User talk:Causa sui/Archive13

Deletion review for Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I wasn't the person who originally requested the deletion review; I just reformatted it. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

v/r - T P 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your barnstar

that was one of the most nicely worded such things I've ever seen here. May it add to the effectiveness. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Log

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2011-10-05T12:41:31 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gilgamesh in the Outback‎ [edit=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) ‎ (got crossed, resetting to Causa sui's time) (hist)

2011-10-05T12:40:48 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gilgamesh in the Outback‎ [edit=sysop] (expires 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) ‎ (persistent edit-warring) (hist)

2011-10-05T12:40:01 Causa sui (talk | contribs) protected Gilgamesh in the Outback‎ [edit=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) ‎ (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)

2011-10-05T12:39:16 Causa sui (talk | contribs) protected Heroes in Hell (book)‎ [edit=sysop] (expires 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) ‎ (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)

2011-10-05T12:37:14 Causa sui (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Heroes in Hell‎ [edit=sysop] (expires 16:37, 8 October

2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) ‎ (Shortening) (hist)

2011-10-05T12:36:37 Causa sui (talk | contribs) protected Heroes in Hell‎ [edit=sysop] (expires 16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)) ‎ (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)

Fascinating. Want to get into the details? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. :-) Do you have a specific question, or are you looking for a translation? causa sui (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the reasoning. This has been going on since May. The pages have been locked two or three times so far, with no functional result. The editor who appears to be the major problem, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has had no action taken against him, her, or it. It would be nice to have someone fix those pages properly. I'm a registered Canadian Publisher. I tried at one point to explain to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz how the copyright pages in the front of a book work, and I may as well have been talking to a brick wall. FYI, my specialties here are Chemistry, Emission Control Systems, Internal Combustion Engines, and Industrial Equipment.

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

UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you're in a frustration situation. However I don't have much background, nor time to bring myself up to speed sufficiently to mediate it. The page protection is enforcing the protection policy and general prohibitions against edit warring. Hopefully, the protection will encourage the disputants to resolve the disputes. Given your history with this incident, it might be a good idea to take a wiki-break and take a look at the millions of other articles we have to work on. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent an hour on the Catalytic converter article. It is still a mess. But if I put in another hour next week, and an hour the week after... It will get fixed. The problem is that no one understands the technology. That is why I'm not going near those pages, though I do watch them. It is frustrating watching someone who doesn't have a clue messing up what could be a good page.

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

UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to rehash this whole dispute in yet another forum. I do think a small number of points need to be reinforced. First, Mr. Borean/UrbanTerrorist has misplaced confidence in his own understanding of copyright law, at least so far as it applies to books published in the US, like the ones at issue here. Individual story copyrights do not have to be listed on a "copyright page" as he insists, but may instead be listed on the individual stories within the book. See the US Copyright Office's "Circular 3," at the top of page 4 [1]. One of the authors in the HiH series has confirmed the the HiH anthologies listed copyrights on individual stories.[2] Second, while The Big Bad Wolfowitz may be a stubborn, abrasive old ~~bastard~~ geezer, he works hard at editing within guideline and policy; Mr. Borean, in contrast, seems to insist that the fact that he's been blocked and repeatedly warned in this dispute as some sort of evidence that he's right. Third, while Mr. Borean may have been involved in this dispute since May, as he states, when he uploaded an obvious copyvio and behaved rather contentiously over its removal (see User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_16#Suggested_Deletion_of_OrangeMike_Page_under_.E2.80.8E_.28G12:_Unambiguous_copyright_infringement.29), my involvement has been much shorter and much more consistently civil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rehash. I have no intention to act on either side of the dispute, or to use sysop tools except where necessary to prevent edit warring. Regards, causa sui (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template testing

Hi Causa sui,

Awhile back, you expressed interest in the Huggle experiment that Steven Walling and the WMF summer research team ran on level one vandalism warnings. We're currently finishing up a second iteration of that experiment and about to run a third with all level one Huggle warnings (test, blanking, NPOV, etc.). The draft templates are up on the wiki in case you want to peruse them and give feedback:

I also wanted to give you a heads up about something we're thinking of trying with Twinkle. There's been some community discussion (here and here) about the fact that deletion notifications sent by Twinkle look exactly like user warnings, even thought they're not. I've drafted some new templates with the aim of testing to see if these do better at getting authors to participate in deletion discussions and/or improve their articles (because right now the numbers are dismally low). Let me know what you think about this as a possible A/B test! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

You are right to be confused, as am I. I've watchlisted your page some where along the line - I must have misclicked the rollback link and not noticed. Sorry again. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figured as much. No worries. causa sui (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please salt Sam Goundar

Please salt this title as this is the 4th time it's been deleted and there's no hope of notability. Thanks. EEng (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, protected for 1 year. causa sui (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13

I would like this userfied as a username subpage

The DarkArcher was here (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:DarkArcher/Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13 causa sui (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13" deletion

Hello, Causa sui.

