User talk:Gnetwerker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may leave a message by pressing here

1 PDP-11s
2 Falklands/Malvinas
3 Temporarily blocked
4 Unblock request
5 Blocked indefinitely
6 Unblock
7 Followup from WP:AN/I
8 Right to vanish?

[edit] PDP-11s

Hey, I see you added a CN on the paragraphs I wrote about PDP-11 use. That's probably a good idea, but currently I don't think I can offer you any citation, - I do have first-hand knowledge of this.

There's a picture series of one of the installations (Material Sciences at University of Oslo) available at my webpage.

I seriously cannot think of anywhere the information on the nuclear plants might be written. It is widespread, however. (A good friend of mine maintains a few systems in Canada)

As a computer historian and curator, I also have fetched machines which were turned off for the first time in decades when we (Norwegian comp. hist. society) got there. Sometimes, my appartment is used as a buffer. :) [1]

I know that "take my word for it" isn't good enough, but it is verifiable... just not easily. What's your take on the situation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toresbe (talk • contribs).

I completely believe you. If I didn't I would have reverted the edit. Labelling something as "citation needed" doesn't mean (at least when I use it!) that it's wrong or shouldn't be there.

OK, I've noticed there's some disagreement on that - and clarifying that was the main purpose of my message. toresbe 00:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"It means only what it says -- we should try to find some citations. I think that for many articles, what amounts to "original research" is not only inevitable but useful, as long as we keep track of what is verifiable and what isn't. For what it's worth, I'm in the same boat. I put in some PDP-11 systems in the late 1970s that I know are still running, but I can't cite it. So my suggestion is just to leave it there and we'll try to find some sources. -- Gnetwerker 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your message - but that's all right, I have your talk page on my watchlist. :)

So you maintain PDP-11's, huh? Neat - which machines are these? (And what country?) I have a PDP-11/83 running here at home right now, running 2.11BSD - if you want to play around you-re welcome to an account. I'd install one of the RSX'es, but my success has been less than total in setting it up in an emulator. toresbe 00:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't maintain them anymore, but I went and visited one I installed early in my career, in a sawmill in Mt. Gambier, South Australia. It was there when I visited a few years ago, and I would have heard if it came out. -- Gnetwerker 00:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands/Malvinas

Honestly, thank you, but no apologies needed at all. I've been observing the article for a few months now, so I'm becoming familiar with the disputes. That's why I've tried to limit my contributions to minor, non-controversial edits, while avoiding the "sticky bits". I'll chat with Gibnews before proceeding any further with the "the" issue, so as to avoid creating a fuss. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporarily blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting yet again. Please don't do it any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What sockpuppet, and doing what???? Please explain why I have been blocked. If this has to do with SlimVirgin's accusations against Gomi & Anomicene, that was months ago (and also inaccurate). -- Gnetwerker 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tuttovenuto Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that the Gomi/Anomicene sockpuppets are being denied again, so for the benefit of any administrator reading this, the evidence is linked to from here. In brief, Gnetwerker made the classic error of forgetting which account he had logged in as, and signed using the wrong name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if those charges were accurate, what do they have to do with this alleged sock? Or is this a case of tag-team punitive blocking? Perhaps you could explain the imminent danger from which you two are protecting Wikipedia? -- Gnetwerker 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

Blocking admin has been notified. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gnetwerker. One of the problems with your sockpuppeting is that you consistently lie about it, including this time. Please stop sockpuppeting, and if you do it again, please admit it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no intention of "admitting" something that isn't true. You cannot possibly have any evidence of my use of another account, because I have not done so. I have been charitable in assuming a mistake, rather than malfeasance. -- Gnetwerker 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where you have not been charitable, though, is in your assumption that we're all idiots. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At any point do I get to be told what I am supposed to have done? -- Gnetwerker 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You sockpuppeted (see User:Tuttovenuto), then denied it (as usual), and assumed we are all fools (as usual). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not me. I have not edited using another account, and I would like you to produce proof of such. You claim "checkuser" in your sockpuppet tag, but I don't believe it -- I would like it done by an unbiased party. And what is this, the gulag? "Either admit the crime and be executed, or be executed for the crime." Get a grip. -- Gnetwerker 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "a mistake has been made -- I have not edited under any other accounts"

Decline reason: "That doesn't seem to be the case. --Slowking Man 22:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Additionally, upon examination of the alleged sock:

What is it about the only edit made by the alleged sock that is disruptive?
Why is denying something that has not been proven grounds for being blocked?
Why are is Jayjg suddenly involved in this? Was a complaint made by another editor? If so, who, and on what basis?
You claim Checkuser proof, but there is no history, recent or past, of a requested checkuser against my account, or of the alleged sockpuppets, or of the accounts involved. What is the nature of the checkuser "proof"?

