User talk:CyclePat/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request Denied

I suggest you report me. --Kim Bruning 06:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Full disclosure: I believe that if you get a hold of an admin, they will be more likely to block you than myself. Perhaps you'd like to discuss things ?

Good luck. --Kim Bruning 06:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Pat, I've blocked you for 3 hours because it appears you need to calm down. Discussion is best done through a back and forth dialog, not Templating the regulars (this is futile and unconstructive). Kim will most likely be willing have a conversation with you on your userpage, where you are still able to edit. John Reaves (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyclepat: Looks like you succeeded :-/ Can we stop ruleslawering now, and just talk please? I'm quite willing to hear your position. Why do you want editor assistance to join the association of members advocates? --Kim Bruning 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are avoiding some side issues here. You have removed some comments from the talk page. As an experienced user you should know better then to delete other peoples comments. I take this as an attempt to escalate the situation to see who can be the biggest WP:DICK. You know dam well that you are supposed to archive such conversations, let alone NOT REMOVE THEM. I have nothing further to discuss tonight regarding your total lack of respect for wikipedia's WP:CON. Frankly, your persistant lack of WP:AGF and my ability to realize that the conversation should propably or maybe be closed early is unervering. You have indicated that you wheren't please with my attitude prior to any of your "REVERTS" of my attempts to have a discussion per WP:RM. Every attempt I have tried to do which is suggest per wiki's guidelines for discussion and concensus are REVERTED. I am enfuriated with your actions. Before you say anything else, I think you had best find someone else to talk me... or appologize because I don't I can't see any of the suggestions of your clearly. Any accusations you have against me feel pale compare to what you have done. Right now, I don't even want to see or hear your "(bad word here)" name and I wouldn't careless about discussing the AMA related issues... until we have resolved the conflict of your vandalism and cunning attitude toward a Good faith attempt to have a discussion. Goodbye... at least for a little while. --CyclePat 07:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, RM is a suggestion. But note that it should only be used with discretion, (as with all wiki procedures). The same is true with regards to templates, and accusations of vandalism.
If at some point you have cooled down, and would like to discuss things further, my talk page remains open. --Kim Bruning 07:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave Editor Assistance in peace

Leave it in peace, please. No more abduction attempts. Let them alone, they have the right to exist. And AMA has not the right to be the exclusive place for user assistance. We have a competion ahead: let's win it fairly and people will decide who's better. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not leave in peace until my comments are returned and or archived in the talk page. There is nothing offencive about them and nothing that warrant the removal. My attempts to have a discusssion as you allude in "abducting", are no longer relevant. They have been removed, along with all the other comments from people that clearly voiced their opinion against an RM. We are essentially back at square one when user:Kim Bruning keeps removing that conversation/survey. As per WP:VAN you can not remove goodfaith attempt at a conversation. Whatever (within reasonable grounds of not being a plain out attack) someone says should be archived and preserved for future reference. Please place the conversation back in it's location. You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[1] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from to the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate how desperate the members of WP:ASSIST and to what extent they are truly willing to do go. A further technique is being used by WP:ASSIST which is called bandwagon, inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience." The conversation and comments regarding AMA and ASSIST (move page/merger), even if it is not a successful conversation as portrayed by some, is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule and on top of that falls within the criteria of vandalism. I suggest the conversation be archived. Again, in short, removing it creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and again, violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cycle, let people decide. EA is not a conspiracy against AMA, is an attempt to replace us because they believe we're useless. A respectable opinion I do not agree with. But, I think the best is to show we're efficient rather than discussing it. And people shall decide who's the best. The problem is that EA members, after your merging attempt are angry with you and with reason: you just can't force people to enter a voluntary association like AMA. It's contradictory, indeed.

Ah, please take User:CyclePat2 down. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk with JzG

Hey, I know you probably hate my guts right now. So when you're back, try talking with User:JzG instead. He's already aware of the general situation. Ask him what's up, and why things happened the way they did.

