Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Spartaz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterchristopher (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 21 September 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Spartaz/Archive5. Sections without timestamps are not archived. All archived sections are listed at the section index.
Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5


W. Frank

Can you have a look at this User:W. Frank is continuing to change IRA to PIRA, ignoring the discussion on the talk page.--padraig 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away. I'm afraid that I would rather not interfere with a user who is subject to an extant arbitration case. Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks

Hello,

An Arbitration case on which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for unblocking Good friend100 (for the arbitration). I as a fellow wikipeditor will try my best to keep him from doing those reckless things. (Wikimachine 19:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you. Both for the kind comment (admins don't see many of them generally) and for agreeing to keep an eye on him. Much appreciated. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice reply

Thats for dealing with this clown. He managed to invoke Godwin's Law twice in three sentences. That has to be close to a record. --Clubjuggle 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable warnings

Please don't leave harrassment or personal attack warnings such as on User talk:Geoffrey.landis when people are merely excited, not actually threatening or insulting each other. Every time admins spuriously threaten to block someone who's a legitimate good contributor, the respect level that the community has for admins sinks some. Georgewilliamherbert 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I guess you were right and I overreacted. Thanks for the injection of some sanity. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt self-review. We admins have to be willing to sanity-check each other a bit and listen to it... I certainly make my fair share of mistakes, too. Georgewilliamherbert 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack name

Yeah, I guess you're right, you think I should have hard blocked them? I try to be cautious, but I guess that is pushing it. I hard blocked another attack name earlier today and felt a little bad about it because it seemed a little harsh... Peace, delldot talk 18:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - harassers have no place here. Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hardblocked them for you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate you talking to me about it, I worry that I'm messing up and people are just suffering in silence about it, I'd much rather hear about it so I can correct it. See you around. Peace, delldot talk 17:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Good friend100

Could you please keep an eye on User:Good friend100? After taking you up on your unblock offer with 1RR parole, and unsatisfied with just reverting me on the same old articles (which he keeps up), he seems to be following me around to other articles he's never edited on solely for the sake of reverting my changes. An example is the kimchi article--when I removed a "top five" trivia fact as unnoteworthy here, he repeatedly reverted me and another editor in less than a half hour:

...along with using comments disparaging my "grammer" (sic) as horrible here, and leaving what he evidently considers to be witty edit comments, like this and this, but which really just illustrate bad faith. If it wasn't so sad it would be amusing, as I didn't even intend to revert him, I was trying to fix the references.

