User talk:WarriorScribe/Archive5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:46, 30 April 2006

Socks and meat puppets

Hayson1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just added a keep vote to an article created by suspected Gastrich sock. Anything unusual about this editor's contribution history? Arbusto 21:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two throw away puppets at Kathryn Kuhlman removed skeptical quotes. Not sure its the main puppeteer. Arbusto 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priceless

There must be a medical term for this:

Attributing countless users to J. Gastrich's socks will certainly get his account banned forever. Not sure he cares though, since he apparently isn't here anyway and those socks, many (or all) of which probably aren't even him, apparently have no intent on leaving Wikipedia alone. That's not our problem, though. Gastrcih Quote using the Particulate Matters Sock 05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question ;) David D. (Talk) 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, 'cause I was gonna look it up! - WarriorScribe 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of a child who gets caught doing wrong. Instead of admitting mistakes and moving on, he keeps revisiting the old mistakes on purpose with hopes that other people will change their mind about what is wrong. However, the world does not work that way. Arbusto 06:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich is almost certainly developmentally disabled. He is a child. He's been indulged all of his life and now expects the world to do that, too. - WarriorScribe 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A check user said Syits is not a Gastrich sock. [1] Arbusto 07:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't reason with him

Clearly, you can't reason with him so why bother? I am reverting the sock puppets edits per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich. He has exhausted the wikipedia community's sympathy and is indefinitely banned. His opinions, due to poor behavior, are not welcome on wikipedia. He is not worthy of any attention. Block; revert; move on. Arbusto 05:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. One can't reason with an unreasonable person. Clearly, someone who engages in the antics we've seen is unreasonable. The latest suspected incarnation has already been blocked, but I'm starting to wonder about the legal remedies that Wikipedia might be able to use. It's been a while since I was a cop (even if I was never "legendary"--grin), but I recall some kind of commentary about the legality of invading a web site after being banned from it. I'm going to check on that. It probably falls under the harassment provisions of local law, and since the complaint in those cases needs to be filed with the jurisdiction in which it occurs, and since I know where he's at, physically, I can check and see if the community can use that information. You're quite right. Enough is enough. - WarriorScribe 07:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the low quality work at Louisiana Baptist University?

The Louisiana Baptist University article has a link to H. Dwayne Spearman's website that includes his dissertation: "The Book of Revelation: A Verse by Verse Commentary"[2]. As of right now, that link no longer works. More interestly, Mr5020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted on Talk:Louisiana Baptist University: "Dr. H. Dwayne Spearman already had the Dr. title due to a Th.D. he had earned from a previous instituation. The degree he received from LBU (Ph.D.) was in addition to that." That was that user's first and only edit. The title was very important to mention about this particular graduate around the same time the dissertation was pulled offline.

