User talk:Unitanode/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Now that it's been semi-protected, the editor who was using all those different IP addresses has started making the same edits under her own name. Care to lend a hand in reverting her, making her see reason, or both? -- Zsero (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been dealt with; she's been blocked, and hopefully when she comes back she'll start being productive. -- Zsero (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your message, but hadn't yet responded, as I was trying to formulate what to say. You might want to be careful of messages like the one you left me here, if only for the fact that it might seem to some to be canvassing. I understand your concern, and don't view it that way, but I can see how that perception might be reached by others. UA 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing is not allowed in votes (or !votes). It is most definitely allowed, and encouraged, in conflicts about editing articles. It's called "asking for help". -- Zsero (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, which I had already done, without further messing up the other talk page: You accused me of attacking another editor, that was neither true nor assuming good faith. I did not attack him, although I find his failure to answer a question a bit annoying. My question was perfectly legitimate: all admins should justify their admin actions f asked, and MoP agreed to this. His reference to AGF, when I had not accused him of any improper behaviour and simply asked for a justification, was rude. Verbal chat

• You accused me of making personal attacks. You accused me of not assuming good faith. Pointing out that you were apparently attacking MoP's motives is not a violation of the policy governing either of your accusations against me. UA 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I would like an administrator to userify the article that was at Popcorn Sutton for me. The text can be placed at User:Unitanode/Popcorn Sutton. I recently saw this guy profiled as part of a History Channel special called Hillbilly: The Real Story, and checked for an article on him. When I saw there wasn't one, I also noticed a "this article has been deleted" message, so I wanted too at least use the original article (which was PRODed) as a starting point. Thanks, UA 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...  Chzz  ►  03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a ton! UA 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• I really appreciate it guys! Thanks a lot! UA 04:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If I remember right, you edit political articles, especially Bill Clinton's. You also follow them, as you did when I broke off a chunk of Teddy for Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt. I'm thinking (actually half-have) about breaking off a chunk of Clinton (replacing it with summary) for "Post-presidency of Bill Clinton" You OK with that? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think daughter articles are generally a good thing, as long as they're neutrally worded, and well-sourced. Let me know when you finish, and I'll watchlist it to help you protect it from vandals and trolls. UA 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Something is up at Post-presidency of Bill Clinton; as of now, it's similar to the post-presidency section. The main thing I need is support as I convert that section on the big article to summary. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll block if they violate that final warning. I'll also join the discussion at AN. Keep up the good work! Master of Puppets 04:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Casting aspersions. Questioning Moni's motives and good-faith. From my perspective, Moni has been really helpful throughout the time since I stumbled upon the Monitoring pages. She's done this in several places now, but I'll let this diff suffice. UA 19:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in responding. I have spoken to Mattisse and asked her to not make remarks about any Wikipedia editor for 48 hours. She has agreed. SilkTork *^YES! 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think this will work much better for me, as reporting things to that whole Monitoring page was quite stressful. UA 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it's not worth it. You may have a valid point, but you won't get concessions from this crowd. Karanacs (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• True enough. I think I'll just strike through my posts to his page. This whole episode has been very discouraging to me. Thanks, UA 23:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Don't think that you've done anything wrong UA, because you haven't. Karanacs is quite right though, there's a protective shell around Mattisse, the purpose of which is to deflect criticism. I was myself one of her mentors until I became sick of the charade. Honestly, just forget about it and move on. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'm beginning to realize that it's kind of fruitless, and to regret I ever noticed her post on SV's talkpage. UA 23:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To Joopercoopers - thanks for that, I was actually in the process of broadening my comments to include other admins anyway. Frankly, if the mentors won't chasten her behaviour, it needs to be open for other admins to do it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. I obviously share your concern with Arbitrator V's apparent antagonism toward Moni. I also think that enforcement of the mentoring plan should be open to any admin as well, since there hasn't been even one of the "short blocks" that were contemplated in the case. UA 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Late here, and a bit shocked to be agreeing with you, UA, but this is beyond. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why are you "shocked"? Have we crossed paths negatively in the past? If so, I don't remember it. UA 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Garth Paltridge. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, okay. I find that whole situation quite strange. On the whole, I agree on the underlying real-life issue with those trying to keep the Lavoiser (sp?) stuff in the article. But on the WIKIPEDIA side of things (notability, relevance, BLP, etc.) I find myself on the other side. It's been kind of a bizzaro-world for me at that whole discussion. UA 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that that's negative - I just find that when I cross paths with editors that care about politics I want to kill myself and/or them, and always disagree with them. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Like I said, the political side of me actually says one thing, while the Wiki-side of me says another. UA 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I wasn't alledging I wanted to kill only liberals or only conservatives. I should also note that I edited the article on ACORN in 2004! Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Is it acceptable to remove someone else's comments from an article talkpage, as WMC did in this case? He's done it twice now, and I don't think it's acceptable, but I want to be sure. UA 18:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As with most things, there is no 'law'. The applicable guideline just says, Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar. (Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages). Exceptions include the removal of personal attacks; some other editors also think it is acceptable to fix minor typos, though personally I wouldn't recommend it.