--Kim Bruning 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't hold grudges for long. That's why JzG and I can still talk. I have left a message, regarding my thoughts... with Neigel. I'm sure we can come to up with something. Perhaps subpage or a quick click box like... Tell me what you think of the edit I just did... Saved for historical purposes. --CyclePat 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well, by now, you may have noticed the strong smell of wikipolitics in the room. :-( I'm trying to see if AMA can be kept, but now this situation is hurting AMA terribly. If at all possible, talk with both Neigel and JzG (and I do stress you should also talk with JzG), before you make any edits at AMA or EA, for now. --Kim Bruning 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your good faith effort to reach a compromise, unfortunately we (and in this case, "we" includes you :-/ ) really shouldn't keep that rm in plain view . Talk with JzG, and ask him to come talk with me. In the mean time, please remove the archive. Thank you. --Kim Bruning 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And I just saw your recent comments on my talk page. I appreciate you are trying to reach a compromise with me. The current compromise you are proposing (as it lies on the table now) won't protect the association of members advocates, however.
Try thinking about how this requested move will look to third parties.
At the next (almost inevitable) AMA MFD, when this link shows up as evidence for AMA misconduct, I would like to be able to say was that it was a misunderstanding, that it was discussed with the advocates, and that the overal consensus (including AMA members) was to remove the requested move. :-) --Kim Bruning 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Pat, have you calmed down yet? ;-) I see you have been a bit nicer to Kim now, which is good. I think we need to let ASSIST run for a bit and see how it works. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pat, drop it. Just walk away from the ASSIST talk page and leave it to others to decide what to do there. You are not doing yourself any favours, and you are currently viewed as a disruptive influence. Please, just leave it and go and work on fixing AMA if you can. I strongly suspect that the only reason you have escaped a block thus far is that I have spoken up for you. I can't keep doing that in the face of your own foolishness. Stop. Now. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to second what JzG (talk · contribs) said. As someone completely uninvolved with WP:ASSIST and WP:AMA, what you are doing at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance looks extremely disruptive to me. It's time to step away for a bit and let the situation cool down. At this point everything you are doing there is likely only damaging any chance you would have of cooperation between the two projects.--Isotope23 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur. As you know, at the time of writing, I have no affiliation with WP:ASSIST and am a former member and deputy co-ordinator of the AMA. I'm going to add my voice to the growing campaign to make you stop - all sort of people have commented, from the uninvolved (Isotope23), to the AMA advocates (Imaglang), to the highly respected admins (JzG). As JzG notes - if you didn't have his support, you would probably have been blocked by now for a suitably long period, and that may be about to happen based on the dicussion you started on ANI. I beg you to step back and completely disengage, per the second stage of dispute resolution - a policy you should know well. Thanks, Martinp23 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go do something productive. This obstreperous behavior will not be tolerated any longer. —Centrx→talk • 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur and was about to post the same thing. See my comment on ANI. Your reference to Hitler in a discussion that grew out of a dispute over whether to merge two pages was egregiously inappropriate. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my commments at the WP:ANI#WP:ASSIST. The comments that you are removing, I consider to be important for the development of new politics and building concensus. If you remove those comments you are not helping WP:AMA or WP:ED and are essentially trying to bury any issues that may exist. Furthermore, my comments are cited and are taken from wikipedia's article on proganda. There are several techniques which are elaborated on that page. Unfortunatelly, as stated in that article... anthing that refers to Hitler, many people consider bad. But in fact "It is important to understand that those policies advocated by Hitler and his party that are generally considered evil are all condemned by themselves, not because Hitler supported them."[2] You may wish to check that propaganda list and tell me if you feel that another one is perhaps more suitable? In no way do I consider myself an expert in that field but perhaps you or the members at WP:ASSIST may have better knowlege and be able to provide a better sugestion? I am simply pointing people in what I think fall within that definition. Again maybe I am wrong. Do you have another suggestion? --CyclePat 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I suggest that you calm down and cease being disruptive and using inflated rhetoric. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to calm down when your edits are constantly stalked by Dev920... and he keeps reverting and removing your comments. Or the poll. Even in the archive. [3]. Why can't you just keep the bloody comments archived? --CyclePat 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I don't think Dev920 is stalking your edits, anyone can see any edit to the WT:ASSIST page with a watchlist. Regards, Iamunknown 18:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WHAT is wrong with this?--CyclePat 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request move archive

The following is preserved as an archive.

