User talk:Khaosworks/Archive4

War Machine & Warmachine pages

We need to have a chat about the information on the pages. I do not believe my small, simple additions disrupt the enormous size of your the mainly comic page. The addition was conducted tastefully and in respect to your page. If you find this not acceptable we'll need to seek mediation if you continue to play the "revert war."

He does like to do the reverting. We recently merged The New Avengers into the The Avengers page, but rather than actually merging, he just deleted the vast majority of my work. Whenever I try to expand the information, he reverts. He doesn't even look at the histoy pages to see what he's actually reverting and just gets rid of whatever change I make, regardless. Then realising this, he continues to revert back to the "last good version", which is, of course the last edit he did. No offence intended, Khaosworks, but who are you to decide "good"? You clearly seem to believe you posess more authority than you actually do. Instead of constantly reverting peoples' work, why don't you at least try to make the effort to discuss the dispute and come to an arrangement with the other contributing members? It's what mature people do. You never know - It just might work. -- Avengers fan 19:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The recent rollback on Avengers was simply because I didn't roll it back far enough. The rollback function for admins is a one-click process which reverts the edits of a single user which, because of my mistake, I did not realize that the anon IP had also made the same changes. I remedied that as quickly as I could.
The last "good" edit, in that context, was an edit that does not basically put two articles on the same page in a way that goes against the spirit of the merge. If it had been someone else's, that would have been the edit I would have reverted to. It just so happens that I was the last one to do it. Please, if you feel that I am wrong, you are free to bring in an outside party in good standing to weigh in on it, but I am confident they will agree that what I did was correct. If you feel horribly aggrieved, there are also other steps to dispute resolution you can bring forward, like WP:RFC.--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Police cars in Aliens of London

In Aliens of London, what is the coat of arms on the police car General Asquith's in? And the one when the Doctor and Rose get "arrested"?--84.51.149.80 17:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited since this message was posted. You therefore know it's there. Have the politeness to answer it, even if just to say you don't know.--84.51.149.80 17:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, chill. I saw the message below this, but not yours. I don't have the episodes on me to check, so I can't tell you. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it here [1] at the bottom left.--84.51.149.80 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize the crest. In theory, it should be the City of London police (they have jurisdiction within the city of Westminster, while the Metropolitan Police go everywhere else), but it doesn't look like the City of London police crest. It doesn't look like the Met's either. I suspect it might be a generic "TV" cop crest so they don't run foul of any laws prohibiting them from posing as a real police car. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I recently wrote about the experience of having my own entry here and the weirdness involved, and thought you might enjoy it.

You can find it in the latest issue of my zine, under the heading "Self-reference."

Thanks again for your work! Rob T Firefly 23:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audio, Dalek History, Etc

Yeah, thanks. I sort of misinterpreted Tim's edit to the cat description and got a little too bold. I'm still learning, and I have to say that you've been a great help in getting accustomed it this place. On a related note, should the 5th-8th Doctors be added to the audio characters category?

The stuff I took out of the History article is right under "Conceptual History" in the main Dalek article, so S.I.G.:). Sean 00:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you just added it. Man, I'm dense. :) Sean 00:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sean and Khaosworks - I changed the cat description because the one on comic characters was wrong, and I changed the audio one to be the same description - I didn't look at the contents closely enough! --TimPope 08:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughtful feedback

Thank you for concurring with me, Khaosworks, that the RfA policy should be edited and updated: (From Jimbo's page: "I don't entirely disagree. It bears further discussion, and perhaps we should take this to Talk:RFA --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)") --in reply to: "He's probably right that the RfA page should be edited though. RfA has become a popularity contest and should be scrapped. It's getting ridiculous.... -- Grace Note (apologies for not logging in)"[reply]

I believe that I am qualified for adminship: I meet the requirements shown on the RfA page; however, if I am not qualified, then the RfA page needs to be updated to indicate that higher standards are required than merely being an editor in good standing. This RfA policy page misleads a lot of people.

Yes, I also agree that I should not get adminship if I am voted down, but those who voted against me violated policy, because they held me to a higher standard than policy required.

