User talk:Stodieck

Perhaps you'd like to write something at Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association? Even if it's a stub, that would help Wikipedia out; however, a placeholder isn't much use. Melchoir 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not create a placeholder. I edited the placeholder.

Unfortunately this organization refers to itself online almost exclusively as "CTIA", a mnemonic with numerous online aliases. I wrote this edit after being invited to a CTIA conference and finding that I could not find out the meaning of "CTIA" even after visiting the official website and after searching Wikipedia and Google for "CTIA". This is a large, important organization. I will make further edits as I learn more about it.

In the mean time, why don't you do something useful? Go eliminate this garbage entry, "Codeless". I am not sure how to purge a whole entry.

Great, I look forward to seeing the article! As for Codeless, that doesn't seem to be an article. Could you provide me with a link to the problem you're talking about? Thanks, Melchoir 10:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Codeless" Seems to have been purged

Here is another in Wikitravel, a nice piece of satire but dangerous. Maybe we should start a "Comediapedia".

San Serriffe "Alas, independent San Serriffe rapidly turned into an autocratic dictatorship under the rule of General Pica" "The national sport of San Serriffe is kerning"

"By train" "San Serriffe once has an extensive network of narrow-gauge trains pulled by water buffalo. However, after General Melior decreed that only girls who had never had sexual intercourse may act as train conductors, the system ground to a halt due to a lack of eligible workers and was sold off as scrap."

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

You're expected to maintain a collegiate atmosphere

Your edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stabilizer_(aircraft)&diff=497666479&oldid=497555820

Stated in the subject line:

'Glider Mav, these are very elementary errors. What are your references'

Which seemed to me being deliberately offensive, and in actual fact was false, since the parts you seemed to be referring to were not, in fact done by me.

These types of false accusations, particularly those in subject lines. cannot be easily corrected and can get taken out of context.

While administrators can edit subject lines, due to the fact that subject lines are quite difficult to correct, you must NOT criticize other editors AT ALL in subject lines.GliderMaven (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment was made entirely in error and I apologize. I could not find the name of the editor who made the entry. --Stodieck (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Stodieck aka Amphorus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Block reduced to 72 hours

Based on an email I received explaining the circumstances, I am reducing the block for abusing multiple accounts from 1 month to 72 hours from the original block time. It will expire Mon, 16 July 2012 22:22:33 GMT, just over a day from this post. I feel this is a more than fair adjustment, and the shortest block I've ever done at SPI. The indef block on the puppet account still stands. I will accept that you weren't familiar and give credit to admitting your actions, but there was still enough overlap that it was abusive, even if that wasn't the intention. It isn't necessary that I agree with your other points (I don't, by the way) in order to extend some good faith in trusting you on the main point, the reason for the secondary account.

