jimmy´s page into that direction. I don´t recall myself crossing with you (but I forget many stuff ocasionaly), and I don´t understand why you take this so personally. I´m not talking about legal abuse, but rather a different one. Wan´t tell me that you haven´t noteced that groopies exist, and that groopies support eachother on RfA´s so they get bigger? Don´t tell me you haven´t noteced how in specific disputes several times happends that the same admins pick sides and favour some editors over others? Don´t tell me nothing of this exists? I had already reported several times related situations at ANI, and I have participated and my name came up ocasionally on Jimmy´s page. So, if you know nothing about it, well, better stay out. If you´re interested knowing, well, attacking me wan´t be the best way. If you know and attack me because of it, well, that is another case then. Now, you really think that inside that section on Jimmy´s page it would be proper to have a private conversation with diffs and long discussions? I don´t think so. Anyway, best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not angry, but I don't think it's a good idea to make such general accusations casually. It was not an attack, rather a blunt statement. It's just bad form, especially on a page like Jimbo's, especially if you have no intention of backing up such statements in public. I'm fine with letting the matter drop, at this point. As an aside, yes, some admins protect certain users where other people would've been banned a long time ago. But that's stating the obvious. Dragging it onto Jimbo's page just... wasn't very cool, y'dig? Awesome Face — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I know and I agree with you. That is why I wrote in the edit summary "just an evil comment", or something like that. Hey, nobody is perfect all the time. I mean, I could have removed my comment, but again... And who knows me, he knows what I was talking about. I reported several cases (none actually closed, but that means what it means) and I let many go. My further comments on the same section help a bit unaware people to understand what I am talking about, so I see nothing wrong in an "short evil comment". Perhaps it is not helpfull, perhaps it may become, anyway, it just remembers an existing problem among admins and since we are talking about some possible changes or improvements, well, if this problem is also considered and remembered, it will be good. It just comes from a "surviver" and I couldn´t resist not doing it in name of those who didn´t, or ended up just giving up. For time being things have been quiet about it, but if needed I have plenty of "strange coincidences" and reported and unreported wrongdoings to tell done by same people, so... And, nothing has been solved, so I am also not very cool with it. But, we are not here to be always cool, right? Don´t warry, some comments are done purpously with intention. Thanks for your input anyway! FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I needed to manually change my username for privacy reasons.

Please read here for more info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations Kruger1191 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Un-archiving old discussions was unnecessary for that. Just change your name on the live Talk page, not moving back old discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallo from Me at the homeopathic page

Hallo, potential friend.

I'm less than enthralled by your actions regarding my "commentary" on the Homeopathy talk page, of course.

I wonder how we can progress.

What are your further intentions regarding that commentary of mine?

I'm fairly new here (WP), just feeling my way. I expect you realised that. I think I've absorbed the basics, though it's true that when I put an argument forcefully, I can be interpreted as being uncivil (which isn't my intent).

On /Homeopathy/talk I've been testing the water (so to speak) before any attempt to "be BOLD", out of politeness more than anything else. There seems to be quite a strong undertow.

My exasperation at the way the page is run probably equals (or exceeds) yours at my persistence in dissenting, but I'm not so familiar with gestures like facepalm, or the various quasi-administrative processes. I have found your interventions very interesting, useful in my learning - I've had to find & look through pages on the dispute process (not up to speed there, I'm afraid), and I've only just becoming familiar with how to find things on the archive. My earlier tries at extracting useful stuff from the archive had rather floundered, which is a pity because I really need to know what has gone before; I think we would agree that there would be little point in re-visiting which have been properly dealt with.

There is certainly a lot of history there, very often it seems to go the same way. Please don't take this the wrongly, but it's fair to say I rather expected to be "ambushed" at some point, perhaps not quite so soon. I've already drawn attention to comments about "dealing with" opposition. Incidentally, just to make matters clear, I'm nobody's spokesman but my own, I have my own interpretations and am not acting as agent for any other person or organisation.

Now, I'm not happy at the way my flow was interrupted. I'm not happy that I was not given to expect this closure action.

I am not happy with your stated reason.

I feel sidelined. I should not have to feel sidelined.

I entered the discussion, you will recall, with the point WP:NONFORUM, which I backed up point by point. The responses I received seem simply to have ignored my process, I it has been suggested that it is I who does not understand the issues. Hmm.

