Jump to content

User talk:Blaxthos/Archive 2

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.149.19.166 (talk) at 18:04, 11 May 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for Wikipedia user, Blaxthos.
The Signpost
18 November 2024

/Archive

Request to Assume Good Faith

Please assume good faith by talking about any objections you have to issues regarding an article on the discussion page of that article before giving out warnings. By assuming good faith, we can make wikipedia a better place for everyone. Thank you. Arnabdas (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to this matter. There was nothing controversial IMO on the Edwards edit. I was just trying to distinguish that he was in support of partial-birth. There are people whom are pro-choice and against partial-birth. It seems legitimate enough an issue to distinguish upon. I am not commenting on your page to discuss the Edwards' issue, but merely saying you should have made an post on the discussion page of the article before just sending out a warning. Had I not addressed the discussion there and proceeded to engage in the edit, that would justify the warning then. Is that reasonable? Arnabdas (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your reply. Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. response —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabdas (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to Engage in Discussions Before Removing Content

Hi Blaxthos. On your edit in Criticism of The New York Times , I had put in a reference to Bob Kohn's book Journalistic Fraud that details Kohn's perceived bias in the hard news pages of the paper. On the article's talk page, I had put in a discussion about it and asked it not to be removed. You removed it anyway claiming it did not belong in the intro paragraph. That may be true, but if that was your opinion I ask that next time you do not delete it completely from the article without discussing the issue. People may perceive it as vandalism. Arnabdas (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize completely. I did not see your response to the issue for some reason. Once again, I apologize. Arnabdas (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


question

Why does it always seem that you do not do much of any work here on wikipedia but instead like to poke your neck into heated situations? Or on just select articles? You've left my curiosity out in the wild. Thankyou. 71.225.204.68 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Answer: Cause this dude is not only clueless, he's a clueless liberal. Which, besides from the redundancy makes him dangerous in this online encyclopedia form of Dungeons & Dragons (which is what Wikipedia has been reduced to.) Especially since wackos even more left than him control the rules of the game...68.40.200.77 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Political positions of John Edwards

Hey Dumba$$!!

User:69.244.181.184 is not Rynort.

Now apologize and resign from Wikipedia IMMEDIATELY.

You are guilty of

1)Not assuming good faith 2)Not being nice

Several other things as well like being a liberal weenie, but that's OBVIOUSLY not against the rules lest there'd be no one left to CONTROL wikipedia lol!!

Speaking of laughing my A$$ off, I cracked up until I almost cried laughing at your 'Sherlock Holmes' insight that User:69.244.181.184 = Rynort coupled by your psychic 'no one is fooled.' 68.40.200.77 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sprotection

Per your comments at WP:ANI I have protected this page for 7 days against ip/new account editing. If you wish me to lift or reduce the term please let me know. If you are happy with it I suggest you place a notice that the page is protected, and that legit ip's should either comment at the article talkpage or on their own talkpages and use the offices of a third party to let you know. Or summat like that. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Editor assistance

I was wondering if you could weigh in on the Caroline Kennedy page. There is a small dispute there about whether its appropriate to have over 2 paragraphs on the endorsements of people other than Caroline Kennedy and just 1 paragraph on her endorsement. My argument is that the article is for Caroline only, but it now looks like an article for the entire Kennedy family as far as that section is considered. Are you familiar with what the relevant policy is for this? Shouldn't the content of an article be focused on the topic of the article? That's how I've always seen it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, could you possibly take a look at the recent activity on the Neo-fascism page, particularly the section on the United States? I made some good-faith attempts to add pertinent, sourced, non-original, NPOV material to this section, only to have it reverted without discussion or explanation. I reverted the reversion since it was without explanation, then added information to the talk page to address the content deletion of this section. (There is some older history of this section, which may have resulted in a prior separate page being first merged into Neo-Fascism, then the content trimmed down to a paragraph). Now, the editor has gone one step further, removing content that had been there previously, and adding a label that "sources are needed" (without discussion on the talk page). But I had provided these sources, which he had just deleted!! This is quite discouraging to further participation in Wikipedia. I have been careful not to engage in a revert-war, but I feel the editor doesn't have such scruples. Given prior history on the editor's page, I am not hopeful that 1-1 discussion will be fruitful. Thank you for any insights/recommendations on how to proceed. 62.173.193.102 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Silver lining to New Coke delisting

Actually, you helped me out with a TfD I'm fighting: I said that your delisting was strong proof that {{maintained}} does not in any way imply ownership to other editors and that people tend to completely ignore it when doing drastic things to articles. Thanks!

