User talk:Protector of Wiki

Welcome

Hello, Protector of Wiki! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks, Salvio! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi there; please be careful to follow wikipedia policy in nominating articles for {{speedy}} deletion. The article Jim couper, which you nominated, contains a clear assertion of notability. Whether it is, in fact, notable is beside the point, the assertion alone is sufficient to prevent this deletion. Whether the article qualifies for deletion under WP:PROD or WP:AfD I make no comment on. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Jim Couper) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, sir, for not completing the process!! I also apologize for leaving you "as the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI who can finish redlinked nominations"! :( Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

concerning the secondbalkanwar

The central section of the article is mostly false material that was obtained from Greek and Serbian nationalist sites. This is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.36.159 (talk • contribs)

Removal of PROD templates

I see that you restored a PROD template that the creator of Risoterapia creativa removed. Please do not do so in the future. PRODs templates can be removed by anyone, as is explained at Wikipedia:Prod#Objecting. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Relisting Édmée Schneerson

As reviewing administrator, I thought the nature of the AfD discussion had so far degenerated that, invoking IAR, I thought it advisable to close, blank, and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Édmée Schneerson (2nd nomination). I'm sorry that you'll have to give the argument over again, but see my note at the AfD 2. And please avoid mentioned other matters than the article in question. I find it helps to avoid the word "you". You mention above that you do not like to receive warnings about NPA. I do not like to give them, either, but please keep the rule in mind. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that and have already commented at the relisted discussion. It's not NPA warnings that I dislike but civility warnings. Thanks for letting me know. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A note, but not a threat

Having had Djsasso's talk watchlisted, I noted that conversation. It's in your best interests to stay away from Griff. In response to this, I admit I don't always agree with his blocks, but they have never been abusive in the least.

Can you not see that following him to two talk pages and leaving comments referencing the block on simple is provocation? If he hadn't already drawn the conclusion that you were stalking his edits, it is more than understandable that he would do so.

As you have stated you are someone who values honesty, here is a page you might find refreshingly accurate: observations of Wikipedia behaviour. As always my words are simply well-meaning advice, heed them as you will; you know how to reach me should you wish to. Cheers. sonia♫ 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sonia, for the advice. If I need anything, I will definitely contact you, as you appear to be part of the more competent of Simple users. However, I seek to respond to some points you made above.

• It's in your best interests to stay away from Griff Why? Am I to fear him because he abusively blocked me numerous times at Simple?
• Griffinofwales' blocks "have never been abusive in the least"? His blocking of me seriously breached WP:INVOLVED. He voted to delete my article, and blocked me to cripple my ability to respond to erroneous arguments and misrepresentations at the RfD. What's more, he accused me of making personal attacks, something I never did.
• referencing the block on simple I referenced it only because he was making egregious assumptions of bad faith, suggesting that I was stalking him.
• What's wrong with "following him to two talk pages"? When he makes incompetent, unconstructive, unhelpful, and biased comments, it must certainly be communicated. He is also known to stand by passively while others do the work, commanding "Please fix it". Why can't he fix it? Oh, right, because he's incompetent.
• A final point about mods: they avidly enforce the civility policy, but neglect to follow it themselves. This injustice is ridiculous, so my comments are wholly warranted. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Great job, both of you! Sonia, you deliberately came here to provoke me, to elicit a response that would remotely be blockable. You did this to give Either way an excuse to abusively instigate a block to shut me down. Either way, after you had not edited for a week (before which you were sporadically active), it's blatant that you logged on with an agenda. After the block, you made a minor reversion and left — a classic textbook case of block-and-run. Let me remind you that you nominated my article for deletion, and you have a conflict of interest whenever you come in contact with me. Therefore, next time you have a whim to block me, ask an UNINVOLVED mod to block, but I highly doubt that they will comply, for they would not block abusively so. I commend both of you for your well played-out conspiracy. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonia, please do respond to both the above posts by me. I look forward to your replies. Thanks, Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr: this. sonia♫.