In the course of the "commentary", I have asked several questions, which have hung unanswered. That is not engaging properly, it's a little inconsiderate. Instead - and you know my views here - I've been subjected obstinate re-statement of the same tired view. It's a mantra, propagandising, and it won't convince me of anything.

I've also been subject to demands to provide acceptable RS (for a view I haven't actually espoused on the page) when it is quite obvious that no source supporting homeopathy is ever going to be "acceptable" to certain other editors, or the subject of anything else but scorn. The circular logic is unappealing.

Oh, it goes on. Other authors have trenchant views and do not want to shift.

To come to your stated reason for abruptly curtailing discussion:

I arrived on the talk page in response to a series of disgraceful remarks already on the "non-forum", to improve the page by focussing on WP:NPOV. That's a contribution.

I brought attention to what I felt was bias by counting the paragraphs with Scare_quotes, a.k.a. "sneer quotes", as a primitive metric. I thinks it's pretty obvious that this was with the intention of improving the article by removing these. That's a contribution

As it happens, this situation was corrected boldly & independently by User:Najeeb1010 (no relation!) a couple of days later. (The snide quotes had been put there by User:PPdd in Dec 2010, and had already been the subject of commment by user:Smith Jones.)

Trying to get some of those with deep-set misconceptions & beliefs about what the science actually says, to understand that theirs is not the 0nly (unGod-given?) Truth, That would be a contribution, to the advancement of everything. But you're going to have to want to change.

Even apart from the differences I have with authoritarian skeptics on the nature of science and evidence, there are quite a few inaccuracies, misconceptions & omissions from the article which I hope to address in time. Researching attributions for what I already know takes a little while.


So where do "we" go from here? I expect it would be right for me to go to Dispute Resolution (in time), unless you have anything more to say.

You are welcome to leave comment on my talk page, of course.

Kind regards,

Memethuzla (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I really don't see much else here. My purpose at the page is to maintain NPOV. And Wikipedia's standard is that the scientific consensus is the NPOV.
The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. You weren't offering improvements, just your opinion that the article is biased, with no sources to back up your statement. We were going around in circles, which is not what the talk page is for. If you wish to pursue dispute resolution, feel free. But, you won't get very far if you're espousing a pro-homeopathy standpoint, as it's already been argued to death. Going over it again is just beating a dead horse. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar


 The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

need more hats

Can you hat all of the monologue (or near-monologue) at AN/I? I rather think anyoine who remotely would like to comment has done so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm not a fan of soapboxing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, how very interesting. I came here, after looking through your edit history, with the initial intention of politely telling you two things: (1) That your very frequent hatting of threads at AN/I is pretty bitey, and (2) the rationales you've left to do so are often offensive. And now I discover that you were asked to close the one I reverted by the only person in that thread who interfered with and opposed my wish for comment from admins there. You need a new venue in which to contribute, imo.
AN/I should be the last place a non-admin, especially, essentially tells his fellow editors to shut up. I watch AN/I pretty closely myself, although I don't contribute there very often on threads that I have no special interest in. I mention that only to let you know that if I see you hat threads that, in my view, should not be hatted, or if you do so with a snarky or condescending summary, I'll probably revert that. Please reconsider your habit of hatting unless there's some compelling reason to do so, and especially gain support from at least two others before you hat anything. It's really inappropriate for you to do that unilaterally, with no basis in consensus at all. Finally, if you do gain consensus to "shrink" a thread, please use "collapse top" and "collapse bottom" (or "cot" and "cob") rather than hatting. Doing so allows the use of a parameter before archiving to unhide the text, and thus make it visible to search.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." I will continue to close threads which are in violation of our talkpage rules. Please cease soapboxing on a board that's supposed to be about use of the admin tools. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rubber band around my balls

Well 1st off I apologize if my two cents turned into a turd floating into your literary punchbowl of left over mickeys from a fraternity keg party. I didn't realize that your discussion gestapo felt that my input was not up to snuff for the literary genius's insight who were so kind to discuss their point of view that was so moving and breathtaking. Overall I thought that a 1st grade elementary school class elaborated on your discussion board, which amounted to about as worthless as a bag of panties at the mens YMCA. Next time I'll take my stupid pill and pound out some real topic oriented crap for Wikipedia to glamor in the amazing wake of my 42 chromosomes. Sincerely, your mentor and fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmorley (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
WTF? --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 06:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Myers post