So, in short, I think I should either be admitted -or, if not, then the standards changed to justify the actions they took. (I think the process is becoming petty politics, and I wish to prevent future misunderstandings and make other Wikipedians feel welcome -not confused.)--GordonWatts 04:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

date of new series debut

Hey, Terence. I agree that the date of the 2005 series debut is notable, but does it need to be in the Doctor Who article twice? (It's near the beginning, and also under "History".) — Josiah Rowe 01:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Vandalism

Hey Terence,

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage a few weeks back! You know, I didn't even notice it until when I looked at the history just today... =P - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr GordonWatts

Hi KW, sorry for the delay in replying but I only just saw your note. I unlocked it because some admins posted to it with criticism of him (I think without realizing it was protected), and Gordon made the fair point that if others were posting to it, he should be allowed to also. It seems to have stopped now, so I'm just hoping it stays that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Hello There, could you please block User:212.50.183.100 again? Perhaps now for a longer time than 24 hours because he/she again vandalized the Copyright page. Thanks. Husky 22:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ACS, ACJC

Hi, as a fellow 12 year ACSian, I feel the AC entries can be much expanded upon. Chensiyuan 13:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message. You're probably right (although I would've soldiered on, adding Doctor Who wars to the category...). You're obviously much more into Doctor Who than I am so I'll leave it to your expertise. I'm glad to have visited your page because I found out what Filk music is (which I'd never heard of before). Have you ever heard "Space Girl" by Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger? It's science fiction song by a well-known folk duo. Apparently the tune is based on something traditional called "The Ghost Soldier". --wayland 12:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 32005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed? Come see Wikijunior Solar System!

Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who project talk archive

Hey, Terence.

Was there something wrong with the way I archived the talk page? I tried to follow the instructions on Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, which incidentally says that "using the "Move this page" feature for such an operation is not at all advised". Hope I didn't mess anything up! —Josiah Rowe 05:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't mess anything up. I was simply archiving in a way that would preserve the page history. I just read the instructions you pointed to and I find them rather odd, as that was certainly not the way I was taught to archive pages. Perhaps this is the new method because people were screwing things up by not moving the pages properly. Hmm.
Anyway, it's done now, and in a way that you can still click on history and see how the page developed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The impression I get is that the method on that page is suggested so that the talk page's entire history is kept on the talk page itself, instead of on the archive page. However, the subject is debated a bit at Wikipedia talk:How to archive a talk page, for what it's worth. I suppose I'm not much bothered either way. —Josiah Rowe 06:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/spelling

Why yous chainged my grammar and speling on the Request for Adminiship page? (Kidding, thanks a lot- it's a little embarrasing looking like I just failed Grade 5). --Scimitar parley 17:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who missing episodes

Well done on creating this new article out of the behemoth of the main Who piece. Isn't it weird how it was just sitting there as part of a larger article before, but now it's separate we can't wait to all dive in and start improving it? Hopefully we can make this into a really good overview of the subject now, in time. Anyway, as I said, good move, well done. Angmering 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiping (magnetic tape)

With all the work going on on Doctor Who missing episodes, I was inspired to try and beef up the general wiping / junking article a bit, as frankly it's not very good. Now, at the moment I've just taken a large chunk from the Doctor Who-based page and tweaked it a bit to cover the topic more generally, but with sections set up for the US and the ITV companies there's plenty of opportunity for it to grow.

However – at the moment I think it's a very badly-named piece. "Wiping (magnetic tape)" only covers tape, whereas the piece discusses the destruction of telerecordings too. I was thinking of moving the page to junking (as opposed to wiping, as you can't really "wipe" film as such), but I wondered if you thought I'd be justified in going ahead and moving it, or whether it's something that should be voted on on the Requested Moves page? I ask because you seem to know the management side of Wikipedia far better than I do, and I trust your opinion on such matters. Angmering 16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special Characters

Hmmm. That's odd. Safari's never done that before. I think/hope that it's just this highly disagrreable Apple iMac, which has acting up (and messing with Safari) all day. I'll give it a rest for the night, and respond to any comments tommorow. Cheers,--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've fiddled woth my Safari preferences, and all is well, it seems. Let me know if I mess anything else up, okay? :)--Sean Jelly Baby? 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.41.241.254

This user has a fair history of vandalism (User talk:217.41.241.254). I discoverd just now that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Lewis he had attempted to vote not to delete the article by faking another users name. If you have time could you please check this out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather 09:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unnecessary. You're just a control freak.--84.51.149.80 15:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CD Blurb

Thanks for the info. The lack of any information on the last few BF stories was doing my head in so i decided to make myself a member and update myself. Is there any way to add a cover of the CD or will that be a copyright problem?