"It's in your best interests to stay away from Griff" not because you fear him. Just because there is no reason on this much larger wiki that you should cross paths with him repeatedly, "following him". I've never crossed paths with him here at all, nor with Either way. Wherever it is possible to keep the peace, to put bygones behind you, that is what we should be striving for. You've basically said that you went out of your way to interact with him, and criticise him for some perceived incompetence. Was your interaction with him constructive? No. If he breaks something, there's plenty of other people to call him up on it, from whom the advice will be more readily accepted. Silence shows the greatest strength of character in some circumstances, this being one of them. "...blocked me to cripple my ability..." No, he did not. He blocked you so that the rest of us could evaluate the article fairly, in a less unpleasant environment. As I've told you off-wiki, using words like "bullshit" simply makes it more likely for us to be biased against you simply because of your use of highly negative emotive language. An XfD, as I've said, is not an offence against your personal sanity and you had taken it that way. You were blocked because you had ceased being a net positive, which no amount of (un)involvement on an admin's part can alter. "you deliberately came here to provoke me, to elicit a response...an excuse to abusively instigate a block to shut me down." I can see how it may seem that way, but I definitely didn't. You can of course hold whateve opinion you wish, but I have never corresponded with Either way, Djsasso, Griff or any of the other simplewiki administrators about your activity here. Funny that you should accuse Griff of being the one with conspiracy theories, actually, when the only thing he did was comment on your "following him around" which you have now confirmed. There is no conspiracy. As for "conflict of interest" or "involved", on a small project like simple it's often necessary for an admin who is "involved" by your definition to make an action. The fact that other admins do not reverse the action, the relative silence (or in your case, clear declines of unblock requests) means that if we would not have made it ourselves, we at least condone it. As to this particular block, by all means file an unblock request if you feel it is unjustified. Or if this is all an egregious offence against your dignity and rights, then wait until the block expires and file a report at AN/I. There are productive, proper channels for one to express one's displeasure with any people or procedures. You will generally be heard at these places, and acknowledged- although as per anywhere else emotive wording will not help your case. Do you want to know the real reason why you were blocked? The underlying reason behind this block and the previous one? The reason why the admins all seem to be either "civility warriors" who make the actions, or stand around with their arms folded? I'll tell you why. Look at the posts on this page. Look at them all. Ditto your simplewiki page. People have tried to reason with you, explain things to you, to be as nice as is humanly possible while trying to get you to see the point. And you've constantly missed it. Either way has an agenda, definitely. All the administrators, bar maybe a small minority, share that agenda. Me, DGG, even Fetchcomms. So do a good number of the other editors. It's to, as your username succinctly states, protect the wiki and its community as best we can. Because we are different people, different actions and judgement calls will be made in the process but all are well-intentioned. All our cards are on the table. Trust me, if there was a conspiracy, it would be smooth enough that you wouldn't have reason to suspect one. That's it. We are all editing independently in good faith. Even the new and admittedly clueless users whom you have come across at the help desk usually have good intentions. And you are painting everyone with the same, highly inaccurate, brush laden with invective that we are all partaking in some subterfuge or otherwise do not deserve to be editing. When numerous different users and administrators have noted that attitude as unproductive and thought to warn you across more than one project, I suggest you accept the advice and try to assume good faith. It is this aggressive attitude toward no one in particular that has been a stumbling block in your interactions with others. Please reconsider your approach- it's not undignified or weak to stay away from conflict, even if that means conceding at times. sonia♫ 11:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied point-by-point below.

1. Was your interaction with him constructive? No. Griffinofwales needs to get off his high horse and understand that if one is incompetent, he needs to get his act together. I was also annoyed by his "Please fix it" comment. Someone else even agreed that it was "not constructive at all".
2. An XfD, as I've said, is not an offence against your personal sanity and you had taken it that way I never did take it that way. My problem with it was that most were distorting, misrepresenting, and misapplying policy. I needed to call them out for it. As I have said before, it's a great coincidence that the mod who nominated my article for deletion blocked me indefinitely shortly after closure.
3. I can see how it may seem that way, but I definitely didn't Yeah, sure. I will forevermore remember your aiding and abetting the abusive mods.
4. <placeholder>
5. Thank you for being passive-aggressive. It sure works to your advantage when you condemn incivility.
6. And you've constantly missed it. I fail to see any place where I have missed something. It's more like you, Djsasso (who had an incoherent, flawed close at the RfD), Griffinofwales, Either way, Clementina, and Kansan.
7. Trust me, if there was a conspiracy, it would be smooth enough that you wouldn't have reason to suspect one. That's comforting. I guess I will need to watch my back around you people.