I guess I should try to have thicker skin, but it's a bit unfortunate that after being unblocked, he has chosen not to participate in the arbitration case (which was kind of the point) and instead is following people around hitting his revert key without restraint. —LactoseTIT 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not simply hitting the revert key, I made specific changes that did nothing to the syntax of what Komdori did. There not just blatant bad-faith reverts. Simply because you disagree with me and simply because I'm moving against your edits doesn't mean I'm here to be the 3RR monster.
Please do not simply assume that I'm not being productive because I didn't comment in the arbitration case. I have a string of comments I wish I could put there but I don't have enough time (yes, I have school) and I'm not interested with zeal. I'm also not smiling about Wikimachine's way to go to arb instead of other methods.
Talk about bad faith! I make several changes you don't like and immediately you come here to say that I've been up to reverting again, hinting that I should be punished. You also assume bad faith on my edits telling me to go get a native-speaker when I already am one. Instead of attacking me all the time, turn around and look at yourself. Your actions are clearly against Korea in any Korea-related article, and thats obviously going to be something that draws the attention of people. Your always demanding and confronting me. You are also always looking for ways to punish me. Now let me confront you. Why are almost all your edits in Korea-related articles anti-Korean? Its clear that you are biased as well, which is not the spirit of Wikipedia. Please stop. Good friend100 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least the first two are clear reverts. Try to tone it down a bit; no one benefits from the combative comments and atmosphere that is thus created. As for telling you to get a native speaker, I was simply saying that if you wish to disparage someone's grammar as "horrible," at least have the decency to find someone to verify it really is "horrible." As for me confronting you, keep in mind that you were the one who followed me to that article. —LactoseTIT 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your comment to Spartaz, you say that my revert is "(a weaker revert, insisting on "World's Healthiest")". I don't find anything wrong with that. Komdori's wikilink to the Health magazine makes no mention about "American women's health" and I'm simply quoting the title from the article [1]. Its clear that I'm not blindly reverting, yet you add this to the list of my "wrongdoings". You even add that its a weak revert, and it is! Was my edit ill-faithed? Was it a blatent edit back to my version? I added "world's healthiest" and deleted the part about American women's health. How is that a violation of revert? Again, you are simply trying to put me down, because now your even using edit changes that hardly borderline blatant reverts. Good friend100 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its not only me creating the aggresive atmosphere. Its clear that you are attempting to block me with unfair evidence. Who wouldn't respond to it in a defensive way? By reporting me, you also acknowledge that you edit war too. Do I run to an administrator and ask for you to be blocked? No, at least I keep even a little good-faith towards your and Komdori's edits. Good friend100 23:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you; I come here to edit articles as best I can with the little time I have. At least the first two are clear reverts, and I personally would consider the third one as well, if not a revert of what I put, then a revert of what Komdori did. I didn't even mean to revert you the time I was trying to fix the references, but that didn't stop you. You agreed to a 1RR revert parole, and are blatantly ignoring it. Feel free to have the last word if you like; I was just dropping a note because I found the behavior clearly outside acceptable boundaries. —LactoseTIT 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think I have done anything wrong. Those edits are not blatant reverts to my own version, and I eventually agreed to what Komdori did (except that I left a note saying that I edited it a bit). You still assume that I'm here in anger to revert everything in my own way, and I don't think I did, nor do I think my edits were biased.

You don't have to argue with me. All I'm asking is that you assume even a tithe of good faith on my edits because over last few months you have never. Good friend100 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to butt in where I don't belong, but I noticed this little dialog and was reminded that you never seem to think you've "done anything wrong." That very phrase was your unblock request 5 times or so. If you didn't think you could control yourself to stick to a 1RR, I don't know why you agreed to it. In addition to the above violation, you even broke it today on the Liancourt Rocks article which was the same article you were blocked indefinitely ([2] and [3]). I might agree with your changes (notably the latter), but why push it when you are supposed to be on 1RR? --Cheers, Komdori 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its crystal clear that Lactose/Komdori are taking this to a personal level (for example, running to an administrator to tell on me five minutes after my "violation") and I ask that it stop and I also ask that you start assuming good faith on my edits, instead of telling other people to assume good faith. Good friend100 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I still do try to assume good faith with your edits, though it is hard now that you do insist on using your daily revert... today's was just a few minutes outside of the 24 hour range of yesterday's, and that was less than 24 hours of the previous one (which is identical to the revert you did today)... A third party (uninvolved editor) has already reverted you this time, it seems, since you were again removing sourced information. In any case, stick to discussion instead of reverts, and I'm more than happy to keep assuming that you have the article's best interest in mind. Just remember that some other editors may be skeptical of your intent with all these reverts without discussion. —LactoseTIT 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I ask either of you to use my talk page to argue with each other? Please take your discussion elsewhere. 03:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi, can I see the entry for Magic Lanterns? I would ask the closing admin but apparently he's quit. Chubbles 09:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that turned out not to be what I thought it would be at all. Thank you, though! Chubbles 09:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu Tube links....

Would you mind glancing over the You Tube links in this list User:Stwalkerster/youtube/filtered and doing a strike-thru on the legit ones?

Sfan00 IMG 11:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of me

Thanks, you were right, I was over the line and totally forgot the 3 revert rule. mattbuck 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your comments at deletion review

Your comment about the Tom Stearns debate indicates clearly that you care more about the form something is phrased than the content itself. This is not wikipedia policy. It's your personal psychological issue. You failed to do your job well. You have earned none of my respect, but rather lost it. Peterchristopher 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive9&oldid=159359431"