User talk:76.166.123.129

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Adam McCormick 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of vandalism. Contributions are appropriate, researched and accurate.

See "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." See also, "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited."

You removed more that half an article because one quote was innaccurate, then did it again after it was revered. Justify why it was removed and we'll stop fixing itAdam McCormick 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

False, "You removed more that half an article because one quote was innaccurate" was never done from this IP addess. Please check your sources for the alleged offending party.

1 Ralph Nader
2 Hildegard
3 Ralph Nader
- 3.1 March 2007
4 Three Revert Rule
5 Editing disputes: How-Not-To (restored from Griot talk page)
6 Media
7 Your recent post to WT:RFA
8 Hildegard, again
9 Credibility
- 9.1 Question

[edit] Ralph Nader

These four edits, [1], [2], [3], [4], during the 24 hr period beginning March 4, 2007 at 04:09 (last edit on March 5 @ 02:21) constitute a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop. There are obviously a number of edit conflicts going on at Ralph Nader right now ... but constant reverting will not solve it. Please take it to the discussion page and talk it out. Further reverting without discussion could get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Pastordavid 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

False, those that have reverted the above changes are in violation of the three revert rule, and, if in continuance must be blocked. In good faith, this ISP repairs the damage.

This IP has been reported for violation of the three revert rule. To read the report, go here and scroll down to the bottom of the violations section. -- Pastordavid 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pastordavid, that is an accurate account posted to here.

[edit] Hildegard

Thanks! By the way, when you leave comments, be sure to start them by using the "+" by the "edit this page" tab so they're easily visible at the bottom of the page, and also to sign them with four tildes (~~~~). By the way, have you considered getting a user account? It's very easy (takes only a few seconds), and your edits will be more credible. Think about it! Alekjds ^talk 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alekjds 76.166.123.129 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :)

[edit] Ralph Nader

You've removed the Atlantic Monthly quote in the Ralph Nader three times. Why? What's the point of saying that Nader was the 96th most influential American without stating why? This quote is quite small and doesn't take up much space on the page, but it describes the Atlantic's reason for including Nader on the list. Please don't remove this quote. Griot 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

+Hi Griot, I understand your thinking; however, my reasons for removing the quote are sound. The quote clearly construes a form of criticism and bias (see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200409/littlefield2 and http://www.slate.com/?id=2064804&entry=2064909 for evidence) not appropriate to a biography, and best left out or moved to criticism. In addition, the conclusions asserted by the quote are recognized by numerous political analysts to be an inacurate assesment of Ralph Nader's involvement in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections (see 'Dude Where's My Country,' Michael Moore, 'Addicted to War,' Joel Andreas, "An Unresonable Man" and other sources). Furthermore, if it is the intention of 'The Atlantic Monthly' to contend that Ralph Nader's influential status in the United States, albeit worldwide, is reducible to one who "made George Bush the president," then the quote is not merely inaccurate but, as the Wikipedia article beautifully illustrates, blantanly obtuse. To maintain a source or quote because it "is quite small and doesn't take up much space on the page" is arbitary and absurd. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, its contents and information, which is, after all, our primary objective, I have, again, removed it. I hope this message, once and for all, clarifies my actions and resolves the matter. 76.166.123.129

The quote simply explains why the editors of the Atlantic made their decision to put Nader on the list (at the 96th place). Without the quote, saying that Nader was on the list is meaningless. It's not POV, as putting Nader on the list was a decision made by the Atlantic. Griot 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

+ Griot, check the web sites provided. The 'Atlantic' most certainly carries Demo-bias. There is clearly criticism/POV not appropriate to a biography. Can't agree that the quote is necessary. However, if it is insisted upon that the mention necessitates the quote, then motion to strike the mention and quote entirely.