Chris razorkiller2004 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Vortex

I don't know if you've seen a copy of this yet, but I've just noticed that in Shaun's book, Wikipedia is one of the sites mentioned in the "For Further Information" appendix at the back. "The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has an entire section devoted to Doctor Who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who)." (page 413). Good, eh? Angmering 16:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, indeed! Wish I could get hold of a copy quickly, but ordering it would take ages to get here (ordering the Handbook took a month via surface mail). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional scientists

I see Whobot is moving everyone in Category:Fictional heroic scientists to Category:Mad scientists. I am presuming that this is in preparation for moving everything in Category: Mad scientists to Category:Fictional scientists. However, if this is the intent, it's messing up a lot of categories unless it sweeps it through a second time almost immediately (and ruffling feathers of those who don't know what's going on).

Assuming this was not an error, it probably would have been better just to move things directly from Mad scientists to Fictional Scientists, then Ficitonal heroic scientists to Fictional scientists on the second sweep. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, no that was me and a typo when I created the list. Thanks for catching the error, some of the discussions blend together and its easy to copy the wrong destination. NOw I have to merge them where they belong. ∞Who?¿? 06:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers_fan

Did you see what he added to User_talk:81.79.46.57, User talk:81.79.91.55 and User talk:65.13.43.98? Plus all the reverting and concensus against him - something's going to have to be done - SoM 13:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know the merge discussion's done'n'dusted (and even if it had been ongoing, names registered after the vote start wouldn't have counted); it was more the attitude and tone involved that's disturbing me. - SoM 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again. Can you block him yet, or do you need another admin since you're involved? - SoM 10:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a gentle clarification, this in itself is not vandalism or blockable. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who logos and Outpost Gallifrey

Hi, Terence. I notice you have uploaded most of the Doctor Who logos to Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, they are mostly the images I created at Outpost Gallifrey (which BTW is fine by me; I'd have uploaded them myself if you hadn't already!). Should I know you from there? Throup 17:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of serenity at Serenity (film)

Hey, Terence. Over at Serenity (film) we're having a problem with an anon user who seems determined to spin the critical and popular reception section to his POV. To make matters worse, he or she won't discuss his or her changes, but keeps making them without comment. Now, I admit that I'm a supporter of the film, and wish it were doing better at the box office, but I'm trying to keep the article NPOV. Could you take a look at the history, and let me know what you think? We've put in a RFC, but had no response yet. —Josiah Rowe 15:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Josiah. I'm actually just about to go to bed, so I can't look at it in depth. I'll try and get around to it in the morning. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Dream well! —Josiah Rowe 16:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the history and the edits and I don't see anything that leaps out at me as immediately blockable, although there certainly seems to be POV-pushing around. If the anon manages to violate WP:3RR in the process of his editing, give a shout out, but otherwise, perhaps an RFC or asking for a third opinion is the way to go for the moment. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We put an RFC in, but there hasn't been any response yet. Thanks for checking in, though! —Josiah Rowe 02:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's just violated 3RR, although I fear I may have done the same — I tried to edit rather than revert, but despite my best efforts to find consensus I've found myself fighting on one side of an edit war. Do what you need to — I'll take my medicine if I've broken 3RR. —Josiah Rowe 06:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling this. When he comes back, I'll try not to let his behavior increase my wikistress too much. —Josiah Rowe 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it appears that the same Annon is back and doing the same thing AGAIN. Could you block him for a week or something?Gateman1997 22:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language question

