User talk:Duke53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 To whom it may concern 2 Wiki-Intimidation 3 Response from Cornell's IT department 4 You have a new message 5 Image Tagging 6 Ford Mustang response 6.1 Mustang GT question 7 Image Tagging Image:2005 IronMan.jpg 8 Stop vandelizing 9 Dean Smith edits 10 More edits 11 Misquoting 12 David Mallett etc. 13 Third Party 14 George W. Bush 15 Use of tags 16 It's over 17 WP:AIV 18 Putting an end to this 19 Please cease and desist 20 Bot 21 Revert 22 Roy Williams, Coach K Bios 23 image 24 UNC-Duke rivalry 25 anti americanism 26 WMC's talk page 27 Dook/NPOV 28 Mediation 29 Flag burning image 30 Vanguard News Network as a source 31 re: Mediating 32 Mac OS X 33 AMA request 34 LDS Church 35 Baptism of the dead 36 Your user page 37 Warning 38 LDS sources 39 Kidnapping (Mountain Meadows Massacre) 40 Help Me 41 Personal attacks 42 other 43 Senseless tags 44 Dealing with new editors 45 Don't revert like that 46 Explicit and Implicit rules 47 Accusation 48 LDS comments 49 Unencyclopaedic 50 MedCab Case - You're involved! 51 Continued harassement is not appreciated 52 Persuading people 53 Finding diffs 54 Usercheck request 55 License tagging for Image:Garment.jpg 56 personal attacks (again) 57 Incessant vandalism 58 Assume good faith 59 Warning-do not edit other peoples discussion page edits 60 Church etiquette and garment photo 61 Temple recommend image 62 Copyright problems with Image:Temrec.png 63 Happy Thanksgiving 64 Editing tip 65 Please read WP:BITE 66 Straw poll 67 RFM 68 Continued personal attacks must STOP 69 Concern about archiving 70 Removal of unwanted posts is discouraged but permitted; personal attacks are prohibited 71 temple recommend 72 Image:Temrec.png listed for deletion 73 Copyright issue with Temrec.png 74 WP:RPA 75 Straw poll 76 Request for Mediation 77 License tagging for Image:Garment1.jpg 78 Mountain Meadows massacre mediation (or not) 79 Expectations 79.1 MY expectation ... 80 Image:Garment1.jpg listed for deletion 81 Warnings 82 New York Central 83 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bernadette1980.png) 84 Temple garments picture 85 Edit warring 86 Roy Williams discussion 87 Edits and use of other's talk pages 88 Civility on User talk:Essjay 88.1 Blocked 88.2 Reblocked 89 Duke sucks, 90 User page 91 finished 92 Wiki-Intimidation, part II 93 legitmate editorial decisions

[edit] To whom it may concern

The threatening item was that sent to my home through the USPS got here okay and is now in the hands of the Postal Inspectors; they seemed to be quite interested in it. The first thing they are doing is to check for toxic substances.

In this day and age of terrorism and stalking they take all threats seriously and will be working hard to discover who sent it.

Have a nice day. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Duke53, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --TimPope 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Intimidation

Stop harrassing me, cyber-fascist! 128.253.179.210

FYI, this is the E-mail I just sent to Cornell's IT department.

Sir,

I thought you might be interested in knowing that your network is being used by someone to vandalize pages at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duke53 (top message)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006&diff=prev&oldid=86720413 (section outlined in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=prev&oldid=86719946 (section outlined in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Crapper&diff=prev&oldid=86103615 (section outlawed in green)

Here is the whois report: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=128.253.179.210

I would appreciate it if you would respond to this and let me know what progress you have made in tracking down the person(s) responsible for this.

Awaiting your reply,

Xxxx X Xxxx

01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Cornell's IT department

__________

We have received your report dated 11 Nov 2006 and assigned it case number xxxxxx. This is a matter where the IT Security Office needs to seek guidance from another Cornell authority before proceeding any further.

If you have further information relevant to your report, or are wondering about its status, please write email to abuse@cornell.edu, referencing the above case number.

Thank you for your understanding.

---

I will keep everyone updated as this progresses.Duke53 | ^Talk 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• You really have no life, do you? Read this, cyberfascist:

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/policy/responsible-use/#not-violations

Find something better to do with your time (a job, a girlfriend, a life, etc.) There's a whole world outside of Wikipedia. I believe you can do it, even if you don't believe in yourself. :) 128.253.179.210 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You; that one was just forwarded along also. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the link? You're wasting their time. Now that I sent you that link you really have no excuse either. 128.253.179.210 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My next note will be to the CIT director.  :) Duke53 | ^Talk 08:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention your high level of authority as a Wikipedia security guard. 128.253.179.210 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

waa, waa, waa. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have a new message

Just thought I'd drop by and leave you a message, so you'd know how the messaging system on Wikipedia works. Your question on the Help desk has been answered! Oh yeah, and don't forget to sign your name when you ask a question (using "~~~~"), or on talk pages. When someone leaves you a message on your talk page, you can leave a reply on their talk page, or can just respond below their message here, it's a personal preference. Good luck! --Commander Keane 06:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging

Greetings. From the description and use of Image:Turul.jpg, it appears you intended this media to be freely available. I took the liberty of applying a {{GFDL-presumed}} tag. Could you confirm this at by replacing my edit with {{GFDL-self}}? Regards, Dethomas 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Mustang response

Copied from my Talk page before archiving:

[edit] Mustang GT question

Are you the final word on all things Mustang GT at Wikipedia? I'm still relatively new here and don't understand the pecking order and decision making policies. Duke53 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53

No, definitely not. No one besides Jimbo Wales is, really. Did you have a question or concern? ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Friday]], [[April 28]], [[2006]] @ 19:47 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that you made a change ('Sporty Coupe') arbitrarily and did it with a smartass comment besides. You also removed some pictures that I thought were pertinent to the article. Duke53 05:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53

I don't recall removing pictures in that or any recent edit. "Sporty Coupe" isn't even a real class of car, so for someone to make that change was asinine. It is, by virtue of its very existence, first and foremost a pony car. It is, in fact, the source of the term. A lot of work has gone into that article by serious editors and for someone to "arbitrarily" change the designation to some made-up class like "Sporty Coupe" is just plain wrong. I know you've had some confusion in the past about image removal and who did what (last time, I was the one who actually RESTORED images that you and placed and someone else had removed, if you'll recall) so I'm going to assume that there's some confusion again. If I'm wrong, please point out the edit in question (using the page history tab as a starting point) and I'll try to explain my changes. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 14:53 (UTC)

Just did some quick research and the only image change I've done in the Ford Mustang article recently was this edit on April 9. In that edit, I put back a picture that someone else had removed. I explained this previously in a comment now archived here. Hope this clears things up! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 20:49 (UTC)

In your Revision as of 09:50, April 14, 2006 Brossow (Talk | contribs) edit did you remove two pictures? The 1987 is relevant because it was a completely different EFI system and many body changes were made. The 1994 was the last year of the FOX body Mustangs. Duke53 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Duke53

Oh, yep -- I removed a couple images there for reasons described in the edit: there were simply too many pictures on the page. (I missed that edit when checking the page history -- oops!) The article is not a photo gallery. If those differences you mentioned were the point of posting those photos, then that should have been stated in the photo captions; otherwise, they're just more photos. And the fact that the '93 was the last year of that body style doesn't mean it has to have a picture. If the article featured photos of every cosmetic or, worse, fuel delivery change made to the Mustang since 1964, there would be dozens upon dozens of photos, which is clearly inappropriate. If one of those photos has to come back, choose one or the other as for all practical purposes they look extremely similar (aside from the obvious convertible vs. coupe distinction). Sorry for overlooking that change! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 19:42 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the image of the '87, but I'd ask that you add to the photo caption if you feel it's important to denote the differences from the previous year. I'd also like to point out that there's a link to the Commons at the bottom of the page where people can access many more Mustang pics. I'd encourage you to upload additional [non-copyrighted] pictures to the Commons if you like; then you could have as many pics as you like available for everyone without impacting the layout of the main article itself. :-) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 19:45 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, let's try to keep this conversation in one place so it's easier to follow. For whatever reason, your two most recent edits to my Talk page have included a lot of unrelated comments from other conversations that were previously archived. If we could just contain the discussion here, that would be great. This page is on my watchlist, so I'll be sure to see any comments or responses you make. :-) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 21:10 (UTC)

Please quit adding strange formatting to the Mustang article. I specifically said above that if you feel the images are necessary to illustrate differences from a previous model, then point out those differences in the photo caption, not with random bold or italics. Continued edits in this manner could be considered vandalism. Thanks for your cooperation. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Tuesday]], [[May 2]], [[2006]] @ 19:18 (UTC)

Considered vandalism by who? Using italics for emphasis is common when writing in the English language. I consider your signature far more annoying. As far as guessing what you 'mean' when you write something, well I don't have time for that. Unless you are a boss here, please refrain from telling me what to do ... your arrogance is not cool to some of us. Duke53 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Duke53

[edit] Image Tagging Image:2005 IronMan.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2005 IronMan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I took the picture in question. That is why I put my name on it Duke53 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Duke53

For all we now Dan Carmichael could be the man in the picture. If you want your images to not be questioned, please document per WP:IUP#Adding_images. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know you are the only one to ever question them. Now you know. Duke53 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Duke53

[edit] Stop vandelizing

If you have constructive comments to add to the UNC basketball articles please do it in a NPOV way. Thank you. Remember 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way? Not hardly. Duke53 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

The word you are looking for is vandalism. But why do you consider it vandalism? If you want vanity pages, then just say so (though I believe that they aren't allowed here). Is there any lie in what I added? I will be reverting both pages to my edits if you can prove that what I added was not true. Live with it. Duke53 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

p.s. you may be able to boss others around, but don't try it with me.

There is no need to get into an edit war over this. If you want to add criticsim to the Coach Smith article, please do. But the idea that one has to prove a negative (prove that the allegations you state are not true) in order to remove allegations that do not have proof for is not the way that wikipedia works. In addition, the way that you state your criticism indicates a bias against smith. I would recommend that you try a more NPOV way of stating your criticism if you want it to survive. One approach would be to state that while Coach Smith has been created with supporting his players and coaches, some have criticized him for his silence in several scandals involving his players and assistant coaches and then cite to articles that actually critize him for this. Remember 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to accept criticism from someone who can actually spell. I asked you a question above, which you conveniently did not answer: are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way? I can easily see the bias in favor of Ol' Deano a/k/a Coach Smif. Why do you insist that I be able to cite sources? I don't see many sources cited in the article as of now. I will be reverting to my version by tomorrow if I do not receive an explanation of your terms and an answer to the above question. I can play this game as long as you can.Duke53 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

"are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way?" - I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way. I and merely focusing my argument on your edits. If you want to add information to the Dean Smith article, please do. But when you do it, try to do it in a way that is in a NPOV fashion and has factual evidence to back up your claims. I have seen that you have edited other articles and have done this. I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia and I hope you can make the Dean Smith article more balanced.

"I can easily see the bias in favor of Ol' Deano a/k/a Coach Smif." - It is definately true that most bios, including this one, are probably bias towards those that like the individual (those in favor of a person tend to be more motivated to create a biography for that person). If you would like to counter this with some of your own evidence, please do so. If you want to tone done some praise that you think is NPOV, please do so. I am only suggesting that your edits show an obvious bias and should be revised.

"Why do you insist that I be able to cite sources?" - Because if you are going to claim that Smith did or did not take actions that some would consider controversial it is best to back up those claims with evidence so that your information will remain on the page.

"I can play this game as long as you can." - It is irrelevant whether you can wait me out on your edits. Every wikipedia article evolves over time. The Smith article today will surely be different from the Smith article a year from now. The real question is whether your revisions will last within the article. As long as you write them in such a bias fashion, they will not last. If the article is not edited by me, then it will be edited by all the other people that will visit this page. As for your ability to outlast me, I am sure that you can outlast me. I do not have much patience for edit wars. If that is your sole purpose, then you will surely win. But all you will have won is that your edits will remain on the page for a little while longer. Your edits will not last unless random people that visit the page think that your edits are in a NPOV fashion. Remember 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way?"
- "I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not the Dean Smith article is 

done in a NPOV way".

There's the rub ... you are insisting that I adhere to some standard that other contributors to the article aren't being held to, because you are a Coach Smif disciple. There's a term for what you are demanding: hypocrisy. Don't expect me to uphold a standard that you don't hold everyone to. Duke53 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

[edit] Dean Smith edits

"Other critics of Smith even contend that he orchestrated 'back room' deals to arrange the coaching situation at UNC-CH to his liking." I took this out because it is vague. What exactly did Smith arrange to his liking and who exactly is accusing him of this. Remember 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No more vague than much of the rest of the article. DO NOT HOLD ME TO A STANDARD THAT OTHERS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW Duke53 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

If you have problems with other aspects of the article please feel free to edit them or you can bring them to my attention and we can work together to edit them. Otherwise, I do not know which parts of the article that you are referring to. As for your comments, please clarify your allegations about Dean Smith's actions and provide evidence for your allegations. Remember 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More edits

I took out the following because the first part is unnecssarily pejorative: "Other critics of Smith even contend that he orchestrated 'back room' deals to arrange the coaching situation at UNC-CH to his liking."

