User talk:Xiner/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 [[Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clifton College]] 2 BIG problems with Illuminato. 3 Reply 4 Level zero language categories 5 Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration 6 I have been trying to tone it down. 7 Just for clarification 8 3RR 9 Chinaman (racial term) edit war 10 Should i add these articles 11 Recommendation for adolescent sexuality 12 A new userbox! 13 Disgust with POVism cloaked in WP principle 14 Question on adoption 15 Huh? 16 RFA Thanks 17 A random question...

[edit] [[Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clifton College]]

Brookie here - I see you've fiddled with this - but note it now thinks that this Bristol school is in America and I can't see how to inform it properly! Can you advise? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BIG problems with Illuminato.

The below complaint/civility request IU placed on his tlak page should sum it up. Many users have been recently stating complaints about the exccesive quotes in the article on adolescent sexuality and its many duplicates (By duplicate I mean pretty much copy and pasted text into sections of articles like the main one on US culture. It might still be there. In pornography addiction, adolescent sexuality in the united states, and sex education.)

However Illuminato has been uncooperative in discussion (at least with me. He recently used a couple of minor spelling mistakes to point out 'how young i am'. Of course he could have easily fixed these and when I replied to him on his talk page with a lengthy footnote on what the article is about etc. he promptly blanked is user page and the older discussion link is broken). My complaint is below.

This is a warning. I have noticed your 'clean up' of the Talk Page on adolescent Sexuality. However you removed mostly new and relevant discussions and left mostly old discussion.

you have a history of randomly 'cleaning up' your talk page and you use the excuse. "It was getting too long".

However the talk page for Template:Adolescent sexuality was hardly as long as many other talk pages and when you blanked your user pages It seems that all that 'cleaning up' took place right after i'd placed a concern or question or responded to you.

Also there is the question of your constant reverts and edits to the article on Adolescent Sexuality. Namely how you revert any changes made by anyone else but you still squeeze in information based on POV and ONLY POV.

I ask you to respect WP:NPV and WP:Civility If I made spelling mistakes or grammatical or formatting errors then please excuse. You have used minor spelling mistakes to point out 'how young I am' and as an excuse in the past to delete large additions to the article instead of fixing those mistak esand I wish to let you know that any mistakes are accidental and to please correct any spelling errors you might find.

If you remove this request I will place a civility 2nd warning template on your talk page as your conduct on this site (especially towards me) has been uncivil, dishonest, and is clearly POV pushing that results in unfair edits and reverts to Adolescent Sexuality and Adolescent Sexuality In The United States as well as the section on adolescence in themain article on United states Culture that has little to no supplemental value to these articles whatsoever.

Please use care, you're REALLY acting like a jerk. (I'm sorry If i offended you but you've been a problem to me and have prevented me and others from getting little to no work done on these articles or sections in question for months)

Nateland 02:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Reply on my talkpage.Skookum1 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Level zero language categories

Hi there. It looks like we still have five level-zero language categories:

• Category:User Arab-0
• Category:User Sgnw-0
• Category:User en-0
• Category:User oj-0
• Category:User oji-0

I still need to do a little work with the MediaWiki API to figure out which templates still contain references to level zero cats that have been deleted. Mike Dillon 06:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of users I found to still be in level zero categories: User:Mike Dillon/Level zero users. I removed all the references to level zero categories that I found in templates named "User...-0", but these user pages are still hanging around. They're either in the job queue or they have a template with a level zero call that I didn't find yet. Mike Dillon 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed Template:User iso15924/category-intro, although it shouldn't matter much since those categories aren't supposed to exist anyways ;) Mike Dillon 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are still a few loose ends.

1. Many of the users left at User:Mike Dillon/Level zero users have subst'd versions of level-0 templates
2. Some of the template inclusions that had categories removed still need to get through the job queue, or may need null edits
3. There are still a good number of templates linking the "does not understand" text to the deleted categories
4. Some of the level-0 userbox templates have the base language category on them, which doesn't seem to make sense (for the same reason that identifying level-0 users with a category doesn't make sense)

I'm going to have to take a break for the time being, so hopefully this can all get sorted out later. Mike Dillon 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've found all of the templates the either put users into level-0 categories or link to the deleted categories. I've cleaned up all of the templates that I found, leaving Template:User en-0 since the discussion to delete Category:User en-0 was closed for lack of concensus. There are still a couple hundred links to deleted level-0 categories coming from subst'd templates, custom templates, and direct links. I've turned these into a new list at User:Mike Dillon/Level zero links. Because of the variations in linking and the damage done by User:Drinibot when removing the categories for many of the level-0 templates, I think it is probably best to remove the remaining links by hand. Mike Dillon 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these are all done. The rest of the links are from the creators of the deleted links, talk pages, and watch/work lists. I got a little bogged down because I started fixing damaged table syntaxes in a bunch of these cases. I feel inspired to put an anti-subst userbox on my page now ;). Mike Dillon 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have been trying to tone it down.