As for the delisting itself, I'm philosophical about it. Frankly, given the longstanding citation requests on it (which I do have sources for, in inverse proportion to the time I have to put them in), I wouldn't have approved it as a GA if I were reviewing it myself. I have tended to get defensive about previous complaints, since some of them, I've felt, are motivated by people who expected to read something confirming what they thought they knew and got annoyed that they weren't. But your complaint was, I felt, accurate and not POV-based at all.

As I've said on the talk page, yes, I did like New Coke and I knew at the time I wasn't alone. Popular history, particularly on the Internet, has really gotten an entirely different take on it, more of a myth than the reality, and back in 2005 when I really started working on this I was endeavoring to write an article that would correct those misimpressions, as I think Wikipedia should do (similar myths surround The Miracle at the Meadowlands, which the article is trying to correct as well). Looking around on the Internet, I do think that article has had that effect.

I would like to split the history section off (which I think I will rename Development and marketing of New Coke rather than History) and add even more contemporaneous sources I've got in a notebook filed away somewhere. I think that would fix a lot with the current article, in which the history section is getting too big.

The only comment of yours which I would like to disagree with is the images. We're talking about a historical event here, with a lot of inherently irreplaceable images. In that respect, getting a free pic of a New Coke can for the lead is more than we could have expected, and doesn't an article have to have at least one free image to qualify? I haven't reviewed or submitted GAs in a while so I may be out of date with this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox Business Channel

So you put back in a statement that is factually incorrect, relying on synthesis of material. Additioanll there is the fact that there is no way for the average reader to listen to the program (since there is no RS) and no other RS currently exsists that even talks about this situation. After all that you threaten me with an RfC for MY conduct? Why do you continue to make these baseless accusations and threats? Arzel (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ibm 7090.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ibm 7090.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I'm stunned, Blaxthos, the defender of Wikipedia from anyone who doesn't hate Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, comes around to squash any edit about O'Reilly that isn't decidedly hostile to him. What a stunner! It's nice to know that you could take time off from your busy schedule of fantasizing about a world devoid of any and all Fox News viewers to abuse Wikipedia in order to push your political viewpoints into a supposedly neutral forum. That takes a lot of courage and class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.196.88 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Controversies

You have reverted FNC Controversies 3 times, which is a violation of WP policies. Arzel (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong.  :-) Find my reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, you haven't reverted more than 3 times. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are there for a good reason and need to be followed at all costs, as long as they make Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and any other sort of perceived right-wing instutition look bad. We can't have people with right-wing sympathies trying to violate the holy neutrality of Wikipedia by removing overt left-wing bias, now can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.196.88 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

MICROS

I'm not sure what happened on the MICROS Systems article, but I see that you went as far as adding COPYVIO, etc., to it. I don't think any of that was necessary.

I just reverted the whole thing back to a pre-advertising version. Note that I think the OPERA section isn't too bad the way it is right now. It's fine to list a few prominent customers to show that a product is in use. However, I agree that there aren't references for that section (although I believe the article to be accurate), so I added the appropriate tag. Timneu22 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
First, you completely misunderstood. I never said that COPYVIO tags aren't necessary, and I do not object to placing COPYVIO tags. Where did I say this? What I said was clear: the junk that a user added to the MICROS article should have just been reverted (and I did this). There was no reason to add COPYVIO tags when all the edit were horrible in the first place. Sorry you misunderstood. Finally, quotes on my talk page like "please review our policy on BLAH are pretty insulting, especially when you missed the entire point of my message. Timneu22 (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Bill O'Reilly Undo

Hi Blaxthos, I undid your revision on the POBO page. I cited why I did it on the dicussion page. Hopefully we can come to some agreement. Arnabdas (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You may find my reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about your revert; messed up. Will try again later. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

its not too hard

text = ref_to_cite(text,limit = 100)

now on to Jayson Blair --Lemmey (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos FALSELY accused me of being User:Rynort

He had me banned without any provocation or proof. I am not Rynort nor has the disgraced Blaxthos ever provided ANY proof that I was aside from his Kreskin-like psychic reading that 'No one is fooled.'

Yet he refuses to apologize for this ABUSE of power that Wikipedia has enabled him with.

Blaxthos: Where is your proof that I am user Rynort?