In this case, I suggest that you assume good faith on the part of William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) - feel free to restore the comment and explain why in the edit summary, such as "Reinstating other editors comment, per Wikipedia:Wikiquette", and perhaps suggest politely that, in future, William M. Connolley might like to request that other editors remove their comments, rather than boldly removing them, just to avoid problems. Of course, if the problems continue, then other avenues are available - Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be a good starting point for that. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I tried to let him know that I didn't think it was usually acceptable to remove other people's comments, in my edit summary restoring them. He removed them again, with a snarky edit summary. I've restored them again, so I hope he doesn't continue with this. UA 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice please that removing the whole comment per the guidelines of WP:TALK (since it is'nt content related), as WMC is actually stating with his "idle chit-chat" doesn't constitute editing another persons comment. Personally i'm rather tired of both Ratel and Alex's insistant bickering and personal attacks (yes - both). It has come to the point where it simply doesn't provide any worth arguing any point related to the GP article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I too am tired of the bickering. I'm actually politically on the side of those who feel that the evidence supports human causes for global warming. But on the wiki-side of things (particularly, the BLP side of things), I find myself more concerned about guilt-by-association problems. That aside, my main concern was that what was removed wasn't actually "idle chit-chat" at all. From his edit summaries, it seemed that WMC was concerned that if it was collapsed, it should just be removed, which isn't covered in the exceptions to the rule about removing other people's comments from an article talkpage. UA 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} He's still at it. I'm not sure what noticeboard to take this to (WQA doesn't seem the right spot), so any help someone could offer here (especially an administrator) would be welcome. UA 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think that urgent-ish action is required (rather than WQA), then WP:ANI is the place to post the request. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say ANI. I'm trying to extricate myself from some non-mainspace drama right now, and really don't feel like dialing up for more with an ANI report. I was just hoping someone that he actually respects might ask him to stop doing it, but thanks for the advice anyway. UA 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

UA, for what it's worth, I am collecting diffs for a possible RFC/U on WMC. He commonly removes others' talk page posts - he did it to mine a few weeks ago, he's done it to Alex Harvey several times, and to others too. There are also at least 3-4 other incidents of incivility, where he calls other editors' concerns a "waste of time", calls other editors "stupid" or insinuates bad faith on their part, edit wars with snarky edit comments, etc. This is all just in the last few months. I've repeatedly tried to warn him of his aggressive behavior - to the point where now other editors are accusing me of "baiting" because of my repeated attempts to resolve it informally. So I'm backing off completely and will just watch and collect diffs. Hopefully, WMC will stop on his own and nothing will be necessary, but if there is another incident, I will be ready to post the RFC/U, which you may co-certify if it comes to that. I sincerely hope that it won't.

I tell you this because I don't think an AN/I or WQA is worth the trouble at this point. I suggest you just wait and see what happens in the coming weeks, now that he's gotten warned by at least 2 different editors. ATren (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, I'm relatively frustrated with the whole issue, but I would probably be willing to offer a certification of such an RFC/U. I wouldn't be overly involved in presenting evidence outside this incident that I tried to resolve, though. UA 19:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I have plenty of evidence already collected, so I should be able to put it together and (if you agree) you can co-certify. But until that time, I am completely disengaging from WMC and you should probably do the same. ATren (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: disengage on the t:GP revert war. It's an old discussion anyway, and it will accomplish nothing to keep fighting that battle. Save it for the RFC. ATren (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is a clear abuse of the Talk page to insert your speculation about "harm" the page is doing elsewhere in order to sway content arguments your way. Harvey's comments should have been stricken from the page immediately by any admin viewing that page. I have removed them today. Do not restore them again unless you have discussed the issue on a noticeboard or have support from an uninvolved admin. ► RATEL ◄ 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You've got to be kidding. So you've decided to edit war at the talkpage, in support of a clearly untenable position? No thanks as to your suggestion for escalating the drama by taking it to ANI. Have fun. You've actually chased someone who agrees with you about global warming from the page now. I'll leave you to it. UA 23:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You don't know me but I saw your request on Sandy's page. I don't watchlist things much but as a member of the plague list I do keep an eye on what's going on when there are "official" processes afoot. I'll let you know if anything comes up on the sanctions front as far as you are concerned. Until then - enjoy! Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thanks! I really do appreciate it, as I'm just weary of this whole mess. If I could go back in time and take myself out of Mattisse's crosshairs by never having watchlisted SV's page, I would certainly do so. UA 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was patrolling the BLP noticeboard and see that you have made an error. The instructions allow archiving only after 7 days after the last comment so your collapsing the discussion and calling it an archiving of rehashed, settled debate is wrong. I have reworded it to merely collapsing the discussion. This way, it keeps your green box but words it so that you are not violating the instructions. BLP discussions are the very most important discussions in Wikipedia. According to Jimbo Wales, no editing violation is as bad as a BLP violation, hence the decorum and following of rules in the BLP board. Thank you. Ipromise (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I appreciate your concern, archiving of discussions that are simply rehashing of old, long-settled discussions, that are simply wasting the time of the BLP noticeboard is not an "error." You should know that what you did is a bigger "error" than what I did, since you basically changed my comments. That's explicitly disallowed, even at your own talkpage, more or less on a public noticeboard. UA 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'll put it more bluntly than Malleus does below: you are alarmingly clueless about what constitutes sound reasoning for a block. "Being forced to let your anger wear off" is not a valid reason to block, whatever you might want to believe"