For the past few months. And while i've gotten better at wikipedia Illuminato continually steps up is actions and (in my eye as well as perhaps others) is bordering and beggining to cross over into half hidden censorship.

Yes maybe I was a bit 'uncivil' in the least but give me bit of slack!. I've TRIED to reason with how many times? 1,2,4,5,26 or more?.

In cleaning up that talk page he removed DOZENS of complaints and posted concerns about his actions and the state of the article. We may need and I think probably will end up having to temporarily ban Illuminato if he keeps up this stubborness and this and that.

Sincerely, Nateland 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't want that to have to happen. If you can reason with Illuminato, then by all means. Go ahead!. I'll be very grateful.

[edit] Just for clarification

Allo.
Felt like explaining this here, rather than on the article's talk page.
When I start saying things like, "You're making an assertion", I'm talking to illuminato, not you. :)
I'd never snap at someone just for trying to prevent a 3RR. :) Bladestorm 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I wasn't aware it applied to any passage on the page - I thought it was 3 times for any particular passage. Thanks for the heads up. --Illuminato 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinaman (racial term) edit war

No, I'm not getting sucked into an edit war; the edit war is already underway. I've requested another editor who's been by the page (Zeus, whose changes were overwritten early by the IP address user) to monitor it; yes, I've used up two of my reverts for this page so far, and it's clear that IP address user intends to revert again, or possibly already has. I note that his IP address is now redlinked though very similar to the bluelinked IP address of a few edits ago; sockpuppetry is clearly at play and I'll be making a query about this later this evening as while it's not Hong, or can't be proven to be Hong, it's certainly a "recruit" as this page is brand-new and you have to know where it is, and what's been going on at it, to have made the "corrections" that the IP address user has made, which are highly POV and also, um, offensive. I've since found yet another example of non-offensive use (see my post to User talk:Zeus1234, and there are more; I know admins have no part in content disputes but I do think there are POV-integrity issues going on here that transcend content; it's clear there are different POVs on this word; until that article is stable in representing all views it's going to be the subject of edit wars, whether I'm around or not (and I'm actually leaving Wikipedia soon in order to spend my considerable energies on more rewarding/profitable pursuits). A mediation or arbitration might indeed be necessary; but that still won't stop IP address vandals with no faces and no names from having their way with the page on behalf of a particular editor's POV (Hong's). The best revenge is always truth, and there's lots of truths that this page should have on it, not just the obfuscations and pretensions of the politically correct or the ethnically paranoid/oversensitive.Skookum1 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody just played a weird card - the edit comment on IP-boy's latest reversion is "(Er, I'm talking on the talk page, and you're not.)" which is really odd becaue there's no sign of User:4.236.111.67 or User:User:4.236.111.148, his other apparent alias, anywhere on the talkpage. So if "he" is talking on the talkpage, who would that seem to be? What's the proper place to take a sockpuppetry request to?Skookum1 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Also I venture that he's done enough reverts today to warrant 3RR; note my last edit was only the taking out of one phrase, not a wholesale revert as previously. But no doubt by the end of the day this page will be turned fully into a tub-thump for the Hong-POV, and it's sad that Wiki citation/behaviour rules can be used to enforce POV positions/content, if only by sheer obstinacy.Skookum1 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a crime to edit under an IP. I'm not Hong, so you have no case against me. Stop crybabying to an admin. 4.236.111.67 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What will stop this whole thing is an end to the revert war. Xiner (talk, email) 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW re what I said about admins, I mis-stated something I thought I saw you said, maybe "admins take no part in content disputes" but now I see there's a rider to that, as you point out, "except in their capacity as regular o'editors". I hear from another post on my page the article has been blocked from editing; fine, but is it blocked with the POV language in place, or in the NPOV version? Never mind I'll look, and see what's up with the block (which ultimately IMO this page would have to be, once its content is properly arbitrated and represents more than the hardliner view.Skookum1 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should i add these articles

was thinking of creating articles on a fair number of books. However, these books are of the 'mass circulation 1980's pulp science fiction style' and I was wondering whether they should be included or not?. Since wikipedia aims to be a comprehenseive encyclopedia I see no problem with adding these articles.

But I was worried about server strain so I decided to contact you first.

