User talk:Mnyakko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 License tagging for Image:KNSI radio.gif 2 Detractors are many...which demonstrates effectiveness 3 Re. Request 4 Race to the Right information deserves its own page 5 Being an admin is no big deal 6 Interview with Art Robinson, Prof of Chemestry of the Oregon Petition 7 Please stop signing posts with an external link 8 WP:USER 9 Fix [3] 10 St. Cloud 11 Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid" 12 Their actions are indefensible so... 13 3RR report 14 Some will rejoice for a few days...

[edit] License tagging for Image:KNSI radio.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:KNSI radio.gif. 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. 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detractors are many...which demonstrates effectiveness

When the defense of one's violations is an unrelated focus on those who mention the violation, then you know the violations are indefensible.

This will become a running list of the information found about them:

• 24.131.160.16 was done through an IP mask...the actual IP address is 68.87.174.65 through Comcast in Maple Grove.
• 66.173.127.11 this one belongs to SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY BULLETIN, 7584 80 ST S, COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016 (NetRange: 66.173.127.8 - 66.173.127.15), RTechPhone: +1-651-730-4007.

[edit] Re. Request

Do you mean you want the revisions after 08:27, October 17, 2006 to be deleted? --Alex (Talk) 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Tony 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Remember to use UTC time, as I got a little confused where to delete up to :) Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for you quick response. --Tony 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race to the Right information deserves its own page

Perhaps by mistake, you have created a page for Race to the Right on your User page. Please move this information to a page of its own, so that it can be properly categorized under. As it is, it is difficult to find or link to. Thanks for your contribution. Mapcat 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did previously have a page for it already. It was deleted (not notable). Just before it was deleted I moved the text to my user page. -- Tony 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being an admin is no big deal

Hi Tony! You and Zeeboid keep mentioning admins in the global warming debate, e.g. here:[1] [2]. I hope you are aware of the fact that being an admin is no big deal, and that admins have no special rights or priviledges in a content dispute. In particular, thy are bound by rules like WP:3RR, and they are not allowed to use the admin tools e.g. to block an opposing user.--Stephan Schulz 09:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot, you know everything and we know nothing about Wikipedia. Forgive me for my error, my liege. Now what I do know about the administrators on Wikipedia (that obviously is 100% wrong because it contradicts you) is that your buddy has a history of using his extra admin powers in the middle of disputes about his own edits. Anywhere else in the world and that would be considered a conflict of interest. But of course, not by you and the rest of your circle of wagons. There are so many things that should be an issue, and yet anytime someone tries to call attention to it since he was voted (by almost most of the people helping to circumvent the 3RR rules) they have been the one punished. I have seen it with other admins as well. A few get abusive with their power but unless it is really really bad or really really really really obvious (as the last few months of abuse seem to be) admins have some circle of protection. It is worse than the police Blue Code.

But, since you said "no big deal" and point to a link then of course, there is not any disagreement and everyone else is wrong. Nevermind that what you are pointing me to is the admin's typical response to downplay their position.

Follow rules, sure, but when an Admin gets other people to do their bidding then they have not broken the rule directly. They get help circumventing the rules when inconvenient to their purposes. And that is what has been happening to a growing degree with Connelley and his Crowd.

What is it that is no big deal? An obvious latitude in 'bending' decorum, extra 'benefit of the doubt' when their abuse is called to task...no big deal and difficult to overcome. Even with the dozens of pages of examples and documentation I know it will not be enough to get any relief from the abusive nature that is being carried out.

Why mention admins? They have the power to block/unblock people...and the manner it is carried out in pages that Connelley happens to be participating in is enough to push people away. I have only one more edit that I will make to that page unless all of you are eventually banned from the page (you, Connelley, Kim). But, protection requires a gargantuous amount of solid evidence to have a hope. I have a hope by quality and quantity of evidence. But only hope.

What eles is no big deal? The power to edit protected pages (downplay that if you want, but I run 3 wiki sites and know how much that actually means).

Of course, as you guys have pointed out, you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. We are not smart enough to read and understand things.