I noticed that you recently deleted the article: "Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13." I understand that articles frequently come and go on Wikipedia, as it is such a big website.

I'm a huge fan of Warehouse 13 and the historical significance of the artifacts that they use. However, I'm not always familiar with the names that they use, and this article helped me out a lot in learning the historical origins behind each artifact. (Like learning who Sylvia Plath is before I saw the episode when her typewriter started draining the energy and will to live out of Pete).

So far, I've learned a lot of interesting and random facts about people and mythologies using this article as an guide while watching this show. I've only gotten through season 1 when I saw that this article was deleted.

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for doing this, and I was hoping that there might have been another site with a similar list, but I couldn't find one. Is there some way that I could get a copy of the deleted article, just for my own personal guide when I'm watching the show?

Much Appreciated, -Charmedmagic92 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:DarkArcher/Artifacts and gadgets from Warehouse 13 causa sui (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages

Hi. I was part of the discussion for the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club. And I am annoied by how this page was deleted. Firstly why was it deleted? I mean I posted last and no-one answered me so in my mind the discussion was still going. Why was there no warning as to the page being deleted? And lastly my post on the talk page of UK Allfa Romeo Owners Club was just deleted. And again I was not told that I shouldn't post there, nor talked to when it was deleted. By the way it was User:Gogo Dodo that deleted the talk page. I am really only saying all of this because I think PR is very thin around here...

Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 05:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for asking - it's good to get to clarify this. The deletion policy on Wikipedia is the 'manual' for how pages are deleted. In this case, the article was nominated via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where pages may be nominated for seven days of discussion. At the end of the seven day period, any administrator may close the discussion, or relist it for another seven days. When I came across the discussion, seven days of discussion had already taken place, and so I made a determination based on the discussion that had already occurred. (My rationale for closing the discussion as delete can be found in the AFD that you linked.) We use this time limit because otherwise deletion discussions would continue for weeks or months. The talk page was deleted because it is standard procedure to delete talk pages that are dependent on deleted pages. I hope this helps. causa sui (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does. But I still had a question. So I believe that decisions that could be made to help Wikipedia can't be made because of this rule. Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 07:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for a student class project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you explain your close? My view is that the deletion arguments were either WP:VAGUEWAVEs or rebutted, so I'd like to see which arguments for deletion you felt were conclusive. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again I really have no idea why I closed it that way. Consensus is not clear. I've been closing a lot of old AFDs this morning and probably hit the wrong button. I will vacate and relist the AFD. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! postdlf (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, I think your conduct was excessive. Just because you regarded the arguments as vague doesn't mean they were invalid. There was a pretty consistent view that this was based on original research, even among the keep !voters who didn't just say it's WP:USEFUL. You felt the need to personally respond to all of them, and then went to an administrator to continue to push your argument. Anyway, I'm not here to litigate the whole AFD or the process. What's done is done and there's no explicit policy against doing it. But you (unintentionally) raised the drama level at the AFD that's going to make it impossible to reach a consensus. I know there are policies that compel us to WP:PRESERVE information, but that does not justify any and all behavior. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REICHSTAG comes to mind. causa sui (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My good sir, I respectfully say "rubbish". I came here because the first thing you do before starting a DRV (which I would have done) is to contact the closing admin to see if he'll clarify or reconsider his close. I don't like AFD badgering either, but that's not what I did; I did not personally respond to every participant, nor did I merely repeat myself, nor did anyone else seem to have a problem with my comments, so I wasn't aware of any drama outside of your post above. That I thought your arguments were weak and even factually incorrect shouldn't be taken personally; I will always remember your good service in the Gavin Collins Wars, which is when I first became aware of you. What is more detrimental to achieving consensus than vigorous debate and criticism is when commenters present "me too" opinions without bothering to address the counterpoints and rebuttals to those opinions already made. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what's going on here, but my talk page isn't the place for it to happen. causa sui (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HI