Where did I claim being angry was a valid reason for a block? Being incivil is a reason is a reason for a block. Why is one incivil? Because one is angry. How does blocking help? It prevents one doing it again because one cannot edit untill one's anger has worn off. It also deters one from doing it again when one becomes angry as one knows one will be blocked (Well maybe some statistics will contradict me with that second point but that is likely an effect). That doesn't mean being angry warrants a block, it certainly doesn't, and I don't think anybody has ever claimed it does. We would be a hell of place if we blocked people for being angry. Anyway hope that clears up what I was saying.--Patton123 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't "cleared up" anything, let alone relieved me of the impression that you have no real clue as to what blocking is meant to accomplish. You claimed that a valid reason for blocking was to force the blocked user to let his "anger wear off." That makes no sense, and is in no way a valid reason for a block. In fact, so-called "cool-down" blocks are almost universally condemned, at least in theory. That said, communicating with you is accomplishing nothing, so I'm going to stop doing so now. You're clearly going to believe what you want to about the behavior of the self-appointed civility police, so what's the point of discussing the issue with you? UA 01:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where I claimed anger was a valid reason for blocking somebody. Quote me.--Patton123 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're dense, or just forgetful. "That's what civility blocks are for, to allow your anger to wear off so you aren't incivil." You even reiterated the claim that people could be blocked for getting angry, when you were challenged on it, here, here and here. That you could possibly not remember making those THREE assertions that blocking because of anger was acceptable beggars belief. UA 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You see you misunderstood me every time I clarified it. I claimed people are blocked for being incivil. I then said that you are incivil because you are angry, and when you come back you have gotten over your anger and aren't incivil. I never claimed people should be blocked for being angry.--Patton123 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You were pretty clear that people were blocked so that their anger could "cool off." This specifically contradicts block policy. You've even stated your odd view that such "cool down" blocks are somehow acceptable, and that questions dealing with such things at RFA aren't really valid. These views are plainly, categorically wrong. You may want people to be blocked so they can "cool off", but they shouldn't be blocked for such asinine reasons. UA 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No what I said was people are blocked for being incivil, and being blocked allows their anger to cool off so they aren't incivil again. That is essentially a cool down block. I certainly don't advocate blocking people for feeling a perfectly human emotion.--Patton123 (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are attempting semantic gymnastics. Many adults, when angry, express their anger in some way, which you and the block-happy admins would classify as "incivil" (which isn't a word, by the way, "uncivil" is the word I think you're looking for). Lest there be any confusion, I know that you are not an admin, and I'd lay odds you never will be, Because, your semantic gymnastics aside, you're explicitly advocating "cool-down" blocks, which is not in accordance with block policy. I for one will oppose any candidate for admin who supports such asinine blocks. UA 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it is. What do you think I mean by incivil? I mean something like "Unitanote, you are a thick bastard, go die", not "That's ridiculous! What are you talking about?". Anyway, just what do you mean by a cool down block?--Patton123 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it is not. Block policy, which is what is actually relevant here, doesn't allow for blocks intended to "cool-down" angry users. It requires actual disruption, not just some trigger-happy admin's interpretation of the nebulous "incivility" policy. I could get angry and call you a mentally deficient, misanthropic moron, and as long as I'm not actively disrupting the project, block policy doesn't allow for blocking me in that case. Using mean words just isn't enough to block someone. You can post as much misinterpretation of policy here as you like. You're simply completely wrong about this. UA 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption" this is exactly what I've been talking about you just seem reluctant to take it in. If someone in a heated debate decides to blatantly insult another party well that is disruption. When they return from their block they will be over their anger and won't be blatantly insulting again. These kind of blocks are issued on a regular basis, and that is how they work. If you disagree that's how they work I would like to see your explanation. I'm not talking about some crackpot definition of incivility where noone can even disagree, just blatant insults. --Patton123 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

An insulting remark does not equal disruption. That's just ludicrous on the face of it. If the person is spreading the disagreement (and the incivility) all over the place, to other talkpages, noticeboards, etc., that could be considered "disruption", but a remark that is considered insulting is simply not disruption. Now, are there some incompetent admins that block for such things? Certainly. Such cool-down blocks are far too common, and a major problem here. We have too many people like you, who are more concerned with moderating what people say when they're angry, and not enough people concerned with actual disruption. It's disturbing to see how woefully you misunderstand what constitutes actual disruption. Calling you a shithead in the middle of a debate is just not enough, no matter how much it may hurt your feelings. UA 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"An insulting remark does not equal disruption." Couldn't agree more. Now how do we persuade the civility police that disruption is only caused when, as you say, a disagreement spreads from a talk page over the rest of the wiki? Nobody has a right not to be upset, or not to feel insulted. Civility blocks are stupid, ineffective, and dishonest, and if I had my way I'd desysop every single administrator who has ever made a civility block. Speaking only for myself, I'm quite capable of insulting someone whether I'm angry or not, and in fact I think that some of my best insults (not necessarily on wikipedia) have been offered while I was laughing, not even in the slightest angry. Oh that this site was run by adults instead of hormonal and over-sensitive teenagers. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've often seen some of these civility warriors claim that if X said Y to Z in real life they'd get a smack in the mouth. What they always seem to forget is that in real life Z would be very likely to return the smack with interest, not be immediately carted away by the ever-present forces of law and order. And it would be X who would likely end up with the conviction for assault, not Z. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely clear in the blocking policy that cool-down blocks are not allowed, yet the "civility warriors", both admin and wannabe-admins (see above) continue to make them without regard for policy. They take WP:CIVIL and WP:BLOCK as two parts of a whole somehow, which it's not intended to be. UA 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've said many times before, but it bears repeating. WP:CIVIL ought to be scrapped. It's just ill-considered primary school stuff. On the other hand WP:NPA ought to clarified and consistently applied. It'll never happen though; why would the civility police vote in favour of removing ther power base? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the impression that I'm a "wannabe-admin" from. Anyway Malleus, there is never a need to to insult anybody. And certainly I have used violence on people who have insulted me, without retaliation or prosecution.--Patton123 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you've "used violence" on someone who "insulted" you, then you're an oaf and a brute. Normally, in life as well as Wikipedia, it's best to simply laugh and walk away if insulted. With people like you, though, you want someone to step in and block the offending party, which is just utter nonsense. Unless the insults spread, and start actually disrupting the project, a one-off insult is almost never worthy of a block. UA 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You ought to try reading what people actually write Patton123; you might actually learn something that way instead of continually gassing off. I didn't use the phrase "wannabe-admin", either to you or to anyone else. As for your offers of violence, well, Unitanode sums it up well enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