And, since I am not and thus there is no proof, let's just end the charade-

Please apologize for this grievous power grab and resign from wikipedia.

It's really time you step down.

Thanks,

69.244.181.184 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

History of IBM article

I ran across this article and the sections for the 80's and 90's were in need of help. I was in the middle of making some improvements and you reverted the article with the note:

"sorry but that's all unattributed original research"

This is not original research, rather it is a summary of material that is published. It is unattributed because you didn't give me time to make the attributions. I was in mid edit and you reverted the article, blowing away several segments of productive time which I felt was quite unwarranted especially given the lack of attribution currently in these and other sections of the article as they exist today.

The two main sources of my edits which would support all of the entries I made are:

  1. Waves of Power: Dynamics of Global Technology Leadership 1964-2010 by David C. Moschella (Feb 1997)
  2. Customer-Driven IT: How Users Are Shaping Technology Industry Growth by David Moschella (Feb 2003)

Additional secondary sources which I planned to use in support of my edits are:

  • IBM EARNINGS DIP REVEALS ONLY A PORTION OF THE PROBLEM, March 1986 by Ronald Rosenberg, The Boston Globe
  • Computer Industry Directions Conference, Boston, MA, keynote address, March 1987 by William F. Zachman - Impact of IBM's rental to lease conversion
  • Computer Industry Report, Annual Review for the years: 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 by International Data Corporation, Framingham, MA

In addition, I planned to include references to IBM's annual reports which clearly demonstrate the rental to lease conversion in financial statements published by the company.

I find it most disturbing that you pull the trigger on reverting my factual edits when in the previous section you allow such clearly false statements (which I had planned to fix) as:

Most of those companies are now long gone as IBM competitors, except for Unisys, which is the result of multiple mergers that included UNIVAC and Burroughs, and General Electric, which has re-entered the business in recent years.[citation needed] NCR and Honeywell dropped out of the general mainframe and mini sector and concentrated on lucrative niche markets, NCR's being cash registers (hence the name, National Cash Register), and Honeywell becoming the market leader in thermostats. The IBM computer, the IBM mainframe, that earned it its position in the market at that time is still growing today. It was originally known as the IBM System/360 and, in far more modern 64-bit form, is now known as the IBM System z9.

I believe there are as many factual errors than correct statements in this paragraph-- all unattributed.

Why do I even bother trying to help? Twostardav (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I found this discussion after I had restored Twostardave's additions to the article. As I noted in my edit summary, I did so to allow opportunity for people to read, edit, and insert references. I also added some fact tags to encourage the latter. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for the responses. I have credible sources for my edits and had every intention of adding them. As a newcomer who definitely feels bitten I would respectfully ask that you are little more patient when someone is in the middle of making edits-- especially in an article that needs so much work. Thanks. Sorry...mediawiki won't keep me logged in for some reason User: Twostardav

Deleting talk page comments - AGF

It's not a good idea to delete talk page comments unless the edit is completely without merit. This deletion does not assume good faith. You may disagree with the premise, but the comment is a legitimate questioning of the reliability of a source in the article. --Elliskev 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies may be found here and here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Could use the opinion of someone who knows criminal law

There is a dispute in the Illegal immigration to the United States article that could use the help of someone trained in criminal law. Specifically, Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code[1] states, "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.".

Several editors have interpreted this to mean that only civil penalties apply if (1) or (2) above are violated and that criminal penalties apply only if (3) is violated. This really doesn't sound right to me. The way I see it, the basic sentence structure above is "Any alien who (1) or (2) or (3) shall (x)". For various reasons, I believe there are several editors working on the article who are really sock puppets being used to gain editorial control (these editors all started working on Wikipedia very recently, have edited only the IIUS article, and are in complete agreement with each other on everything) and, because they back each other up in disputes, this isn't a kosher use of sock puppetry. So, I have to admit that I'm having trouble with good faith in them. That being the case, the best way to handle this, in my opinion, is to get an outsider who knows criminal law to weigh in on what the law says. Thanks for any help you can provide.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Initial reply may be found

here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For private reasons, I haven't used a user account for years. I have, instead, been an IP anon on Wikipedia. However, IP anons cannot submit checkuser requests. Can you submit it for me?

Here's the request I wrote.

