User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive14

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of December 2008 through February 2009.

Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!

---

JARIAN

I thought there was a gray area about restoring old talk page warnings--only reason I restored them was because in the event I didn't find anything blockable, it would have been difficult for future admins to review the case.

And I admit, normally I wouldn't have full-protected his talk page, but he'd abusively moved it earlier. Was I really that off there? Blueboy96 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

At least one sleeper account from this guy. Good grief ... sorry, something about sleepers rubs me the wrong way. Blueboy96 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lectures

I'm going to leave you the same comment I left the other person:

Taking the time to lecture me on how to address banned users that have been causing me grief for months was a waste of both my time and yours. Try to focus your efforts on a) the encyclopedia itself, and b) users that are causing damage to it. Thanks. Warren -talk- 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, would you mind taking a look at Howard Rich again? Lots of removal of cited content. Any assistance appreciated. -Pete (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request that could use your attention

BufferedIO is requesting unblock. Seems to be a school kid caught in the autoblock of Ztsfu. While his edits are mainly computer tech-support requests at the reference desk, I don't see any harm in letting him continue. What we can do about this? Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did because I'm hesitant to even remove the autoblock on some schools. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my changes on Ambitious card

Hi there. I was wondering why you reverted my changes on ambitious card? The only thing I deleted was the actual way of doing it. It can be alluded to, without spoiling the trick. I even left the citations in tact, which someone could discover the method. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to magic book. Ideally, we should generally speak about how something is done, but we should not give specific directions of how to do it.

Also, shouldn't we be a bit more careful about the "magic" of magic? We have a spoiler tag for books and movies, yet this article carelessly spoils the trick. Furthermore, as it stands, the article is inaccurate, because it claims the double-lift is how it's done, as if that's only methods.

I'd like to come up with a compromise. I am an amateur magician, and I'm also a Wikipedian. Keep your eye on the goal: a good article. I'd like to take a stab at reworking the article again, trying to preserve what you're wanting to save. It would help if I knew your motivation for reverting my changes. I outlined my reasons on the talk page. But if you sent me a quick comment about this it would be appreciated.

Thanks! -- Yekrats (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that spoilers were being deprecated... thanks!

I don't mind an example of how the trick is done. (Knowing what a sleight is, does not a magician make.) However, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. (See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.) The changes that I made today was an attempt to make it less of a "how-to" and more "these are examples of sleights that can be used." -- Yekrats (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name of a thread on WP:AN

I didn't change the name of the thread. In fact, I was trying to preserve the original name of that thread. Any complaints you have about changing the name of the thread should be directed to the administrators who were responsible for the change: JzG and Jehochman. Tennis expert (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Toes

I see you are on yours Ten of All re Conway's Game of Life– appreciate your notice and trust your judgement completely. Thanks for making it better all round,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido

In the case you described on my talk page I think being explicit and citing the canvassing the user is doing is the better course of action, otherwise the closing admin may make the same mistake as I did. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• The template probably won't cause major problems, but without any clear indication canvassing is actually happening it's not very helpful either. Feel free to put it back. I won't edit that particular discussion any further than I have already. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:flaming#A question

Sorry, I did answer that but put it on his talk page. That's bad form, so I'll post it on my talk too. flaminglawyer^c 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IP addresses

I saw your recent comments regarding the posting of IP addresses, and though you might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Adding IP address to WP:OUTING. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

JPH

Yeah you're right - lapse of judgement. My mistake. I saw one of his old personal attacks was removed from this talk page today - I thought this was as similar situation.

BTW You'd think 2 final warnings would be enough. I mean how many times would it take of me making the same edit that you've just warned me for before you'd block me? 2 or 3? 4 if you were really lenient? Yet JPH has 2 final warnings from two different admins and he's never been blocked once? How does that work? Sorry I'm a bit confused here because clearly, this user needs to have his editing privledges removed. He clearly has no respect for admins and based on his comments will keep doing this regardless of how many warnings he gets. I've spend the better part of a few hours writing carefully on his talk page outlining what he's doing wrong any why - and that was 6 months ago. He simply does not respect other editors contributions or opinions. I would think that a warning from Jimmy himself would be the only thing he'd respect. He's combative in nature and isn't going to change - and I have a year of his edits to prove it. --Quartet 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Convenience Valet

I neither work for this company or have any financial stake in Convenience Valet. My friends father (David Baum - as stated in the article) is the sole owner of Convenience Valet. My dad works for the company but has no stock or financial stake in the company given it's privately held status. I am a frequent contributor to Wikipedia and thought Convenience Valet is an interesting company that people should know about. Bmedick (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Shustov

Yes, both IPs are Shustov. Happy New Year! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear TenOfAllTrades,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Shustov

• Shustov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can see why you are exasperated with that one. I left a note on his talk about plagiarism, I doubt it will be effective. Next step, I guess, is a user RfC - it's not really a job for simple blocking at this point as he seems to have stopped edit warring in the article (which might be a good sign, I don't know, depends whether he can be persuaded to engage on the other issues). Let me know if you want more input. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to unblock him if he persuades you that the penny has dropped. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Russian idiom "to let the he-goat into the kitchen-garden" (in original: “пустить козла в огород”) is the best way to describe what’s going on in the editing of Earthquake engineering article now. The “truck farmer” there, User:Shustov, is blocked by User:TenOfAllTrades for alleged plagiarism in the section #Failure_modes. After all, that “plagiarized” section stays untouched while the well-protected goat enjoys chewing everything of value in other sections. I wonder: is there any animal control in Wikipedia? 69.108.101.89 (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Turn the other cheek

