Are you kidding[1]...what the hell is wrong with this website? There is NO EXCUSE to leave up personal attacks especially not by some IP who is surely just trolling.--MONGO00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with removing other people's comments or messing with closed discussions. That doesn't mean I endorse whatever it is the IP said. I have no strong opinion about it really. Besides, if they are trolling then this is not the way to deal with it. Trolls want to annoy people while not getting caught trolling, so getting angry and removing the troll post just plays right into their hands. I prefer the "leave it and laugh at it" approach. ReykYO!00:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've removed it again. What is that, the fourth time? Be careful or someone will block you for edit warring. That's not a threat, just a warning; if you do get blocked I'll say I oppose the block. ReykYO!00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in a laughing mood..how about the rights of a long standing editor being placed before those of some IP who is obviously trolling?--MONGO00:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither now...the arbitration committee is about to make sure we can all make personal attacks anywhere and anytime we want. Anyone removing a persoanl attack will be drawn and quartered.--MONGO02:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. You didn't get blocked for edit warring, and that IP's comment was eventually removed. You got your way, so what are you still complaining about? ReykYO!02:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed you're still being hounded by this user on the noticeboards for some unrelated dispute you were in a while back. While this edit was certainly not as ridiculously disgusting as the time he or she created a template designed to mark users in AfDs who had previously made unrelated edits he or she disagreed with, it still points to an ongoing issue. I was wondering if you were planning on starting up a discussion on Unscintillating's bureaucratic and disruptive ridiculousness or if this wasn't something you planned on addressing at this time. Thanks!--Yaksar(let's chat)19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People like him are easy to deal with. Don't buy into the pseudo-legal posturing, and don't get sucked into playing those weird semantic games. Just laugh at him and tell him to stop acting the fool. He doesn't like that because he's no longer dictating the terms of the conversation. ReykYO!04:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I mean I'm personally more amused than troubled by it all but his needless interruptions of proper procedural AfDs is getting somewhat tiresome.--Yaksar(let's chat)05:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reyk - I asked a question directed towards you at Talk:Men's rights movement. I'm not sure how often you check that page, so I figured I'd drop you a note here too. When you have the time, your feedback on my question there would be significantly appreciated. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, I am travelling on business at the moment and I don't have a huge amount of time for teh Wiki. I haven't forgotten your question and I hope to be able to give you a thoughtful and sensible answer when I get back, in a week or so. Cheers, ReykYO!14:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidtmy talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Indulging this nonsense would give it the colour of legitimacy.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 03:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template talk:Arguments, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 03:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I wasn't aware I had reverted you. I have been having problems editing with a tablet where I have accidentally rollbacked, I presume I did in this case. Once again my profuse apologies. Regards. Wee Curry Monstertalk21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edit and was wondering about your source(s). That probe was a bit over 30 years ago! Is "a 1380 x 24,940 km, 18 hour orbit about Mars with an inclination of 48.9 degrees" a stable orbit, or did its orbit decay & the probe burn up in the atmosphere a long time ago? Wingman4l7 (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I added that because the article is in the category "Derelict spacecraft orbiting Mars" but, looking back, I don't see a source for that either. I will ask the person who added the category whether they have a source. Cheers. ReykYO!21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was the edit/editor; I would bet that it was just an assumption -- although Mars 3 was an identical spacecraft and it is not in that category (there is no orbit info in the article), so it's possible that editor knows something I don't. The Mars 5 orbiter (which does have orbit info) is also in that category, for what it's worth. Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It was a personal attack because he is saying something I didn't say and using it to attack me. He is being dramatic. I didn't call him a dick; but he has been directed to it in conversation before and the RFC/U expressed a clear consensus his behavior needs to change. Refactoring and twisting a user's words into an attack even on yourself is a violation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you can't say to someone "People have directed you to WP:DICK, maybe it's better to not be a dick" and then claim you haven't called them a dick. Clearly nonsense. You've also accused FdF of lying when he hasn't been, and being a troll when he hasn't been trolling. The post of FdF's that you removed contained no personal attacks and you were wrong to remove it. And it's a bit rich for you to be whining about being misquoted when your wilful misinterpretation of FdF's words and actions is the entire basis of your AN thread. I have no idea what your game is, but you are not being reasonable and, frankly, I think an examination of your behaviour at the drama boards might be a good idea. Please don't post here again. ReykYO!23:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A cup of coffee for you!
