User talk:Homebum

Homebum

This is an alternative account.

vn-∞This user page has been
vandalized many, many times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Homebum&oldid=281591360

Please click this link to verify that from the creation of this account I have always said I was a multiple user account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Homebum&oldid=284306539

Please click on the link above to view my user page before the last time it was changed by someone else.

What should appear on my user page

I am starting over, making a clean start with a new user name. And as of today, a new focus, if all goes well. It has come to my attention that what I call wiki-termites are eating through the math section of wikipedia. Rather than working on creating new content, I think for a while I want to work on addressing this issue. What I mean by wiki-termites are people who when you look at their contributions spend more time editing the manual of stype than they do working on creating content, and tend to troll article deletion discussions.

From now on, I want to be very carefull to use this account exclusively for monitoring deletion discussions, and the plots hatched against nieve new users on some of the discussion groups that I am learning about.

I indend to be a super hero, coming to the aid of humble workers who create content, when they are harrassed by what can seem to a new user to be people not just wiki-hounding but like a pack of wiki-hienias ripping apart hard working users.

I might user this account from time to time to revert vandalism as well, but as far as a content creater, from this account least those days are over.

While I try hard to follow all rules, the rules of Wikipedia are so convoluted, that sometimes some of the rules are hard to follow particularly the ignore all rules policy.

A subject I am currently researching is:Wikipedia:Editing_FAQ#How_long_should_the_ideal_article_be.3F

I am reading this article Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page

I am looking at this template Template:Details and this style Wikipedia:Summary_style

I am reading this article with interest Wikipedia:Vandalism

Participating in this discussion User_talk:David_Eppstein#Feeling_Wikihounded

I am monitoring this discussion group Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics as it appears to have a history of being used to secretly plot against inexperienced users.

The infamous deletion discussion

This is the infamous deletion discussion that ended up getting my ex-room mate blocked.

wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tensor_of_a_quaternion

Note I think getting caught in a deletion debate is basically a trap that only beginners get caught in, if in the future any sock/meat puppets attributed to me have a problem with this I agree that they should be blocked. Everybody in this supposed sock-meat community social construct agrees that editing should be done only in articles that have no chance of being deleted, like quaternion,vector,scalar,tensor and so on. To do other wise cause a nasty point of view fork problem. I don't know if stating my understanding of this alone, along with my stated aims are enough to get me unblocked?

I would like to get unblocked before the next deletion vote comes up for classical hamiltonian quaternions, but there is really no real hurry.

Hello, Homebum. You have new messages at Robotics lab's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

vandalism templates

Sample mail from C Stalk(er)

Posting a vandalism template on a user talk page, like you did on Gandalf61's talk page, can itself be seen as disruptive behavior, and persisting can get you blocked. In this case, there is nothing about Gandalf61's behavior that looks remotely like vandalism, so your action seems just like a response to your editing dispute with him. I'd suggest cutting it out. Everyone is well aware who you are. Making a new start is one thing, but a new account is a not a shield for you to use in continuing the same old disputes and behavior that got you in trouble to begin with. --C S (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Homebum (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, disputed many of Gandalf61's edits at length with them, as content disputes. The objection to his behavior that required this warning, was his edits to the introductory paragraph of the article. The problem was that he appeared to be changing to be changing the topic of the article, which had been agreed upon by unanimous consensus. Recall that this consensus was achieved, because the single representative of the quaternionist community agreed to change his vote, from delete and merge with main article to keep. It was agreed that there would be an article devoted exclusively to Hamilton's point of view, as a fork from the main article, which would be devoted to the so called Modern point of view.Homebum (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note C Stalk(er), was already plotting to request an un warranted check user IP address search, in retaliation for this vandalism warning, although none of the users accused had participated in any article deletion discussions which was the behavior that the original block was supposed to be controlling.

• Note' C Stalk(er) may have been acting as a meat puppet for user user:gandalf61 in making this check user request.

• Note Administrator User:Good_Olfactory has been had a tangle with CS

Answer to multiple {{helpme}} templates placed on this page today

• Please don't use multiple {{helpme}} templates at the same tiime.

• As a blocked user, you are unable to edit Wikipedia. You are able to edit this page, so that you can discuss your block, and request unblocking - see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. It is not appropriate to discuss other edits; 'blocked' means that, for policy reasons, you are not permitted to contribute to the project until/if the matter can be resolved, and you account unblocked.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft user space vandalism report

Written by user talk:homebum

Copy edited by user talk:bitter grapes of wrath

This is a draft, not to be acted upon until completed.

I don't represent hobojaks; I am not acting as a proxy for a blocked user. However, I have met him in real life, and he is actually a pretty nice guy. I know for a fact, however, that he views the disruption of his user page as a personal attack.

Nom de guerre of user:Hobojaks, refers to a living person. He is very well known in a wide circle by the hobojaks moniker. It was the stage name he went by when he played in punk bands. Jaks was the moniker he went by in his hobo days. Hobojaks is a moniker he has used in many usenet discussions. In quaternionist culture it is customary to take on a new name when being accepted into the community.