You need to read WP:SOCK and learn the acceptable ways and uses for alternate accounts if you are going to use on in the future, in particular, those alt accounts shouldn't ever edit the same articles that your main account does. Not declaring an alt account is allowed under very limited circumstances and always has the risk of ending up at SPI and the accounts being linked. As for content dispute, that is beyond my consideration or the scope of SPI, so I will leave that to you and the other editors, and perhaps WP:DRN. Please note, if you have found to abuse multiple accounts in the future, you can expect a much longer block, or an indef block. Hopefully we can just put this behind and move forward with the business (and pleasure) of building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your edit warring was clearly a factor in your recent block, if not the main reason. I suggest that now your block has expired, reverting to your old behaviour and undoing everyone else's work is going to lead to another ban very quickly. It would be much better if you engaged in a talk page discussion to explain the point of view regarding aircraft stabilisers that you seem so intent on pushing. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring is wp:orthodox in WP when required. It takes 2. I am not pushing a POV. I am trying to bring the content standards of aircraft sections up to the level of common elementary texts. I have engaged in talk page discussions. If you can't discuss the topics involved don't bother me. Your comments are inappropriate and are recorded here for posterity. You don't seem to have any knowledge the subject. Edit warring had nothing to do with the recent very short block. --Stodieck (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)--Stodieck (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stodieck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Making edits on 5 separate pages does not constitute warring or a reversion to warring. Warring takes two equal parties. You have simply censored one party. You have apparently been influenced by comments from that party or a proxy. Some edits made tonight where made because they constitute reversal of technical facts that has led to a number of deaths dating back to the Wright Brothers. This continues to this day among experimenters in this arena. (That is thinking that a canard is a "horizontal stabilizer".) This distortion being systematically propagated by a single editor. There is no legitimate reason for this activity. It is irresponsible. It is generally an overt corruption of historical usage. Even the editor has commented on the fact that he is "probably wrong" technically, (he has been told this directly by at least 3 editors). His edits are always accompanied by claims of having consensus among editors when talk sessions on the pages in question are blank. On active talk pages it is clear that few editors understand the issue, no vote has been taken, and no consensus has ever been created. The editors are never informed of edits made in their name. Long talk discussions have taken place with this editor simply ignoring encyclopedic references and selecting those that happen to align with his own, generally not responding to points made at all. The editor has simply taken possession of certain WP pages in circumvention of WP policy, and this condition pre-exists my involvement. Comments made by Biker Biker show that he is allowing himself to be used as a puppet. He has never participated in the editing or talk sessions of the pages under discussion, has no apparent knowledge of the subject, and his phrasings and accusations are straight from Steelpillow. (I.e. meat puppet). I am requesting an immediate lift of this block. BTW I have noticed that WP policies on warring are actually reversed in different areas. Stodieck (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Revert one, revert two. You've just returned from a block for sockpuppet-assisted edit warring, why do you think it's acceptable to continue it using just one account? Max Semenik (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have just returned from a phony sock puppet accusation from Steelpillow. That was actually an attempt to change to a private ID. Steelpillow pubically compromised the new ID as soon as I started using it, so it was abandoned on the 1st day and hasn't been used since. That is part of the reason the block was reduced to 72 hours. It was not a sockpuppet-assisted edit. There was nothing to be gained by that. The accusation was harassment. Harassment is the reason for seeking a private ID. That was already adjudicated by the admin involved. It is not a factor here.

If you would like to read about a death related to the type of edits I have tried to make, try the current edition of flying magazine, in the "Aftermath" column by Peter Garrison. --Stodieck (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to address Stodieck's jibe about my lack of knowledge. Firstly that is immaterial, Wikipedia is not about personal knowledge, but about the ability to find verifiable content and to present it in a neutral manner - anything else is original research. Secondly, how can he possibly know what my knowledge is, and to my previous point why should that matter? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, now show me the verifiable content to justify the reverts you just made. Otherwise you are acting as a meat puppet for the editor who's edits you just reverted to. Thank you for proving my point. --Stodieck (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Zzzzzz..... --Biker Biker (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 193fd97e637c45d39956ffad56f7d364

TUSC

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stodieck for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Biker Biker (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Be forewarned that this is twice you have evaded a block and socked. Very likely, the next block will be an indef block and you won't be welcomed here at all. I strongly suggest you just ride out the block and learn a lesson or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion with IPs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jafeluv (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi, welcome back.

Please be aware that if you return to your previous editing behaviour, the outcome is likely to be the same. For this reason Wikipedians recommend that you stay away from contentious edits, and most especially from the topics that caused trouble last time such as this edit which I just reverted. It is a repeat of this anonymous edit made, and reverted by me, just over a week ago, and that looks suspiciously like your previous behaviour. If you are determined to return to the same topics, you will need to take great care not to cause upset.

I look forward to the return of your more constructive edits, you understand aircraft design better than most people. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luísa Sobral.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stabilizer (aircraft) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to relieve pilot input forces; conversely small aircraft with [[Stabilator|all-moving stabilizers)]] use [[anti-servo tab]]s are used to reduce control forces.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Stodieck I have removed some of your comments on the Talk:Three surface aircraft as they do not appear to relate to improving the article, please stick to consensus building and not comments on others, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Three_surface_aircraft. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Co-operative editing

Hi Stodieck, if you disagree with content in an article, please challenge it with "reference needed" tags or by discussing it on the talk page. Simply deleting away segments, changing the meaning of the statements, as you have done here, is not very constructive (and should certainly not be marked as minor, see WP:MINOR). Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)