Your explanation of WP:42's derivation from existing policies is among the best single actions I have seen to show compassion to new editors by advocating for simplification of policy. I appreciate the work you put into this and your comments about that page. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, in relation to your comments at the DRV, you may wish to see this. The article is clearly notable, and to keep it off Wikipedia only goes to serve the enormous butthurt that numerous people have in having this article in the encyclopaedia. 80.109.48.204 (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal like or dislike towards this article, I'm just pointing out that the result of the AfD was pretty clear. ReykYO!11:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History section of Go
The History section of Go (game) looks well. It's properly cited with no bias. I don't see any reason in having to rewrite that part. It's just that the other parts contained loads of original research by go players themselves. What do you think? ΤheQ Editor Talk?17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is pretty well-written and properly cited. I have no problem with copying it over as-is and expanding it, rather than writing a fresh history section from scratch. ReykYO!22:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mention of you regarding the previous AN discussion at Jimbo Wales, if you feel i misinformed Jimbo Wales, or forgot to mention a specific detail, i urge you to respond and clarify. Other than that, i hope this isn't a bother to you. Lucia Black (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy heads-up. I do not feel that you've misrepresented me at all, but I would prefer not to get involved in this matter. Cheers, ReykYO!10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If you could give perhaps a small mention, i understand you don't want to get involved. but i believe it really just takes one supporter to allow someone to put things into perspective. but if not, i understand. Lucia Black (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precious again
asteroid
Thank you for quality articles such as 243 Ida, for striving to "perfection ... when there is nothing left to take away", and for your oppose to the main stream. - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
As you seem determined to misrepresent both WP:ASSERT and my replies to you, I see no reason to continue dealing with you.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I notice you have reversed a recent edit of mine,
I absolutely dispute your reasoning.
The re-insertion of Emily Lakdawalla Is clearly untenable, as it says in WP:ASSERT
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
As the linked article ACTUALLY says; "And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories. I'm just pointing out that a large portion of stories that get covered are the ones that are selected for press-release treatment, and a lot of outlets cover the same stories."
The reference actually is talking about "independent reporting" (fact) and not just that Universe Today provides "independent look at big news stories." (which is her own opinion, and not, what as the article infers is universally true.)
What she is saying is " I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories" (which is clearly an opinion.) It is plainly against WP:ASSERT policy, regardless.
Moreover, I believe her stance in quoting Universe Today was, as said in this same article, "I could, but won't, get into the subject of news embargoes here; I don't participate in embargoes." Funny that the issues of embargoes is something Universe Today decided too. After reading this, I too would question the sources neutrality. I do now understand your statement Talk:Universe Today: "For example, it is perfectly acceptable to cite UniverseToday for their own position on reporting news-embargoed stories." (which you should note I didn't remove.) It seems to me Emily Lakdawalla might just be doing that too, hence her support for this site.
That's not the applicable part of WP:ASSERT. The relevant part is the paragraph covering how we should cite opinions. Please go back and read it. If you still think the claim is not "backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it" you can try to make a case for that point of view. Of course, you are free to whinge about me at any noticeboard you like. But my experience is that people who write long walls of text based on partial and selective reading of policy, do not usually succeed with their litigation. ReykYO!21:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Of course, you are free to whinge about me at any noticeboard you like."
Really, emotive accusations like this are irrelevant. Stick to the issue and state the facts. Not at the person, pleese.
You have, I believe, also manipulated the statement ""backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it"", which is never what I've claimed. [WP:ASSERT]] says "Uncontested and uncontroversial" The statement by Emily Lakdawalla is precisely this issue, controversial (and something that others editor in past have pointed out about the article.) The sources is also unreliable, because the statement looks like an endorsement in the article, and worst, is made to make a different point.
You threaten to drag me to ArbCom and accuse me of "manipulation", yet somehow I am the one making personal comments? Yup, we're definitely done here. Go away. ReykYO!08:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DocumentError
The more appropriate place for your enquiry would have been my talk page.
The reason why Bishonen blocked the DocumentError was (archived here):
... DocumentError's persistent and quite specific accusations against Legacypac and dancing around repeated requests to substantiate them. They either ignore requests for diffs or specifics or bat them away with rebuffs such as "I don't understand - are you asking me to file an ANI against you?… this is an ANI about me", or "This isn't HUAC" (yes, really, that was one). Or complaints about the way a question was formatted, in lieu of answering it. ...