• The reason why the admins all seem to be either "civility warriors" who make the actions, or stand around with their arms folded? This comment implies that I dislike mods that are civility warriors who block and those mods who stand by after the block. I do indeed dislike the latter, but I dislike even more the mods that stand by while another mod acts uncivil. Then these mods block for incivility.
• I'm disappointed in you, Sonia. I thought you were my friend. I thought you gave me advice in good faith. I thought you were different that the others, but you turned out to be just the same as them. In my eyes, you are worse since you colluded with other abusive mods. I'm sorry that you are choosing to engage in dishonest activities.
• If you feel that incivility is unhelpful and blockable, do me a favour and warn the following mods: Beeblebrox, Nev1, and Iridescent. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk

When you are answering on the help desk, you shouldn't use just no as an answer. In most cases, you should give a reason to why you said no. Also, do a little research before giving a one word answer. In this case, WP:FFU had just what the user was looking for.  A p3rson ‽ 23:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but we must exercise caution when granting such user rights. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Either way for 72 hours

Because of this and your overall attitude/tone here, I have blocked you for 72 hours. You cannot attack others and be uncivil towards them. I do not care how you feel about admins being "hypocritical" or anything like that. That in no way gives you the right to attack others and give an abrasive tone towards others. Please take a less aggressive and more collaborative tone, or you may be headed down a similar path here with the "Big Boys" as you did at the "Little Boys place" as you term it. either way (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did I attack anyone? By the way, you have breached WP:INVOLVED, so you need to remedy this forthwith.
If you believe that no one can be uncivil, you need to discuss that with the following mods: Beeblebrox, Nev1, and Iridescent. You are hereby banned from my talk page. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot ban someone from your talk page. If they xe respects your desire that xe not post on this page, so be it. If xe chooses to post here again, then so be it also.

Just because you have seen some admins make uncivil comments does not mean that you should make uncivil comments, either. While your definition of uncivil or attack differs from that of others, and although I do not personally feel that the cited comment was overly uncivil, I must agree with Either way that your general tone has continuously been confrontational and a bit on the hostile side, including this comment. Accusing others does not advance your position, but I'm quite sure you knew that already. It is occasionally necessary to just ignore these things rather than countering with strong words and furthering an argument.

I hope I am uninvolved enough to make this comment for you (I'm not active on simplewiki), although I did support Wifione's RfA, while you opposed. —fetch·comms 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If Either way chooses to disregard my request, I will simply delete his post. Just because you have seen some admins make uncivil comments does not mean that you should make uncivil comments, either. I don't dispute that. My problem with this is that mods who are civility warriors stand by while their brethren make uncivil comments. As stated above, this injustice is ridiculous, atrocious, and despicable. Why aren't mods subject to the same rules that govern the "commoners"? I've already called people out for the inequality at Simple. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that Either way is involved, and thus this block is invalid? Fetchcomms, please overturn this abusive block. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because an editor has edited on a wiki that you have also edited on does not make them involved. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly missing the point. Either way blocked me indefinitely on Simple. Of course his agenda is to shut me down after banishing me from Simple. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether he is involved or not in this case, but I think a block by anyone was justified because your attitude has still been very aggressive and hostile for a while. If an admin is a hypocrite by your standards, then you can bring up the issue at AN or ANI next time. Making provocative comments in response to other such comments does not help. I will not overturn this block, but you must stop making accusations and just ignore the user after the block expires. —fetch·comms 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Then can you do me a favour and warn the following mods: Beeblebrox, Nev1, and Iridescent since you seem to worship civility? Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm. You state that this block is abusive, but as far as I figure, every single editor and admin who've chimed in on the subject concur that you have been routinely uncivil and are routinely launching personal attacks. The only one who has expressed an opinion to the contrary is yourself. It is not that anyone is missing your point; you have made it often enough. What no one is doing is agreeing with your point.  RGTraynor  03:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many that would declare this block to be abusive, including some editors I mentioned here. Protector of Wiki (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And if anyone other than yourself had - of which I've so far seen no evidence - then my statement would of course need revision. Until such time, I am considerably less sanguine in my ability to read the minds of other editors so as to know what they would or would not declare abusive than you.  RGTraynor  14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Djsasso's profile