Blaxthos

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Single Purpose Accounts created at around the same time (within the same three day period). All sharing common interests and backing each other up in all article disputes. Many of these accounts are never used except when consensus on content becomes an issue. Further, UHaveMetURMatch identified content written by HereICome2 as content written by himself[[1]].I'd appreciate it if you can help me out here.-75.179.157.247 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo cascade.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo cascade.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V

I hate to be a bit of a fly in the ointment, but I did discuss my changes 24 hours ago with no input from anyone. Your reversion is improper as you seem to have changed the meaning of the text, making it far more restrictive than originally intended, and without the consensus of the Wikipedia community. As the person who reverted your second change said, "actually, what you reverted was, [in fact], a reversion of an undiscussed change". Additionally, quoting from WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.". While you believe that everything that isn't referenced shouldn't be here, I basically concur, but that doesn't mean everything should be deleted wholesale. Such a change would give editors license to simply delete everything that is unreferenced, even those that are ambiguously referenced or are uncontroversial facts (such as "water is wet" or "Napoleon was a General"). Please discuss on the talk page before making further changes. I believe I have the consensus of Wikipedia on my side. Feel free to prove me wrong and I look forward to the discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that quote appears to be missing. I guess I hit "undo" one too many times. My point is that the policy should be used to justify removal of patant nonsense and sensational claims with no merit, but that simple phrases that no one disputes are fine. Moreover, it should be used as a tool to clean up the encyclopedia, not to bash articles wholesale just because they are missing a source or two. Re-added the info. No hard feelings, just discussion. :-) — BQZip01 — talk 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Murphy High

FYI: You may want to watch Murphy High School, Antsuyi continues to revert the page despite being asked repeatedly to use the talk pages. I'm getting too aggravated with the behavior, so I need to step away.Altairisfartalk 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CMPA

hi, I'm writing with regard to your comments on the center for media and public affairs page. I run this organization as a research center at george mason university, where I am a professor of communications.

This entry was originally created without my knowledge by a former graduate student. Since discovering it I have periodically checked in to keep the entry valid and up to date, and to provide additional information in response to criticisms that were added. (I have NOT deleted the criticisms nor added rebuttals without documentation.)

When a colleague recently informed me that the article had been challenged for verifiability, I went through the text and tried to carefully document every statement about events and occurrences with references to news accounts in major media outlets, and every statement about research findings with references to refereed journal articles and scholarly books.

So I was chagrined to see a new warning up today, and especially concerned that it came from a Wikipedia editor rather than a self-interested critic. Without specificity as to the issues that generated this latest edit, there is no way I can respond to them. So I would greatly appreciate if you could spell out the particular concerns that you think need to be addressed.


And I obviously have a professional interest in this entry, which directly raises COI and NPOV issues. But my understanding of Wikipedia's position on these issues is that they apply only insofar as they are expressed in one-sided or unverified assertions. Otherwise critics of any entry would be overrepresented, since no one could respond to criticisms without being accused of COI/NPOV. (I know you are well aware of the contentiousness that characterizes current debates over the media, and particularly over allegations of media bias.)

I'm in the process of trying to learn enough about Wikipedia policies, protocols, procedures et al to make my contributions to this or any other entry useful and appropriate, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism that would improve their quality. Srlichter (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

center for media and public affairs entry

sorry, previous version of this text didnt have headline or date. pls bear with me; for someone of my generation, this is like learning a foreign language, but I'm working on it.


hi, I'm writing with regard to your comments on the center for media and public affairs page. I run this organization as a research center at george mason university, where I am a professor of communications.

When a colleague informed me that the article had been challenged for verifiability, I tried to careful document every statement about events and occurrences with references to news accounts in major media outlets, and every statement about research findings with references to refereed journal articles and scholarly books.

So I was surprised to see a new warning up today, and very concerned that it came from a Wikipedia editor rather than a self-interested critic. Without specificity as to the issues that generated this latest edit, there is no way I can respond to them. So I would greatly appreciate if you could spell out the particular concerns that you think need to be addressed.

This entry was originally created without my knowledge by a former graduate student. Since discovering it I have periodically checked in to keep the entry valid and up to date, and to provide information in response to criticism that appeared. (I have NOT deleted the criticisms nor added rebuttals without documentation.)

And I obviously have a professional interest in this entry, which directly raises COI and NPOV issues. But my understanding of Wikipedia's position on these issues is that they apply only insofar as they are expressed in one-sided or unverified assertions. Otherwise critics of any entry would be overrepresented, since no one could respond to criticisms without being accused of COI/NPOV. (I know you are well aware of the contentiousness that characterizes current debates over the media, and particularly over allegations of media bias.)