— Bishonen, talk 01:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That is what DocumentError was doing on my talk page (see § In ref to the ANI). So DocumentError is not blocked for putative reasons, but because DocumentError needs to make stop prevaricating and answer the question. This DocumentError can do at user talk:DocumentError. If DocumentError wishes to, DocumentError can ignore the question and ask for an unblock for any reason DocumentError thinks is justified, and if another administrator does unblock the account and the question has not been answered, I will take that as a no and construct an appropriate ANI so that the community can decide what should be done. What is not acceptable is that DocumentError starts to edit again without giving a clear answer one way or another as that is not fair on the other party to the dispute. -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This does not in any way answer the question. The fact remains: it is unfair to block someone for not answering your question when they are not logged on and not editing. If DocumentError had started editing again, and if those edits involved Legacypac, then a block might be appropriate. But blocking someone for being away from Wikipedia is not; neither would, hypothetically, silently walking away from the dispute to do something else somewhere else. I ask again, what actual disruption is being prevented by this block? BTW, I asked the question on DE's talk page because I wanted both DE and a potential block reviewing admin to see it. ReykYO!14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is preventative because it prevents DocumentError from editing until the such time as DocumentError either agree to abide by the restraints or does not. Your argument that If DocumentError had started editing again, and if those edits involved Legacypac, then a block might be appropriate is not fair because until such time as either DocumentError voluntarily agrees to the restraints, or the community imposes them, there is no prohibition on DocumentError making such an edit. -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't seem as though you're understanding what I'm saying, probably because we have wildly differing views of what "disruption" is. To me, disruption means damaging the encyclopedia or harassing others. The concept does not include "failing to answer a question while offline". Blocking someone as a means of extracting a concession or agreement from them, in the absence of any actual damaging edits, does not seem right to me. It's too much like a shakedown, or putting your foot on their neck until they cry "uncle". It goes against my sense of fair play. I doubt if you will convince me otherwise, so good day to you. ReykYO!06:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AWB Violation/ Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I am rather unhappy with your appraisal of me [2]. I'd remind you that in dispute resolutions WP:DRN pages, it says;
"Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. Comment on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion."
Frankly, you can say what you like to me anywhere you like, but WP:DR you have to only discuss the issue. (I too did this once, and was deservedly was pummelled for it.)
Apart from that unpleasantness, I would like you to be aware of my honest responses to Tetra quark[3] (where you are mentioned) and JorisvS[4]. This point may apply to you.
I appreciate your candour, and hope to move to a more consolatory place.
Probably, there are 2 files on the page of Chiron. The other one works well. There must be a problem of rights for "File:Chiron orbit.PNG". Thanks. --Io Herodotus (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that the other picture is on Commons, and the orbit wasn't. I've moved it to Commons now. See if this fixes the problem. :) ReykYO!20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your current GA review on Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz. Maybe you can help me make some astronomy and physics articles, many of which are in sorry states of existence or red link existence, into Good and Featured status? Royalmate3 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. I already have one astronomy FA under my belt, and it would be nice to do more. What articles do you have in mind? ReykYO!05:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go
Go (game) has a long-standing template that says it is being rewritten, but Talk:Go (game)/Rewrite hasn't been touched in six months. I would like to remove the template, since it scares off other people from editing.
Hi, regarding the thread about Arb's de-PRODs at ANI, I do understand your point but I'd be pleasantly surprised if they appear on WP before the thing is archived. What would happen then? - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I foresee several possibilities. I don't know what Arb will say if they show up at the ANI thread. They might voluntarily agree to dial down the deproddings. That would be the ideal outcome. Or they might turn up and be all defensive and stubborn. I just think it's fair to give someone a chance to respond. If Arb doesn't show up, waits for the thread to be archived, and then just carries on as before you would have a much stronger case at a second ANI thread. Hope this answers your question. :) ReykYO!09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think it looks stalky. Like I said, if it appears that an editor sits out an ANI discussion till it gets archived, and then just continues with the same behaviour, then one would be able to make a strong case that that is gaming the process and nobody reasonable would begrudge them raising a 2nd ANI discussion. ReykYO!11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on further examination it does not have NPOV. However, I feel the article could be rewritten to have NPOV. The article is intended to be devoted to the hypothetical life form that Viking 1 may have found, not all life on Mars. I think the article can be salvaged if it is rewritten. Mind assisting me in doing so? DN-boards1 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think that will be possible. I don't think we can write an article on a hypothetical organism about which we know literally nothing, except that its existence is inferred from one possible positive detection among several experiments on Viking 1. If it exists, we don't know if it's even animal or vegetable. We don't even know if a single species or a mixture of different kinds of organism were detected, and it's far more likely that this was a false positive anyway. The situation is like this: a diver spots an interesting rock formation at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean that he interprets as the remains of stone buildings, then immediately starts assigning names to the citizens of Atlantis that he imagines used to live there and writing Wikipedia articles about them. The whole thing is fundamentally unencyclopedic. ReykYO!11:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