Why don't you talk down to me and insult the little intelligence I have some more. Better yet, why don't you defend yourself this Sunday on the show as I mention you guys by ID and your abuse. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. If you did not notice, I'm based in Germany and hence have no particular interest in US talk radio. I also prefer a neutral medium, like this, to one where one side can easily stack the deck. Moreover, I fail to see how such a complex topic can be adequately presented in a medium that lives of sound bites (and maybe a laugh track). --Stephan Schulz 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

'stacked deck'--shows actually how little you know about what you speak. You should listen sometime...but then you run the risk of being wrong for the first time ever. I'm incredibly fair...especially with guests, regardless of their viewpoint. So much so that the conservatives get honked off at me for 'pulling punches'.

I'm willing to listen. If you can send me a (link to) a version of today's show that I can use on a Mac without bending over backwards (mp3, AAC, ogg are all fine) I'll do so.--Stephan Schulz 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"neutral medium"--Wikipedia, especially on topics of the least bit controversy, is as stacked in one direction as talk radio is the other direction. Of course you could never understand how slighted Wikipedia's admins & users are since it is tilted in your favor, of course you are unable to understand when you benefit from it. Only a truly fair-minded person can see when they benefit from an advantage. Wikipedia is for non-socialists users what Rush Limbaugh is to the socialist callers. Deny it all you want, but there is too much evidence throughout Wikipedia to deny and still be an honest person. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What could be more neutral than this? You present your arguments and sources, and I present mine. The community implicitely decides how to present the overall result. Of course, your sources primarily include paid shills like OISM, while I have e.g. the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the IPCC on my side. If you lose the debate, that can mean that there is a huge conspiracy working against you. But it can also mean that you are plain wrong and a neutral observer sees this. In our situation, the second is a much more parsimonious explanation. And what does the ownership of the means of production have to do with the natural sciences?--Stephan Schulz 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Only a truly fair-minded person can see when they benefit from an advantage. Neutrality does not exist in Wikipedia on controversial topics. When Motherjones and exxonsecrets are considered non-biased enough to be counted as a source, yet worldnetdaily is too biased; AP is valid (doctored pics and all) but NewsMax is not. Like I said, Only a truly fair-minded person can see when they benefit from an advantage...obviously you are not in that subset. Go back to your safe-haven, and hang out with the people afraid to leave the socialist safe zone called Wikipedia. -- Tony of Race to the Right 22:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview with Art Robinson, Prof of Chemestry of the Oregon Petition

Sunday 1-3pm CST on Race to the right. click here to listen online and Click Here for the Race to the Right website

[edit] Please stop signing posts with an external link

Like you did here. It is strongly discouraged per Wikipedia:Signature#External_links and is usually viewed as linkspamming. Thanks. --Isotope23 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:USER

I am concerned that your user page is using wikipedia as a free webhost. Can I ask that you make your user page not an archive of your radio show, but rather a page describing your wikipedia related activities? For more information on what user pages are for, please see WP:USER. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You may ask and I will respond with what I was told. Previously the information you are referring to was on its own article. I was told at the time to put it on my User page instead and so I did. Now, if you are making the case to me that User pages are only for "wikipedia related activities" then I hope you are putting this same concern on many, many other user pages. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You were told to put it in a user subpage with the thought that it might eventually become an article. There appears to be no momentum forward regarding turning it into an article - in fact, the page has been protected for more than three months. Userpages are only for wikipedia related activities. I have recently made nearly the exactly same statement at User:VirtualEye. Are there other usepages being used as personal webspace that you know of? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It would show good faith to reduce the size of your user page, especially since all that information is one click away at your own wiki. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

True...except I am not able to edit it. It was the target of vandalism and is protected. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction...it WAS protected. It must have recently (within the past day or so) become unprotected. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just unprotected it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And Mnyakko has "majorly" reduced its size! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That reasonably deals with my concerns. Happy editing! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix [3]

Hi Tony. I do find your attempt at intimidation (which, btw, seriously violates Wikipedia policies and etiquette) rather laughable. However, if you persist in this, you should at least get your PHP fixed. The Warning: array_slice() [function.array-slice]: The first argument should be an array in /home/www/wiki.racetotheright.com/languages/Language.php on line 1105 splattered all over the page is rather distracting. Also, you might want to fix the header of "junk science". --Stephan Schulz 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Collecting factual information (and getting help collecting factual information) about what certain gaggles of people do and write is NOT intimidation. Well, I suppose if someone were to know that their edits and actions actually are problematic I can see why one would feel intimidated by the collection of evidence of those facts.