The second part needs to be cited: "Smith reportedly called Roy Williams repeatedly asking him to leave KU and return to UNC-CH when Bill Guthridge fell into disfavor, and again when Matt Doherty was experiencing an 8 - 20 season."

And the third part belongs on the Roy Williams page and which I have added there: "Williams eventually did return, but not until after he stated (on national television): "I could give a shit about Carolina right now"."

"The second part needs to be cited: "Smith reportedly called Roy Williams repeatedly asking him to leave KU and return to UNC-CH when Bill Guthridge fell into disfavor, and again when Matt Doherty was experiencing an 8 - 20 season.""

This was widely reported at the time in many newspapers; unfortunately when you do a search you get '404' error messages (items are no longer available). Duke53 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

I think it is unfortunate that you expect more from some editors than others ... I would love to see some sources cited for the rest of the article. When time allows I will be reverting my parts of the article, then you can delete them; for someone who has no time for edits wars you sure have been persistent.

I have responded to this comment on the Dean Smith discussion page. Remember 22:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misquoting

You say that Remember has misquoted you and then refused to apologize to you. If this is still a problem for you, perhaps you could find the links to the edit history where you were misquoted, show them to Remember, and then politely ask for an apology. Remember might interpret things differently, however. He might think it was an honest misinterpretation, so you might not get the type of apology you want. But if the incident bothers you so much that you feel the need to keep bringing it up, this approach might be worth the effort. But if it's not worth the effort to you, then everyone's interests are best served by just letting it go.

As an aside, your demand for sources was entirely justified, and it has resulted in the article being improved with several references since the earlier conflict. Well done. Rohirok 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Mallett etc.

Does he go by Dave or David?[1] We could always make a redirect. Anyway what I really wanted to suggest was, rather than just adding a bunch of names to List of singer-songwriters, could you make sure the folks are included in the correct category under Category:Singer-songwriters? Near the bottom of the artists' pages (just above any stub tags) you would want to add something like this:

[[Category:American singer-songwriters|Mallett, David]]

Categories are much easier to maintain in the long run and have some advantages over lists. Regards -MrFizyx 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here is how to make a redirect work. Now try looking up Dave mallet, while we're at it I should make one for Dave Mallett since the two don't seem to give the same results. Let me know if you have any other problems. -MrFizyx 20:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will try it.

I have some CDs that are credited to Dave Mallett and others where it's David Mallett; I have heard him called Dave by more people, and it is how I've heard him refer to himself. Duke53 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Party

You mentioned wanting a third party. You might look at this for help: [2] That, of course, is assuming the current version is not satisfactory to you. Hopefully it is at this point - I moved all mention of Dook/Carowhina, etc to the Trivia section UNC-Duke Rivalry article. It's better suited there, and won't needlessly drag the individual schools' articles down.

Also, thanks for sourcing the arson claims. I didn't doubt that it happened, but I thought we could do better than an editorial. I'm fine with including negative aspects of any subject provided they are written fairly and cited. Thanks Dubc0724 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George W Bush. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. AuburnPilot 11:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe it is so pertinent to mention Bush's age at the time of the drunk driving arrest? He was not arrested for underage drinking (which would make it reasonable to explicitly state his age). Note that the reader can fairly easily calculate what was Bush's age at any point in the article, so unless there is a really good reason to explicitly write his age, it would seem to me to be unnecessary. --Asbl 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, are you dense? Adding the age of a subject of an article is not adding commentary! I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of the items that you've pointed out to me. NPOV; try to grasp what that means before leaving a message like this, okay?

Asbl, His age is pertinent to a section where his rationalization for being a drunk is linked. Take out his excuses and then mentioning his age is not necessary. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What was his excuse? If it was something along the line of "youthful indiscretion"? then I'd agree with you that his age is pertinent. In that case, however, please bring his excuse into the article, otherwise his age just appears to have come out of nowhere and would therefore appear to be out of place. --Asbl 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read the paragraph in its entirety, and I now understand what you are talking about. How do you like this modification? --Asbl 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. AFAIK, anybody who is 30 can't blame their indiscretions and mistakes on their age. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of tags

Hi, Just as an aside, it's better to use {{subst:test2del}} than {{test2del}}. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's over

warning-war removed

I hate interfering with another person's talk page, but this is the only way I think I can de-escalate this entire situation without resorting to bans. Duke53: People make mistakes, 2nd Piston Honda made two mistakes and apologised. End of story. -- Netsnipe ► 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not good enough for me. How do I appeal this to someone at a higher level than you?

p.s. did you delete any images I uploaded? Was his apology when he called me a douche, an asshole or an ass? "Duke53 | Talk" 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just went to his talk page; quite a different message over there. Why? I would have to say that you have much to learn about being an administrator ... you dropped the ball on this one; does Wikipedia policy mean nothing to you? Thank You "Duke53 | Talk" 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted per Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion: "UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia." Apologies for forgetting to notify you on that issue. Anyway, you can always just link to the diff instead of wasting Wikipedia's server resources. Yes, you can try and take this issue further by following the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process and the next step is to seek mediation with 2nd Piston Honda. And for your information, this is my first day on the the job as an administrator and I was just following the advice at Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments. -- Netsnipe ► 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well since it's your first day, I will try to work with you.

• I did not break Wikipedia policy ... 2nd Piston Honda did (more than once). Wikipedia's policies should be foremost in your mind when doing the job. It wasn't even close.
• The image was (is) useful in this encyclopedia, for me to prove the point that 2nd Piston Honda lied about deleting my posts. Your 'forgetting' to notify me was very convenient for some people.
• I did not call him any names ... he called me a douche, an asshole and an ass; I don't recall seeing an apology for any of that. Did I miss it somehow? I'd like for you to point out that apology for me, please.
• As much as you hate altering a user's talk page I dislike it more. If a guy has the balls to say something then let it stay forever.

Your 'compromise' here is way too one-sided. Remember, I did my thing according to Wikipedia policy, others didn't. I wouldn't worry too much about having to spend a lot of time here administering if this first case is any indication of your abilities. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

I have moved your discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Buser.7CBillsonator.7D.7DWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Duke53_and_2nd_Piston_Honda. WP:AIV is a place for obvious cases of vandalism that can't be disputed, not for long discussions.--Konstable 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. Just giving background in case an impartial administrator cares to take it up. Did you do the same for the other guy's message?? Hmm .... "Duke53 | Talk" 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? I did leave the other guy an identical message a minute or two after I left this message on your page. See - [3]--Konstable 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing against you, I assure you. I'm just wondering why I was directed to leave my message in a different spot than where others are told to leave theirs. I'm getting a bit suspicious of how people are treated differently on Wikipedia. so I did check to see if you left the same message over there. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV has a huge green banner describing that this is a page for clear persistent vandals who have received a variety of vandal warning and it says that the summary should be "short". This is a page that admins should just be able to go to and after a brief review block vandals. You and 2nd Piston Honda started a whole debate there, and I'm not sure what the exact problem was but it didn't seem to be clear persistent vandalism to me, but rather a personal dispute between you two. For things like these, and anything involving discussions, WP:AIV is not the place, WP:AN/I is the specialised place for that.--Konstable 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You; you have been more help to me than anybody billed as an administrator. "Duke53 | Talk" 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting an end to this

You probably have realised already that your dispute is going nowhere, except maybe insulting an administrator and maybe a couple of other people - which will do you no good apart. So why not just stop? Why not stop making comments against the admin, even if you still think he wronged you, remove Image:The truth hurts?.jpg from your talk page - it achieves no point anyway. Why not just drop this matter and getting back to editing? The longer the dispute stretches out the more anger will be built up, which I'm sure no one wants.--Konstable 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for your concern, but I believe that I will do this my way. I didn't come here to make new friends or to sit around singing verses of Kumbaya. I really don't care who gets angry ... "Duke53 | Talk" 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please cease and desist

• 21:05, 3 September 2006 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Confused again.png" (unencyclopedic)

• 07:55, 5 September 2006 Guinnog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:The truth hurts?.jpg" (only existed to perpetuate a dispute. no encyclopedic value)

• 05:29, 6 September 2006 Eagle 101 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:A point to make.jpg" (disparging image used to troll another use after issue has been settled, see User:Duke53 for the other two instances of deletion.)

The sysops will keep deleting your image. Please stop beating a dead horse as continuously uploading a deleted image may be considered vandalism. Hbdragon88 07:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just about any fucking thing may be considered vandalism, just as vandalism may be allowed depending on the whim of the bigwigs. Why make rules if they don't have to be followed?

Now I should be allowed to delete your comments from my talk page, right? Or will that be considered vandalism?

Since you seem to be such an expert, I have a question; can a barnstar be deleted? I've read a lot about them, but can't seem to decipher that. I'm starting to believe that Wikipedia obscures details just so they don't have to follow any hard & fast policies. "Duke53 | Talk" 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"the Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" [4] The rules tell you how people expect you to behave, and what the usual response to various actions is. The rules are interpreted by humans and there is always room for variations and there are always special cases. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much wasn't talking about guidelines but rather what wikipedia calls its 'policies'; why waste time making them up and publicizing when they don't have to be followed? Guidelines may tell you "how people expect you to behave" but policies tell you how you have to behave. TTFN, "Duke53 | Talk" 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The rules are followed when they make sense. That's most of the time. Sometimes, they don't make sense. Sometimes we can't agree. Having written rules makes it more consistent, but there are always inconsistencies. That's life. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Aah ... sometimes the rules don't make sense'? Then what's the point of having them and posting them? The only consistent thing I've noticed here is that the level of horseshit stays pretty high at all times. "Duke53 | Talk" 13:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have the rules because they make sense often enough to be useful. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest then, they are 'suggestions', to be used whenever some bozo feels like invoking them. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you use the word "bozo"? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it fits. Why do you use the word 'rules' ? TTFN, "Duke53 | Talk" 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it fits. There are times that rules should be broken and times when rules should be followed. I wish you luck in your quest to work out which is which. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep ... pretty much what I've been saying all along; the rules here are set up so that people can use them if and when they choose. What a crock of shit. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, people can follow or ignore rules as they choose, and there can be consequences to doing so. Just like in the real world. How else could you arrange things? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Under "Image vandalism," we have: Uploading provocative images. The image is clearly meant to provoke incivility and hostility, and has and will be deleted. Just giving you a fair warning about the image. Hbdragon88 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would that be a 'guideline' or a 'policy' ? BTW, thanks for the early warning.

p.s. None of you experts have answered my question about the barnstars (another Wikipedia 'quirk': ignore a question when you don't want to answer it). "Duke53 | Talk" 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine then...this could be considered a warning, although it's not an official template warning, so it's a toss-up to wehther you can delete it or not. The community hasn't reached a firm consensus on how user talk pages are handled. Barnstars are meant to be nice gestures to the editor who receives it - it would be up to the editor to remove it or not. The top of the page says that it's an official policy, by the way. Hbdragon88 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And that clears things up nicely, like a bucket of mud. Thank You, we have all seen how official policy around here works. "Duke53 | Talk" 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Think about what Wikipedia would be like without policies. It would have run straight down into the ground a while ago. The policies are followed by the good contributors that assume good faith. Sure, sometimes the way admins or users follow the policies are questionable, but who cares? Unless they're clearly violating the policies on purpose, who cares? The way you're looking at it is the way a vandal looks at it. The good faith contributors read the policies and say, "That makes sense. I should help Wikipedia by following/enforcing this." while the bad faith contributors say to themselves, "This doesn't make sense. This is bull shit. Wikipedia is a conspiracy/anarchy." It's all just a matter of POV. Just like good faith and bad faith is a POV. It's a really complex issue, but there's really nothing you can do to change it, so it's best to just drop it. Wouldn't you agree?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with that load of claptrap? Ha! Policies ≠ Rules. When the 'rules' are open for interpretation by over 1,000 people then they are no longer 'rules', just suggestions that admins can either follow or ignore. I don't have to 'imagine' what wikipedia would be without rules ... that's how it is now.

As far as comparing me to a vandal: I follow the rules that the powers-that-be posted, a vandal wouldn't. Your logic is flawed in many ways. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

"just suggestions that admins can either follow or ignore."

Not really, because the ones that ignore them are usually de-sysoped. And you're right, in the large ammount of people that come here there are ones that are bound to break the rules, just like in society the people that break the laws are considered criminals. Here, the people that break the rules are considered vandals.

"I don't have to 'imagine' what wikipedia would be without rules ... that's how it is now."