I'm in the process of trying to learn enough about Wikipedia policies, protocols, procedures et al to make my contributions to this or any other entry useful and appropriate, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism that would improve their quality. Srlichter (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) march 14, 2008

Initial reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

a simple plan

Blaxthos, Since you lobbied to have the plot summary for A Simple Plan tossed out, I thought perhaps you'd like to volunteer to write the new summary, as suggested by the admin. Drstrangelove57 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Oh, okay, you were just there to destroy the integrity of the piece, not because you cared about it. Alrighty, then. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As is form for you, you totally ignore what I'm saying in favor of a string of subdued threats. You've ruined the article and now want nothing to do with rebuilding it. That's very trashy of you. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem incapable of replying without reinforcing my point. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Because if you're not, stop posting on my talk page as if you are. If you aren't an admin and want to complain about me, then do it. If you are an admin, then you'll have even less trouble getting your way. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what pisses me off? The fact that I enjoyed the novel A Simple Plan and decided to help out with that Wikipedia entry. I put a good deal of work into that plot summary (which I didn't make from scratch, in case you were wondering) and now it is being completely thrown out for reasons that I think are arbitrary at best, malicious at worst.

The reason I and many others enjoy Wikipedia is that you canlook up info on old novels, films, comics, vague historical facts, household appliances, whatever. But the more I look around the more I see articles being usurped by people intent on either shredding articles for no reason other than to exercise their ability to do so or people eagerly injecting their own POV into an article. I look at the articles for O'Reilly, Olbermann, Joe McCarthy, Hannity, Franken, Alger Hiss, whatever, and without exception they all look like they were written by people with an axe to grind, and whenever someone so much as suggests that they be balanced out, they are met with a string of rude and harsh rhetoric threatning the person's soul if they don't drop the topic completely.

I like this project in theory, but this sort of BS is what ensures that Wikipedia is just barely better than garbage like Conservapedia, only at least there they tell you upfront that you're dealing with total crackpots. Like any system, Wikipedia is now invested with people who benefit from the whole rotten thing and will oppose any sort of change simply because it doesn't favor their ego. At worst, you have a case like this one where someone (me) genuinely wanted to improve the article, but everything I've suggested or worked on is simply trashed in favor of people who know how to work the system better. Meanwhile, no one else involved in this even CARES about A Simple Plan, which kicks the absurdity of the argument into new heights.

And that's why I'm pissed. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

center for media and public affairs follow-up

I appreciate your offer to go over the cmpa site with an eye toward finding a consensual view of what you see as questionable statements/assertions. pls let me know when you have taken another look at it and have formulated the questions that you feel need to be addressed.

meanwhile, I begin to see how complicated wikipedia can be. my former grad student pstrait is independently reediting the entry and corresponding with you. so the version in which I earlier tried to address your concerns is considerably different from the site as it stands now.

I dont know what the appropriately wikified response is to this kind of three (or multi-) sided dialogue, and my head is beginning to hurt from considering the possibilities. so I'll wait to hear from you before doing any edit to the site, unless some overtly factual error appears. whew! this is a brave new world. Srlichter (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mishap avoided.

If i had been drinking my coffee while reading this you would now owe me a new keyboard. Nice-looking audio setup, too... tomasz. 08:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello--You and Arzel seem to have some history. I'm not naive about the politics involved here, but some of his comments seem of the off-the-wall/throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks variety. Any help/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Having trouble with a user that won't respect majority opinion.

We are having an on going disagreement over deletion of mention of irrelevant persons in another person’s biography. In the page for Natalie Gauci, one user, dihydrogen monoxide, constantly reinserts the irrelevant mention of other persons that have been deleted. During a period when the page was protected the proposed deletion and the reasons why were discussed at length. The changes were agreed to by all responders, including dihydrogen monoxide (subject to being told what to do by another user). However, the page became unprotected before the administrators had made the requested deletion.

This is the preferred version: “She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12,”

This is the version with irrelevant comment: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12."

The deletion of the words mentioning Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost does not detract from the point of the paragraph. That Natalie did not get fan support early in the competition, but needed help from the judges to get to the final, is clear from the modified version. The page is about Natalie Gauci, and to mention two other contestants is irrelevant. It would make as much sense to name all 10 of the contestants who got voted through to the final 12. But this would also be irrelevant since the article is about Natalie Gauci, and there is another page on Wikipedia about that Australian Idol contest where the losing contestants could be named more appropriately.