Here are some additional sources:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Quality_Problems_at_Reuters_and_Atlantic_Monthly.asp http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1851372 "

The national correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly [James Fallows] is a former Nader Raider-cum Democrat. " - from "Nader Seen as Eroding Kerry's Support" by Mike Pesca, 'The Nation' (April 26, 2004)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/21/18339484.php

Hope this clarifies. It's great to hold a strong position, but not if it is evidenced that the view is erroneous. Thanks. 76.166.123.129 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the three revert rule and take you criticism of the article to the talk page. Selket ^Talk 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit history, while whether to include the quote is a legitimate content dispute, removing most of the article (starting mid sentence) is probably not justifiable. Therefore: Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Ralph Nader. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 07:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

+From above, and once again, "False, 'You removed more that half an article because one quote was innaccurate' was never done from this IP addess. Please check your sources for the alleged offending party." Again, this was not done, and those who share this IP have been questioned. Thank you.

[edit] March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Ralph Nader. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _?AzaToth 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice

+ Yes, yes, If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice is correct. The horse is dead. No more "Vandalism" posts, please. Danke. Double merci. Tripple prego. That's three thanks for all three posts on "Vandalism." 76.166.123.129 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Revert Rule

The citation and quote in question on Ralph Nader are not vandalism -- they are from a reliable source and are pertainent to the topic of the article. Continuing to revert this article will be in violation of the three-revert rule and will lead to an editing block. A conversation has begun on the article talk page, please take the discussion there, and seek to develop a consensus for your view of what should or should not be in the article. Thank you. -- Pastordavid 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

+ Hello Pastordavid, did we miss something? No one at this IP is accusing anyone of "Vandalism" over content and no one is insinuating that the "quote" itself is "Vandalism," merely its continuous reversion; further, no one here has committed any "erasures," save the quote, as we've been so accused. Clearly, the aim is to maintian the diginity of the article, or we would not be having this discussion! Ergo, the horse is truly dead and buried. Let it go.

As for the motion to move the discussion to talk page, a post was placed from this IP at that location and subsequently eradicated by another editor. Is that permissible? Perhaps only newbies with good intentions are being blocked, while other editors with a longer history can supply biased information without foul. If that is the case, it certainly does little to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and THAT and that alone might be construed as "Vandalism," and the only one visible at present.

As for the need to "seek to develop a consensus for your view of what should or should not be in the article," such actions are not necessary. Vital support for the *facts*, not opinions, surrounding the source and quote have been provided. Your statements that "they [quote] are from a reliable source and are pertainent to the topic of the article" are both, unfortunately, uninformed opinion, not supported by facts. See our post to talk page.

Finally, re garding the "blocking" this IP for differences of opinion, that would be a violation (see note, above). The three-revert rule applies only to a twenty-four hour period. Suggest you pursue the editors who continue to revert to the quote without adequate support for its inclusion. Thanks! 76.166.123.129 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You will notice that I said nothing about blocking for a difference of opinion, I was talking about if there is a violation of the three revert rule (and yes, I am aware that it is 24 hrs). I provided that warning precisely because I do NOT want to see you blocked, I want to see a consensus acheived rather than a continued edit-war. Three reverts: 20:58, March 7, 2007; 01:04, March 8, 2007; and 14:52, March 8, 2007 ... which is why I reminded you about the 3RR. I did not see your post at the talk page, but no, it should not have been removed. Thank you for explaining your edits on the talk page (again), I think we can get somewhere now. -- Pastordavid 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

+ Thank you Pastordavid. Thank you for apprehending that the quote expresses POV, and that the issue at hand is not whether one "agrees" with the intentions set forth by the quote, but that it was placed, inappropriately so, in a NPOV section. Thank you for maintaining logic in the face of contrasting personal views. I deeply respect that. Thank you for not wanting to see our IP blocked, and for your wisdom, assistance and acknowledgement in this matter. I think your philosophical and theological background is a blessing in relieving disputes! 76.166.123.129 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing disputes: How-Not-To (restored from Griot talk page)

Please review the Wikip policy regarding POV. The point of view policy is about individual contributors to wikipedia expressing their points of view. It doesn't oppose a point of view referenced by a reliable source. Griot 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Griot, and fellow sock-puppets, once again you're fabricating support for the inclusion of POV. "Stick to the facts... the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV." --Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial

I strongly suggest that you register with wikipedia and take a name.Griot 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bother writing on my Talk page until you register into Wikiedia under a name or else use your Nervous Mermaid name. I find it hard to discuss things with anonymous users. Thanks. Griot 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Griot, wow, gee, thanks for the suggestion. Sorry, not "Nervous Mermaid"-- again, your "facts" are inaccurate. Please don't bother to post on my Talk page. Not interested. Really not interested. 76.166.123.129 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media

The first step to uploading media is to make an account. All you have to do is choose a username and a password and fill in a captcha (maybe not the captcha) to prove you're a human. Then, in the toolbox on the left hand side there is a link to "upload file". Sound files need to be encoded as Ogg files, I use Audacity for this and it works quite well. Another important thing is to choose the proper licensing for the file. For more information see Wikipedia:Media. Cheers, Mak (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent post to WT:RFA

You recently lodged a stalking complaint at WT:RFA. That is the place for discussing the adminship promotion system. To reach an administrator regarding user misconduct, post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —dgies^t_c 09:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks Dgies. 76.166.123.129 21:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hildegard, again

What do you mean? There is only one file there ("O frondens virga"), and it's in the proper format (.ogg). Alekjds ^talk 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Check 04:14, 11 March 2007 Makemi. There are two excellent media files that this editor simply deleted altogether. One is clearly public domain, since it's available at a museum! I can't say I agree with his/her removal of infobox, either. Thanks Alekjds 76.166.123.129 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility

Hi again,

I think you found in me a good resource, as I've been inolved in similar online communities for over 20 years -- since I was 12 years old. When I was 13, I tried being a sock puppet, but was caught "red handed". Throughout my years, I have behaved badly and unsocially, been called in by the Dean a few times, etc. So I have some experience here. However, the pill I'm offering might be very difficult to swallow. You can email me (AT gmail.com) if you want to discuss any of this in private.

Basically, you need to establish credibility. Though in theory, wikipedians are all equal, in fact, their credibility is not. Actions speak greatly toward credibility. So first, IF you are indeed the pretty and talented Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, or the talented Violent Femmes drummer, or have a close relationship to either of them, or you work for or have a business interest in Seasons & a Muse, Inc., you should make that clear on *this* talk page and the corresponding talk pages. Second, edit a varity of pages, not just the ones you are alleged to have ties to. Third, apologize to Feldspar for vandalizing his User page (see [5]). I call it vandalism becuase it was (1) unsigned (2) a personal attack (no matter that it was sly sarcasm), and (3) unreverted several times. For help on this topic, see WP:User_Page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space and WP:NPA.

Concerning Griot, he and I have not yet crossed paths. However, I do note that according to his user page, he ran for Mayor of San Francisco on the Green ticket. So his views of Nader might not be so different than yours (unless I'm misreading your comments about Nader).

But his complaints about your being "User:The Nervous Mermaid" have some weight to it. See [6], in which you used the word "obtuse", and [7], in which TNM also used "obtuse". TNM attemptes to appear as a German-native-speaker, but living in Austria, I can testify that this is not a word native speakers would use or pick up. Furhtermore, the word seems to be used incorrectly in both contexts. (So perhaps the German speaker picked up and copied the error.) I will also note, in case it's not clear, that the use of "sock puppets" and "meat puppets" is against policy. Users have been banned and indefinitely blocked to blatant violation of this policy. So if this is not you, please be careful not to further appear as such. If it is you, come clean, apologize to the RN Talk page, and remove TNM's comments from the Nader talk page (or re-sign them). See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry.

Concerning removing talk page edits, it's not against policy to remove something from one's own Talk page (again, see WP:User_Page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space). But there was situation with the Nader talk page (here) in which one of your edits (accidentally, I think) removed a large section of the Talk page. I suspect your browser might have some problems, but whatever. I think one of Griot's comments got lost in the shuffle, which may have inflamed him a bit. You might want to apologize to him for that. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments.

About the Ralph Nader article, I have not bothered to read it.

Good luck, and contact me again when you have decided how to act.