Regarding the South Azerbaijan Flag AfD, some user had unilaterally renamed the page just before the AfD was closed, so you actually deleted a redirect page, not the main page in question. The actual page which was being discussed in the AfD, is now located here. Thanks. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A trout for the user in question. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy of deleted page

Hi, can you send me a copy of Ring_road_(Cairo) by email? I don't remember which source I used for the total length. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. causa sui (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I couldn't find the data I was looking for, but I found other stuff I had forgotten about. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric "DaBenchWarma" Smith (Producer)

Hi, thanks for reviewing my article. Tyrese Gibson album will be released 11-1-11. Cedric is co-writer on the song titled "Nothing On You". Do you need me to send legal documents (splits agreement)? Please reconsider my article. Also Drathoven his partner is already on Wiki. Please see reference interviews with both of them. Please let me know how I can get this article approved. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3sixtymusic (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I deleted the article because it was obviously a promotional article for an artist who did not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for musicians. If you want to work on the article without it being deleted, you can submit a draft at articles for creation where an experienced editor will review the draft and advise you of any problems preventing it from being included. causa sui (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cleanergy article

Hi,

I noticed that you have deleted the "Cleanergy" article. Please indicate the reason for this and please respond to the explanation of why the article should be left undeleted in the corresponding talk page. I do not know i you noticed but it was explained in the talk page and there were also references to independent publications.

Best regards,

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSWE (talk • contribs) 07:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the deletion was "A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Please review Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information about writing about organizations you are affiliated with or want to promote. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Shouldn't Be Alive semiprotection

Hello, I saw you protected the article I Shouldn't Be Alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=I_Shouldn%27t_Be_Alive Can you please make it indefinite? The vandalism has gone on long enough 218.186.19.240 (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, protection will expire on the 24th. Let's see what happens then. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am clueless, can you help me?

Dear Causa Sui,

I am writing to you because I saw your edit on the Anwar_al-Awlaki talk page. I am having a hard time with the Anwar al-Awlaki article. Someone keeps erasing the paragraph about prostitution (which I did not write) and removing his prostitution booking photo (which I did upload). I am not sure what steps I should take, the wikipedia bureaucracy is a complete mystery to me even after 6000 edits. I tried to post a request that this article be semi-protected on a request board, but I don't know what has become of that. Thank you for any advice or links you can provide to help me properly navigate the system. Decora (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) left you a reply at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anwar_al-Awlaki. The discussion has been closed and archived but you can view it by clicking "show" on the right side of the page under the section header. I agree with his comments. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies

May I please look at a copy of the Romsey Town Rollerbillies in my user space? Thank you. Dualus (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. causa sui (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, that article clearly includes multiple published, non-trivial, reliable, intellectually and otherwise independent secondary sources.[3][4][5] Therefore I believe a handful of editors on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies are mistaken and I'll probably ask that it be reviewed, unless you can talk me out of it. Dualus (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. WP:DRV is your best bet. Good luck. causa sui (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there also a talk page or was it never created? Dualus (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Romsey Town Rollerbillies

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Romsey Town Rollerbillies. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dualus (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet (slang word)

Hi, you just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratchet (slang word) as transwiki. This edit-conflicted with my following comment:

"Delete. The NYT story does not support the contention that "ratchet" is used as a slang word other than in reference to the song or dance as the title of which it was coined. The other sources are not reliable."

Would you be willing to reconsider your closure in view of this? Alternatively, how do you recommend that the transwiki be carried out? Which new (sourced) definition of the word do you propose to add to Wiktionary? Sandstein 16:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that's the kind of comment I'd like to get more feedback on before closing. I'll revert so you can add your comment, and then I will relist. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sandstein 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mellanox