Again, during the period this page was in protection these changes were discussed at length and they were agreed to by all responders. This discussion has continued and all users except dihydrogen monoxide agree to make the change. That user insists there is no consensus until he/she says so. This user seems to believe that they are the user in charge of this page.

How do we get that user to stop making unwanted and unwarranted changes to the page, and to respect the wishes of the majority? I have suggested this user should be reported to the administrators but I am not sure how to do that. There does not seem to be a way to do that easily, which may be why dihydrogen monoxide seems to feel that they are in charge, and untouchable. DrDownunder (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your time and for your coments on this problem. The site was a much bigger problem earlier with a few rogues filling it with irrelevant 'information' mostly about Tarisai. Perseverance from the majority of users has eliminated most of that mess but one user hangs on and that has resulted in my asking for your input. I appreciate your help and hope that dihydrogen monoxide will now admit that the vast-majority consensus must be accepted and his/her insistance on naming others such as Tarisai in Natalie's biography is not appropriate. Cheers. DrDownunder (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An image that you uploaded, Image:Ibm pc xt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alx 91 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

No problem. Was just a bit confused, and while I believe that person negatively contributes to Wikipedia by letting bias get in the way, just was warning to not lightly accuse someone. It was just in good faith, no worries. TheNobleSith (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply may be found here. Original note here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal

In the Media Matters for America article, you removed this sentence: Other media figures, such as John Gibson of Fox News Channel, offered an opinion that criticized Media Matters' reporting of Limbaugh.

With the reason "(Criticism: rm WP:RS and out of date (gibson got canned a while back))".

This sentence was added to provide context to a statement made by Stephen Colbert which was tangentially related to the actual issue being reported in the Media Matters for America article. Colbert was responding to a statement made by John Gibson when John Gibson was speaking as a commentator for Fox News channel. As for the reliable sources claim, if you contest that the Newsbusters article did not factually report on what Gibson said, we could find another source. Also, why did you not use the talk page to discuss this edit first? 98.215.54.162 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dildo

Blaxthos, it is not defamatory to state that Bill O'Reilly used a vibrating dildo on himself while talking to Andrea Makris on the phone. It's in court documents and is critical element in her sexual harrassment lawsuit. This element proves that he intended to have sex with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.230.13 (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. The "court documents" to which you refer are simply the plaintiff's allegations. There is no assumption of truth simply because it appears in one side of a lawsuit filed with a court.
  2. Her lawsuit was withdrawn due to an out-of-court settlement with O'Reilly, which effectively mutes any claims she may have made. The substantiveness of her claims are questions of facts for a jury to decide; by withdrawing the claim she ended any chance of the truth ever coming out.
  3. Even if the allegation were true (it wouldn't surprise me either way) it doesn't "prove" anything. You may have an opinion about what it "means", but it will forever be subjective.
  4. Our policy regarding the biographies of living persons is very clear regarding removal of negative content.
I may not be a fan of O'Reilly, but my opinion certainly doesn't trump my obligation to adhere to our policies and guidelines. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Accusations

Blaxthos, I thank you for your message of concern and trying to build community as well as your assumption of good faith. With regards to this particular issue many of us are having with jimintheheatl, there seems to be a big problem not just with me, but with other people as well.

When a user refuses to adhere to the consensus of the discussion, it shows a lack of wanting to work with others in this project. We all looked at his source and we all claim to the conclusion that it does not belong in that particular section. All of us who disagree with jim have stated our reasons why, which he has not addressed at all, instead constantly going back to his old arguments which we have addressed.

When you and I had our initial spats, you accused me of a retalliatory accusation of POV pushing when we were exchanging warnings. This guy has done the same thing, just see the recent edits on my talk page, so if you were upset at me for doing that, then I guess I can count on you to condemn his retalliatory actions I am sure?

Furthermore, we even showed good faith on our part by discussing at the bottom of the page that we could include the quote in a new section that gives proper weight, notability and follows BLP about O'Reilly's thoughts on both political parties. User jimintheheatl has refused to address that and has constantly attempted to re-insert his original point into the political affilliation section where it does not belong. We have repeatedly stated that if he disagrees with this, he should file a RFC on the issue. Instead of following proper procedure despite NUMEROUS times of us politely telling him to, he defies the consensus and continues to press the issue.