If there were no rules, what would WP:AN3, WP:AIV, and WP:ANI be for? There are rules. The rules are followed by the good contributors, and are ignored by the bad contributors. Now... which category would you be in?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Are these 'rules' followed by good admins and ignored by bad admins? Keep on drinking the kool-aid. Make your own judgments about me ... I've already made mine about you. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Check out WP:SUBST for a good idea of what my bot is doing. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

If you want to know how to do it, do the following:

To revert a page to an earlier version:

Go to the page you wish to revert, click on the History tab at the top of the page, then click on the time and date of the earlier version you want to revert to. It will not work if you click on 'cur', 'last', or "Compare selected versions". When the page displays, text similar to this: (Revision as of 23:19 Jul 15, 2003), will display. It appears below the page's title, in place of the From {project name}, usually seen. Verify that you've selected the correct version, then click edit this page tab on the top of the page. You'll get a warning, above the edit box, about editing an out-of-date revision. Ignore the warning and save the page. Be sure to add the word "revert" (or "rv") to the edit summary, along with a short explanation if it is not obvious

This is from [5]. I also didn't know how to do it for a long time, but it is pretty easy once you figure it out. Cheers. Remember 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. I knew that there had to be an easy way to do this but never could find it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're wanting to know how to revert in order to remove vandalism, check out this page about popups. The only stipulation is that popups should only be used to revert vandalism, not content disputes or otherwise. Whether that's an official rule or not, I don't know. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Williams, Coach K Bios

I'm not here to argue but let me just ask a question. From what I understand you are determined to get the piece about Roy leaving Kansas on his bio, which is understandable. However, did you know that people continually delete coach k's ref controversy from his bio, when it got and continues to get far more media attention, and refs were suspended directly as a result of bias. Do you agree that this is a bigger news story and event than the Kansas thing, yet it gets deleted while Williams's leaving Kansas remains up? Let me know, just curious as to your opinions. Thanks

Do yourself a favor and go check to see if I ever deleted it. Then you can go to their user pages and ask them your question. ICGAFFL. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jut re-read your comments here. " ... and refs were suspended directly as a result of bias". Could you cite a source that says that for me? Duke53 | ^Talk 07:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

it wasn't an excuse honestly, I just thought the image didn't look right where it was. I know all about the US conservatives censoring the Anti-Americanism article so that it doesn't make them look bad, in fact they have blocked me on several occasions for reverting their censorship! feel free to leave me a message back on my talk page--Frogsprog 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry about that, it was just that it messed the format up. I've been trying to find a more effective image of flag burning, but someone deleted the one i loaded up --Frogsprog 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've designed quite a few web pages; the first version looked fine and this one is okay. Leave it alone now. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your image instead of the other one because the latter had been on the page for some while and arguably represented the consensus of active editors. Although my personal view is that your image is better, in general it's preferable that such changes undergo a round or two of discussion on the article's Talk page. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNC-Duke rivalry

Thanks for your edits on the UNC-Duke rivalry webpage. I think you have helped to make the page better and I definately want to encourage further contributions to the article to make it as good as possible. I was curious why you cut the following sentence: "From 1997-2003 UNC won only 5 games of 19 against Duke and many were saying that the rivalry was on the decline.[6]". I thought it accurately characterized the decline of the rivalry and the dominance of Duke over UNC for that time period. But what is your opinion? Remember 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall ever deleting anything on that page and if I did it was unintentional. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit [7], but since you say the deletion was unintentional, I will just add the deleted information back in. Cheers. Remember 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I did was to change the status of Redick and Williams from 'graduating seniors', perhaps there was someone else editing at the same time. None of the other changes were done by me. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti americanism

i noticed a lot of americans are reverting the widely accepted image, they are very stubborn so just keep reverting, they're only trying to make a point --Frogsprog 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

so what's your point? do i detect some racism on your part? should we AMERICANS step away from our beliefs just to appease others? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

no racism, its hostility towards the united states, but basically I think that the image should stay, and I noticed you do also, I'm just encouraging you to continue reverting--Frogsprog 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WMC's talk page

Please let it go. He's clearly seen your comment since he had to revert it, and its pretty clear from his removal of it that he doesn't see any point to continuing the conversation. Using vandalism templates on established users has been viewed in the past as harassment. If you really feel that strongly about this issue I would suggest creating a user-conduct WP:RFC (request for comment). Syrthiss 19:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that since he's an admin that he doesn't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us? He's rude and arrogant, and there is no place at Wikipedia for either trait, IMO.Duke53 | ^Talk 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that warning him for removing items from his talkpage as vandalism isn't productive. That clause of the WP:VAND page routinely causes escalation of situations (there are 2 at this moment on WP:ANI at least). FWIW, I too tend to feel that people shouldn't remove comments from their talk pages (I've objected to people at Requests for Adminship because of it), but I don't like pushing the issue...and I think I've even done it once or twice with clearly bad faith messages on my talkpage. Syrthiss 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike it when someone pees on my leg and then tells me that it's raining. Why does Wikipedia tell us to not delete items from our user talk pages but rather to archive them? That guy proudly states on HIS talk page that he deletes rather than archives. Some pigs more equal 'round these parts? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Wikipedia should delete the templates they don't want us to use; simplify the whole process that way.

View it as you wish. Unless he actually deletes the comments, they are still in the page history and anyone worth their barnstars when investigating a situation will check the history to see if something is being swept under the carpet. Even if he deleted them, other admins can view deleted edits and regular editors can see there are deleted edits. In any case, I made a good faith request and you disagree...and thats fine. Happy editing. Syrthiss 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's puzzling to me why you would make that 'good faith' request ... you don't have a dog in this fight. There seems to be a 'class system' in play here at Wikipedia: admins and peasants; hardly a comfortable situation for we peasants. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Very generous of you to allow me to view it as I wish; Thank You, boss.

Only because its part of my responsibilities as an administrator to try to assist other editors (whether you believe that or not). I only noticed you leaving comments and him removing them because I still had his talkpage watched from the Mykungfu thread a little further up the page. I have his article watched because WMC and I work in the same field. I don't know why you are making pithy passive agressive comments to me. I haven't threatened you, and in fact was suggesting possible ways to get satisfaction regarding your complaints. Syrthiss 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

" I don't know why you are making pithy passive agressive comments to me". That's the beauty of Wikipedia: you can defend a fellow admin no matter how he acts; I can comment on it.. It is very kind of you to not threaten me ... I haven't done a friggin' thing to you or him. I reported a 3RR violation; it is the admins' job to take care of that violation, preferably without being a sarcastic puke to the one who made the report. Him (or you) being an admin does not impress me one little bit ... apparently he wanted the position; if he can't be civil while doing the job he ought to get out of it. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dook/NPOV

Your edit comment said "Trivia - source? (unc-ch message boards and fan sites don't count) D O O K = S H I T. NPOV?)"

I'm not sure we're dealing with an NPOV dispute. Wikipedia is not making a judgment about Duke by including the nickname Dook; it's only stating that the nickname exists. Hopefully that will clear this matter up once and for all.

As an aside, I believe fan sites, etc COULD be used only to indicate the prevalence of a nickame. I could be wrong, however. It doesn't really matter as I've not included such sources, nor do I plan to. Thanks Dubc0724 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sooo ... all I have to do is show some websites where Dean Smith is referred to as 'The Schnozz', 'Coach Smif' or 'Drunken Deano' and you'd be good with it? All you showed was where some unc-ch fans spelled DUKE in an ignorant way.

I believe a Google search will quickly reveal that "Dook" is a far more prevalent name for Duke than any of the alleged Dean Smith nicknames you listed. I understand that Duke fans don't like the nickname, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hopefully we can drop this, finally? Dubc0724 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care in the least what you believe about Google searches. I asked a question: would it be good enough for 'sources' to cite web pages where smith is called those names? That is what you did, so your past history tells me 'YES'. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, given that there were enough of them to prove that the nicknames were actually prevalent. That's what the Google search would indicate. It's not a difficult concept. Dubc0724 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How many is 'enough'? Just want to get your ground rules straight. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Google "Carowhina", "Dook", "Bronx Bombers", or "Steel Curtain" and then Google "Drunken Deano" or "Coach Smif" and see the difference in the number of pages that come up. Is Google the definitive answer, the end-all, be-all? Of course not. But it gives us an idea of how widely used (or obscure) something might be. Again, just because you object to "Dook" doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who use the term. Dubc0724 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

'Widely used', my ass, give me a number. Do you have hard time understanding the questions? You seem to be attempting to leave yourself an 'out' here; I don't want there to be a dispute later. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous. We both know it's subjective. Below are the results of a quick Google search:

• Carowhina - 1,930
• Dook (only searching for pages containing both Duke and Dook) - 42,200
• Bronx Bombers - 424,000
• Drunken Deano - 5
• The Schnozz - 733
• Coach Smif - 4 (2 of which are Wikipedia pages where you typed those words!)

So no, there's no set number cut-off, but any reasonable person can see the difference. Are you about done? Dubc0724 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dook, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Just wanted to make sure you saw this, and thought I would ask if you might be a part. If not, I understand and will re-write it leaving you off. Thanks. DukeEGR93 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag burning image

Hello Duke,

My name is Steve Caruso and I'm the Coordinator of the Association of Members' Advocates. OkamiItto (talk • contribs) had requested my assistance as an Advocate and I would like to bring up some concerns about the image that you uploaded: Image:Anti_America.jpg.

Although it's a bit of a shock-image (which really isn't the issue), it was not given a copyright tag so I have listed it for Speedy Deletion under Wikipedia Policy. If you have any questions about my action, please leave a note on my desk. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You told me (on my talk page) to leave you a message there, but I couldn't determine the proper place.. I uploaded an image which was in many newspapers around the world. One guy is complaining about it. I first saw the image when it was E-Mailed to me in a letter asking for money to support hospitals in the Middle East. I have uploaded it again with an explanation of its history. It is widely used on many websites the world over.Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I see where you have already deleted it. I find it interesting that the complainant had no issues with using the first panel, just the ones that showed that idiot catch on fire. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The image, as it was, was not in accordance to Wikipedia Policy so deletion was the proper course of action to take. Editors need to work together to enforce these policies and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Editing-warring over a copyrighted, non-licence-tagged image does not work towards these goals. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

((Cross posted from Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/October_2006/OkamiItto#Summary:)): Duke, unless you are invited onto this page, it is a bit inappropriate for you to post here. Requesting an Advocate is not a form of harassment, but a form of requesting help when a Wikipedian is in over their head. Each Advocate is supposed to research into each dispute as requested by their Advocee and lend whatever assistance they can to solve their issue. Many times this entails acting as a mediator between two or more parties, as a representitive when their Advocee cannot articulate their concerns under Wikipedia Policy, and a source of constructive criticism, as sometimes an Advocee may be a bit "in the wrong" and needs to compromise to work towards resolution. If these claims are incorrect, correct, or a bit of both, it's an Advocate's job to see so and act accordingly and work with the situation, rather than against it. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Who invited OkamiItto to that page? Seems like everybody has a right to face their accuser (he did accuse me of violating 3RR). That's why I posted there. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OkamiItto filed an Advocacy Request and the page was created for the purpose of fielding that request. It's not a rule that you cannot post there, it is just strongly frowned upon until you are asked to relate your end of things. We have had situations in the past where disputatnts have used AMA requests as a quarreling forum, innundating the Advocate with too much information to read over, including personal attacks, flame warring, and various other uncivil behavior. When an Advocate gets down to handling a case, they need time to do their research and go over preliminary preparation to continue on with things. That is why responding to a claim that has not been verrified and researched yet can be taxing. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From the date stamps that were posted it is fairly obvious that you were not going to (and did not) ask for my side of anything. You had already taken actions with no input from me. Therefore, it wasn't mediation on anybody's part. Where does one go to address the issue of being falsely accused of breaking Wikipedia policy? (That actually did happen) Duke53 | ^Talk 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanguard News Network as a source

Out of curiousity, what exactly are you referring to? Remember 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And just an outside view of your user page, some people might view this comment, " Interesting that a unc-ch fan (Dubc0724) would be using that anti-Semitic, white supremacist website as a source about DUKE University. Must tell us something, right?" as an insinuation that Dubc0724 is a white supremacist and/or anti-semite. This could be taken as a personal attack. I don't mean this to sound like a warning, but you might want to reconsider. (If thats not what you meant to do, maybe just reword it?) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for the concern. I was just posting it as a public service; people might be interested in the source of some cites used by editors here. (I know that I am). It mostly just says that some editors don't mind taking a source from anywhere they may find it. I called nobody a name or made any accusations. I am comfortable with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Being the party accused of anti-Semitism, I think I better jump in and defend myself. When sourcing the article, I Googled "University of New Jersey at Durham" and used a couple of sources to show that Duke is known by that nickname fairly commonly. One of them happened to be "vanguard News Network" which I was later informed was some type of hate site. Since the only Vanguard page I've ever been to was the one containing the term "University of New Jersey at Durham", I didn't know who the hell they were. I reverted it and apologized. The article has subsequently been deleted [by Duke fans] and now UNJD redirects to Duke University. No biggie.