Languages are a hobby of mine and I was wondering if you might be able to help me find a chinese character(s). I'm trying to isolate the character for the word Ao, I have narrowed it down to these (with some repition), 李翱, 隞都, 李敖. I'd like to work the character representing Ao into a letter a liason vowel for the respective English sounds found in Mao cow, thou, and Tau. The trouble is I can't identify which character the word corresponds to or if it has the sound I'm assigning it. Do you think you could help? Thanks. -JCarriker 02:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Jack Sarfatti

I just wanted to say thanks for page-protecting Jack Sarfatti. Your quick response is greatly appreciated and has stopped some huge migraines from developing. --C S 06:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats (Doctor Who)

Thanks for fixing the mess I made of the dates on the Doctor Who article. I had misunderstood the way dates are handled by Wikipedia--I had got the idea from somewhere that only ISO dates are converted to user preferences. Only after browsing from my mobile profile did I realise otherwise. Throup (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_17

I think I broke it. I tried to add the Air America-Gloria Wise thing per instructions, it somehow showed up lodged in the Rational Objectivity thing, and now it looks really broke. Can you fix it for me? I'm sorry. --badlydrawnjeff 14:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood

Hi, Terence (Are we on first name basis yet? :). I am positively, utterly shocked by this Torchwood thing. I mean, wow. Do we have another K-9 and Company on our hands? Anyways, my misguided attempt to AFD the thing was obviously a bust, so thanks for closing it. Cheers, Sean Black Talk 20:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in creating a Torchwood page for the organisation yet? SGCommand

It's not unnecessary. You're just a control freak.--213.18.248.19 12:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I know that I already said this, but you didn't respond. If you don't, I'll carry on leaving you messages, and maybe complain.

Doctor Who missing episodes

I just noticed that in a week and a half this article has only had one single piece of feedback on peer review, and the notes in that seem to have been pretty much dealt with. Are you going to put it onto FAC soon, or wait a while longer? Just curious, really. As you said yourself, it'd be nice to have a Who featured article more grounded in reality, although I suppose some might find four Doctor Who FAs a little excessive! Angmering 15:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't by any means want to get on your bad side as you pretty much seem to control everything connected with Doctor Who, one of my main editing fields, but I have looked at the history of your talkpage, and must agree with, among others, User:Energy that your aim on Wikipedia is to have your edits being the latest on any Wikipedia article.

My second edit to List of minor Doctor Who villains did actually encompass the fact that the Doctor had regenerated, and you simply took the content out of what I said, effectively "Humphrey-ising" it (I assume you'll complain that that phrase is unencyclopedic, see Yes Minister for an explanation).

I also looked at the "Link on List of Doc Who serials" situation: I also think that the link is useful: it contains further links to each episode, even those without articles yet on Wikipedia. The Dalek hovering/kneeling incident in your Archive2 does indeed draw parallels between you and the Jagrafess.

You also appear to have ignored messages left on your talkpage, and really, failed to act as a good Wikipedian, even to the point of using a sysop-only revert for non-vandalism, which I beleive is contrary to WP policy. Please don't ignore this message.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the date note is not original research: it is speculation. There is other speculation on WP: maybe you want to purge that too. I also do not appreciate edit summaries like that from GraemeLegget "rv, wait for Doctor10 to calm down". After all, if you've approved it then it must be alright.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother claiming that Image:Apeman.jpg is an attack page: it's used in an encyclopedic article.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is particularly nasty, I have listed it at WP:IFD and WP:AN/I --TimPope 08:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it comes down to it, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression... - while this is not a legal threat because the UDHR isn't legally binding, it is an formal and official request for my rights to be recognised.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Torchwood, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Spoken word

Great work on Dalek - I can imagine it must have been very tedious, given the length of it! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It has its tedious moments, but it is a great way to learn about things. It's amazing how much more you take in from an article if you read it out loud.
I'm open to suggestions for my next spoken article. Let me know if you have any ideas. --Throup (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after it passes (or fails) FA status, you can try looking at Doctor Who missing episodes. That one I think is informative enough. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good one to go for. I was also considering Cybermen, seeing as they will be appearing in the new series. Anyway, I won't bother you too much with this as you appear to have become embroiled in World War III! --Throup (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an RFC on the Doctor10 situation

Hey, Terence. If you want, I'll file the RFC about the situation with TheDoctor10. My only question is whether it would be better to file it under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct? —Josiah Rowe 08:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed it at "media, art and literature". We'll see if we get any response... there wasn't a lot of input from the community-at-large over the business at Serenity (film). —Josiah Rowe 09:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer?