Maybe someone saw the dissertation linked on the article and decided it doesn't show the outstanding research and analysis one would expect in a dissertation? Arbusto 10:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances are suspicious, I'll grant, but there was a cached copy of the "dissertation" available, and I've set the link to go to that. - WarriorScribe 20:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave this link off. "Cached" elements are not appropriate to articles and technically do not qualify as external links. This is in accordance with OTRS Ticket number 2006042810016001. Thank you. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that if it can't be shown to be forbidden by Wikipedia standards, I'll be putting it back. I've seen cached articles from Google used as links and references, elsewhere, so I'll need a better explanation that what little I'm getting, so far. - WarriorScribe 16:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to OTRS and stop reverting carefully considered changes. I am reverting it and will escalate this to an RFC if you continue. Please let me know where you've seen Google caches elsewhere. I'll be sure to remove those--or have them removed--as well. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First: What did I revert? I don't recall anything. Back off. I haven't reverted any "carefully considered changes." Feel free to engage in threats while trying to white-wash. I can certainly put you in front of an RfC, as well. Fair enough? Second: I can't see where this ticket number can be applied so that I can see if it addresses what I asked. You'll have to do better. All I'm asking for is a reasonable citation or reference that shows that these things are "improper" or not allowed. Unless you're an admin, and given your rather imperious attitude, so far, I'm not really interested in your "say-so." - WarriorScribe 14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has any imperious attitude. I was responding to your completely asinine response on my talk page. I'm not engaging in threats. OTRS volunteers are not authorized to show tickets to anyone. Pulling a Google cached citation is extremely bad form. Using someone's dissertation as a citation in the first place is bad form. Accusing a socialist, non-religious ~~liberal~~ like myself of whitewashing Louisiana Baptist University is just plain ludicrous. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 14:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You inculcated your own imperious attitude into a simple request for information. I still don't see a direct reference to any statement, policy, or guideline from Wikipedia that says that those kinds of references are inappropriate or improper, you accused me of making a revert of "carefully considered changes" when I did no such thing, you told me that you reverted it back when you didn't (there was nothing to revert back) and then threatened me with an RfC if I "continue." Also, as a doctoral student, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with citing a dissertation or using one as a reference. And frankly, I have no concern about your poltiics or your religious or philosophical beliefs. Removing information perceived as negative from an article simply because it does not meet some mysterious and unsupportable standard is white-wash, no matter who does it. - WarriorScribe 15:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the funniest part: I get shown an OTRS ticket number, that is, I get a response that shows some kind of mysterious acronym and number, and when I ask for details, I get, "OTRS volunteers are not authorized to show tickets to anyone." I guess I'm wondering why I was shown this "ticket number" if I can't see it and verify for myself that it addresses the issue and provides or explains policy. - WarriorScribe 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was your section title: "Care to explain this?" And you call me imperious? ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 14:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It was just a request for information. When you didn't respond (or have the opportunity to respond), I suggested that, unless we could do better with a direct reference to policy, I would (future tense) put it back. It's all right there, above. You responded as I've detailed above. You were wrong, and you don't seem to be capable of admitting it. That's not a problem with which I will deal. If your desire on Wikipedia is to engage in the issuing of edicts, as you have done with Arbustoo and me, have at it. But leave me out of it. - WarriorScribe 15:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sarcastic request for information. And I responded in kind. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What say you let me decide my intent. I'm the expert when it comes to that. - WarriorScribe 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You were wrong, and you don't seem to be capable of admitting it. " I am not one of your children. "You were wrong" applies to yourself as well. Stop using statements such as these to cloak your own culpability. I have not issued any edicts. Arbustoo's changes resulted in legal threats against Wikipedia. Since you're familiar with my conversations with him, you're also aware that these are the same people. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong, and you won't admit it. You accused me of making a reversion of a "carefully considered" edit, stated that you had reverted it back when there was nothing to revert back, under those circumstances, and then threatened an RfC action. So far, I have yet to see any explanation or evidence for wrong-doing on my part.
I am completely unaware of any legal threats against Wikipedia. I don't read or follow every exchange that goes on. Don't assume that I am familiar with something. Ask. - WarriorScribe 15:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought. It should not matter whether or not I am an admin. The fact is, that I have declined requests for nomination in the past for the english project. I am, however, a volunteer who has to deal with complaints at the correspondence level, whose work is not made easier by people who insist on questioning my every action. I'm sorry that I rubbed you the wrong way, and hope that, as an active editor, you will try to have some sympathy toward those of us who have to deal with complaints because someone has gone too far in their choice of links or language. You simply cannot use wikipedia as your personal sounding board to discredit Louisiana Baptist University. It says, in no uncertain terms, "unaccredited" in the beginning of the article. Why do you have to pound the point at every term? ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 14:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have me confused with someone else. I don't "pound the point at every turn." I haven't had much to do with the LBU page, at all, lately.

It will make a difference to me whether or not you are an admin, having been an admin, myself, and having seen enough from several participants at Wikipedia whom want to presume to lord it over others, though I confess that it's more amusing than anything to watch a slew of rank amateurs engage in that kind of behavior. It's also amusing to watch people make declarations and then get indignant when they get challenged, while refusing to provide a response that would make things oh, so simple. Is there a policy tht says that such-and-such is not allowed or is, at the very least, improper? There is? Cool. Show it to me. I'm good, after that. Had you done that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now.

As for your volunteer work for the Project, hey, wow...aren't we all volunteers in our own way? Finally, I don't use the site as a "sounding board." I'm all about the truth, whereever it may lead; and I've written enough times that an encyclopedia is about the facts as far as they can be determined. - WarriorScribe 15:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to keep accusing me of "starting it." An objective observer will find you a willing participant to the argument. Reading your page, it appears that you had an agenda to ensure that a certain point of view be maintained, and it seemed to me that this was part of your agenda. Your user name, "WarriorScribe" doesn't help matters one bit. But it seems like we're both grown men. Let's start over.