←Malleus sorry I wasn't talking to you about the wannabe admin thing. Anyway UA where did I say one insult was good reasoning for a block? Nowhere, you have a knack of reading an awful lot into what I say. Anyway one insult shouldn't happen, I have never understood the need some people have to attempt to antagonise those who disagree with them.--Patton123 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

When you supported Hebert's block, you were supporting a block for what was basically a one-off "insult." And let me make sure I have this straight: (1) You have "used violence on people" who insulted you, "without retaliation or prosecution"; and (2) You "have never understood the need some people have to attempt to antagonise those who disagree with them." That both of those things exist in the same human being is just beyond belief. UA 00:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's block did I support? Nobodies, anyway people shouldn't be making insults. Anyway, the fighting bit was a number of years ago when I was still in high school. I don't think there are many people who can say they weren't picked on a bit, and in that particular incident I was attacked but "won" so to speak. Anyway what is the need to insult people?--Patton123 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this an act, or are you really this dense? To quote:

Well I know nothing about what happened here but I checked my watchlist for the first time for a long time today and your page was on it (Don't worry not anymore). But assuming admins are fair and objective and assuming you were incivil the block was to allow you to cool down from othe heated discussion, think about your actions and to act as a detterent to you doing it again.--Patton123 (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This was in direct reply to Malleus asking to hear from people who supported the block. I also note, with interest, how quickly you are backing off your false bravado about having "used violence" against people who insulted you. UA 14:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't supporting his block at all, not knowing what it was about, but answering his question. Anyway "used violence" is too strong, "push around" peole who attacked me physically would be a better word. Anyway you have yet to explain why people should insult others.--Patton123 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop making crap up. Never once have I said "people should insult others", or anything that could -- by a rational person -- be interpreted that way. You, on the other hand, first support the block (as there's very little room for an interpretation other than that, since his "question" was whether people supported the block), then you back off that position. Then you state that cool-down blocks are acceptable, which is against blocking policy. Then you state you have "used violence" on people who have insulted you, but back off of that. Now you are making things up about what I've written during this discussion. You know what? I'm very much over this conversation. It's accomplishing nothing, as you refuse to actually address the absolute nonsense that you've posted, instead choosing to duck, dodge, bob, and weave, pretending you haven't written the things you have, and claiming I've written things I didn't. Frankly, I'm supremely sick of your nonsense. As you've chosen to begin making things up about me now, you're not welcome to post here anymore, unless it's directly relating to article content. UA 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You might want to let the folks at our sister project know... –xeno^talk 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Stricken. I do think it's rather uncommon, though, as the only result returned by dictionary.com was from the Random House dictionary. UA 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. And Firefox underlines it in red. But we can't trust it all the time! ;> –xeno^talk 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, GoogleChrome doesn't recognize it, nor does Microsoft Word. Perhaps an edit to Wikt is in order, adding "uncommon" or something, so there's no confusion as to its rare usage. UA 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually always thought it wasn't a word either until I looked it up in wikt. I don't really edit over there, but have at it =) [though I do note it's already listed as "rare"] –xeno^talk 17:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post in the TALK section. Obviously there are other users in the discussion section that think her father's background is important. It was in PARADE interview, so it's obviously something known about her. There is no reason to erase the fact that her Argentinian (nationality) father has Danish parents. I mentioned that tons of actors and other famous people on Wikipedia have their background information added to their profiles. Why is there an exception for Alexis Bledel? The Parade magazine is also a reference that was put there before I made any edits. Her father is Danish-Argentinian, not Argentinian, as in native, etc. That's a big difference. That is like telling an American born in Korea, they are just Korean. Really? Not to Koreans.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is something you should probably take a look at. The heritage of Bledel's grandparents has absolutely no bearing on why she is notable, and isn't appropriate for that article. Now, please keep any further discussion on the appropriate talkpage. UA 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In this comment you say, "as no one (other than the nom) had recommended keeping" (emphasis added). I'm sure you meant "deleting", but I don't want to edit someone else's comments in an RFA discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, and I've changed it accordingly. Thanks! UA 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't take the comments about the opposes personally. I think they are likely to be referring to A Nobody, who had a RfC/U recently. You're perfectly entitled to question my editing record. I didn't expect to run the RfA gauntlet without scrutiny, and I take your comments on board. Fences&Windows 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, and neither should you take my concerns personally. My main problem now is with how it seems anyone who opposes any RFA is attacked. UA 03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the atmosphere, editors should feel free to raise concerns about candidates without feeling harassed or mocked. Opposing comments are needed to properly assess the candidates, and are also of use for candidates who pass. Aside from the comments from the ARS opposes (which derived from AfD politics), I found the opposing and neutral comments to be useful. Shall we gently raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship? Fences&Windows 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you, if you feel it's merited. I'm afraid it might devolve, and I'm just not interested. Good luck with the tools! Regards, UA 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've posted about it on the discussion page of American Idol alumni album sales. 68.149.239.203 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember I said I'd let you know if there were any sanctions against other editors as hinted at so you didn't have to watch the clarification? Well it's on the point of closing and there are no sanctions in relation to other editors. There are remarks about baiting and antagonistic remarks by other editors but despite requests, no examples have been given nor names named. Antagonistic responses by some editors I have seen but I have not seen any baiting of Mattisse so I am none the wiser. Anyway, it's all over so you need not rush over there and defend your honour. All the best.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the note. I'm not a bit surprised at all that an attempt to rationalize/justify Mattisse's nonsense has been attempted. While it's good that no actual sanctions were attempted, such unproven slurs are contemptible, and -- one would hope, anyway -- beneath an august body such as the arbitration committee. I actually took a peek at what was going on there a short while ago, and noted that it doesn't appear the committee has the stomach to put any actual teeth in their sanctions of her. I asked about it at an arbitrator's talkpage, received a noncommittal response, and was accosted by one of her mentors. I defended myself, at which point the arbitrator made a snarky remark about arguing on his talkpage. I decided then that I would just resign myself to the fact that no real "toothy" sanctions would be passed, and that we would muddle along further with the current "mentoring" system. On an encouraging note, I did notice that the mentors have finally begun implementing the "short blocks" provision of the "plan", so I guess that's a bit encouraging. I guess we'll see how it all unfolds. Thanks again for the note. UA 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Best to just let things run their course eh? Nobody who feels they have been targeted in the past will be remotely convinced by the rationalisations, but here's hoping it is all in the past. Some of the mentors are putting a lot of effort into this so good luck to them. Stand back and let them and Mattisse work it out. Take it all off the watchlist! Cheers. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

• Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
• Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.

  This portion is a symptom of the Arbcom's sickness. Complete nonsense, nothing more. UA 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
• User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

Well, stop just overhauling the entire article, taking away everything. This article was completely bare until I started working on it. If you are the manager of it, you weren't doing a good job due to the state of it when I found it. So don't tell me what to do when it is a public article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixrekpowell (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Replied at your talk. UA 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you had a problem with user TreadingWater (talk). I thought I'd let you know this person added Generation Jones to the List of Generations section on the Generations page. I don't think this Generation should be on the list, but I don't know if you agreed or disagreed. I have the Strauss and Howe books and there is no mention of Generation Jones. I think this is a new term, and not used by most researchers, etc. What is your view on this? I went to the Generation Jones page and you were in a discussion with this user. If you'd like to add something on the Generations page, that would probably be good. Do you know any other editors or an administrator that has a problem with this being a part of the Generations page? If so, I think you should let them know. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your response to this edit. Have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with an old user with a new account posting on arbcom cases. You have a perfect right to. However, is it wise? You've stated you had good reason to change accounts, and good reason not to reveal your old one. I believe you, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for that. However, if you post in prominent pages, and engage in the type of discourse you are doing with MZMcBride, people will speculate about who you were. And once people do that, people start scrutinizing you (from curiosity if nothing else) - and they chat on IRC. And doubtless some people know, and some people talk. And, from experience, sooner or later it comes out.

It may be unfair, but if it is truly important to you that no-one links your accounts, you'd be well advised to keep a much lower profile.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the note, but I'm not worried about speculation. Those who know my identity, will not reveal it, that much I'm sure about. And I don't really mind at all if people speculate about who I am. I don't plan on confirming my identity to anyone other than the members of the committee. Since I don't plan on becoming a regular at arbcom pages, and since I now avoid ANI like the plague, I don't see it being a problem going forward. Regards, UA 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering who you are (or were, rather), it's probably not wise to state you have no history with Ottava. While people may not publicly reveal who you are, word does spread, and it's pretty simple to check diffs to see old disputes that prove such a claim inaccurate. Lara ☁ 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you let Risker or Brad know who you think I am, and what "history" I have with Ottava, so they can let me know? I seriously don't remember interacting with him other than to see him around from time to time. UA 05:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from User:Ottava Rima containing diffs that link your current account to your old account. I will not reveal on-wiki further details of the e-mail, but I will say that while the accusations it makes seem baseless the identity it revealed seemed to be correct.

I have told Ottava that it is not appropriate to be sending out e-mails to people linking your new identity to your old and asked him to stop. I am letting you know this so that you can take it into account when safe-guarding your privacy. I do hope OR has the sense to cease such actions and does not compromise your privacy further.