I suggest to any independently-reviewing admin that this is an abusive and punitive block, does not serve Wikipedia, and is an example of administrative over-reaction in general. -- Gnetwerker 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just found e-mails from another of your accounts, BlindVenetian (talk • contribs), which used the e-mail address tuttovenuto@xxx.com. The account that check user appears to have confirmed is you is tuttovenuto (talk • contribs). Are you saying that's a cooincidence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You speak with such zealous certainty. Has it ever ocurred to you that you have made a mistake, and that you have, without any evidence or reason other than your own biases, associated me with these editors? Your argument is built on a tower of cards: someone, whom you believe to be me, sent you an email, in support of a sockpuppet that you separately believe to be me (both without evidence), and hence you assume it is me behind some masterful scheme? Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise. Please consider that you might be mistaken -- I have no history with Rachel Marsden, and you and I haven't tangled in months. Furthermore, if this was you behind this accusation, why did you not come forward initially, Slim? Is it because Jayjg is your meatpuppet? Why proceed directly to a block by way of an intermediate, without even raising the question? -- Gnetwerker 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Occam's razor and it goes like this: (1) User:BlindVenetian appeared to be Gnetwerker based on his edits; (2) He e-mailed me from tuttovenuto@xxx.com, denying he was a sockpuppet; (3) At around that time, User:Tuttuvenuto was created but not used; (4) Gnetwerker gets involved with Wikipedia Review; (5) Months later, User:Tuttuvenuto makes his first edit, a question about Daniel Brandt; (6) Check user links User:Tuttuvenuto to Gnetwerker.

Seems pretty solid to me.

I didn't "come forward initially" because I didn't even notice the Tuttuvenuto/Gnetwerker link. It was Jayjg who was suspicious and who did the check user. It was only when I saw you denying it that I checked through my e-mails, because you've made this kind of mistake before. All I can say is: don't give up the day job. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I will momentarily break my vow below to say this: False premeses yield false conclusions, and I will add to that the observation that petty tyrants seldom last long, especially when they use false premeses and libels to further their aims. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would see the fallacy in the logic above: your "(1)" is an unsourced opinion, nothing other, and unsupported by fact of any kind. It is false. I share no edited files in common with the user you mention, and the only connection are months-distance tussles with another user -- a user with whom I am now on good terms. Your logical fallacy extends further to the supposition "(4)" that I have any involvement with another website, wikipediareview.com. Your suppositions, innuendo, and fallacies are shockingly false, and your continued attempts to fill a sockpuppet drawer with putative doppelgangers, laughable. For anyone interested, this is the edit that kicked the SlimVirgin/Jayjg cabal into high gear. It would appear to be more a case of punishment (in this case of the innocent) for having your authority challenged, rather than "abusive sockpuppetry". Something makes me doubt that your punishment of me will silence your critics. One observation is that you spend far too much time on Wikipedia to maintain any civility whatsoever; perhaps you should get a day job. -- Gnetwerker 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice: I have appealed to any independent admin to have a checkuser done on the alleged sockpuppet. While I know full well that this does not "prove" innocence, neither will it demonstrate my guilt. What it will do is show that Jayjg's claims of "checkuser proof" are not what they seem to be. I have as yet had no response. -- Gnetwerker 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked indefinitely

You've been blocked indefinitely, and you know why. Please don't bother with the protestations of innocence, they ring hollow. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Blocked WHY? ... "I know why"? Unless that it is because a humble wikipedia peon accused a power-mad admin of falsifying checkuser results, then no, I do not. And you continue with your totalitarian pronouncements: "don't bother with protestations of innocence". Is that because you are so powerful that you control Wikipedia stem to stern? -- Gnetwerker 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Request reason: "indef. blocked for no reason, on no evidence"

Decline reason: "I had a talk with Jayjig, I think his/her judgment is sound. Happy holidays. -- HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

This harassment is beyond absurd. User:Jayjg makes wild accusations based on no evidence, in both this block and the last one. I haven't been on Wikipedia for days, so whatever he thinks I did, I did not do. - Gnetwerker 18:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason given is the latest attack page was the last straw, from your block log. Can you tell me the name of the page in question? If I know this I can read it even though it is deleted, and decide how to continue based on that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know of no "attack page" and wasn't involved in writing or editing one. (added, so it is clear that I'm not leaving anything out) I have a page User:Gnetwerker/SV that lists evidence of admin SlimVirgin's ongoing harassment of me. Slim keeps a page, which she deletes to hide an undeletes when needed, called User:SlimVirgin/GNT. I have never edited the latter page and cannot now see it. Please look through my contributions. Also, as I noted earlier, I volunteer for a checkuser. I realize it doesn't prove "innocence", but I would like a party not aligned with Jayjg to see the result and report. Thank you for your consideration of this. -- Gnetwerker 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will ask Jayjg what the page was and get back to you. Thanks for your patience. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Followup from WP:AN/I

A followup on this case occured in March 2007, details can be found in this version of the Administrator's noticeboard page. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right to vanish?

You have twice asked for your right to vanish, on the admin board. By that, do you mean you want your user and subpages deleted? Because there does not appear to be a lot there in the first place. >Radiant< 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your e-mail, I have made the relevant requests. >Radiant< 08:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've unprotected your talk page for now. Please confirm here that you want your account renamed. >Radiant< 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Thank you again for your help. - Gnetwerker 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is SlimVirgin's hidden attack page User:SlimVirgin/GNT (Logs) going to be oversighted out of existence as well? She has been editing it of late, adding in all the material you are kindly deleting for me, somewhat defeating the purpose. -- Gnetwerker 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)