Requested move

Wikipedia:Editor assistance → Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Teams/Editor Assistance — As attempted in this edit, I believe WP:ASSIST falls under the WP:AMA. As described at WP:AMAT it may be considered an AMA Team (AMAT). It is hence a WP:FORK and should be moved to AMA. Furthermore it should be considered an "umbrella action team" which will respond quickly to wikipedians questions. Since AMA is discussing the possibility of having such an action team there there may be a conflict with deletion policy WP:DEL#Merging. (There is no need to have two such teams). Furthermore, we should utilize the {{AMA}} template. CyclePat 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Opposed, this is a separate project. Those who started the project explicitly started it with the intent of being separate and distinct from the AMA, and Cyclepat's conduct here is, to put it bluntly, insulting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • comment: you must mean a WP:FORK. --CyclePat 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You must be referring to Wikipedia:Content forking. No, Seraphimblade does not mean that. The first line indicates that "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." Per Wikipedia:What is an article?, "A Wikipedia article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it." Sorry, Wikipedia:Editor assistance ain't an article and thus is not subject to the content forking policy. --Iamunknown 04:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
        • As demonstrated in one of the discussions at Wikipedia:Content forking even "wikipedia" pages need merging or have faced merging. A good exemple is to look at WP:OR and WP:VER which have undergone some debates and even a Poll (on going for the longest time... perhaps since Jan/Feb) regarding their merge into the new wikipolicy, WP:ATTRIB. Really, when you think about it WP:ASSIST is but a mainspace spinouts of AMA as describe in "Content forking." The guideline is based on WP:NPOV and "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Because content forking does not specifically address the issue, but there has been some exemples of merged wikipedia space mergers... that is why we are having a discussion. --CyclePat 05:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
          • This is a discussion? I must be mistaken. I thought it was a poll. --Iamunknown 05:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, separate project. In fact, wasn't there a discussion about replacing AMA with EA entirely? ♠PMC♠ 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for now. Give it six months, see how it operates, then evaluate whether the two projects should be joined or merged. Anchoress 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It's a separate project, just like the help desk and Adopt-a-User are distinct projects from WP:AMA. TheronJ 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Even though I have been around for a while, I foresee situations where I could use a helping hand on some aspect of Wikipedia that I haven't yet used. This seems to be a simple, straightforward way to get an answer to a specific question, without the drama of the {{helpme}} template. All in favour of giving this a whirl. Risker 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - the AMA is a troll supporting service. This isn't. The two are completely different. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. This a distinct project with a different purpose than AMA. Frankly, AMA was lucky to make it through MfD and should be trying to reform itself and keep a low profile rather than trying to annex other projects. ChazBeckett 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - The nomination itself gives me pause. First the nominator expresses the opinion that this program "falls under" another program, and then goes on to suggest that this page is a fork (of some kind) of that page. (For one thing, if it's a fork, then why isn't a merge being suggested, oh wait, further down in the nom, it is?) The the nominator goes on to suggest that this group be considered some sort of action team, and claims that this page duplicates some other team. (Which bring us to the merging comment.) And then goes on to dictate that some template should be used on this page. My personal opinion as to how this comes across to me? As if the nominator is standing there stamping their foot saying: "I want, I want, I want!" Most of the nomination has absolutely nothing to do with moving the page. What I find interesting is the thought of, if, following the RM, someone suggested that this page is the more useful, and therefore suggested that the proposed target become a redirect to here, per the merge link above : ) - Oh and has the nominator considered merging them all to the Help desk? - jc37 12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per all above. The AMA has no authority here. As a member of both organisations I don't have an axe to grind, I just think they are separate projects. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose. This is not the AMA ... nor was it set up to be a part of the AMA. Just because there is some overlap, as there is with all DR processes (see conversation above), does not mean that they are the same. Did you know that Dallas, TX is getting snow today? It seems that that is not the only place. -- Pastordavid 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