Skyring here. Just wondering about that "cancer" remark of yours. Are you basing it on anything I've done or just hearsay?

The thing about Wikipedia is that when you get down to it, it isn't a religion, it isn't a government, it isn't a court of law. What it is is a website with a bunch of people standing around trying to do the best to keep the thing going. The rules, such as they are, are still being beaten into shape, and if and when they are, they will still amount to nothing much. It's just a website, after all.

What I think really counts is common sense and usually it's pretty easy to spot the vandals and the abusers and the trolls and so on and do the obvious thing. So far today I've reverted maybe half a dozen vandal attacks, and these were straightforward things that any reasonable person would back me up on. This is a good example, and there were a couple of others.

But look over my other edits today and see if you can spot what David Gerard was getting at: 139.168.157.141 RunningFree ForestStag plus whatever I used yesterday, which is mostly in the list on my user page.

The guts of it is that there was no vandalism, no abuse, no stalking, no threats. I merely made a series of good edits, usually trivial stuff like spelling and wikifying dates, but I created a couple of articles as well and made some pertinent comments. Then when jtdirl noticed and started reverting them, I reverted him back, selecting another account whenever I got blocked.

I felt that this was the way to demonstrate the "disruption in the flow", if I may put it like that. My edits were good ones, intended to push Wikipedia forward, but jtdirl pulled them back and eventually protected a few pages because of "persistent vandalism". As anybody may see, there was no vandalism, but there was an example of an admin out of his depth.

jtdirl would like people to think that he is merely enforcing the rules, but the rules don't even back him up on this, nor does common sense. David Gerard is rightly upset because I placed him in the position of having to supervise an admin of more than two years experience.

My relations with jtdirl have been rocky right from the start, and it took me a while to work out why. I like correcting errors, fixing vandalism, pointing out mistakes. It gives me a lot of pleasure to find something that needs fixing, or an article that needs writing. Perhaps the most pleasure I got was in writing an article about a [Saint John's Church, Richmond, Virginia historic little church.]

But jtdirl doesn't like admitting errors. Whenever I pointed out a mistake on his part, he either ignored it or reverted it, even if it was as plain as the nose on his face. A look at the history of one of his articles makes this clear. I looked at it, fixed it up, and he reverted it, several times over. I wasn't banned at this point, so he didn't have even that flimsy excuse.

I'll admit that it was wrong of me to take pleasure in his obvious discomfort, but the context was that he'd just spent a couple of weeks pretending that he was an expert on Australian constitutional history when it was quite clear to me that he was faking it. I found it quite unpleasant to be labelled as stupid and ignorant in a field where I had spent years gaining my knowledge.

So there you have it. That's the guts of the dispute, and I feel I owe you an explanation of why you found Avengers (comics) the site of a childish edit war over a single word.

The reason Everyking feels confident in volunteering for "Skyring watch" is that out of all the admins on the site, he's about the only one who can understand what's going on, and he knows that he is in no danger of threats or abuse. He also knows that I don't do vandalism or bad edits. David Gerard thinks it's something to do with revenge, but he's miles off, even if he understands the mechanics of what's going on.

Getting back to your "cancer" remark, I have to say I found it rather crass. About all I'm guilty of is being argumentative and refusing to accept the validity of a few website rules that include WP:IAR. And of being an obsessive prick. Guilty there.

But nothing I've done comes close to the appalling behaviour of jtdirl on 1 September this year, and so long as that goes unpunished and apparently condoned by Wikipedia management, I can't say that I feel that I should have much respect for wikirules. To my mind, an admin charged with enforcing rules shouldn't feel that he is above them. On the contrary.