You are welcome to e-mail me if you wish to ask any questions that are private, or when the answer to such questions would be private. For communications that do not involve private information I prefer on-wiki communications for the sake of transparency. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I would like for you to email those diffs to Newyorkbrad or Risker, and they will relay them to me. I've set up a throwaway Gmail account for Wikipedia, so you can email me the diffs. I'm unaware of any serious runins I had previously with Rima, and it disgusts me that he's trying to out me simply because we disagreed so strenuously on the Bishonen 4 RfC. This rather reveals his true character, I would say. Thanks again, and regards, UA 19:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could get in on the discussion for the Pop Culture references on the Generation X and Generation Y pages. Someone added manga to the Generation Y page with a source that mentioned the boom of Manga/anime with the Generation X and Generation Y members. On the Generation Y page, Generation X wasn't mentioned, so I added that since it is referenced in the source given. I also added a mention of Manga/anime to the Generation X page. I plan on expanding on that in the Pop Culture section, and welcome others to as well, since it is a sparse section. However, today a non-registered user just deleted the information for no reason. I re-added it to both article pages, but Arthur Rubin keeps reverting my edits. I have asked him to stop vandalizing the pages, but he won't stop. I would like to ask you and others to perhaps join in a real discussion on this topic, because there was none, despite what Arthur Rubin says. You can see my contributions and see the Manga -This is Dumb section of the Generation X page, Arthur Rubin's talk page, as well as the Generation Y page for my comments. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• After looking into it, Arthur is correct on this matter. UnitAnode 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to let others know that I am aware of the three-edit rule and will NOT add back the information to the article pages at this time. However, I have invited others to the discussion and added another comment on the matter. I only ask for others to consider the other references, and the one book I mentioned as a source. The source itself mentions dates within the Generation X and Generation Y periods. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion and help out a fairly new editor. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there's an exception to WP:OUT for banned editors. There's certainly no exception to WP:BLP for allegedly bad people (if there were, BLP would be an empty promise). Don't call a real, named person a stalker unless you have one hell of a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused. I need a reliable source to name a person who actually stalked me, both on-wiki and in real-life, and outed my real life name to many, many people? That seems a bit ludicrous, but okay I guess. UnitAnode 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • BLP has no namespace limitations; it applies everywhere. This is not a forum to launch original attacks on people, even if you believe they're deserved (and even if they actually are). Cool Hand Luke 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It wasn't an "attack", it was simply a reporting of what happened. Does common sense not apply here, CHL? Everyone who was around then knows the real-life person behind the attacks on me. It's no huge secret who he is. UnitAnode 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I do not know precisely what he did to you. Nobody knows except for you and him, and neither is a reliable source. At any rate, this is not a forum for reporting your own experiences. Cool Hand Luke 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke is absolutely right here. Complaints have been made to Oversight & I'm just following up. You have revealed non-public, personal information about editors here on WP, and made allegations against them. I don't care who said what to who and why nor do I care for your "everyone knows" excuse; it's not public information and this is one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia here. Had they done the same to you on-wiki, I'd respond in the same way. You've been around here more than long enough to know this, so please - don't do it again - Alison ^❤ 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the irony of that person requesting oversight of his name after what he did to me. And there's no plural "editors" here, as I "revealed" the identity of only the person who stalked me in real life this past January. Only on Wikipedia could that be a crime, I guess. Thanks for the note anyway. UnitAnode 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Unitanode - I never suggested that the complaint had been made by the subject, only that a complaint had been made. Please just drop it now - Alison ^❤ 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • <rolls eyes> Done. UnitAnode 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Sarah Thomas (American football official) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Replied there. UnitAnode 06:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hola! I noticed you created and flushed out that Sarah Thomas article. I merged most of that information into the Sarah Thomas (referee) article since you added that good content to the stub I had created already. Nice work!!!! Iamnothuman (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. You need to request that an administrator merge the histories. Right now, my version is up for DYK, and all you did was cut-and-paste my information onto the page you created. That leaves the impression that you did all the work, and is confusing for DYK purposes. UnitAnode 12:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw that you went ahead and undid my edits without discussing. I have fixed that for now. I will be happy to discuss that on the talk page for Sarah Thomas (referee). There was a reason I titled the article the way I did. As for the DYK, that's really neither here nor there and is not reason enough to justify where the page should be located. As I noted, I had already created the stub and planned to return. You went ahead and created a seperate article and put in more effort. As a result, I didn't want to undo your work, so I essentially left most of it intact even though it's not how I would have written the article. Again, I'm watching the referee page if you'd like to discuss the merits of its location. Iamnothuman (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You did a sloppy cut-and-paste move of a better article into a worse one. I hate to put it that way, but it's true. You have titled it inappropriately (she's not a "referee", she's a "line judge"), and to avoid Amero-centrism, it should be titled something to do with American football. I'm changing it back, and if you edit war over this, we'll have to ask for a third opinion. Insisting on keeping the article at an inappropriate title, after I'd done all the heavy-lifting, as far as starting the history-merge process is just tendentious. Please stop. UnitAnode 05:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you prefer to be confrontational and uncooperative, I will be as condescending to you as you are to me. First, referee is the internationally recognized term. All line judges are referees. If you have any question as to that fact, please read a dictionary. If you consider wiki to be sufficient enough, then visit the Referee article. Second, to claim I did a sloppy cut and paste is an argument without merit. If anything, I left what you had done relatively in tact because I was trying not to make you feel bad. Finally, to claim that you did heavy lifting on an article of this length is a joke. You basically ignored a stub that was already in place in order to create your own article. It appears that you then tagged your user page with that information as another notch in your belt. I am glad that you are actively trying to improve wikipedia; however, your response to me has been rude and offensive. Let's keep this on an even keel. Stop undoing my efforts and I'll stop undoing yours. Since you are passionate about this, I agree that a 3rd opinion should be sought. As a final note, I am not going to engage you any further on a personal level. I will continue to discuss the topic at hand on the relevant talk pages, not on your personal talk page. Please do not respond on my talk page as it will just fragment the discussion. Iamnothuman (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about a specifical game official, with a specific job ("line judge"), in a specific game ("American football"). As for "ignoring" the stub already in place, I looked at every name I conceived as possible before writing the article. Sarah Thomas (referee) is such a poor name, that I never even checked there. I had no idea the stub existed. As for your "stop undoing my efforts, and I'll stop undoing yours", that's a blatant "I'm going to edit war to get my way" threat, and it needs to stop now. I've explained to you why the name you chose is poor. If you choose to keep insisting on it anyway, it's probably not going to end well for you here on-wiki. UnitAnode 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:scjessey.2C_User:Unitanode.2C_User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Jzyehoshua__.28Result:_.29 --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. When you moved Mike Carey to Mike Carey (British writer) and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you perhaps were unaware of this guideline, which states that when changing the target of an existing title, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." Your help in fixing well over 100 other articles that contain links to Mike Carey would be appreciated. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Busy day, today, but when I get back, I'll help fix the problem. UnitAnode 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste content between titles, like you did with Talk:Sarah Thomas (referee) and Talk:Sarah Thomas (American football official). The correct procedure is to move the content by changing the page titles. When copying and pasting, the edit history is lost. Accordingly, I've reverted your changes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is just surreal. This all started when User:Iamtheunknown copy-and-pasted the contents of the page I created (which had a MUCH more extensive edit history than the one he had created) to the one he created. I reverted that, and made a history merge request, as per protocol. He edit-warred over it, and left snippy messages here at my talk. I was simply fixing his initial mistake. With that said, I'm so frustrated with this situation right now that I'm just going to let the lot of you guys figure out how to fix the mess he made. Do whatever you want with the page. UnitAnode 21:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your hatnote seems unnecessarily provocative to me. I suggest eliminating the bitey portion. Take care. Happy New Year! WOO HOO!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's simply descriptive. While I agree (to a point) with the underlying concerns, all WSS is doing is trolling for a fight. UnitAnode 01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling people out like that isn't helpful. And the hatnoting on that article talkpage is often abused, so while he didn't phrase it well, the discussion was perfectly legitimate. There's also a lot of inappropriate commenting that's going on without being addressed. Anyway, thanks for listening. Take it easy. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't call him names (or "call him out" or whatever you're calling it). I said he was trolling. It's not close to the same thing -- and he was trolling. As I said, I'm more inclined than most who who watch the Obama article seem to be to listen to arguments for inclusion of critical information. (See my discussion with Scjessey on poll numbers further up the page.) Saturn's thread was blatant trolling, though, and completely unacceptable. UnitAnode 02:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. But the point I was making is that I warned you it was going to be a contentious edit and you ignored me. I warned you a second time, but you went ahead and did it anyway. And then when you "discovered" (shock, horror) that your edit was found to be problematic, you immediately accused those disagreeing with you of have ownership issues. That's bad faith on your part, and you deserved a warning (I made it a level 1 in an effort not to antagonize). You only have yourself to blame. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't "problematic", in any way. WP:CONSENSUS is being used to override WP:NPOV at the article, at it's completely unacceptable. As such, I've left a tag on the article, and a note on the talkpage. UnitAnode 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second that. You're a good editor, and you seem a little hot right now. Please don't go down the path of accusing other editors of things over not succeeding in a content proposal. That tends to inflame things given article probation, and that so many of the problems with the article involved using the talk page to accuse other editors of bad faith as you have been doing here.[1][2][3][4] That last one, which disrupts the main page, is particularly WP:POINT-y and needs to be reverted -- I'll do that if nobody else has by now. It is really in your best interest to take a step back, and if you wish to lash out or complain, take that in a more fruitful direction. If you keep upping the ante here, there really isn't much alternative to getting the administrators involved to keep order. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm done. You guys have fun at the page. And I find it highly ironic that my contributions (which were in no way problematic or UNDUE) are being lumped with crap like the birthers. This looks awful for the project, when something as neutrally-worded, and well-sourced as what I wrote is simply reverted out. To say that's not "ownership" is just, well, beyond the pale of believability. But you all have effectively chased me off, so now you can deal with the real kooks without threat of someone like me gumming up the works. UnitAnode 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• And for god's sake, quit accusing me of WP:POINT. This type of situation is exactly WHY we have such tags. UnitAnode 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unitnode, do you now see why I posted that thread about hats? --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the sins of the other side of this discussion, I still think that your thread was snarky and inappropriate. And I'm not for including every critical thing that comes down the pipe, as some on your end (I'm not sure about you, yet) seem to want. I just feel like the article could use a bit more balance to it, considering that critical commentary regarding Pres. Obama (which was almost non-existent in the early months) has mounted over the last 5 months or so. It's ironic that I'm in this position as I'm a relatively liberal Democrat. UnitAnode 03:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The tone of Will's thread wasn't quite right (obviously he was frustrated), but I think a polite request suggesting he rephrase it might have been more helpful and collegial than taking a jab at him. The issues involved with how that article and its talk page are "managed" have long been a concern. The hostility and ownership are unacceptable. Anyway, I think it's best to give it a day or two and see what responses are forthcoming. I recall Durova having a similar experience to yours Unitanode when she tried adding a featured picture to the page (this was some time ago). Anyway, I hope you both have very happy, healthy and prosperous 2010s. My honest opinion is that there's not much that can be done in the present circumstances except a little bit here and there. The level of hostility and acrimony from the self-appointed page defenders is just too vile and there doesn't seem to be any willingness on the part of those in a position to do something about it to step up and make a difference. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you used a reference from Kisses: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases in Seven minutes in heaven. That book is computer-generated, and the information you cited was taken directly from Wikipedia; there's a [WP] tag at the end of the entry. Anything published by Icon Group International is likely to be suspect. Philip M. Parker is the guy behind this operation. Try this 1953 magazine instead:[5] Fences&Windows 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! I had no idea about that. I'll take a look at the reference and replace it, if you haven't already done so. UnitAnode 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I included the reference. Many editors have unwittingly used these books as references, I've gone through removing them a couple of times. Flipping scam if you ask me. Fences&Windows 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for taking care of it, F&W. UnitAnode 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As I can see on your talkpage the one side of politcal party has found you, like Wikidemon, Scjessey. I'm only surprised in the fact that you have not received still a sockpuppet template to your talkpage, but that is only a question of time. Aabckr Aabmo (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How ironic... J.delanoy^gabs_adds