Thanks, Nateland 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation for adolescent sexuality

I left the following message with Illuminato. I'll post my reccomendation in the talk page. give about a week for discussion. And based on the discussion. BOOM!. Feel free to participate.

Illuminato, Admit it.

Those two articles ARE simply copied text. I left the adolescent sexuality in India article stay as is because it wasn't carbon copied text.

Remember, your actions are putting undue strain on the servers. I'll put it up for vote in the talk page. And Illuminato, I'm sorry but you'll probably outnumbered. And seeing as you are about the only one objecting it WILL probably go through. I'm simply asking you to put aside your views and think rationally. DOZENS of people have complained about and critisized your actions on wikipedia. Far more than mine.

Sincerely, Nateland 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new userbox!

Hello, Xiner. I just finished a userbox that I've been working on for a while. It replaces about fifteen similar userboxes that I've created. Try it out!

{{User Cremepuff222/User Friend|Color|Username}}

For the color parameter, do Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, or Purple (yes, it is case-sensitive). Then, the username is simply Xiner or Cremepuff222, or any other valid username.

I know that I should probably contribute to the encyclopedia instead of wasting my time creating a userbox, but it really helped me to learn many template tools such as parameters and conditional statements. Let me know what you think! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that archive special or something? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I already have. It's been a lifelong dream to have a message in there, and I'm honored and happy that I have one there! ;) See ya around! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disgust with POVism cloaked in WP principle

I'm recusing myself from this out of dismay for the ongoing stonewalling; I've provided cite after cite, only to be dismissed as original research, as if his own compilation and titling of this article weren't also original research; now that you've locked the article in the "offensive" position and anything I say can be complained about as being too pointed/too colourful, you've basically let the passive-aggressive methods of my opponent stand as if they weren't what they are: a completely disingenuous appropriation of Wikipedia principles to advance a POV agenda. Hong's done it before, specializes in it. If I can't point that out without being accused of "personal attacks" while Hong pretends to be "polite" (being polite would mean giving undismissive consideration to the issues I've raised, rather than digging in his heels and getting soft-toned insulting back); the inanity of his position, always pointing to cites which do NOT disprove the cites I've provided, is just asinine and you should be able to see that. There's all kinds of Wikipedia articles I should have written up this last week (new materials) but this has taken up so much time; all to try and appease somebody who's not even part of North American culture but wants to police articles on it to make sure they conform to his own ethnopolitical agenda/prejudices (and he is very prejudiced). Again, I maintain his seeming politeness is just a tactic; Hong has repeatedly attacked me, and vicioiusly, in the past, but I never made a complaint because "I'm above that kind of thing". I guess I should have been just as much a squeaky wheel, huh? I'm pretty disgusted with the whole affair, and regard the double standard and intense POVism going on in this page, backed up by supposed application of WP guidelines (as claimed by the one POV's main contributor/editor), is a demonstration of the failings of Wikipedia. In only repeating error and bad research and being unable to incorporate experiences and citations that are "unacceptable" to one agenda or another. I've made my case just now on why a "Historical Usages" section should be de rigeur whether HQG wants it in there or not, including what should/could be in that section; at least it's on the talk page so other editors in future can review the materials and see through Hong's obfuscations. And it's obfuscation, Xiner, it's obfuscation, that's all it is - there's no other word for it. Stonewalling is a political technique, and a technique of POV agendas everywhere; that you can't see this in Hong's posts is disappointing to me.Skookum1 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on adoption

Normally, what is the period of time that an adoptee is adopted by an adopter (wow, there were a lot of "adopt"s in that sentence!)? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I wouldn't offend you or anything if I said that I'd like to end it? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

He, he, he, I won't. ;) Is now the time for me to throw my graduation cap in the air and shout, "WHOOPEE!!"? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Right back at ya!

 :) See ya around! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I just saw the fish statement again! (your welcome, and thanks for all of your fish! ;) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Where'd that come from? I haven't completed your assignment yet because I'd been preparing for finals (just finished last week-yay!) and hadn't had the time. I'm perfectly happy with you as my adopter; I'm just fairly low-maintenance. I hope you didn't really think I was dissatisfied? Please don't be upset if I can't get to an assignment very quickly--between schoolwork and family, I'm often pressed for time.--H-ko (Talk) 10:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've nothing to complain about (either with my grades or with you as a mentor). Next quarter will be a lot tougher, though, so we'll see how it goes! I'll catch up on your assignments during the course of the next week. I only have a few days off, due to having to squeeze in a lot of things during my break, but it should be more than enough time to do the reviews I need to do for school, catch up on housework, and catch up here.--H-ko (Talk) 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A random question...

What's the difference between a merge and an upmerge? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)