“ Well, as an uninvolved editor peeking in on the situation, you certainly do have a huge history of incivility. Unfortunately for you, it is no part of policy, as you imply, that you are relieved from having to follow the standard rules of civility as long as you can allege that others have committed violations. As far as what is inappropriate about your comments, you make a few right here. Calling another editor incompetent is an inappropriate personal attack. Characterizing warnings made by an admin in his official capacity as bullying and hounding are inappropriate personal attacks. Characterizing an editor asking an admin to intervene as "whining" is an inappropriate personal attack. Calling an editor a hypocrite is an inappropriate personal attack. Five personal attacks in eleven sentences is an impressive total for someone who implies that he is innocent of wrongdoing. I will, however, respect your wishes, and not proffer a civility warning to you. No warning, however phrased or issued by any authority, would dissuade you from your conviction of the rightness of your ways, nor avert the indefinite block that will come of those ways. Perhaps, in your remaining time on Wikipedia, you could focus more on improving articles - you have fewer than 50 edits in mainspace that aren't reversions - than in disputes with other editors, and leave some manner of positive legacy behind when that block comes.  RGTraynor  02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ”

Please do not misrepresent my comments. The "five personal attacks" you cite are not personal attacks at all. 1) "incompetent" is a reflection of somebody's actions. 2/3) Characterizing warnings made by an admin in his official capacity as bullying and hounding are inappropriate personal attacks You say it yourself — I am commenting about the warnings, not the mod. Also, it's unfortunate that you feel mods have a higher status than "commoners". 4) "Whining" is a comment on someone's actions. 5) "Hypocrite" is a manifestation of someone's actions. I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:NPA before making further sanctimonious comments. Protector of Wiki (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

<redacted baiting from Either way, who seeks to extend my block to indefinite>

From the standpoint of 27,000+ edits and six years on Wikipedia, I'm comfortable with my command of its rules and regulations. Should I seek clarifications, no doubt you'd agree that doing so from someone with three weeks and 85 mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia (and from a month's time and 80 mainspace edits on Simple) would be recommended by few. Beyond that, I've no need to debate you on the situation. As I said elsewhere, your complete conviction that anything you say to others is right and justified is apparent, and no warning or discussion will change that. There will be another temporary block, which you will likewise claim is the result of animus, persecution or gross misinterpretation of the rules ... and another, and another. It is not a matter of whether an indefinite block will follow, but when. Any effort on my part to change that would be futile, and therefore any such debate would be fatuous.  RGTraynor  14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit count of an editor is no indication of experience, as evidenced by the incompetent mods trolling me. What you have told me about personal attacks shows that you clearly need to read up on the appropriate policy page because you don't know what you are talking about. If you have nothing but sanctimonious nonsense, please do not post here again. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

A note

I hope this was a technical error. Please do not repeat such edits. Materialscientist (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My browser crashed when I was editing that page. I guess it replaced the entire page with the section I was editing. Protector of Wiki (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Why trent callis is a noob

Hello Protector of Wiki, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Why trent callis is a noob, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 00:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember that page quite clearly. At first, I wanted to tag it as an attack page, but as I read further into it, it seemed to be a page of random musings. Either way, clearly that page did not meet criteria inclusion, so the deletion rationale could have been nonsense or attack page. Protector of Wiki (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ALL CAPS