...so don't move it there. --Iamunknown 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While we would be happy to work cooperatively with the AMA, it is intended to be a separate and distinct project. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The nominating statement seems to have a lot of gibberish, but in partial response: this is a separate project, everything does not fall under some bureaucracy, and Wikipedia:Content forking is irrelevant to project pages. —Centrx→talk • 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note: that this conversation should go through with it's 5 days process as of today and the conversation will be preserved for archive purposes. --CyclePat 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I must be naïve...why are we having this poll? Wikipedia works by consensus. Basically we, at least those participating in WP:ASSIST, already have consensus that we do not want to move. Why must we "poll" for the sake of process? This poll hasn't a snowball's chance in hell, so why do it? And why completely disregard the fact that this page was formed mostly by users who specifically expressed opposition or at least discontentedness with the AMA at the MfD? This is only a frustrating disregard for what is obviously the consensus of editors -- who made this page here and not as a subpage of the AMA for a reason -- and a place to call editors who disagree vandals. I'm saddened and disappointed. --Iamunknown 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a poll. It is a discussion as suggested by WP:RM which states "Do not discuss moves on this (refering to WP:RM) page. Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved." --CyclePat 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, this is a completely different concept than the AMA. There is no conflict of interest. They are not the same thing. They do not need to be merged. This is not a sub-group of the AMA. Please stop. Risker 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, yes this is a poll. A discussion would be, oh, say, asking WP:ASSIST editors if they wanted to move to within the AMA. But you didn't. So this isn't a discussion. --Iamunknown 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Rick, I really don't get it. If there is big bunch of people here that want some change to the AMA but instead formed this page... why not just try to make it so we could all get allong and help rebuild the AMA main page? As interim coordinator for the AMA teams I don't often look at the main page of AMA. I may see some reasons but I would like for you to tell me why you see this page, according to you guys, as being it's own. I think it could meet the criteria for being an emergency action team as part of the AMAT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I can only speak for myself: I did NOT become a part of this because I want to reform the AMA. I signed on here because I liked this process, and wanted to participate in it. Why is it its own page/process? Because it is different than AMA, and it is not a part of the AMA program. Simple. Making it a part of the AMA would change the process and organization of what is here. And if we had wanted that, we would not be here. I don't know how many people can say the same thing. -- Pastordavid 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the far more interesting, and telling, question is Why are you so intent on making process a part AMA? -- Pastordavid 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how long until it snows : ) - jc37 12:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved from RM

The comments bellow where moved from WP:RM because RM specifically says that there should be no debates or discussion on the subject on that page. Hence these edits may be considered a type of vandalism as per WP:VAN which states any to "compromise wikipedia." The COMMENTS that where listed there concerning the ABOVE HAVE BEEN MOVED TO DISCUSSION PAGE. Please add future comment here. Thank you! --CyclePat 06:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • CyclePat, it was not vandalism. Vandalism is only "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Quite the contrary, Kim was not trying to deliberate compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a vandal. Have you actually read the document WP:VANDALISM? I suggest you do. --Iamunknown 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's correct. I don't think Kim Bruning is capable of vandalism; he's an excellent Wikipedian. If you disagree with his delisting of the request, you should talk to him about it. On a different note, CyclePat2 was right in a way to remove the discussion from this page. Please direct further discussion to the appropriate talk page(s). -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey CyclePat

Steve has been getting complaints fro Editors assist. Please leave them in peace as it is not reflecting well on the AMA. Thanks Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Page-ban_suggested_for_User:CyclePat --Iamunknown 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, are you aware that every single one of your edits since April 3rd are related to ASSIST? Just an interesting fact I thought I'd point out. Make of it what you will. --Iamunknown 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, as Aeon stated, we're getting in hot water over WP:ASSIST. It's a Catch 22 that we're going to have to let alone. :-( אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You got mail

Please read it and take it to heart. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASSIST

As per my post here, I am going to start running the other way. Please don't trip me while I try to get away. --CyclePat 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Let's talk some more once you get away ;-) --Kim Bruning 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's All Good

When I read your comment, I was going to smite you with the almighty WP Banhammer (TM).. and then I realized.. A)I'm nowhere near being an admin, so.. um.. no banhammer.. (grins sheepishly) and B) what I really wanted to do is say thank you for your consideration, and hope that you continue to contribute to WP for a long long time. Have a great night! SirFozzie 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again SirFozzie, Well... if I only knew what and where that Banhammer was... then I could throw it away and you wouldn't have been able to smite me. ;) (LOL) Really though, I hope you had the chance to take into consideration my comments regarding the proper venue. Thank you for your consideration and goodnight as well! ;( --CyclePat 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a picture of the banhammer [4] (grins). SirFozzie 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CyclePat/Archive_4&oldid=1054797580"