Auburn, I appreciate your efforts to try to talk reasonably with Duke. However, I think that's a lost cause, as he's proven amply on several articles. Even his user talk page displays his combative attitude toward any criticism. Posting this little blurb on his user page was clearly intended to paint me as some sort of racist just because I happened to point out a popular nickname for a major university whose sports teams are adored by many and hated by many as well. Duke's posting was in poor taste, and I'm afraid, was more of the same. Talk about going to extreme lengths to defend your school's sports team. You might want to consider getting a life. This Policy once existed for a good reason. Perhaps they need to bring it back. Good day. Dubc0724 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(I tried to revert to the actual pages ... don't know how and don't want to learn to do it) Duke53 | ^Talk 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which version you want it reverted to or I would, but you might like having the power of the popup. I suggested it about a week ago up in your revert section; not sure if you ever looked into them. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I did look at it (and couldn't figure it out). I would like everybody's comments restored as I don't want anybody to think that I'm censoring or hiding anything. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Mediating

It must be difficult to 'mediate' when you are only told one side of a story, when that story includes lies; I was accused of 3RR falsely and you just let it pass. Why? Enforce all Wikipedia rules or enforce none of them. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke, I did let the 3RR accusation pass because there was no 3RR violation that I could see or do anything about. The issue then became a matter of proper copyright tags, and when that happened, under both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia Policy the image had to be removed. 3RR had absolutely nothing to do with that; never the twain shall meet. :-) If you can find the copyright information for the image and re-upload it with an acceptable application of those copyrights, then by all means please do so. Otherwise, the image was simply inappropriate, and Wikipedia is having enough actual legal trouble as it is with copyright violations and the like to let things like that remain in place. If there are further problems in terms of the article's content I request that you please leave "your side" of the story under Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/OkamiItto#Duke53. There was no 3RR violation, so further discussion about something that did not happen would not be suiting, so I respectfully ask you not to focus upon it. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Something did happen (which you continue to gloss over): I was accused of something that never occurred. I wish that you'd explain how that isn't a personal attack or harassment. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Nandesuka 19:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia one bit; 'one' = 'one'; more than 'one = 'some'. 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA request

Hi Duke53, I'm Royalguard11 from the AMA. I have accepted your case. The problem seems to be more of a grammar one than anything. You are asking that the page say "one feature" and User:Nandesuka is asking that it say "some features". I know that in my editing experience, being vague is usually better than being specific. For example, I often have something say "many people" vs it saying "most people". Many makes someone think of a non-specific large number, while "most" applies that there have been studies and evidence to suggest as much. In this case, "some" is vague, while "one" is a specific absolute, implying that they are no other criticisms. Even though there is only one example given, I believe it's in the best interest to have the word "some", as it applies that there may be other criticisms that we might have missed. After all, Wikipedia isn't perfect, as the General disclaimer suggests.

If you require any more help or advice, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or on my advocates desk, or to contact my by using the e-mail this user feature on my userpage. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

... "Even though there is only one example given" That is exactly my point ... until other criticisms are added let the description reflect the truth rather than something that may or may not occur in the future. So far the critics have come up with exactly 'one' item to criticize. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Being vague has it's time and place, but an encyclopedia isn't that time or place. If you read the article you could see that only one feature of OS X is being criticized; saying 'some' isn't being vague, it's a distortion of the truth. Big difference. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If and when other criticisms come to light then the article can be changed; as for now, it simply is not factual. Wikipedia should strive to be better than that. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, I work on a Mac, and I know there are lots of criticisms for Mac OS X, but googling criticism + "Mac OS X" and criticize Mac OS X, but couldn't find anything outside of chat fourms. I know that one criticism is that Mac can't run as many games, but then again that's a corporate and supply/demand thing. My advice would be to ask on the talk page and come to a solution there. If you like, I can also get involved, just ask me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you have made my point for me: if the 'Macbashers' would add other criticisms then the article as written would be okay. Let them find (sourced) criticisms and then add those to the article. It is BS to allow anyone to call something 'some' when in actuality all they have been able to come up with is 'one'. p.s. I did ask for a mediator and am shocked that you would puposely leave an article 'vague' when it is anything but (as written). Duke53 | ^Talk 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have come to a agreement to just delete the whole section instead of arguing "one" vs "some". I've never heard anything bad about the dock anyways (I think it was a great addition). Do you require anymore advice or help, or are you good then? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't part of that (or any) decision; my whole argument was / is the characterization of one feature as 'some'. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. The Dock was a stupid feature to attack as it can be re-configured by the user in seconds and in many different ways.

If you are no longer requiring assistance, I'd encourage you to fill in the followup on the request page. I hope I've been of some help to you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS Church

Hi Duke. Thanks for taking some initiative on trying to clarify things on the LDS Church. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I did revert some of your changes, and am considering more. The church did move because of persecution. In fact they were kicked out of most places by either the government or the surrounding non-Mormon locals. Although Joseph Smith was in hiding much of the time or in counties where he was immune from extradition for "so-called" crimes, that was never an issue in the churches abandonment of a settlement.

Also, on your addendum on baptism for the dead, you are correct that there is controversy particularly amongst the inclusion of Hollocaust victims, your statements are too vague. Also the Baptism for the dead article has a ton of detailed information on it, and since the topic is covered elsewhere in such detail, it is not deemed critical to the main article. We are discussing ways to include such controversial topics, so feel free to help.

Lastly I do not want to discourage you from participation, and hope you can contribute to this and other articles to help make them more complete without violating POV. Bytebear 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry about discouraging me from participation; do not expect me to go along with edits that are POV. The POV being pushed here is strictly the POV of the LDS church ... we all know that early church leaders were arrested for various cirmes; that would be a good reason to move out of those jurisdictions. I will not sit by idly and allow the LDS church's POV to be used in these articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) p.s If the baptism stuff is covered elsewhere I propose that the whole section be deleted.

See my response on my talk page. Bytebear 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

---

See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. I don't have a problem with making this more neutral, and I was not trying to push a POV. My concern with the information being added is that it is not referenced, so I can't verify if it is accurate or not. This problem is all over the article, as most of the editors seem reluctant to add where the info comes from, but I have been trying to fix that. To discuss this further, we should probably bring this to the article's talk page so everyone can get involved. --Lethargy 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What I added was just as verified as the sections I amended ... that was my whole point of the changes. Do not expect others to cite sources when the paragraph itself has no cites, but is simply LDS POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not expect others to cite sources when the paragraph itself has no cites. I was actually the one who tagged the paragraph with {{facts}} in the first place. If I may explain my actions: I have tagged most of the article as needing sources, and I have been trying (probably not hard enough) to stop the flow of further unverified information until sources are provided for what we already have, rather than trying to hit a moving target. Also, I do not expect people to cite sources in an already uncited paragraph, that is why I tagged the paragraph for sources. I hope they will cite sources, as I said in my edit summary: removed "other things" and "other events" becasue they are too vague and unsourced. As for "fear of being found guilty of breaking laws" idunno. In other words: I am unfamiliar with this topic, please provide sources.

When I added my first edits to the article there were NO ^{[citation needed]} tags whatsoever ... seems odd that they weren't deemed necessary to have then, but are so important now. A POV was being pushed and that is not the Wikipedia way; either it is all verified or none of it has to be, IMO. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, the {{facts}} tag was there and still is, there wasn't one in the lead, but in the Movement of Church headquarters section there was (look at the end of the paragraph).

There should be a ^{[citation needed]} tag for each individual statement being questioned; the way it is now does not necessarily ask for a citation concerning the 'persecution' statement. It is ambiguous, at best, about what exactly needs verification. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be messy in places where there are a lot of things to verify, but it would avoid the confusion. I probably shouldn't have used the {{facts}} at the end of the paragraph, but I didn't want to add 20 tags... perhaps {{unreferenced}} would be better. I don't think this solution applies to every instance of {{facts}} in the article, but I'll try to be more specific with the tags. --Lethargy 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism of the dead

After reading some more about this subject I feel that an expanded section on it should be added to the page. I didn't realize how controversal it had become, epecially when it concerns Holocaust victims. Since it is an official policy of the church I feel that it should be included on this page; a separate article seems to lessen the severity of this practice. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We have been discussing it on the talk page. My preference is to remove it from the section it is in, and maybe include it in another section on other beliefs and practices. Mainly because the section it is included in is organized based on the Second Artile of Faith of the LDS Church, of which baptism for the dead doesn't really apply. Bytebear 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a discussion concerning Baptism of the Dead at that talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was one, but I will start one. I also added a quick historical paragraph about temples where the baptisms take place, so I think if we beef up the temple section we can add more info on the subject. Bytebear 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

In the interest of civility, please remove the personal attack against Dubc0724 from your userpage. While userspace is basically "your" space on Wikipedia, it is not a space for making personal attacks against other users, no matter what. Jimbo himself has said so:

“

libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea

”

- Jimbo Wales[8]

If you persist, I will take administrative action, as personal attacks are disruptive to the Wiki, and are not allowed. Thank you. if you have any questions, feel free to enquire at my Talk page. (Click the "M") ♠PMC♠ 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not made an attack against anyone, simply an observation of what some people will use for 'sources'. You do what you have to do, I will do the same. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. This isn't North Korea, we should have some freedoms.

Oh, (and this may surprise some folks), 'Jimbo' may not be right about everything. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PMC, I came back and read this again; who exactly decided that it is an attack? If it's just you that made the decision then it's an opinion; you know what they say about opinions. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. You might want to check out the page history on his user page ... seems like some folks can pitch but not catch. I never once whined to anybody about his page.

When I passive-aggressively accuse you of being an antisemite, you can "whine" to anyone you see fit. But until that happens, you'll just be talking out of your ass as usual. I will say this: you've proven to be a zealous and loyal supporter of your school. I'll give you points for that, however poor your judgment. As for me, I think it's time to take a nice (maybe permanent?) break from Wikipedia. Enjoy. Dubc0724 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally we agree on something: I also think that it's time for you to take a permanent break from Wikipedia; don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Classy. Dubc0724 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke, the problem with the comment is that it suggests - subtly yes, but still suggests - that Dubc is a racist. I'm asking you again: please remove the comment from your userpage. I've looked at his User page history, and yes, there is evidence of incivility there, but the thing is, it's gone. You're the only one left in this dispute with violations of WP:CIVIL on your page. I've asked Dubc not to be uncivil towards you in future, (see his Talk) and if you could please extend that courtesy in regards to the comment on your userpage, I would appreciate it. Thank you. ♠PMC♠ 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have edited my observation as much as I am willing (or going) to; the 'thing' about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever really 'gone'. Unfortunately he wanted to partake in a game and when it didn't go the way he intended, he cried 'foul' ... that's not the way it works. His bad for not realizing that he wasn't setting the rules for the game. I don't feel that I am in violation of anything (you pretty much admitted that yourself; a subtle suggestion does not equal a violation). Sorry that your time was wasted. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unfortunately he wanted to partake in a game and when it didn't go the way he intended, he cried 'foul'" Well, that's hardly true. Let's set this straight once & for all: (1)The Vanguard thing was an honest mistake, and you know it. I've explained it here (it was deleted, of course), on the original article's talk page and on the article's DELETION page. You're the only person who's made an issue of it. Your attempt to accuse me of being a racist can only be explained as irrational, slavish support of all things Duke. (2)Whatever incivility I've displayed (bred of frustration with your edits & attitude in general) is hardly on par with the incivility you've shown me & others. Yes, I've gotten snippy & impatient. My bad, I'll do better. But your Vanguard accusation on your user page was just plain bad taste, and you know it. (I guess I could display equally poor taste by putting something on my user page asking you if Crystal Gail Mangum was white -- or if the story involved the Carolina lacrosse team -- would you still attack her character so vigorously on Wikipedia? But I won't do that.) Sorry you've embarrassed yourself again. Now, can you just comply with the warnings and let it go? Dubc0724 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever presume to tell me what I 'know'; you put crap up on your page, I retaliated. You decided to 'remove' yours, I haven't made that decision. (I did edit it) You don't get to make the decision for me. Sorry. Post whatever you wish; I will respond in the manner which I deem is appropriate. Live with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what user page "crap" are you referring to? Dubc0724 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help". Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Duke, are you confused? I posted the above message on my user talk page well after you posted the Vanguard crap on your user page. I thought you were supposed to be showing me what I posted on my user page that led you to "retaliate" (your words) by posting the misleading Vanguard information on your user page? Dubc0724 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help". Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I get it, I get it. I meant that I was done with trying to get you to remove the nonsense from your user space. However, I will still respond to statements made about me, as I have done. (By the way, I'm still waiting to see what it was that I did that supposedly provoked all this...?) Dubc0724 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________