Well, it's not, as it's not working. It's attempted intimidation. Your point, however, falls flat. It's the old argument about privacy: "If you do nothing wrong, why do you want to hide anything?" By that reasoning, you should be fine with a gouvernment camera in each bedroom - after all, they are just "collecting factual information". What you are doing is in the best gulag snitch tradition. --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we shouldn't be able to see your edit history? P.S. Don't you think there's some law about Soviet human right abuses showing up as discussions grow longer? Seems hypocritical, nonetheless. ~ UBeR 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you fail to see the difference between my complete edit history and a biased selection of out-of-context quotes rearranged in a suggestive manner, I cannot help you. Or, to quote you: "you [...] are [...] hypocritical". --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the attempt so far to get help is failing. A few people e-mail info to me and I compile that as well. Though with the server issues I have encountered I have not been able to update this project. Your analogy is missing on a very major point...the "bedroom" is private and the edit histories are very public. If you believe the collection is biased, too bad. "Bias" is not intimidation. Have you or the rest of the people that I have been collecting edit histories for been filled with fear? If not then there is absolutely no intimidation. If yes then the next question is fear of what? A potential criminal may be filled with fear and thus opts to not commit a crime. Intimidation? Maybe. Wrong? No, because it is preventing something against the rules/laws.

"The bedroom is private"...so do you agree that just "collecting factual information" can be wrong? And, for the point of argument, granting your claim: Are you fine with surveillance cameras in all public places? What about building a complete gene database of all citizens? --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Collecting factual information is permissible depending upon various factors such as the scope of venue from which the data is pulled and the entity collecting the data. "Bedroom" is private and thus collection is not permissible. Cameras in public places by the government, not permissible. Private party putting cameras in public places generally permissible (with a few exceptions). Taking public data and collecting it...no issue with that. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My contention is all of your (3rd person plural) edits are blatantly POV. The data is difficult to present unless it is pulled out and collected. Some pages are edited over a hundred times within a couple of days. Some of the examples of hypocrisy double-standards exist over a spread of numerous articles. But when isolated the pattern is clear.

"Isolation" in your sense is just an alternative way of saying "taking things out of context", of course. --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If something is taken out of context then a re-direct is obviously required. However filtering out other non-relevant items is part of everyday life. The detective does not gather interviews from every single person a suspect talked to in the course of his life. He interviews the relevant pieces. A prosecutor does not submit every single piece of data relating to a case, he instead submits what is likely relevant. And to expect 100% of the edits to be collected is simply ridiculous. If you believe the context is severely warped you are welcome to add additional information to clarify context. Keep in mind that in my direct experience with the folks at the GW pages context and justification, even when requested, are rarely provided to begin with. So I expect you to continue the whining about collecting data rather than clarifying the circumstances. It is always easier to attempt discrediting the messenger rather than the message. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is nice that the POV pushers have settled down a bit. Judging from past history once their opponents are gone the changes back to their POV will be made. That is problematic (and the very thing I hope to interview Jimmy Wales about relating to the overall Wikipedia credibility) and THAT is what I hope to help put an end to.