Looks like I'm a day late to the party, but I believe I can write a decent article about Mellanox technologies s(which was deleted by you just the other day), using sources such as http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HOTI.2007.16, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f4402734x8p60772/ or http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.9076&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Would you mind if I recreate the article ,and possibly provide me with the latest content you deleted? Jeff Song (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to take this up would be at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. An experienced editor will review your draft there. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jeff Song (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I created a draft here: User:Jeff Song/Mellanox , and had it reviewed by an experienced editor who saw my note on Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That editor seems to agree the current version establishes notability [6] - but I can't seem to be able to recreate an article with that name. I though perhaps something you did when you deleted the previous version is preventing recreation - could you take a look? Jeff Song (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Mellanox. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done 'actively working' one the Mellanox article? Jeff Song (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. causa sui (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll give it a few more days and then remove the tag, unless you come up with some specific recommendations for improvement. Jeff Song (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge you not to remove the tag, as that would create the appearance of edit warring. It would avoid impropriety to follow dispute resolution or seek a third opinion. Now that the article has been rescued from deletion, it is not necessary for us to edit war to get the best possible article in place. causa sui (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I'll give it a few days, to give you and other editors a chance to either work on the article to improve it, or voice some specific concerns (not vague hand waving "its not encyclopedic") on the talk page, that will enable me to improve it. But a tag is not a "badge of shame" or a license to indefinitely deface an article that you previously deleted and apparently don't like. Jeff Song (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, I deleted the article at AFD because it fit the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion as it did not establish the notability of the subject. You then asked me what you could do to rehabilitate the article and I gave you some suggestions, which worked out for you in the end. After you recreated the article in a form that did not meet the speedy deletion criteria, I declined a speedy deletion nomination on those grounds, because as it stands the article has established notability and in my opinion meets the guidelines for inclusion. I have no particular attachment to any outcome as it comes to this article or the subject, other than ensuring that the article conforms to the core content policies at Wikipedia. My time editing and acting as an administrator here tells me that this article will be much better served by you avoiding the mentality that Wikipedia is a battleground or that you have to treat me, or other people you find yourself in disagreement with, as enemies. It does not help you get your point across and it will not reflect well on you when you find yourself required to persuade others to accept your point of view.

That being said, I'll make some effort to explain myself more clearly on the talk page. causa sui (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I don't consider you an 'enemy', and all I'm asking for is some specific input on the way in which the article can be improved. Jeff Song (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack on talk page

I have been civil in all my discussions on the Talk:Occupy Wall Street and see no reason for this [7]. Could this be removed to keep the page from degenerating into further attacks and intimidation from others?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the editor simply strike out the comment. If the editor does this I would see it as good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has done so. We have settled the situation between ourselves. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus and Race

Dude, I am not greatly interested in all of the social drama and intrigues. I am interested in accurate information being presented. Hope that clarifies. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is an ANI about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.120.5 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Beautiful Mind

The IP editor is not editing in good faith, is not a new editor, and this is not a content dispute. This is an IP sock of an editor who was blocked for edit-warring, and who has had multiple socks blocked in the last week. See the edit histories for this film, Ordinary People, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, etc. Please also look at this discussion between me and Drmies for more background. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This whole thing seems very odd to me. In the first diff you quoted to Drmies [8], you asked him to counsel the anon for adding "unnecessary details and opinions". This was when the IP added "He whines, tells lies, sulks around the house, and curses at his parents, not appreciating them whatsoever." Bad writing maybe, but I'm not sure what policies this contravenes that aren't contravened by other content in the plot summary. For example: the last sentence, which reads "Calvin and Conrad are left to come to terms with their new family situation.", which is original interpretation if anything here is. Nothing here is cited, mind you, as is standard for plot summaries. Really, after reviewing this discussion I still don't see evidence of bad faith editing by the IP, other than disruption caused by edit warring (for which everyone here is equally culpable). causa sui (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put some comments on User talk:Drmies asking for more discussion. causa sui (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my latest reply on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Mind