And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page

_____________________________________________________________________________

I guess we're done here. Dubc0724 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an unfounded suggestion of racism is a violation of civility policy, as in "ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another." Dubc has removed the citation, apologized for and explained his use of Vanguard. Not only that, but this is the first time Dubc has done something like that, lending credence to his apology. I'm asking you one more time, please remove the comment from your page entirely. ♠PMC♠ 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You have made some un-helpful remarks at Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum. First, you continued to argue with a user even after he had apologized for any hard feelings he may have caused. More recently, you have made an insulting remark about a user's contribution. I have removed your latest remark and notifying you that incivil behavior is not appropriate. Johntex\^talk 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And who, exactly, are you? The last change to my edit there was done by a sockpuppet, I believe, or a guy who keeps getting impersonated by others. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying you made this edit, which is the one I removed? Johntex\^talk 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything ... I never denied anything; that was in response to something from a sockpuppet named Abe.Froman. I meant it. Are you some kind of inquisitor around Wikipedia. Do I have to answer this line of questioning? Duke53 | ^Talk 06:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS sources

Hey Duke, go to your library or bookstore and get Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. It is a very good bio on Joseph Smith. I am sure you will think it is too pro-Mormon, but it has gotten excellent reviews from the academic community. See for yourself [9] Bytebear 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does it claim that Joseph Smith killed two men before being killed? I had never heard that before. I'm wondering if any of those articles have an citations associated with them. Thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Joseph had a small pepper-box pistol (which his associates brought into jail for him), with which he fired at the mob several times through the closed door and was able to kill two members of the mob. This is a quote from the Joseph Smith, Jr. article here at Wikipedia. I already asked for a citation there, too. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw you asked for a citation. That's what I was going to do, too. I'm guessing that is bogus. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered reading that he had killed some people before dying. If nobody comes up with a citation after a while, I think we should just remove the claim. Thanks for catching that. I hadn't read that article, so I hadn't noticed it before. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm getting into this a bit I have noticed more than a few claims on one page that are directly contradicted on 'associated' pages ... I will continue to ask for sources. I expect that many of those will be sources that I cannot easily verify. C'est la vie. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The beauty of it all is that you don't need to verify ... you just need to point something out, and let others verify. ;^) It is up to the people making the claim to substantiate their material. I think what happens often is that somebody starts typing and every so often inserts something that they believe as opposed to something they know. It is very hard to write verifiable NPOV text. In fact, I'm guessing it is impossible, but we still keep trying. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Joseph Smith article is the most frequently vandalized, by my casual count, of the LDS related articles here. I have reverted the "two men killed" claim half a dozen times in the last year. I know of no documentation, not even a tall tale, but someone(s) insists on placing it there. I would also urge that it be removed. WBardwin 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle), I'm not sure that 7+ hours is long enough to keep a ^{[citation needed]} request up on a page (Smith page and LDS page); I usually give it three or four days to be verified before pulling a statement. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case it is clear that the claim was unsubstantiated, and has been removed multiple times. I've read multiple accounts of the event and have never come across any claim that he injured anyone, let alone killed anybody. If somebody wants to add it back in, then we can slap a {{fact}} tag and make them cite a reference. Unfortunately, a lot of people make random changes to LDS pages just to be funny. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did read a blurb somewhere in the last day or two that said two men were hit, but it didn't say that they died; I will look to see if I can find it again. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

..

[edit] Kidnapping (Mountain Meadows Massacre)

I am in the process of getting help in mediating the matter. People are arrested often for kidnapping children after killing family members. Do not come here with smarmy advice; I will find sources where I find them. You CANNOT and WILL NOT dictate to me what sources I may use. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Twice I've written articles defending the word "Kidnapping" and twice it has ether been rejected or sent to the ether. The first time,yesterday, I entered the edit on the discussion page along with my name, went to the history section and it was there with my name. When I went back a few hours later, my edit was no longer in the discussion page nor in the history. The second time. Wrote the edit again on the discussion page, but when I entered it a message said it would be merged with another persons edit. Well it wasn't. It disappeared. How does a person make this thing work? Should I write my edit in Word, & cut and paste it every hour to the dicussion page? Tinosa | ^Talk 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Make sure that you hit the 'save page' button after you have made your edit. It's the only thing I can think of. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

{{helpme}} Duke53 | ^Talk 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What with? Daniel.Bryant 06:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get a dispute resolved and seem to keep messing it up. Perhaps you can guide me through the process? Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll let you handle it Dan, I was just removing the template, so it stops reporting in the channel :) — Deon555^talk_Review 08:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there some confusion over who is going to help me with this situation? Duke53 | ^Talk 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

to

You may want to go check to see who made the 'stupid' comment (and when). I parroted back your words about' limited understanding'. Please do not post here again as I am getting help from the admins to settle this once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other

Thanks so much for assuming I cared about the Duke-Carolina stupidity. Personally I don't think any of those stupid names belong in Wikipedia. Sonria 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So sorry; then can I assume that you put the 'speedy deletion' tag on the other two items as well? Duke53 | ^Talk 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senseless tags

• • •

Calling me a troll is not a personal attack? :) I think that I understand things better than you do. Feel free to make all the suggestions you want; I will feel free to ignore them. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

¡

Weasel words. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, calling someone a troll on WIKI because their behavior is that of a troll is acceptable". "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom" Yeah, you know the policies. The bold quote is from Wikipedia's official policies. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with new editors

Hello! I understand how it can sometimes be frustrating dealing with new users, and IP, who sometimes add content which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. I noticed this example[10], which you quite rightly removed. However, please assume good faith with new users, and assume that they are trying to help Wikipedia. Calling their edits "vandalism" isn't a great inception into this great community, and according to Wikipedia's vandalism policy, "tests by new users" aren't considered vandalism. Don't take this message as a warning or anything; more of a heads-up to help make your time at Wikipedia more enjoyable and easy-going. Thanks for all your cleaning up of Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy contributing! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I thought that you were the person who was going to help in a dispute over the use of the word 'kidnap' in an article concerning a massacre where the children weren't slaughtered, but rather spirited away. The whole situation with a few editors has spiralled down hill (see just above your post). Please help. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't revert like that

The edit change had the edit sumary "Comment removed by admnin..." You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff. Johntex\^talk 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you brought that particular thread up as 'evidence' then you should want an exact record of what took place, if you want it judged fairly. Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Hmm... Duke53 | ^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? I can't find a rule that tells me that; I did find one that says that admins shouldn't use their position to bully others. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if you want it for evidence, then you can use a diff - you don't need to revert the change. Johntex\^talk 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem answering when I ask questions of you. I will ask them again. Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? Duke53 | ^Talk 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you just what I said "You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff." You knew you were reverting an administrative action and you did it anyway. That wasn't a good thing to do. Shouting isn't going to change anything. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sitting here wondering why an admin won't answer direct questions when asked. Is bolding something shouting? I consider you deleting his comment 'not a good thing' to do. I consider your commenting 'don't revert me like that' 'not a good thing to do'. You're right, I knew what I was doing; I also couldn't find a rule telling me that I couldn't do it. Now I'm asking an admin (you) to show me that rule. I know what you are telling me; why won't you give me the answers to what I've actually asked?Duke53 | ^Talk 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, policy encourages administrators to use discretion in defusing situations. Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting. If discussion fails to satisfy your concern, then you can report me. You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting".. I believe that your idea of 'talking' is quite different than mine; I have asked you numerous questions to which you have never given a straight answer. Your idea of 'talking' is simply for me to 'listen' to you and not expect any answers; I don't feel that admins should act in that manner. You ignore my questions but continue to be evasive; why? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to what you should have done prior to reverting. You should have discussed. You did not do so. You reverted. That was wrong. I've explained why it was wrong, and I've warned you not to do it again. I will spell it out for you again - Never revert an action taken by an administrator if they label it an administrative action. Don't try to distract from the issue, which is that you should not have reverted my change. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote the rule to me. You keep saying 'should', but haven't shown me why I can't. I am not 'distracting' from anything; I asked you questions before ... you simply ignored them. Your actions here are highly suspicious for an admin. Being an admin doesn't give you the right to be a dictator or misuse the admin power. The 'situation' that you were trying to 'diffuse' was pretty much laughable; you were attempting to put a slant on something. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed someone else's comments, not yours. You had no reason or right to restore them. You are being argumentative and you keep wanting to distract from the issue at hand, which is that you were wrong to remove my change. This conversation is not going anywhere so I'm taking a break from it. As I said, if you feel I've acted inappropriately, file a complaint. From my perspective, this converation is over. You may have the last word if you want. Just be aware that you have been warned and that if you do such a thing again, I will block you. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit and Implicit rules

Duke, Not everything that makes sense is written down. If you don't understand something Johntext says, please say so, and ask for an explaination. Wikipedia isn't about some set of rules that say exactly what you can and can't do in all circumstances. Some things are against the spirit of wikipedia even if there isn't a written rule saying so. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben Aveling, I waited to answer you because I think that you may have inadvertantly stumbled upon Wikipedia's biggest flaw: "Wikipedia isn't about some set of rules that say exactly what you can and can't do in all circumstances". That is why it will never be a credible source to many people; I have asked over and over to have a rule pointed out to me and have been ignored. If each admin is allowed to do as he / she pleases with no accountability for their actions then it is anarchy, with 1,000+ petty tyrants doing exactly what they want, when they want. WP is destined for failure under such a system. Ignoring questions about the system doesn't strengthen the system. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For common situations, there are rules. For less common situations, there are often precedents. If something has happened before, it's more likely that it will be dealt with in the same way if it happens again. Sometimes there are situations which haven't happened before. Then, people do their best to guess what a sensible thing to do would be. Sometimes, other people don't agree. Often there's some truth on both sides of an argument, and a compromise can be found, or one side realises the other side is right. Sometimes a compromise is better than either starting position, sometimes it's not. And sometimes both sides of an argument refuse to compromise. That's when fights start, and when people start making appeals to authority, to try to get support for their position.

Over time, you can expect more rules to be added. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got. It works well for most people, most of the time. I'm sorry it seems to have let you down on this occasion. I think the problem is that there isn't any explicit rule covering when changing other people's comments is good, and when it's bad, because it is so subjective. And it seems that most people disagreed with you, which makes you wrong. Fair or unfair, I can't think of a better way to handle situations that the rules don't cover. And I can't think of a way to write a rule that covers everything about when deleting comments is good and when it's bad. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"And it seems that most people disagreed with you, which makes you wrong". Exactly two people had a problem with it, unless there is a 'silent' majority I haven't been told about. One of them used his admin powers in a bullying manner. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong. Maybe the silent majority agrees with you. I assume we're talking about this diff? If so, it's hard for me to understand why either of you seems to care so much about whether the sentance is in or out. He's right when he says it's taunting. It would have been better if it hadn't been added, but I'm sure Dubc0724 had his reasons for putting it in. I wouldn't have removed it myself, even though I can think of good reasons to do so. One thing I don't see is why did you put it back? What did you want to achieve? And the other thing I don't understand is why did you get so upset at Johntex? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the same time he was deleting the sentence he was instigating an investigation as to my 'behavior' in that thread (for not being civil); my guess is that he deleted it as a warning to the other guy to not put himself in a bad light. It would seem to me that the entire record should be visible if someone is going to have it officially investigated. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When you reverted the change, were you aware that you can create links to particular diffs in the history? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would I bother? I wanted the thread to appear exactly as it occurred; others (apparently) did not. Remember, that admin was complaining to other admins about that thread; there was no good reason to change it. I wasn't trying to hide a thing. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You might bother because it's the decent thing to do and you want to do the right thing by people, even people you maybe don't like? It's not a lot of bother to take a diff between two versions and turn it into a link, eg: [11] Or you can link to a specific version, eg: [12] Given that Dubc0724 has said he regrets making the edit, I think that the whole issue should be allowed to die. Even if someone gets mad at you, that does not justify your getting mad at them. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one who got mad was JohnTex; interesting that he's the only one who hasn't chimed in or responded to you, isn't it ? He simply ignored my questions and now appears to be ignoring this. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that he's chosen to respond to you please notice that he still is not addressing why he doesn't (or didn't) have to answer my questions. His attitude still seems to be that admins can do as they please, when they please. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he deleted my comment because I was being, I admit, a jackass and wanting to see whatever source it was that was being argued about at the time. I think he probably did what he thought was best, but I'll agree that having left it in wouldn't have been the end of the world. Lots of other sarcastic comments get left in, so maybe it was just a judgment call. I'm sure it's hard to come up with hard-and-fast rules. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for "taunting", and I'd retract if I could. My two cents... Dubc0724 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should go to whoever's page and leave a message saying that you regret adding the comment. That would be even better than retracting. Ben Aveling 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I should pay more attention, I just suggested that you go and do what you've already done! Sorry about that. On the bright side, it does allow me to demonstrate an alternate way of retracting a statement. :-) All the best, Ben Aveling 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Duke never asked me why I removed the comment, but the reason is very simple. I had previously deleted an off-topic, unhelpful statement made by Duke53. Later, when Dubc0724 made an off-topic unhelpful statement by Dubc0724, I deleted it as well. Neither comment was helpful, and I treated them both the same way. Article Talk pages are meant for discussing the content of the article. Off-topic posts can be removed. Inflamatory posts can be removed. It is within the role of administrators to attempt to diffuse situations. Duke53 wants to keep fanning the flames of this situation, which is unfortunate. Johntex\^talk 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation

What personal attack? I simply said that it was your opinion that enough time had elapsed to respond to the citation notice. I disagree and believe that editorial courtesy allows time for all editors to see posted concerns, research information, and respond. If you choose to cut that time short, editors should revert/restore material for others to review. The imposition of any time limit on responses to templates and notices on Wikipedia is generally a matter of personal opinion and impatience. So - after observing your comments and edits on a number of pages on my watchlist - I would encourage you to be more patient with other editor's time constraints. Hope to see constructive work. Best wishes. WBardwin 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The part about those of you with 'real lives'? Within the last two weeks there have been items in Mormon related articles taken down after ^{[citation needed]} tags were up less than 8 hours; these tags were up at least 3 days. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS comments

perhaps if you informed yourself of the relevant issues, and researched a little you would have a better chance of getting your comments listened to - all i have seen is claims without response to the points raised by others - but instead new claims - generally on wikipedia we take other editors assertion that something is in the reference below in good faith - there is a difference when something is added to an article with no assertion of where it came from but some random bloviating individual - who deserves as much attention as b o'r 71.53.131.25 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you registered and wrote something halfway sensible here I would pay the slightest bit of attention to the crap you just wrote. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopaedic

Just so you know, the image on your userpage has no licensing information, which qualifies it for speedy deletion. I won't nominate it myself since we have a history, but you should probably fix that before someone else deletes it. --Masamage 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Case - You're involved!