Frankly, Wikipedia's credibility would be better off if pages with persistant edit wars were locked down and a special board had to approve edits. Just a thought. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And about the most unwiki thought you could have issued. Indeed, what you suggest is indeed censorship in the purest sense of the word. I suggest you check out gnupedia and what became of it. Suprisingly, while all this rucus goe on, UBeR (who did the larger part of the work) and I have managed to much improve the citations and references on global warming. --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right and upon reflection I realize the degree of harm that idea would lead to. However, the exact opposite situation is also harmful. So, while I present a problem and offer a thought for a solution I would like to point out you again go after the consequent but fail to help solve the antecedent of the equation. There is a blatant bias, a circle of protection for admins, a severe POV-push and it all exists in nearly every single controversial topic (so it is not unique to GW). That is a problem. It is a tripod of harmful contributing factors and consistently removing any one of those factors helps diminsh the impact of all of them. Something has to change, though. I have been hearing from colleagues for a few years that Wikipedia is to biased to count on. I had been defending Wikipedia all that time going so far as bringing Jimbo on to 'get it from the horse's mouth'. The more I dig into the controversial topics the more I realize my colleagues were right. How do you fix that? (That is not rhetorical, I am asking you how do you propose it gets fixed and still stays within the Wiki-thought?) Yes, I believe WMC is the focal point of the problems on all of the GW pages, but he is not atypical of admins in other topics. So, generally speaking there must be a change that can address abuse quickly, fairly (fair to users and admins), and with enforcability. You may think I'm simply trying to make a point with my edits, but I'm just trying to find a standard that holds to everyone. But think what you wish, people assume others intentions constantly and even when shown otherwise choose to remain blind. That is human nature. Trying to change your view of me or my intentions is a waste of time. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere effort to help with the programming issue. It is being looked into. A change in some server settings caused a cascade of issue including that problem which you mentioned and the discussion board to crash completely. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd send you my consulting rates, but I'm probably to expensive and certainly to busy ;-). --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could send your rates. Either the show or the station might pick it up. We have it narrowed down now to a problem with converting from php4 to php5 AND the MySQL db tables got gummed up. I have to figure out how to x-fer all of the data from the old tables to the new ones (61 tables for the phpbb site and 62 tables for the mediawiki site). -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed or fixed itself. If you need me in the future: My rates go from EUR 75/hour (if you are a Swedish company doing extremely interesting stuff with theorem provers and can convincingly claim that that is more than any of your CXOs make), EUR 150/hour if you want me do do something I enjoy (automated reasoning, AI, machine learning, open source UNIX/Linux programming, or nearly anything with functional programming languages), EUR 300/hour otherwise. Client pays reasonable expenses. If I have to learn something I consider generally useful, half billing for the time I took for doing so. I'm not remotely competent about Windows, and don't consider Windows skills "generally useful". --Stephan Schulz 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. The problems are only partially fixed. I had to revert back to MediaWiki 1.6 (from 1.9) and my phpbb crashed completely. I need someone who is familiar with php, mysql, mediawiki and c++. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Cloud

Are you in the St. Cloud area? I currently am in St. Cloud for a while. I was not aware the radio show is from this area. ~ UBeR 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The show is in the St Cloud area...on 1450 KNSI on Sundays from 1PM - 3PM. It is also available on the webstream live (go to either racetotheright.com or 1450knsi.com for the streaming link). -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid"

Go figure...someone provides a small case supporting some necessary actions for Connolley's actions and he deletes the text.

Go figure...Connolley gets called to the carpet for something anyone else would have been blocked for (and given WMC's history, had it been anyone else they would have been permanently banned long ago), and the wagons come out to protect him from legitimate comlaints.

Well, the text of it can be found here (unless it gets deleted again)

Also deleted were 2 responses which warrant addressing. First was Stephan Schulz comments [4]. In that edit Schulz claims I "operate[] [my] account very nearly as a single purpose account", seemingly comparing my contributions to Global Warming articles, Election articles and Politics to Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account. The statement is an attempt to denigrate me without actually making the charge. The reason for that? I cannot say, but it is worth noting that it comes after providing a solid presentation against someone who assists Schulz on edits. Also worth noting is the absolute absence of addressing the issue at hand...Connolley's edits prima facia and considering them in light of his history. Other responses that are less germane to the 3RR complaint and comments will be in more appropriate locations.

The other edit that was deleted was from Newyorkbrad [5]. He states, "The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent edit-warring. Its enforcement is not meant, as Tony is using it, to be an end in itself..." That may be the purpose, the effect continues to play out as simply a means to punish new editors and those who admins do not like, but not "an end" or even at all enforced if the questionable actions are those of an admin. And then he suggests "editors" spend time editing articles instead of "rebutting" a Protect-the-admin decision. However, there becomes less and less point in editing articles when the semblance of policy enforcement is used more to allow admins & friends carte blanche with abusive behavior while oppressively applying policies and punishments on any who disagree with the circle of power. Frankly, it is disgusing that the reaction to my rebuttal was (1) baselessly attack me instead of addressing the issues, (2) attempting to remove as much of the facts presented against the admin in questions as possible through "rv"--the very tactic the is the root of the complaint, and (3) attempting to dictate how I spend my time, which, in all honesty, is beyond the scope of his business unless I am actually violating a policy (well, violating a policy that is also enforced on admins).