--Otheus 10:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Otheus, Thanks for your help. I can tell you that the complaints aren't founded. I'm too tired to go through a list of "suspects" anymore. I think the Pastordavid Talk page, and Peter says it best. 76.166.123.129 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Please note, I mean no harm or disrespect with this accusation. There was a lot of evidence for your being a sockpuppet, and your dismissal of the claim challenged me to find the evidence. If you are involved in this, you should come clean now.

Otheus, I've commented on my discussion page. I've posted my complaint about Griot/User 71.139.27.85 stalking and being a sockpuppet, which is why apparently I'm now accused. I moved his/her ( I think his) post to your page. user

Ah, I thought he posted on mine. But, no, to be open, it wasn't his comments that had me "investigating" him, it was your original cry for help. You said he was harassing you, so I started going to the pages you started going to, and lo and behold, there are the same users! --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, if you've read my history, and before all this started, I openly admitted that this is a shared IP (see my talk page). There you are. The big conspiracy, the faces of Eve, or Adam, whoevever.user

Yes, but unfortunately, this argument holds no water. Do you really want me to tell you why? --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to Griot/User 71.139.27.85: I don't need to defend myself, because there's nothing to "defend." The truth will come out, and I think the truth is, your HOSTILITY, your user history and violation of talk page ettiquite, policy, whatever, speaks volumes-- "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" I've asked you before, stay off my page. Which, by the way, I'm gladly exiting. Hey, I thought you were "leaving"? No, it's just another attention-grabbing tirade. You'd make a perfect politician.

Will someone embracing justice see what's happened? A bunch of us disagree with this person and he's jumping the monkey cage guilty of what he's accusing?

I agree. This is also a conclusion I have tentatively reached. However, with his apparent farewell, it would seem the point is moot. For now. --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How's that for defense? 76.166.123.129 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two words: Donald Rumsfeld. --Otheus 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I did not realize this was your User page. Feel free remove my comments or move the whole conversation over to your talk page. --Otheus 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous section blanked because this was a misunderstanding on my part; faith restored:--Otheus 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

You claim this is "a shared IP". Are you saying that you, TNM, and Telogen all use this IP address? --Otheus 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there are at least two other people besides us that have used it since January. 76.166.123.129 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and did any of you have prior "handles"? Or is it the case that you all started editing WP at about the same time (sort of "ooh, check this out" sort of thing)? --Otheus

I do not have any priors, and I'm pretty sure the other users wouldn't do that. I think I started it. I was researching Ralph Nader. Then the others got involved in the debates and editing and creating pages. Walked into a bit of a fire, there ;) 76.166.123.129 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine, per WP:AGF, I believe you. Now, the next step is... I don't know what the next step is. Let me do some research. I will attach these comments to the SSP page. Meanwhile, I emplore you all to continue using Wikipedia, but don't edit the same stuff, at least until we can sort out what's the best way to handle this, okay? I mean, I know you all want to edit stuff on Nader, but if it looks like sockpuppetry... see WP:DUCK. --Otheus 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and trust. I can agree, and understand the WP:DUCK and all that, especially because of the controversy and the Donald brigade and all. But I'd like to make a request, if I may. You're right in saying I want to edit Nader. I'm thinking of staying away from pretty much everything, for now, because, well, it's not going over so great so far, as you can see! If you would, please have an admin assist with the Nader article, and any others I've contributed to that might "suddenly" take a turn for the worse. A certain user is clearly out for personal revenge (even contributed to an article on "Revenge"! See Griot's other User IP history). For some, it's more about ego, and power. But I really feel on principle, and what I think WP strives for, is quality and objectivity. The reason I fought was because I really do care about how people become educated. I wanted to share that.

TNM says she's done. Don't know about Telogen. Thanks for the encouragement to return. I do feel the need to step back, for a little while, because this is stressful and, well, I'm not retired! I need to place some much-needed attention back to my life :) This Wiki can be addictive!

I meant what I said when I told you I appreciate your help. You've done good work, Otheus. You're a good fairy. Be well, stay cool. I'm sure we'll meet again ;) 76.166.123.129 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address.

[IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]