You have been listed as an invloved party in a recently opened Mediation Cabal case ("UNC Carolina nicknames and links"). I will begin reviewing the case. Please write a comment representative of your view or a compromise offer. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued harassement is not appreciated

I tire of your inappropriate use of warnings such as the following left on my talk page:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

blank

I suggest that you stop characterizing others' thoughts and actions as 'stupid'; you may find yourself banned. I understand very well what you are doing (hint: we see your history also) to anyone who doesn't share your views. I tire of your weak attempts at indignant self righteousness. Bottom line: You insult me, I leave a warning. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persuading people

1) I use templates that Wikipedia offers at Wikipedia: templates; if they don't want us to use them why do they have them there? 2) Anybody who is interested in seeing these attacks can see them; they are right out in the open. What half point don't I have ? He attacked me (this is the first I heard of 'degrees' of attacks being okay); an attack is an attack. 3) As I said I use templates that Wikipedia offers at Wikipedia: templates Duke53 | Talk 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duke, I think the above was addressed to me?

In response to your first and third points, there are times the templates are appropriate, and there are other times when they are not appropriate.

By half right I meant that Storm Rider chose his words badly, but that there was some truth in what he was saying. To pick just one example, he said "I think you even see the stupidity of this position and yet you stick to it without any ability to defend yourself", which was a bad thing to say because it implies that you know that what you are doing is wrong, and I'm sure that's not true, and I think he would agree. I think that what he was trying to say was something like "You are insisting that you are right instead of explaining why you are right." And if you want to persuade someone that you are right and they are wrong, then you have to show them something they don't already know. Otherwise, they won't change their minds. I have to go. Talk to you again later. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And how exactly does one know when the templates are appropriate? This is another case of WP's "yeah, there are rules, but we don't always follow them" mumbo-jumbo. Are you saying that it was stupidity to want to call an OBVIOUS case of kidnapping a kidnapping? All I know is that he called me names and cast aspersions on me; I did not retaliate. If he attacks me I will leave a warning or file a complaint each and every time. WP says I can do that; please don't tell me a policy and then expect me to NOT follow it. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What I do is I ask myself: "Is anyone likely to get upset or be insulted by what I'm thinking of doing? Is anyone likely to revert me, or get annoyed at me?" And if they are, then I don't do it. If what I'm thinking of doing is important, then someone else will do it anyway. If it's not important, then it's not worth having a fight about it.

If you feel something needs doing, but you think that there's a chance that maybe people could get upset, then come and ask me. If I agree that it's important that it be done, I'll do it. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"If you feel something needs doing, but you think that there's a chance that maybe people could get upset, then come and ask me". Not very likely; are you even an admin? If not, why did you get involved? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I got involved because I thought maybe I could help. I don't need to be an admin to do that. You spend a lot of time arguing with people, and other people spend a lot of time arguing with you. That doesn't help you, them, or wikipedia. I can't delete/undelete/block/unblock anyone or anything, but sometimes I can try to argue a case for you, and sometimes I can try to explain to you why someone else might not agree with you in a particular situation. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you missed seeing my post here. No need for you to be involved any longer, as I find it to be no help whatsoever. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw your post. I'm sorry you feel that way. I will no longer attempt to help you, if that is what you wish. If I feel that you are being unfair to other users, I may still leave you a message saying so. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben is not an admin (yet), but the admins you've discussed issues with in the past have said the same basic things. He's done a good job of trying to help, you should thank him (I know I do), rather than asking why he got involved. Many times a third party can help with solve problems - and folks who want to become administrators often help out with these chores on wikipedia, as ben seems to be doing (and should be thanked for his help). Admin or not, third party help is encouraged in the Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution policy. As an admin, I'd encourage you to keep working with Ben as he genuinely seems to want you succeed at Wikipedia. He could be a good friend and asset to you should you follow his advince and find success at Wikipedia. Hope this helps, and happy editing. -Visorstuff 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finding diffs

To find a diff, click "history" on the top of a page. Identify the edit that the user made that you want to give to another. See for example, the talk page history for Mountain Meadows massacre. There are two links at the front of every line (cur) (last). (cur) gives the changes between the version on that line and the current version. (last) gives the changes between the version on that line and the line immediately below it (the last version before that change was made). If you right click "(last)" you should get a pop-up menu. Find "Copy link location" or "Copy shortcut" (depending on your browser). Then paste it in the edit window where you need it. For example by copying and pasting the last for (last) links I get the following

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85978695&oldid=85781563
  • is the diff to my earlier edit today,
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85979890&oldid=85978695
  • this is your response,
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85986616&oldid=85979890
  • this is Storm Rider's response, and
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85998286&oldid=85986616
  • my last response.

Normally you would identify these with [ single brackets - so the code would be like:

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85978695&oldid=85781563 Troedel commented]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mountain_Meadows_massacre&diff=85979890&oldid=85978695 I responded]
* etc.

which would produce:

• Troedel commented
• I responded
• etc.

Good luck - let me know if you need help with the mechanics of stuff. --Trödel 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You; I tried it and will see if that satisfies the requirement. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usercheck request

The evidence here doesn't look all that strong to me, so I'm reluctant to do a CheckUser; perhaps you could try this request on WP:RFCU. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here; did you post this at the user page of the one who actually requested the usercheck? I knew that it wasn't me doing the vandalism, that's probably why "The evidence here doesn't look all that strong". It was another attempt at an attack upon me. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know whether or not I can request a usercheck at WP:RFCU on myself in this incident? I would like to prove that I wasn't the one who vandalized that page; I don't believe that the user making the allegation will request it there. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You could, but those kinds of requests are rarely accepted. Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, we assume good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, we assume good faith". Yeah, okay ... where is the 'good faith' in his false, baseless accusation? I am not assuming anything in this case; he accused me of something that I did not do. No assumption necessary here, it is fact. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duke, assume good faith in this case means assuming that he had a good reason to make that assumption, even if the assumption was wrong. If he made a mistake, he made a mistake. Life goes on. No big deal. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate you not responding to anything on my talk page since all you have done is apologize for his behavior. He had no 'good reason' except for his wanting it to have been me. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Garment.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Garment.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks (again)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Lethargy 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So it continues. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incessant vandalism

You would be mistaken. If you have a personal problem I expect you to report me to those who can doing something about it. I view you above edit as an abuse of warnings, a personal attack, and vandalism of my personal page. You have stated in a whining manner, "(except for one editor who I will never answer about anything; he lost any credibility he might have ever had by making up false accusations against me). Duke53 | Talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"

You are also desirous of edit wars as evidenced by you latest edit to the Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre page:

By now we should realize that neither side is going to stop reverting over the 'kidnap' / 'no kidnap' issue; if the 'no kidnap' faction is so certain that they are correct, why haven't they asked for outside intervention in deciding this issue? I attempted twice to get outside help, but apparently did it incorrectly; nobody from outside came to help. I will continue to revert until this issue is resolved once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

axe

[edit] Warning-do not edit other peoples discussion page edits

grind

Copied from Mountain Meadows massacre talk page.

===To all other editors===

It is very difficult to assume good faith when somebody writes the following (from WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement talk page):

"Fish, I saw you removed your name from the LDS community group; that is unfortunate. It is true that article topics founded in relgion are quarrelsome; LDS/Mormon related articles are particularly so. However, to be successful you can not take things personally. I know that we have a gadflys [sic] (read obnoxious anti-Mormons with no objective in producing excellent articles, but only in grinding down their pathetic little axes), if I had my way editors of that ilk would be allowed to work with a coach for a period of time and then their case reviewed. If they continued in their POV editorializing, they would then be banned forever. They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive. It is one of the significant downfalls of producing a public encyclopedia; one must just accept it comes with the territory. Take a breather, reconsider your decision and then come back. I hope you will find the wisdom in doing so. Peace. Storm Rider (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

(emphasis above is mine) Now, wouldn't almost anybody view this as a personal attack? I'm wondering what the rest of you folks think. p.s. Time stamps don't lie. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church etiquette and garment photo

I reverted your addition of the temple garments picture to Church etiquette as it had no relevance whatsoever to the article itself. The only mention of clothing in the article was about Sunday dress, and since people don't go to church in only their underwear (even in that craaazy Mormon church), a photo of two models in their underwear is wildy out of place.

You have added that photo to several articles now as the only substantive edit to the articles that you have made. This is rather questionable behavior, especially for articles such as Clothing and Church etiquette, where the relevance or notability are tenuous at best. You have also reverted others when they removed it, citing vandalism, which does not assume good faith; the editors removing the photo might (like me) have been making a well-intentioned edit, so calling it "vandalism" is a breach of Wikiquette. I would like to assume good faith, but cannot see how your actions can be construed as honest efforts to improve those articles; rather, they seem to be attempting to provoke and antagonize LDS editors and readers. But perhaps there is an innocuous explanation. So: what is your purpose in adding the photo to these articles? alanyst ^/talk/ 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed the image in articles where it has relevance (I placed it on my talk page so it doesn't get 'lost'). It is vandalism to remove content simply for the purpose of removing it. Wikipedia does not allow censorship ... do not remove content simply because you don't agree with its publication. The 'intention' of the editors who have removed it has been suspect. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What is your purpose in adding the photo to these articles? And I strongly dispute the relevance of the photo to Church etiquette. Can you cite a source that links the Mormon temple garment to the etiquette of church dress? Or is that original research? Also, you again fail to assume good faith when you accuse others of censorship and removing the photo "simply for the purpose of removing it." The image does not belong on non-relevant articles, and when you add them, it is the opposite of vandalism to remove them. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you view the page history of the pages where the image has been posted; editors are removing it against Wikipedia policy, making it vandalism. I will continue to post it where I feel it has relevance. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind suggestion; I have indeed viewed the page histories. It is not evident that the removals were against Wikipedia policy; the editors may have simply been bold in addressing what they perceived as a weakness in the article (to wit, a photo of dubious relevance added for apparently POV reasons). Reverting an edit that you made is not automatically vandalism. And you still haven't answered my question about your intentions with regard to placing the photo in the articles. In the past, you have complained about others not answering your questions, so I thought you'd be forthright in responding to mine. The relevance of an article is a justification, but not a motivating reason for adding the photo. Care to share what your motivation is? If not, I and other editors who encounter your talk page can, of course, draw our own conclusions about your motivations, but I thought you might want a chance to speak for yourself. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"If not, I and other editors who encounter your talk page can, of course, draw our own conclusions about your motivations" assume good faith Duke53 | ^Talk 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; that is precisely why I have extended an invitation to you to share your true intentions. I am assuming that you may have a honest and Wikipedia-compatible motivation for populating Wikipedia with photos of people wearing LDS undergarments, but since I am baffled as to what that could possibly be, and because you are currently engaged in an edit war over these articles, I have inquired of you. And if, in the end, I or others draw conclusions that you are acting in bad faith, it will not be inconsistent with the WP:AGF policy, which states:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.