I am not pursuing sanctions against him yet. I only talked to the few people whom have commented on the particular issue, Ramsquire, Croctotheface and Azrel. I suppose I should have asked you as well, which is where anyone could accuse me of going wrong, since you did comment too. Still, you had not commented recently on the issue, thus I didn't. Right now I am just asking them (and you) what can be done to resolve this issue. Hopefully it won't have to go with formal procedures, but if someone keeps on defying consensus and re-inserting something that everyone feels is not notable in the section nor written in NPOV, then we obviously have to consider punitive action. Arnabdas (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, could you please elaborate what you meant by here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimintheatl#NPOV_Warning when you called in question my reputation? Arnabdas (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimintheatl#NPOV_Warning If you have a point to make, make it, don't throw out sly remarks and comments that do nothing to improve this situation with Jimintheatl, you do a great disservice to WP by making comments like. I would ask again to refrain from disparaging me, but I don't think it will do much good at this point. Arzel (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vets For Freedom

Blaxthos

I beg to differ that my edits are not neutral. Everything I edited is a matter of fact, and may be verified. Most importantly, the funding of Vets For Freedom. I think the entry should be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even that truth which they prefer not be public. I think your unediting of the truth is truly uncalled for and does a disservice to anyone who wants to look up Vets for Freedom in this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthis1either (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Notthis1either continues to edit the VFF page to portray his/her POV. I was drawn into this argument because he/she accused me of a lack of NPOV, yet he/she only seems to be negatively editing the VFF page!--TravelinSista (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FNC

It just never ends, does it? As I'm sure you've noticed, I refuse to get involved with this debate again, but I've been keeping an eye on it for obvious policy violations and other nonsense. Good luck. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lucent_5ESS.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Lucent_5ESS.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This Discussion

Can you please revisit the discussion here and reply. Thank you!! Dustitalk to me 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Section Title

Thanks for explaining yourself on the FNC. I didn't want to respond on the article page because it doesn't really have anything to do with FNC. If anything the situation is my fault for editing without a full picture (I've tried to explain that but... well... you know how it is sometimes). The entire thing has gotten overblown and I'm now ignoring jsn. The people's whose opinions I respect would understand my mistake. In simple terms, Gamaliel and I had an experience with an editor who would name sections in the manner of "Why Gamaliel is Biased and Wrong" or "To answer Ramsquire lies", etc. We had an arbitration on the user and Arbcom stated it was generally uncivil to title sections with the names of editors because it can be a personal attack and is usually uncivil. In my skim I saw "Debunking Blaxthos's Allegations", which admittedly was nowhere as bad as some of the ones that were deemed personal attacks, but I still editted it and made a general comment about trying not to do that for the above reasons. I didn't see yours or I would have changed it and made the same explanation. After all that background I'll now get to the point I would have made to you if I saw your title--It's my experience that using the editors name in the title like that usually gets interpreted as calling out another editor and causes temperatures to rise. There are circumstances where it may be necessary, e.g. "Editor X latest edit", but I would advise to avoid doing it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

I've left my comments there. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. It always helps to get more opinions. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

EA Requested

Found your name on the editor assistance list, with special mention of reliable sources and controversial topics....

I am in a difficult dispute with Colin4C regarding Talk:Anti-Americanism. In addition to that Talk page, much of the dispute is found on a page requesting mediation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14_Anti-Americanism ...which outlines my concerns about content (I moved some of it to his Talk page).

He is obsessed with a sock-puppet allegation (closed), and I think he's going to oppose whatever I do. I'm not sure how to proceed. The most immediate dispute at the anti-Americanism article involves 1) a list of peer-reviewed articles which doesn't seem to include any peer-reviewed articles, and 2) an opinion that Canada is full of anti-Americanism, sourced with a single commentary in a newspaper. (These issues are easily viewed in the article history). I'm not sure what to do. Life.temp (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Life.temp's alleges that "none of the articles in the "Peer Reviewed" section are peer-reviewed". I pointed out to him there definate proof that International Studies Quarterly is indeed peer reviewed at http://www.isq.unt.edu/ . It is common practice for academic journals to be peer reviewed. I should know because I used to edit one myself and contribute to other journals! Peer review is standard practice in all academic journals. That's what makes them 'academic' in the first place. Colin4C (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have time to look at this? Life.temp (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology, if I misunderstood you...