I guess I did rise to the bait, there, darn it. I've tried to be an alert presence off to the side, staying in just enough not to appear rude, since I started the section, after all. But I did look up Wikipedia vandalism before I wrote that edit summary, and that's what it is—an unconstructive edit. But I had and have no intention of doing anything about it at all now that I've called attention to it. Thanks, and chin up. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Lhosuna

 Likely. Same geographical location as Shustov. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seismic analysis

I am wonderinmg why you removed several links, they seems OK to me. Kilmer-san (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Russian idiom "to let the he-goat into the kitchen-garden" (in original: “пустить козла в огород”) is the best way to describe what’s going on in the editing of Earthquake engineering article now. The “truck farmer” there, User:Shustov, is blocked by User:TenOfAllTrades for alleged plagiarism in the section #Failure_modes. After all, that “plagiarized” section stays untouched while the well-protected goat enjoys chewing everything of value in other sections. I wonder: is there any animal control in Wikipedia? 69.108.101.89 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

If you threaten me inappropriately like that again, you will be taken directly to ArbCom. As an editor in good standing, your comments directly violate WP:AGF. Not only do I have a screen caption of the editor in question admitting to violating CoI, there is no grounds for anything you have stated. Now, you can do the right thing and strike your comments now. If not, they will be used as future evidence of misconduct against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Smallville

I think officially warning me on 3RR is a little much given that not only am I a seasoned editor (which doesn't exuse the fact that the edit war happened), but I'm the one that has requested the IP come to the talk page and I'm the one that asked for Administrative assistance (P.S. I didn't ask for page protection, I was only hoping that an Admin would politely request the IP to actually engage in coversation, which they have refused to do). BTW, WP:MOSTV is a guideline, and it discusses keeping actors on the list even when they have left the show. Now, it doesn't explicitely state "don't turn into "Current" and "Former", but the spirit behind is clearly reminescent of WP:RECENT, which is that articles should reflect the historics behind the show and not what is currently the most popular.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a permissable level, I merely stated that I don't believe the formal warning was necessary as I was aware of the issue already. I actually asked for help because I didn't realize that it reached that point until it was too late. You're assuming that I intentionally went to the third revert AND THEN requested help.

It actually kind of does matter, because when the show ends what then? If you're constantly rearranging a cast list to suit the "most recent" version, then when the show ends readers will start assuming that X character was on the show well before they ever were. It's preserving historical accuracy, and not giving into the current popularity. I don't see how one could argue that some last minute villain, who has been on the show for one season, is more important than the original lead who was there for seven seasons. Listing as "Original" and "Additional", it's clearly establishing the historical significance of the original cast, while also acknowledging that new cast members have joined the show since it first started.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seismic retrofit

Greetings. My response on User_talk:Leonard_G.#Seismic_retrofit_sites - thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
See also my postscript - Leonard G. (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the point you made about !nosine! and removal of inappropriate talk page items.

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru il-Boqli

Thank you for blocking him. We've encountered problems with him everywhere, and his block log leaves much to be desired. The last place I had troubling dealings with the user, was at Maltese people, where he attempted to push some odd sort of Anti-Libyan and Anti-Arabic POV. The user refused to listen to warnings on his talk page, and deleted them, and when I asked him to discuss things on the talk page of the article, he refused to, and when eventually he did make comment there, none of it dealt with the matter in hand, and he seemed to take more pleasure in commenting on me. In the end, I asked User:Angr to intervene, and he protected the page, although in his own words he didn't check which version he protected it on, which resulted in it staying on Pietru's version. Angr has not yet investigated the case, so I'm hoping you'll be able to take a look there, leave any comments you may have, and hopefully restore to the last version before Pietru. Thanks a lot. 78.146.227.40 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Representative Direct Democracy

If I'm not mistaken, you deleted the article for representative direct democracy and merged it into something totally unrelated. That was one of my favorite articles, and I guarantee you that it won't stay deleted for long simply because it's such a popular idea, despite what the Google searches you did might say. It seems all of the people in the discussion (for that *one week* of time when deliberation was going on) were unfamiliar with what the concept of the article was. They thought it had something to do with proxy voting. It doesn't have anything to do with proxy voting and it's *wrong* that it redirects there. It's absolutely absurd to me that that would happen! Look, I'm not a guru with the system here. I'm just a layman who uses this site, but seriously, be reasonable. It should be reinstated. If you want to know what representative direct democracy is, look at the democratic system in place in Switzerland. They have a system of representative direct democracy. America even has a system somewhat like it. There is an Constitutional amendment proposition right now called the national initiative for democracy that would make it so that initiatives and referendums could be on the ballot on the national level (as opposed to just state and local levels like right now). Maybe you don't live in America? I don't know. But there's no reason the article should have been deleted, and there's no reason it should be redirecting to the proxy voting article. That's just weird. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Vsemthem and Earthquake engineering

Per User:TenOfAllTrades/Shustov I imagine that Vsemthem (talk · contribs) is another Shustov sock. Since you have blocked some of the others I'll let you decide how to handle it! EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the back up

I appreciate it. - Eron^Talk 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)