Jak's skate team, is a an old skate team name, and being one of two persons associated with that group which first introduced the group to freight train riding, he rightfully claims the name Hobo Jak's. His vilification is also offensive to the older generation of an entire skate board community.

Hobojaks at yahoo dot com is his email address.

http://www.myspace.com/hobojaks

is his myspace page.

Hobojaks is the name he uses to discuss police scanners, and the name he uses on railroad groups. He has used it in business in the past in connection with his scanner e-commerce business.

I would like to offer a polite and coherent observation that the present contents of that user page appear to contradict wikipepedia's defamation policy and should be reverted.

A misconception that some administrators, including Dan D. Ric labor under is that since User:Hobojaks is also a Wikipedia USER NAME, that somehow, its Defamation is acceptable. A few examples should show that nothing could be farther from the truth.

• If Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known by the pen name Mark Twain were alive and he adopted Mark Twain as his user name, then was unfairly blocked, and cruel templates were placed on his user page, it would clearly be defamation.

• For an example a little closer to this case, if the pope were editing Wikipedia under the user name the pope, blocking his account, writing cruel things about him on his user page, and then every time a Catholic objected and reverted the page, they got listed as either a sock puppet or a meat puppet of the pope and blocked, followed by blocking the IP addresses of every computer at every Catholic school library, it might seem to outside observers that your organization was being a little unreasonable.

• If Stalin, again a comrade name, not his given name, were editing Wikipedia under the user name Stalin, and you blocked him and put unkind things about him on his user page, you would get a trip straight to a gulag. Using the defense that it wasn't his real name would be no defense.

Please conform with wiki-policy and revert the most recent edit of User:Hobojaks to this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Hobojaks&oldid=284898446

Also since that user does not communicate on-wiki, providing his contact information is a valuable way to promote communication.

Clean Start Method?

Technically my block is set to expire tomorrow. I am doing some hard self examination and wondering exactly what I did wrong.

I am thinking more and more about the clean start method. It worked for a while before for me.

The other sides vandalism

My new start worked fine till I warned someone that their edit was what I thought was vandalism of the article classical hamiltonian quaternions. I still think their edits were vandalism by the way. After an article is proposed for deletion, and the proposal is rejected, changing the topic of the article, is the first step in deleting its content. So for example an article like classical hamiltonian quaternions, which was proposed to be an article dedicated exclusively to Hamilton's point of view, if you can't delete it, a disruptive tactic is to change its topic. In an extreme example, you could change the introductory paragraph to say that this article is about a punk band called the classical hamiltonian quaternions. Then you could delete the rest of the contents of the article sentence by sentence.

In order to make the clean start method work, it seems like the best thing to do is to start a new behavior. In other words if I were to get a new account and start editing on the subject of quaternions there would be another check user, and I would just be blocked again, but if I were to really make a clean start, and work on other articles and work hard on trying to be more civil in any discussions then I would have a good chance of making a successful clean start?

Our long departed comrade, Hobojaks, who I am accused of being, once vowed never to type on the article Classical Hamiltonian Quaternions ever again. If you want to accuse me of being just some sock puppet, who finished up the work of moving the contents of the deleted article tensor of a quaternion, and vanished article the vector of a quaternion, into a single article and cleaned up some loose ends, well fine. I know make the same vow, never again will I or anyone in my house hold edit Classical Hamiltonian Quaternions ever again. I have been accused of thinking that I own that article, these accusations are false.

Another thing, the meat puppets. Yes I suppose I am guilty of recruiting people to edit on wikipedia, and indoctrinating them into some of my thinking on the subject of quaternions. But these people have minds of their own, I have warned them about the pitfalls of deletion discussions, and none of them has ever participated in one. So accusing me of trying to rig the vote of a deletion discussion is a false one. There was some team work involved in rolling the article the vector of a quaternion into Classical Hamiltonian Quaternions. Also some different thinking, on the part of the different users. For example user talk:robotics lab cut out a large section of text, that I thought should have been kept in the article. Ask anybody, I thought that the section had some merit but might need some work. I almost got into an edit war with my own meat puppet, so go figure. I had fought long and hard to keep it, but when you own meat puppets disagree with you, maybe it is time to work towards consensus. There is also someone interested in doing some copy editing, right here in my household, who is a different natural person from me, even if considered to be the same wiki-person. They are giving me a really hard time right now, for suggesting a really stupid user name. But other than that I think it is best if I don't speak for them.

So my plan is to close out this account, but first I have a few loose ends. I would really appreciate it if Hobojaks were not accused of being the puppet master, and I nominate user talk:Hamiltons wrath as the true puppet master account. Him being a personage of spirit, may be just a little less offended by these charges. Also kids at school will think it is much cooler to claim that they are possessed by the spirit of Hamilton, and may in fact proudly proclaim themselves to be Hamilton's meat puppets.

Does this sound like a reasonable plan? Are there any pitfalls I should know about.