I have apologized in the Fox news entry for the comments in which I said you continually repeats the untruth that the UCLA study was never published. I apologize for the confusion. By "republished", I thought you meant the original word document was never actually published in a journal... as in it was published on UCLA's website, but never republished in a journal. If that is what you meant, I of course disagree. But at this point I'm assuming you are saying the journal was published in a journal once, but not twice. So, if that is true, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. I've removed the accusation that you are repeating untruths and have posted an apology. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Email

Replied to the last, but it came back as being delayed due to insufficient disc space. Let me know if you got it or not; the email that I received said the system would continue trying to deliver it for the next 2 days. - auburnpilot talk 22:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I have responded to your hypocritical allegations and attempts to mislead the administrator noticeboard. You may find the discussion here. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Jsn9333 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

I'd like to ask you to try harder to assume good faith. I must tell you, the admins are perfectly capable of knowing, as they do, that I've actually been editing for years -- just without logging in. If you could try harder to assume good faith, I'm sure I could try harder to do whatever it is that you would say that I should do. Thanks. Urzatron (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your reply and I appreciate it. Urzatron (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

In reference to this:

I meant no offense. I was trying to maintain some neutrality in my presentation of the situation to others, so as not to "poison the well" as it were. My intent was only to assume the good faith of other editors, not to impugn you or anyone else involved in the dispute. My use of the language I did was to use terms that were as calming and un-offensive as possible to all parties. If I made a mistake, it was on the side of de-escalating the dispute rather than inflaming it, and if that attempt to reduce tension and defuse the situation caused you any harm or negative problems, I am deeply sorry for that, as that was not my intent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

That'd be great. It's a job that, depending on the week, may or may not involve much work -- some weeks, I do little or no grammar work, while other weeks, there are a few articles with very poor English. Feel free to help out wherever you can -- watch the articles here on Monday, and make edits as you see fit. If you ever are interested in writing an article or one of the blurbs in News and notes, feel free, but just general editing and grammar help would be great as well. Ral315 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread about possible RYNORT sockpuppet

Hi, you previously blocked for a month an IP as a possible sockpuppet of RYNORT. The IP's back and griping about you. See WP:ANI#69.244.181.184. Aleta Sing 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page/Help

I am having a problem with the usual suspects on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly Page. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks Jimintheatl (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm being a pest, but I would appreciate any assistance. Arzel is claiming that merely posting mention of Media Matters campaign against Bill O'Reilly's allegedly homophobic comments violates BLP, which I consider either disingenuous or astonishingly obtuse. He has reverted and referred to violations of BLP numerous times. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary at A Simple Plan

I am extremely disappointed to see your recent edit to A Simple Plan. While I recognise that you have issues with the length of the summary (and let me be the first to agree with you that it is still rather longer than is preferable), your re-instatement of a word-for-word copy of the revision that was the focus of the previous edit war stretches to the limit my assumption of good faith. If you believe that the plot summary is still less than optimal (and you have my full agreement if so) then I strongly suggest that you discuss the issue rationally and come to an acceptable compromise (with the emphasis being on compromise). Restarting the eidt war over this article will only get it reprotected, and possibly get you blocked. I am reasonably certain that Drstrangelove57 will revert the article again: I suggest that you do not continue the process. Happy‑melon 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blaxthos, don't worry, you win. You can throw the whole article out as you wish. I've changed my mind, not about being right and the article deserving a real plot summary, but about it being worth the trouble.

But I am satisfied that anybody who so much fields a cursory glance at the history of the article's edit war can see your shiftiness, your unrepentant excuse making, your bizarre and questionable motives, and your casual disregard of the judgement of the same admin you brought in once it didn't suit you, not to mention your complete lack of actual work on the article (despite promising some). I might be a hothead who can't keep my mouth shut, and I might not be so familiar with the rules as to be able to field dozens of acronymns to support whatever change I'm pushing for no matter how absurd or offbase, but hey, at least I care about what I'm editing and am not a colossal scumbag.

However, my hat is off to you for pounding me into submission, not an easy task. You've got more staying power than me, bro. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I removed the edits first thing this morning and further resolve not to log on to Wikipedia after an evening out... D'Oh! Jimintheatl (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. That info I removed belong in the sections about the films. As it was the article was a bit of bio and then a string of information about negative reviews of Carnahan's films, which is not even remotely encyclopedic or fair. Also, please remember to assume good faith when gauging other editor's edits.

  1. ^ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos/Archive_2&oldid=211696402"