What I'm looking for is some sort of solution, and if you can think of some path to an acceptable outcome, I would be grateful. There must be a path, and I understand that nobody is going to find a perfect path, but I'm prepared to do my best to find a way and follow it.

Peter

I'm replying here because, basically, I don't know which account or IP to answer to. But I'll keep this as concise as I can (because I've got a meeting to go to in a few minutes). My "cancer" remark was ill-chosen and hyperbolic, and for that I apologise. That being said, my opinion of your behaviour, coming from observation of the ArbCom proceedings as well as the amount of flack that is generated everytime you make a reappearance and your obstinate refusal to abide by the terms of your ban, is not high either.
I don't approve of Jtdirl's blind reversion actions, as my remarks around September 1 show. But equally, every time you come on, his reversions start to bait you, and you start baiting him back. And it's become obvious to me at least that this is ultimately personal. It's not about the edits, it's not about making improvements, it's basically come down to the fact that the two of you don't like each other and you've become so involved in this that you enjoy egging him on to some degree. I grant you that this is my perception, and you may of course disagree, but as long as this toxic atmosphere exists between the two of you, there can be no resolution to this.
You have, by your actions - the edit wars, the sockpuppets, the taking of this to LJ - rightly or wrongly, created an environment where nobody in Wikipedia will listen to anything to you have to say, or rather nobody that counts. If you had tried lying low, if you had tried to approach ArbCom or whoever with a compromising attitude and tried to get back into their good graces, perhaps at some point, you could have returned and started contributing. But this did not happen, and now, the mere appearance of you sets people off, and I honestly don't see any chance of you being welcomes back into the fold, so to speak.
Whether you should have respect for wikirules is, ultimately, beside the point, because you're not a position of power. Sure, you can cause a lot of annoyance by coming in through open proxies and such, but the effect is really minimal, and does nothing but piss people off more. I would suggest that you do start having respect for wikirules, because playing by them is the only way you're going to get back in again.
And the only way I can see it happening is if you apologise, unreservedly, to Jtrdirl (assuming he accepts it, which I doubt), or try to make peace with everyone else you seem to have pissed off, and just maybe, come to a deal with ArbCom, Jimbo, or whatever. If you're not willing to do this - and it's no longer really a case of compromise or mediation but total surrender, and I perfectly understand if this may not be palatable to you at all - I don't see you being able to edit, unmolested, even if all your edits are good.
Of course, you may not want to get back in, given all this, and perhaps it would be better just to walk away. I'm sorry if the options are not appealing (they would not be to me if I was in your position), but as far as I can see, those are the only ones available. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There's always my talk page - if you can unprotect it. In theory I'm allowed that. Or you can send me an email through the system. skyring@gmail.com if you can't - there's no secret about that.
Thanks for your honesty. I value your opinion. A couple of points. Whether I like someone or not is beside the point. What I like is fixing errors and what jtdirl doesn't like is admitting them. I suspect that for both of us that goes back to childhood and isn't something we can change, so there's always going to be the potential for conflict. I respect his knowledge and research skills in certain areas, and I've praised him now and then for coming up with some brilliant solutions to difficult problems. That style infobox for monarchs and popes and things was just the right thing to solve the ongoing problem. But often he falls down in the details, such as spelling or grammar or small facts, and that's where I shine.
But I'm not perfect, not by a long chalk, and if someone corrects or updates my work, that's all to the good, so long as they can show the source.
It's not a matter of returning. I've never left. I can make as many edits as I want, even if I have to go find an Internet cafe, of which there are any number within an easy walk. So long as Wikipedia remains able to be edited by anyone, I'm not going to have any problems making edits.
And no, I wouldn't say that my actions alone have resulted in this current situation. I'm by no means blameless, but I can see that there's a certain atmosphere of cronyism and cliquishness here that makes it easy for bullying to occur. It's exactly what you would expect in such a community, I guess, given the lack of strong leadership - those who want power must seek the patronage of those above them while building up a group of followers who will in turn support them.
Again, thanks for the illumination you have provided. I have a great respect for those who can speak a simple truth, and knowing the landscape makes the path clearer. I shall consider your guidance.
Peter