Who is this guy creating all the sockpuppets? UnitAnode 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the editors on the talk page, it is User:Multiplyperfect, however his contributions number less than 50. I assume there was another account before this one. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit confused. UnitAnode 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

UnitAnode, hi!

I see from your comments on various talk pages that you voted for Obama and would again today, but even you think the Obama articles are biased in favor of him. Thank you so much for saying that!

I am topic banned from editing all Obama related articles.

Anyway, I was hoping you would please take a look at this edit, where the person removed a huge amount of relevant, well sourced material that was critical of Obama, which I had added in order to balance out the article.

In my opinion, all of that deleted material (except for the part about the marijuana, which is now outdated) deserves to be put back into the article.

What is your opinion on this?

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion on that is that it seems to have been little more than a chronological listing of various factoids, which broke up the prose of the article. Also, every single little fact doesn't need mentioning, but rather a nuanced article should have critical information simply woven into the article text. Lastly, it doesn't sit very well with me to be (seemingly, at least) "recruited" in the manner in which it appears you may be doing here. UnitAnode 20:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. I won't post any more messages on your talk page after this response, unless you indicate that you want me to. I didn't put all of those things one after another - I put them in the relevant sections of the article. I did not make "a chronological listing of various factoids" as you claim I did. Instead, I did make them "woven into the article text" as you say it should have been. For example, since there was a section with praise of Obama regarding (topic X), I added information that had criticism of Obama regarding (topic X) to the same section. I am now done commenting on your talk page, unless you indicate that you wish me to comment some more. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  I don't mind your having posted here. Your initial post just seemed to be some sort of an attempt to "recruit" me in some manner. As for the content, it was basically a bunch of "In [X year], [Y]", which isn't particularly attractive prose. Also, balance isn't just about having something negative for everything positive that is written. It's about taking a much more nuanced look at the general tone and scope of the article. UnitAnode 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for explaining all of that. I will not try to "recruit" you any more. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for your help on the various generation pages on Wikipedia. Your input is helpful. I wanted to bring to your notice the addition of The Beat Generation on the Generations page. What is your opinion on this? I know there was a Beat Generation, but don't think it's an official one, more like a sub-generation like MTV Generation. Do you feel it is like Generation Jones and doesn't belong on the list? Hope you have a Happy New Year! Let's pray that 2010 will be better than 2009.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's not the same. The Beat Generation is widely recognized. Generation Jones is nothing more than a neologism created by one man, and cited by a few news organizations. UnitAnode 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't think it was the same thing. But it seemed like a sub-Generation to me, though I guess it does fit on the article page for Generations. Do you think a link should be added on the pages for the Lost Generation and the Baby Boomer pages? I don't think it's necessary, but it may be helpful for others if they don't initially go to the Generations page.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the number of articles linking to it right now are more than enough. UnitAnode 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No arguments here. (Sorry, I signed this post, but I think I clicked the wrong icon at top). --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for signing up, but you have to pick a new flag. The criteria for picking your flag is at the top of the signups page. You have to pick a flag of a current or historic location, that isn't being used by someone else. Cheers! iMatthew ^talk at 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, so my school's logo doesn't count? :) UnitAnode 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to add your $0.02 at... Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What's that cool trophy on the right? Anyway, I see you'd like to leave a note on the "withdrawn" report. Maybe you could add a comment to the "hat" template, e.g. {{hat|*your comment here*}}, or else just add a note just inside the collapsed section. Hope that helps, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you are referring. I left the small note at the top (OVER the hatting) just to indicate my withdrawal of the concern. Was that not the appropriate thing to do? UnitAnode 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and the trophy's just because I signed up for the WikiCup 2010 competition. It seems like it's going to be a cool little thing. UnitAnode 01:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly a sockpuppet. Reverting the investigation is very very serious. Understand that you can't avoid the investigation. Borreg (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Borreg, unless you can substantiate these accusations with evidence very soon it is you who will be blocked as a sock puppet. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not all that concerned. If Chillum hadn't already responded, I'd have probably just reverted this nonsense message off my page as well. UnitAnode 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you get offended, but one thing about stating a religion: Example: "Jew" is not a Religion but states a person or is an adjective. "Judaism" is the right word for stating the religion if you adhere to it. Same with other religions. If you believe in the koran, you adhere to the religion "Islam", not "Muslim". "Muslim" states an adherent of the religion "Islam", not the religion itself. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And making reverts without explanation are against the wiki-rules. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As a brand-new account, perhaps you're not aware, but making wholesale changes, over a slew of articles, with the same (flawed) edit summary on each, and no prior discussion, is not acceptable. UnitAnode 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, the section you're changing is asking for their religion, making your above point moot. But this is a discussion that should have happened on EACH talkpage PRIOR to making the changes, not now. Do not restore the changes until gaining consensus for them. UnitAnode 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you beat around the bush. I explained to you my edits. You didn't do so. But okay. If that is the (strange) format of stating the religion here, then so should that be. And I don't see, I did something wrong, unlike you, who did reverts without explaining them. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

About discussion: should I then always go to the talkpage of a respective page, if I just want to correct the spelling of a word? I think, that would be very inconvenient and nobody would be willed to correct wrong spelling. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Correcting the spelling of a word, is far different than changing how religions are noted over the span of articles that you did it. I think you know this. Please don't do it again. UnitAnode 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If that makes you calm down and reattain your pride, so will I comply with that and respect that. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stop personalizing this. It's not about my "pride", and it's you who needs to deescalate. Please point out where I've been less than calm. Reverting unhelpful, inappropriate changes isn't "not calm", in fact it's simply doing what's best for the encyclopedia. UnitAnode 14:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was inappropriate. I respect your point "unhelpful", but "inappropriate" is a too hard notion for those edits I made. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The "inappropriate" part comes from the fact that you made those edits over a bunch of articles, without anything approaching a discussion beforehand. Perhaps you might propose these changes as the the presidents or politics WikiProjects, but please don't make such changes over so many articles without prior discussion. UnitAnode 14:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though, it is still not "inappropriate", but it can be called "unhelpful". It would be "inappropriate" if I changed the religions of the respective presidents. (For example: from Episcopalianism to Methodism.) But as I said, as of now, I comply with your concern. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I end the discussion. -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the spirit of WikiCooperation, if you're looking for some on-Wiki work to do, you could help me research a new article I'm writing. My draft of it can be found here, if you're interested. UnitAnode 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have articles about politics, too? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The only quasi-political article I've written (I think), is Doug Band. Feel free to improve that article as much as you'd like, since I've long-neglected it. UnitAnode 06:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)