My reason for including this is that P.Z. Myers regularly posts cartoons very critical of Christianity; it's therefore significant that he did not republish the Mohammed cartoons at the time. Note that I was careful to give his explanation alongside it. Compare this with similar entries (e.g. Private Eye's reponse, the Cartoon network etc.). It's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsnot (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You're drawing your own conjecture. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find some reliable sources which point this out, we'd have something to work with. But we can't point these things out ourselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I would prefer to leave LC's personal attack visible there, just as a useful example of its typical level of "contributions". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I wondered why it popped back up. I'll let it be, then. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I added back then, and just did again. I think the matter is settled anyway, but it serves a purpose in this case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DNFTT at 911 CTs

I see you concurred with my assessment of iknowthetruthandyoudont and closed the discussion. I have actually been told off for stating the obvious. But I guess I can remove that from my talk page now. Sören Koopmann (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty sure at first just by the username, but willing to cut him/her some slack. The "reliable critic" bit was just over-the-top, though. No point in letting him/her ramble on. Though I fully expect to get an earful of the "truth" anytime soon... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for intervening in the discussion. I'm not going to challenge your decision to close it (didn't even know you could do that), but if you don't mind my asking, how does one "determine" with enough objective certainty that an editor is a troll for the purposes of closing a discussion? Are there guidelines or explicit criteria outlined by policy for this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no hard and fast rules, it tends to be the one time I invoke WP:IAR to close a discussion. As I stated, I lost all good faith when they proclaim Charlie Sheen as a "reliable critic" on the topic. That combined with their username and prior comments made it pretty clear they were just trying to get a rise up out of folks.
I've run into a few folks who really do believe they have the WP:TRUTH, but this editor was far too over-the-top even for that. There was no attempt at all to even promote an idea, just straight into (as they say on FARK.com) wharrrrgarbl.
And, yes, any user can close a discussion. It's a bit touchy, though. Some folks use it as a chance to calm down & defuse the situation; others go ballistic. I typically won't archive or hat a discussion unless 1) it's pretty obviously trolling or 2) it has devolved into circular arguments & vitriol with no substance. Most reasonable folks will move on when a discussion peters out, or someone uses a Resolved tag, but some editors just won't take a hint. They tend to self-destruct spectacularly. I expect our truther will either go silent and come back later with more "fun," or throw a fit over censorship & wind up getting blocked due to disruptive behavior. It's a pattern I've seen many times. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Bruggink. Are Osama bin Laden hunters notable? Kthapelo (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. NW (Talk) 13:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What was this message regarding? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
A request by Hans Adler on ANI to notify you about the case. He was upset about this edit of yours. I however take no opinion on that edit either way; this notification is simply a formality and a request that you look over WP:ARBPS—there are significantly stronger editorial sanctions available on pseudoscience pages like Talk:Homeopathy. NW (Talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm well aware of that. Which is why I've been debating on the Talk page, rather than getting into edit wars. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolving discussions

Hiya, I concluded discussions in general but particularly re the arsenic poisoning needed some help so have posted it here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy_-_to_mention_a_summary_or_the_conclusion. I hope you see this in the positive light in which it was it was done. I'm instructed to notify you hence me posting here - it being the most efficient as far as iI understand. Cjwilky (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Every: me

I'm making a "fuss"? How so? By not giving ground to the absence of a reasoning refuting any of my valid points regarding that guideline? So, on top of berating me for my unsuspecting honesty, you're now basically saying that I should just shut up, nevermind that my concerns about WP:GUNS#Criminal use are spot on (judging from the sum total of everything written in the VPP thread).