Hello, and thank you for your involvement concerning a user called RepublicanJacobite. As you can see already, this user does not like when people make edits to articles, and he makes thousands of Reverts per week. Due to my service provider, I get a new IP address every time I log in, so that is why my IP changes. If RJ does not like someone's edits, he reports it to his friends as a vandal. As you can see on 99.70.66.43 's Talk page, RJ has blatently threatened to Revert every change I make until doomsday. Do people still use that phrase, "til doomsday?" Anyway, I stand behind the facts of my edits. In Beautfiul Mind, some characters are not real; they exist only within the fantasies of a mental patient. In Ordinary People, Conrad is a troubled youth, and he does indeed sulk in his bedroom and curses at his parents. I do not see why I am labeled a vandal by RJ simply because he does not agree with the facts I state in the plot. I realize that I used UNDO 3 times within 24 hours, and I now understand that is against policy, but RJ uses UNDO hundreds of times per day, all over Wikipedia. I will continue to make rightful, factual, and well-intentioned edits, and if he usues UNDO on me until Doomsday as he threatened to do, then I will have to wait until the the day after doomsday to re-insert the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.65.183 (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points: (1) I'd urge you to register an account and edit only from that account, even when blocked, to avoid the appearance of abusive sockpuppetry. If you cannot create one because you are blocked, email me with an available username and I will create it for you. (2) You need to stop using edit warring as a means to get your preferred content into articles, no matter whether your "opponents" are also edit warring and especially regardless of whether you think you're right. Edit warring is not acceptable and there is nothing I or anyone else can or will do for you as long as you are pursuing it. Follow dispute resolution and use talk pages to discuss content with other editors. This is not optional. I hope you take these points to heart and stop the disruptive editing. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your objectivity. I fully realize that edit warring is unproductive and against Wiki policy. But when 2 parties are engaged in warring, then both should be barred. RepublicanJacobite continues to stalk all my edits and UNDOES everything I write and then claim that I vandalize him. He even admits that he will stalk all my edits and revert everything I ever write forever. Then he claims to his friends that I stalk him, when he is the one looking up all my edits and then UNDOing at will. 99.61.49.207 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jesus said something about removing the boulder in your own eye before removing a pebble in someone else's... have you given any thought to my invitation to register an account? causa sui (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will register. But RJ will then simply have that user name blocked. And then my next. Don't you see that he tattled to 4 or 5 different editors until finally someone took his side? He will simply do that in the future as well. You know as well as I that simply having a user name will not stop him from vandalizing my work. The point is not what name I use. The point is that he publically admitted that he will stalk and vandalize my work as soon as I write it. He has done this to me already, so I fully believe in his threat to do so again. 99.93.150.57 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 99.93.150.57 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem here is a case of newbie biting. It appears the reason RepublicanJacobite reverted the IP's edits was because they don't conform to our neutral point of view policy. Rather than explaining this, he used a generic vandalism warning template. Another user joined in the revert/warn cycle, and then they had the articles protected through a request for page protection. No one explained the real reason the IP's edits were reverted, and the problem continued. The IP was blocked for edit warring, but because the IP editor is on a dynamic ip range, the block was ineffective. An SPI was filed incorrectly, dynamic IP's are not socks unless they try and pretend to be multiple people. The IP was then blocked for block evasion, only for the IP address to change soon after. All of these blocks are expired. I have just left a note on RepublicanJacobite's talk page, explaining that the edits made by the IP are not clear vandalism, and should not have been reverted as such. I believe the best way to resolve this is to explain to the IP editor that Wikipedia's articles need to be well sourced and written in a neutral point of view. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That assessment basically agrees with my view, but I think both editors behaved badly. It is a problem that one wins because he's registered and for no better reason. Still, there is no way to rehabilitate the IP without (a) getting him registered and (b) getting him to stop edit warring. Each time I suggest that, he just rants about RJ. causa sui (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may: IP 99 has brought up his trouble with a certain editor. I can't say if that trouble persists. I had the same problem, but I think I put an end to it. I AM IP 75.

Now, you see, users such as RepublicanJacobite are here only to victimise and attempt to frighten people. He turned approximately 6 editors/admins on me and of course they took the same viewpoint as you here.

Trouble is, we are neither warring nor anything else. We are trying to defend ourselves, and you see where that gets us. A good idea is to follow the Wikipedia rules yourselves and apply them to good-faith editors as you would apply them to articles.

This way, you might cease dropping your hammers on IPs who simply do not want the trace of a username on them. Now thanks to the same plague hurting IP 99, I'm being accused of trolling! All I want to do is edit and improve articles!

Do you know why I was throttled for inserting opinions? Because I accidentally wrote at Steampunk that the fashion includes top hats. Well, their POV is fine, but because I missed the reference to back up that one silly statement, I am now being hounded.

You fellows are the ones who can put a stop to this. Be humans and remember what it was like when you first came here. Lastly, nothing personal, causa, but I have been examining the record and I see that RJ uses you quite a bit. He seems to go to you routinely.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely personal, and I resent the implication. While I agree with the points about IPs being treated badly, you seem to be doing a poor job of winning friends among those disposed to be sympathetic. causa sui (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]