(Emphasis mine.) Evasiveness and a history of antagonistic editing are not listed in those actions, but the guideline doesn't purport to exhaustively list all actions inconsistent with good faith. It is a matter of individual editors' judgment to consider when the evidence suggests a user may not be acting in good faith. In the instant case, I would not regard your adding the photo to Temple garment to be done in bad faith, but when it spreads to irrelevant articles then the evidence suggests POV-pushing instead of good faith editing. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

" ... vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying". If you have any proof of this (otherwise this could be considered a personal attack, without foundation), please report me for them. Rumor and innuendo just doesn't cut it. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Indenting mostly reset.) That's a red herring. I was not accusing you of either sockpuppetry or lying. I was merely quoting the relevant policy section, noting that the list of examples of "evidence to the contrary" is not exclusive. Anyhow, I guess you're not going to answer my question. Let the reader judge between me and thee, so to speak. I think this conversation reveals what you are unwilling to say anyway. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"what is your purpose in adding the photo to these articles"? To illustrate what is being mentioned in the articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's unconvincing; neither Clothing nor Church etiquette make any mention of Mormon undergarments, so you could not have been seeking to illustrate them. The mention of religious clothing in Clothing talks only about Jainism as a specific example, so as an illustration of a Jain's religious garment you could hardly have picked a worse photo. Would you like to try a more convincing answer? alanyst ^/talk/ 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to convince you of anything, because I don't have to convince you of anything; you came here and asked a question. Perhaps the article does need to be expanded, I will look into doing that this evening. Here is the part that caught my eye:" Religious clothing might be considered a special case of occupational clothing. Sometimes it is worn only during the performance of religious ceremonies. However, it may also be worn everyday as a marker for special religious status". Are you saying that the temple garment doesn't signify some special LDS status? Duke53 | ^Talk 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm saying that? 'Cause I'm not saying that. Why are you putting words in my mouth? By asking that, I don't mean to put words in your mouth about putting words in my mouth. I'm just sayin'. Or not. ;-)

Anyhow, to be serious, since the garments are underclothing, they aren't really a good example of a "marker for special religious status." Do they have special religious significance to the wearer? Yes. Do they mark a special religious status? Not really, because being normally invisible to others, they fail to convey any sort of information about the wearer to anyone else. I argue that a photo of a kippah or a habit would be much more suited (no pun intended) for that particular spot in the article since they are much better and well-known examples of what that part of the article is trying to convey. (Alas, such photos would not provoke the sort of reaction you seem to seek by publicizing the garment photo.) Plus, to go into any sort of detail about Mormon undergarments in a very general article about clothing would detract from the nature of the article, I think, since it would convey nothing at the shallow level of treatment appropriate for that article that is not already conveyed by the Clothing article or the Undergarment article or the Temple garment article.

But we digress. The substance of this conversation is that you are unwilling to forthrightly explain why you're trying to get the photo added to so many articles. As I've said, I think it will now be apparent to people reading this conversation what your motivations really are. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Prattle on all you'd like: keep calling me a liar, that is something I am getting used to around here. I added the image to articles that mention religious clothing; I wll continue to add it to articles that I think warrant the addition. Again, if you want to make formal complaints against me, please do; I would enjoy seeing your argument. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. I didn't attempt to put words in your mouth (nice try). The wearing of this garment is very important to the leaders of the LDS church; I knew it, but wanted you to admit it, just for clarification.

Regardless, images only belong in article where they are relevent and will be removed from others where they do not apply. If you continue to inser the image in articles where it isn't relevent, you can expect a block. pschemp | talk 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for my page, show me where it is irrelevant; each article mentions religious clothing or undergarments ... this qualifies the image. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm sorry, it is relevent to Temple garments and Undergarments but not to Clothing since undergarments are a subset of clothing. Church etiquette is not specific to any church and thus it is irrelevent there too. pschemp | talk 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Im sorry ... perhaps you missed this section of the article:

-Religious habits and special religious clothing-

Religious clothing might be considered a special case of occupational clothing. Sometimes it is worn only during the performance of religious ceremonies. However, it may also be worn everyday as a marker for special religious status.

For example, Jains wear unstitched cloth pieces when performing religious ceremonies. The unstitched cloth signifies unified and complete devotion to the task at hand, with no digression.

The cleanliness of religious dresses in Eastern Religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism is of paramount importance, which indicates purity.

Perhaps the section needs to be expanded to show how significant the Temple garment is to the LDS; It signifies special status to them. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The clothing article is a general overview, mostly related to outerwear. Such detail is not appropriate. At most a sentence and link to the Temple garments artilce may be warranted if the other editors on the page agree, but I think even that is tool much detail for such an unimportant thing. pschemp | talk 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to contribute to articles discussing LDS Church doctrine and practices. However, the inclusion of photographs of the temple garment is unnecessary. I recognize that I deleted your pictures without any discussion or permission. You must understand the sacredness of the garment to members of the LDS Church. After sending an e-mail to the wikipedia editors regarding the placement of the photograph on the clothing article, it was promptly removed by them. As you can see, nothing was done to alter any articles other than removing the photograph. Please do not include that picture in any articles. It is a sacred subject to members of the LDS church. Please grant us this favor by not denigrating something of great worth. An article discussing the garment, so long as done with correct authority is different. Df008 05:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow censorship. I have already asked that the image be restored to the appropriate pages and then be blocked from any further vandalism. You may very well consider this image sacred, but you most likely are in the minority in feeling that way; Muslims have to tolerate pictures here that they do not like as well. I am not inclined to drop this, all I hear from editors here is policy, policy, policy; the image is perfectly fine according to Wikipedia's policy so you will just have to live with it. I suggest that you not visit those pages if it distresses you that much. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with User:Df008. LDS editors can continue to regard the temple garment as sacred and yet need to tolerate it being displayed in a neutral manner on Wikipedia in appropriate places. When it is used inappropriately (as defined by Wikipedia policy and guidelines as well as the context in which they are used), objections ought to be raised, but LDS editors cannot expect Wikipedia to hew to their notion of what is sacred and what is not, just as they cannot be forced in turn to respect another editor's differing view of what is sacred. (Though if they voluntarily choose to be respectful of others' beliefs, that's the ideal world, I think.)

If things were different, it might have been good to civilly discuss what precisely about the photo makes LDS people uncomfortable about it being displayed on WP and to see if there's a way to preserve the factual content and informational value of the illustration while portraying it in a way that is less likely to provoke negative reactions and edit wars. That would have been nice, wouldn't it? Alas, we live in a polarized world where one extreme acts as if even approaching the subject of something they hold sacred is an offense, and the other extreme acts as if the most provocative and objectionable material is essential for an encyclopedia and to soften the presentation would be to surrender to censorship. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been discussion in the past about having the image in Wikipedia [13]. It shouldn't have to occur each time a different editor decides to object about something. Many things I read here at Wikipedia make me uncomfortable; I simply do not visit those articles.

I have shown as much respect to other editors as has been shown to me; golden rule and all that, you know. Unfortunately, I am not predisposed to believe all that the LDS church states as fact; I have (and will continue to have) the right to question them about anything and everything I read, anywhere. For instance, I was told to my face less than two months ago that Mormons had absolutely no part in the Mountain Meadows massacre; I feel it is my obligation to ensure that facts are presented here, not some church's POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive the edit wars. It was my understanding that this website is a free encyclopedia edited by the users and that any user could edit the content so long as they did so with good faith. I am a new user and deleted the pictures before I understood the correct procedure for requesting that content be removed. Even then, I maintain that what was done was not censorship. As I said before, I understand that you have a desire to contribute to the pages here on Wikipedia, and I have no objection to that. My only request is that you use greater discretion in the content you include on this website. The entries of "clothing" and "underwear" are not the correct place for a photograph of two individuals wearing the temple garment. There are several other examples of religious clothing (i.e. papal gowns, etc.) which could be used and which would not elicit a response such as the one you have received.

I do not consider myself a part of the extreme. I don't know the reason for which you have the feelings that you do, but if you are to demand respect and understanding of what you say and believe, and if you are to expect that people follow the golden rule, you also must return the courtesy to those who disagree with you. I am quite confident that if you were to ask the majority of members of the LDS church whether they would be offended by the picture as it was used, they would agree that it was offensive. As such, I think that a discussion in which you might be able to understand the reasons behind the reaction not only me but several people have had to your placing of such an image in a public forum would be appropriate.

As far as taking everything you hear at face value, I recognize that there are a few parts of LDS Church history which are not very agreeable, even to members of the Church itself. These are mistakes of individuals just like you and me. Although this could cause resentment for the beliefs and practices of the Church, it could also be discussed in a rational way with people willing to understand the subjects without resorting to absolutism.

Please accept my sincere apology. I will not do this again. However, understand that I will pursue the administrators of Wikipedia when I feel that content regarding the LDS Church has been displayed incorrectly and inappropriately. Asking for the picture to be removed was a rational request which has been granted at least once by the administrators of this website themselves. I mean nothing ill toward you. In fact, as you suggested earlier in this thread, I agree that a discussion page, in which thoughts and comments regarding the subject could be expressed, would be appropriate and would allow us all to rationally discuss our feelings on the matter. Hopefully, in this manner the best outcome could be reached. Thank you for understanding.Df008 13:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You can ask admins for anything you'd like; good luck. You cannot delete items nilly willy because you find them personally offensive. There was discussion about this, you were not around to take part in it. The best outcome was reached (so far); the image is allowed. Again, if it is so distressful to you: do not go to that article. I think that you and I have discussed this as far as we can, any more would be just going around in circles. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw my opinion in here too. The relevance of the photo of garments to Temple garment is obvious, but as others have said, some of the other places you've put it are far less relevant. Censorship doesn't fly here, but neither does poking fun at other people's religions, so take care about how your actions may be seen by others. Friday (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Censorship doesn't fly here, but neither does poking fun at other people's religions" I'm not sure why you came here to post that, but I'd like to know where people get their ideas of what is and what isn't allowed at Wikipedia; if you have something useful to add here, feel free, but don't come here to post nonsense. Show me a policy, not just your opinion. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Is Not a Soapbox. That's the most applicable policy, particularly the section about propaganda and advocacy. Poking fun at other people's religions certainly falls into those categories, just as evangelizing one's own religious beliefs would. There is pro-Mormon propaganda and advocacy, and there is anti-Mormon propaganda and advocacy. Neither belongs here. Also, there's the Wikipedia Is Not a Battleground policy: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear." If you have personal issues with the LDS church or Mormon beliefs, this is not the place to wage war against your perceived enemies. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Which would be fine if you can show me one instance of me poking fun at anybody's religion. I do not joke. "this is not the place to wage war against your perceived enemies". It also is not a place for Mormon propaganda; when I see it I will challenge it. Wikipedia Is Not a Soapbox goes both ways ... this is not a place for LDS POV. Just because LDS people take anything the church says as gospel does not necessarily make it true; it simply makes it their belief. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple recommend image

Regarding the temple recommend image you just added: Who gave you permission to photocopy a document whose copyright is owned by the LDS church? (Hint: the person to whom the document was issued does not have the authority to grant such permission or to make copies themselves.) I see that your version has the copyright notice redacted, which in good faith I will assume was an unintentional act. But I think the image you uploaded infringes a copyright and you have no rights to release it under any license whatsoever. Will you remove the erroneous licensing information and tag the image for deletion, or shall I? alanyst ^/talk/ 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The scan that I copied has no copyright notice. The redactions I made were on to block means of identifying the person who was issued the card and the person / person(s) who issued it. There were signatures, dates, initials and a serial number on the card; that is what was redacted. I do not need LDS approval ever to copy any document that comes into my possession; the government can restrict such things, but nobody else has that authority. There is no erroneous licensing information on that image page; I explained what I did and how I did it. Sorry. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that with many others, you share a common misconception about U.S. copyright law. Regardless of whether a copyright symbol or notice appears on a document, the original author of the document is automatically, by law, granted a copyright on it the instant it is created. Unless the author places that work into the public domain or explicitly sells the copyright, gives it away, or grants a license to copy and/or distribute the work, nobody else has any right to reproduce the work except within the limited bounds of fair use.