Also, "claiming" to be Everyme sounds a bit like there's any benefit to doing so. If anything, I freely admit to my prior history, despite the spirit of vengefulness and cheap excuses among the community establishment. Xavexgoem knows that I'm not a harmful presence on Wikipedia (maybe uncomfortable for some people who are far too comfortable). He also knows that I'm never going to resume editing under any account. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're making a fuss by blowing everything out of proportion. Just like you did here. And I used "claiming" because I could not be sure you are Everyme. Rather than just assume it from context, I made clear I was unsure.— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well, I didn't think I had left any room for doubt. Not that it matters anyway.
blowing everything out of proportion -- Am I? I'm looking for applicable and valid reasonings in defense of that guideline section, since I can't think of any. Some people at VPP are saying that it's valid as a trivia guideline, but there's already another section about trivia in WP:GUNS. Some write that there are other guidelines similar to WP:GUNS#Criminal use, but nobody has cited an actual example.
Others are dismissing the problem I'm trying to address by claiming it's a single-article content issue, or by pointing to IAR, or by erroneously assuming that my "vested interest" is somehow clouding my judgment.
I'm not the one who is blowing things out of proportion. All I want is a discussion about the problems I see with that guideline. If you think my responses e.g. to WhatamIdoing were less than CIVIL, check out how she completely ignored everything I said and simply repeated her attempts to shut down the discussion as a single-artlce dispute. Nobody called her on that. She isn't even trying to help, just abrasively dismissing everything I write. Yet I'm the one who is making a fuss. Not her. Me.
Ach. I don't even know why I bother trying to explain this to you. This is exactly why it's good to have no account. You guys can hold your witchburning palavers all you want. I'll just move on to the next thing. Nothing short of a rangeblock is going to stop me from contributing anyway. It's just sad that the Wikipedia community is so dominated by intellectually lazy naysayers that it's impossible to even talk about something as straightforward as the very real problems I see with that guideline. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is why I say you're blowing it out of proportion. People disagreeing with you is not "dismissing the problem" or "ignoring" you, they're disagreeing. You're making this out to be a confrontation, which isn't helping. Then again, you seem to have made up your mind that Wikipedia isn't for you... so I don't see why you're contributing at all.
Oh, and slinging around "nothing short of a rangeblock..." etc. isn't helping your cause. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Disagreement can only be qualifed through acknowledgement of all presented arguments. You are not disagreeing. You are ignoring my arguments.
About citing BATTLEGROUND. I am focused on the actual arguments, and a lack thereof. Obviously then, I'm taking issue with people ignoring my arguments.
I don't see why you're contributing at all -- How is this not you just trying to provoke me? Let's say I keep contributing despite people like you, and a little bit to spite people like you. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind anything I wrote. You're simply stupid and dishonest and I'm done talking to you. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've warned you for this blatant personal attack. I suggest you take a WP:WIKIBREAK and come back when you feel you can contribute without the "everyone is against me" mentality. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What you've done is you've proven me right. You were never interested in anything I had to say. You were just out to get my account blocked again. People like you make Wikipedia suck. You should quit. Wikipedia would be better off without you. Also, have you ever heard about DNTTR, you big child? And no, stupid and dishonest are rather neutral, entirely accurate descriptors. Who in their right mind would pick that one sentence from my comment and respond to nothing else? And not even to me, to someone else. You are "not very encouraging". --84.44.230.33 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the memory and a smile

Hello HTF. Saw your post about the lame thread regarding the front page and I had to come and leave you a message. Your wonderful statement about Mars influencing your personality reminded me of Carl Sagan's series Cosmos. At one point he comments that the specific gravity of the obstetrician had a larger influence on his birth than anything happening in the heavens. If you've seen that series you might remember what I am talking about. If you haven't then maybe you will one day. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I'm glad it brought a happy memory for you. I saw Cosmos when it aired, watched it with my father. Sagan was a brilliant man with a gift for making astronomy easy to understand. And yes, that comment of Sagans was priceless. Awesome Face — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Many Many (by a factor of millions) Thanks!

Hi again HTF. I can't thank you enough for cluing me in to the info about this new Cosmos series. I just saw Tyson on last nights Bill Maher show. Seth MacFarlane's involvement is also interesting. One drawback is having to wait two years to see it and the other is that airing on FOX we will have to suffer through commercial breaks. I am spoiled by having grown up with PBS and the fact that they did not divert my attention with adds every eight minutes. Sadly, I read that this is likely to change in the near future. There were so many good teaching series in the 70's and 80's - starting with Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man and running through David Attenborogh's many Life on/of ... series and James Burke's Connections and The Day the Universe Changed. I have been fortunate enough to find most of them on DVD with the exception of Jonathan Miller's The Body in Question series which was a fascinating look at how the body works and the history of the medicines that have been used on it. Well, I have probably taken up too much of your time so I will just say thanks again and '13 (which will also see Dr Who's 50th anniversary) can't get here fast enough. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)