I thought the inclusion of a google cache of a dissertation that someone intentionally removed from the internet was childish. I don't think that using google caches as links is specifically cited as being against policy. We could waste hours discussing it and eventually come to the conclusion that it's just a very bad idea. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing at all about "starting it."
I don't have much confidence in your ability to represent what an "objective observer" would find. You still haven't admitted and retracted your false accusations and subsequent language.
My "agenda" is, indeed, clear on my user page. My "agenda" is that Wikipedia remain a site that provides information that is not slanted to a particular point of view. I happen to be aware of the activities of a group of people whose aim is precisely to "christianize" Wikipedia. I oppose that. I've made no secret of that.
I see that the argument is getting so petty that we need to snipe at user names. My user name refers to 30 years of service to my country in the Air Force and the fact that I fancy myself as something of a writer. If that violates any standard for user names, I'm not aware of it. Had "Dave" been available, I would have been much happier with that.
We have a declaration that the inclusion of a cached link that mirrors material that had been removed from a site was "childish." Since I put that link there, I must assume that this was a direct insult aimed at me. That's no biggee. I'm a big boy...I can handle it. But the fact is that we must consider why that material was removed, and then we must consider if the caching system at Google is somehow flawed and, therefore, would not serve as an appropriate reference.
In the end, we don't see that the use of cached links is actually against policy. You have unilaterally decided that it's a "bad idea," decided already that I would come to that conclusion, too, after hours of discussion and, as a result of that kind of thinking and without discussion, you removed it. If that's the case, that's a problem. It's presumptuous to do something like that without making some kind of note on the talk page and discussing it first. When it comes right down to it, I don't mind if it stays off, as long as someone can provide a reasonable explanation as to why it should without all of the histrionics.
I reject the idea that LBU is any kind of noteworthy institution, and as a doctoral student, myself, I can see the problem with the "dissertation" that serves well as an example of LBU's poor standards. But in the end, the only dog I have in this hunt is to see to it that the organization is represented fairly and accurately, based on objective evidence. Removing that evidence is white-wash. If there's a lot of that kind of evidence, or if it's particularly embarrassing, that's not the problem of any editor here, including you. - WarriorScribe 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 ::::::::::* My "agenda" is, indeed, clear on my user page.  My "agenda" is that Wikipedia remain a site that provides information that is not slanted to a particular point of view.  I happen to be aware of the activities of a group of people whose aim is precisely to "christianize" Wikipedia.  I oppose that.  I've made no secret of that.
 ::::::::::* I see that the argument is getting so petty that we need to snipe at user names.  My user name refers to 30 years of service to my country in the Air Force and the fact that I fancy myself as something of a writer.  If that violates any standard for user names, I'm not aware of it.  Had "Dave" been available, I would have been much happier with that.
+::::::::::* We have a declaration that the inclusion of a cached link that mirrors material that had been removed from a site was "childish."  Since I put that link there, I must assume that this was a direct insult aimed at me.  That's no biggee.  I'm a big boy...I can handle it.  But the fact is that we must consider ''why'' that material was removed, and then we must consider if the caching system at Google is somehow flawed and, therefore, would not serve as an appropriate reference.
 ::::::::::* In the end, we don't see that the use of cached links is actually against policy.  You have unilaterally decided that it's a "bad idea," decided already that I would come to that conclusion, too, after hours of discussion and, as a result of that kind of thinking and without discussion, you removed it.  If that's the case, that's a problem.  It's presumptuous to do something like that without making some kind of note on the talk page and discussing it first.  When it comes right down to it, I don't mind if it stays off, as long as someone can provide a reasonable explanation as to why it should without all of the histrionics.
 ::::::::::* I reject the idea that LBU is any kind of noteworthy institution, and as a doctoral student, myself, I can see the problem with the "dissertation" that serves well as an example of LBU's poor standards.  But in the end, the only dog I have in this hunt is to see to it that the organization is represented fairly and accurately, based on objective evidence.  Removing that evidence is white-wash.  If there's a lot of that kind of evidence, or if it's particularly embarrassing, that's not the problem of any editor here, including you.  - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:WarriorScribe/Archive5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:46, 30 April 2006

Archives

Notice of next archive date

Topic Guidelines

Socks and meat puppets

Priceless

You can't reason with him

Hiding the low quality work at Louisiana Baptist University?