In this case, the creator of the document is the LDS church and the copyright is owned by its intellectual property division, Intellectual Reserve Inc. You do not have permission or any legal right to photocopy the document in full, much less alter its appearance and post it online under any sort of license. Hence you have violated the copyright. Unintentionally, no doubt; but now that you know, surely you will assist in correcting the infringement. (Upon further reflection, I have struck this due to possible harbor under fair use.) alanyst ^/talk/ 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have modified my comments above because, as User:COGDEN rightly pointed out at [14], the fair use provision might cover the image you uploaded. In my opinion it's a borderline case that could still be a copyvio unprotected by fair use, but I'm not so sure now that it's necessarily a wholesale infringement, and since my comments above were too absolutist, I think it's important that I retract the parts that went too far. At the very least, the license you tagged it with is not the right one since you're not the copyright holder, but I shouldn't have said unconditionally that you were infringing the copyright. My apologies. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I put these comments at copyright problems [Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_November_21/Images] - the image could be a good addition to Wikipedia under fair use, however, it currently doesn't qualify, but could easily do so:

I'm fine with using an image under fair use, however, graying out the copyrighted portion that states "©2003 IRI" makes it seems that the owner of the image knows that the image is in violation of the copyright, and knowingly removed the copyright notice (ie, the author had the intent to remove copyright notice to break copyright laws). My vote would be to re-include the copyright notice and use under fair use, but not in its current form, which due to the removal of the copyright notice would not hold up under fair use due to the "intent" portions of copyright law. Delete and re-do. [15]

I'd re-upload the image with the copyright included to remove any question of intent and ethics. Just my two cents as I deal with copyright every day, as the image stands, it will probably not hold up under fair use until that is included again. -Visorstuff 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Temrec.png

FyzixFighter 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving

Despite our differences on Wikipedia, I sincerely wish you a happy and enjoyable Thanksgiving. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing tip

I've noticed you like to use emphasis in a lot of places. (Just playing with emphasis there myself.) You've been using <B></B> and <I></I> to accomplish that. Since those are difficult to type, here's a shortcut: Double apostrophes surrounding a section of wikitext (like ''this'') will italicize it, and triple apostrophes (like '''this''') will bold it. They can be combined, so five apostrophes will italicize and bold the text. But my advice would be to be sparing with the emphasis, as it can convey an aggressiveness that you may perhaps not intend. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You twice. :) I am just an old code writer who is used to doing it that way. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please read WP:BITE

I will continue to edit your comments on talk pages that are inappropriate. Please read through the comments on the village pump. An editor that makes one edit that blanks sections should not be treated in such a negative manner. Please stop misusing warnings. I will continue to revert your edits to user talk pages where you are being uncivil and ungracious to new users.

Despite your contention we need to be welcoming to new users, not try to scare them off. --Trödel 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your intentions are very transparent; I will NOT ALLOW you to CENSOR my comments. Do not continue in this manner; I will report you for abuse of admin power. Incivility has nothing to do with QUOTING Wikipedia policy to newcomers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way; however, explaining policy by accusing a new user of vandalism is inappropriate. --Trödel 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading something into quoting one of Wikipedia's definitions of Vandalism, aren't you? I was attempting to educate a newcomer. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [16]WikieZach| talk 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

it will be held for more than one day. WikieZach| talk 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It will start soonWikieZach| talk 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i made a mistake. WikieZach| talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/[17]]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. WikieZach| talk 13:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued personal attacks must STOP

)

[edit] Concern about archiving

!

[edit] Removal of unwanted posts is discouraged but permitted; personal attacks are prohibited

•

[edit] temple recommend

Per my comment above, the image of a temple recommend is needed on wikipedia (and a good addition), however, how it has been scanned is controversial - ie, the copyright information was deleted. As such, it may not qualify under fair use law [18].

As stated above, "graying out the copyrighted portion that states "©2003 IRI" makes it seems that the owner of the image knows that the image is in violation of the copyright, and knowingly removed the copyright notice (ie, the author had the intent to remove copyright notice to break copyright laws)...[the author should] re-include the copyright notice and use [the image] under fair use, but... the removal of the copyright notice would not hold up under fair use due to the "intent" portions of copyright law."

I plan to recommend that the image (pun intended) be listed for deletion tomorrow. However, I'd much rather have such an image on Wikipedia - if you could replace the image with a duplicate with the copyright info showing, we won't have to go through the VFD process. Or if you can give me a timeframe for when you plan to change the image that will work as well. Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As I explained to you once already ... I have never seen one of these with any copyright notice. The one I photocopied didn't have one; I only redacted ID info and some initials up in the field. I am not concerned about the image being deleted. There are many images of them to be found online already.Duke53 | ^Talk 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your explanation elsewhere. The copyright notice has existed on every temple recommend since its current form at this size (1980s?). Before IRI it was Corp of the President. I will list it for deletion. Bummer. Cheers. -Visorstuff 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add: the copyright notice is quite small, and located in the lower right-hand corner of the "Signature of member of stake presidency or mission president" box. So it's easy to overlook, and I don't think anyone means to accuse you (Duke53) of lying about not seeing the copyright notice; you probably just missed it and redacted right over it as you were blocking out the identifying information. But do remember for future photocopying you might do to look carefully for copyright notices—that's all I'd suggest. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed:

[edit] Image:Temrec.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Temrec.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Visorstuff 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) -Visorstuff 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let 'er rip. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RPA

Removing personal attacks is a bit controversial- I'd advise you against doing things like what you did here. This comes off looking like you're removing criticism of your editing habits. Editors are absolutely allowed to criticise each other's edits- this is part of what makes the whole thing work. Friday (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is really not acceptable in my opinion (edit warring over the refactoring of someone else's comments). Please to not edit his comments again. If you want them to be refactored differently than they are right now, please request that an uninvoled admin do so at WP:AN. You current behaivor is extremely provocative and is making the situation worse.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't have to be asked to delete some comments so I shouldn't have to ask that personal attacks against me be removed. There appears to be some bias by admins here. There are admins already involved who seem to 'conveniently' allow certain editors to do as they wish; if those admins won't 'protect' me I will be forced to do it myself. Be Bold !, you know? I don't find your 'behaivor' [sic] to be all that stellar either, BTW.Duke53 | ^Talk 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can support that you removed the personal attacks. I disagree with the edit war over the exact way the personal attacks are removed. So long as they are gone that is what I find important. If you really believe the exact way the refactoring is done is important, I think you should ask someone who is not curently involved in the dispute to redo it. I think an edit war over such issues is disruptive.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

I would rather have a medcom case before a straw poll, I have found they dont always workWikieZach| talk 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] License tagging for Image:Garment1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Garment1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain Meadows massacre mediation (or not)

There is a proposal at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre that needs your comments about whether or not to move forward, or to re-open the mediation. Please let us know you thoughts. -Visorstuff 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expectations

okay then

[edit] MY expectation ...

... is for you to move this back to where it began (see my comment on your talk page). Duke53 | ^Talk 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on my talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You moved it here ... you move it back. I had no problem with it being there; you suddenly saw a problem with it being over there and took it upon yourself to move it. I never saw a problem with it being there (especially after answering questions you posed there). Now you should take it upon yourself to move it back. Thank You so much for committing to 'not obstruct' such a move. Your insistence that I move it back could be seen as another incident of someone dictating what I should or should not do. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

and again

[edit] Image:Garment1.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Warnings

[edit] New York Central

Hey Duke, did you upload the photos of The New York Central Railroad? User:Paul Ittoop 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh Duke? User:Paul Ittoop 08:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bernadette1980.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bernadette1980.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not orphaned ... it was removed once for less than two hours. Why, I don't know. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temple garments picture

Don't try to scare me by leaving a warning notice on my page. I deleted the picture not because I'm LDS, or care in the least whether or not the world knows the LDS "secrets" (none of which are secret any longer), but because the picture was just too big and intrusive. It doesn't belong where you keep trying to put it. It's just one form of underwear out of the many thousands that humans have worn over the centuries, and it's just not that unusual or interesting. May loom large in your eyes, but not in anyone else's.

There may an article to which that picture is relevant. If there isn't, think one up and write one. Zora 20:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to 'scare' you; deleting content can be considered vandalism. If you bothered reading the talk page you would know that the pictures had been discussed. The picture is relevant to that article, and will be staying in it. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone complained about your undergarments on WP:ANI. I told them to use WP:DR instead, and I would suggest that you consider doing the same. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• And while you;re about it, removing content of marginal (at best) relevance, apparently promoting a controversial religion, is unquestionably not vandalism. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

In response to your report at WP:AN3RR: Even though you did not violate the three-revert rule in the technical sense, you, too, were edit warring. Don't forget that users can be blocked for edit warring even if they make fewer than four reverts per day. Please discuss disputes rather than constantly reverting. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 04:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you were edit warring, and therefore I can't exactly take up either side. If you had been trying to discuss this material and he hadn't listened, I might have reacted differently. I also might have approached this differently if you have given him a proper warning after the third revert. But at any rate: if you want the article changed, go to the talk page and discuss. You're not going to get anywhere by reverting. If you discuss, you may find a consensus emerges from other editors. Heimstern Läufer 05:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:your more recent comment: Did you think about leaving the warning before making your third revert? Then he would have definitely gotten it before his fourth. Not that I'm encouraging you to make third reverts, anyway, as that's really too many. Heimstern Läufer 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Williams discussion

I have reverted to version prior to dispute to facilitate discussion. Do you agree to this? Ebtunc2006 05:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and use of other's talk pages

Hi Duke53, I hope you are doing well - been a long time since we last interacted.

As a courtesy, please don't edit any comments (aside from your own spelling and grammar errors) on my talk page - let alone other's comments. I have restored the edits of alanyst that you deleted on my talk page. I've also placed a note showing the entired thread of your interaction with him on my talk page - I feel that the historical context of all dialogue on my talk page is important to readers of my talk page. Especially being an admin, the history of comments is quite important to me.

Most editors do not appreciate content edits on their talk pages. Feel free to control/censor/etc. your own page, but not others, doing so is against Wikipedia policies. Observing your history, you'll likely delete this comment, but thought I'd let you know. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility on User talk:Essjay

You are being incivil, whether you think so or not. These edits are inappropriate, and I encourage you to calm down. A good majority of established users have similar opinions as you, but they represent themselves in a civil manner. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and consider this a friendly warning. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider me not giving a shit about your opinion. I stated facts ... deal with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider this a final civility warning. Your tone on Essjay's talk page was inappropriate, your response here doubly so. If you cannot bring yourself to state your 'facts' in a civil manner, then this is not an appropriate place for you to comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Given that you decided to take another gratuitous kick at Essjay ([19]) while I was in the process of issuing the final warning above, you've obviously missed entirely the point of Bbatsell's friendly reminder and have no intention of comporting yourself in a civil manner. Consider my final warning withdrawn; I have blocked you for 24 hours and will issue escalating blocks if you continue to be incivil. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reblocked

Per my warning above, I have blocked you for 48 hours for using your userpage as a soapbox for a personal attack. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duke sucks,

Duke sucks.

Thanks, User: ElinorD, but I think I will leave it up to see if anybody gets blocked.

Here's where that IP address resolves to (according to arin.net):

• IP: 24.178.78.17
• Country: United States
• City: Athens, Georgia

• Country Code: US
• Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
• Private IP? No
• Known Proxy? No

This was probably a completed assignment from the University of Georgia's acclaimed School of Journalism. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page

In case you didn't notice, the "Temrec" image on your userpage is broken. I'm guessing that's why somebody cleared that line out; it's not doing anything. Certainly there's nothing there that could have offended them, considering the image doesn't exist. So although it's not always good form to do maintenance on other people's user pages, some people think it is, so your calling it vandalism might be a little disingenuous. You might want to clear it out yourself now that you know it's busted. Or you might not. --Masamage 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The image was only recently deleted if it is not working. When I reverted the change, the image was very much still available. auburnpilot talk 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that; wrong image. auburnpilot talk 07:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] finished

I understand your complaint re MMM - please do not beat a dead horse. I can see from your talk page you remain unnecessarily confrontational. 03:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC) <---- written by trodel

I am only asking for a level playing field, something that is getting harder to attain around here ... hmm. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Intimidation, part II

“.…As far as removing content, it depends on what is removed, not who removed it. Anyone can edit your userpage, but it is generally off-limits. Libel, personal attacks, racist remarks, etc. can be removed at any time by any user and is acceptable under Wikipedia:User page (a guideline). Blanking content for fun is not acceptable. auburnpilot talk 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)”

"Oh, I see ... another rule with 'exceptions'. Glad you 'cleared' that up. Don't bother doing any 'cleanup' for me. Duke53 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"So glad to see you've learned absolutely nothing from your two recent blocks for incivility. There are very few things in life that are explicitly black or white. If you don't like exceptions, you best climb into bed and never leave. auburnpilot talk 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)”

Just so you know, she/he/it (s/h/it for short) pulled the same routine with me, and even got me banned once by his gauleiter, User:Physicq210, for not immediately submitting to his (AP’s) authority. Welcome to the fraternity of the about-to-be-banned. (The practice of rules applying only to certain people, and not at all to others, however, is typical of all Party members.)

BTW, since there is an entire wikicadre presently devoted to surveilling my every move, don’t be surprised to see the AP or a proxy show up here presently, perhaps even again “cleaning” your user talk page.

70.23.199.239 07:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sing it out, brother ... ever notice that when they are wikistalking someone it is described as watchlisting but never vice versa?

I am betting that the essjay scandal is hitting close to home for some of our more 'distinguished' editors. TCATASSOMB Regards !16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] legitmate editorial decisions

I came here to let you know that making legitmate editorial decisions is not vandalism. But it looks like you have a history of using warnings to intimidate new users because they are from an IP address. 24.252.101.35 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Point out to me where you made "legitmate editorial decisions" and where I warned you because of it. Was it where you deleted an image with no comment? Or was it where you removed one image but left another; coincidentally, the one you removed was the one of the Temple garment (again)? Wikipedia does not allow censorship; read the talk page and discover who formatted the page in that manner. Nice try. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 13:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)