A few things you may also be interested in: a notice to the administrators noticeboard discussing William Connolley's behavior on The Great Global Warming Swindle article. The film is a British documentary that argues the idea of anthropogenic global warming is a swindle. The notice arose after many POV and other policy-breaking edits were made by Connolley, despite attempts to discuss it on the talk page as well as his user talk page. I'm seriously considering in making request for comment on William's edit behavior. If you interested in helping, it would be quite useful to be able to use the edit diffs you have documented on your Web site to show similar behavior on other article. It is very clear William acted inappropriately on The Great Global Warming Swindle article, and it will only help to show William's disruptiveness if we can show he has a long and continuous history of this on other related articles.

Another thing is an attempt to label those who deny the theory of anthropogenic global warming as conspiracy theorists. The article is Global warming conspiracy theory. The article is up for deletion here. ~ UBeR 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Their actions are indefensible so...

If you know of whom I refer then the following information will be meaningful. If you do not know the people in reference then this section will have not relevancy to you.

Their actions have been under fire for a few years. Each time they are called to task several things happen. One is to engage in ad hominem attacks of no relevance to any of the issues at hand. Another is to make thinly veiled (and often fabricated) accussations of policy violations by those reporting actual issues. In each case their claims are both more accurately applicable to the people they 'defend' and are for the sole purpose of shifting focus away from their actual transgressions.

The most common attack-for-defense is the mis-application of WP:WL.

• Their selection of the WP:WL essay': "Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to formal legal proceedings, often using legal reasoning".
• In response to: any list of their transgressions which provide detail and/or is irrefutably problematic.
• What they overlook from the article of their choice: "the Three-Revert Rule is a measure of protection against edit warring. An editor who intentionally reverts the same article three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the spirit of the rule - and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring."

Another attack-for-defense is in the WP:SPA essay.

• Their selection of the WP:SPA essay': "which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles...it...represent[s] a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts...warrant...scrutiny.".
• In response to: A general attack made to any user with a concentration of edits in a broadly related range of topics.
• What they overlook from the article of their choice: They overlook the parts of the above sentence replaced with elipses. The whole sentence reads as follows (emphasis added to what they overlook), "which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny.

Note: for a few of Them over 90% of their edits (for admins this is after removing admin-duty related edits from the count) are within the same scope of topics. Hello, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.

[edit] 3RR report

I don't believe I've ever had so many questions for a report I didn't block anyone over! :) But always good to clarify if you're unsure. Basically, the first two edits were right in a row. All that was done could have been done in a single edit. The same is true of the next four. Some people prefer to do an edit all at once, some find that difficult to do correctly and prefer to do it in smaller chunks. Given that, if a revert consists of several edits done consecutively, with no other user's edits intervening, we count it as a single revert for purposes of 3RR. Hope that clarifies it, but if you have any more questions, please let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Makes sense. And before anything else I should add that I agree with your interpretation/application. What is confusing and frustrating is that there is cadre within the pages which that editor participates. The cadre seems to never be in violation of 3RR while those that disagree with the cadre are. The basic 3RR decisions come down to "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" or "common sense exception". The circumstances are usually exactly identical, yet the choice of applying "letter" vs "spirit" nearly always ends up being the one that results in blocking the non-cadre members and 'no action' for the members of the cadre. You seem to be one of the rare individuals to have an interpretive application that is applied consistently...hence you are a refreshing break from that norm.

That, however, is why there is so much interest around your decision on Kim's 3RR. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some will rejoice for a few days...

Some will rejoice for a few days because my internet usage will be severely limited for the next several days as I was unable to successfully abort an issue that I have to deal with every now and then. This seems to be a particularly nasty spell that has started and so I will just be able to do juggle a small number of the variouis projects on my plate until it is over. And for those who actually read links when they are supplied, I am not in the class of people for whom this statement is true: "some newer (solutions) have shown promise".

Have a good week, Good luck and Cheers. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)