Please refrain from typing in ALL CAPS in the future, even in edit summaries. Edit summaries such as the following: here, here, and here can be seen as biting newcomers, shouting, and it does not make for a good editing environment. (X! · talk)  · @144  ·  02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how it's not conducive to a pleasant environment. It is provision for emphasis of my points. Protector of Wiki (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldface is a great emphasis without raising your voice. Which looks better to the eye doesn't really matter; it's just a convention that all caps means shouting. Of course, italics also works for minor emphasis so you don't wear out the bold. :-) —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well...if it isn't the bloke who reported me to AIV...
I prefer to use caps for emphasis, regardless of the connotations. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Which I withdrew by the way after I looked at more of your recent contributions and realized that you probably wouldn't bite my head off if I left you a warning, despite all the civility issues shown on this page. And using all caps does contribute to that perception, no matter what you would like it to be interpreted as. It's a universal Internet convention that all caps is shouting. Others aren't going to research your history either before deciding if it's safe to leave you a message. The more that your messages appear to be uncivil, the less constructive interaction you will have. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you seem to not be using all caps in messages anymore. However, I see that 100% of your edit comments are all caps. Is there a particular reason for this? —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, wherever I use CAPS, I want to emphasize my words. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever not want to emphasise your words? It seems like all of your edit summaries are indiscriminately shouted, and I can't say that it really helps you prove your point. It just makes you look hot-tempered, or at the very least obnoxiously loud. You quite clearly want to help out around here, but a lot of your actions seem to strain what is considered civil, and it seems like some editors/admins would argue that you are breaking the rules with some of your actions. Calling someone's arguments "bullshit" may or may not be a personal attack, but is it clearly a violation of the civility policy. At the very least, try not to repeat the mistakes that lead to your blockage on the Simple wiki. You seem to be doing significantly better with that, and I encourage you to continue making valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. I will try to tone down my comments where possible. Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What merits?

You wrote:

Michael Hardy and Extcetc need to STOP BABBLING about the merits of the author and the validity of the theorem.

I know nothing about the author or his merits and never said anything about them. I'm almost at the point of suspecting that you read my comments about Wildberger and his merits and are mistaking Wildberger for the author. Please try not to be so confused. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Wildberger. You specifically did not babble about his merits, but Extcetc did: Wildberger's peer-reviewed publication record makes him an authority. However, you did babble about the validity of the theorem. Protector of Wiki (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be still confused. I did say something about Wildberger's merits. I did not say anything about the author's merits.

Wildberger is not the author. They're two different people. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If you're that confused, you should sober up before engaging in discussion of the matter. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be confused? You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse.
I did say something about Wildberger's merits So? Does that change the fact that no reliable sources are given? I did not say anything about the author's merits. I never said you did, and I know Wildberger isn't the author. Please stop patronising me. You clearly have nothing better to do than waste your time blathering about the reliability of a YouTube video. I have no time for such foolishness. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki, your comments about Hadley's theorem and the arguments for deleting it are spot on. The sad thing is that your tone has overshadowed that fact, deflected legitimate criticism against Michael Hardy for attacking you ("If you're that confused, you should sober up before engaging in discussion of the matter"), and now risks getting you blocked. Consider how totally different things would look right now if you had said "should stop going on" instead of "need to STOP BABBLING" and never posted sentences 2 and 3 in the comment above. The article would still be on its way out the door, you would be seen as not reacting to being bitten, and you would have a case against Michael Hardy if you wanted to pursue it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

At least someone here is somewhat rationale. You would make a good mentor. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK then, time for round two. Editors here come from all over the world and many very different cultures. Phrases that aren't considered an attack in your circle of friends may not be understood at all by someone half a world away, in which case they will fall back on picking out individual words from the phrase in ways you may have never intended. This includes reviewing admins and not just those that a comment is originally directed against! Instead of bemoaning this situation, it's best to just state clearly what you mean up front in a non-attacking manner. Making this translation will save you more grief than any possible advantage in taking shortcuts. Michael Hardy has clearly been out of line in his defense of the article and his comments to you. I'm not asking you to ignore this; you should be highlighting these points in such a way that no one can have the slightest doubt is not a personal attack. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What I said is in no way a personal attack, no matter from what culture's stance you are looking. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two editors below who disagree with you. Are you confident enough that they are wrong that you're willing to ask for more opinions? And if so, are you willing to accept the result if it goes against you? —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They have not explained how my comments were on the bloke's character instead of his actions. Clearly, I commented on his actions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, round 3 is to stop responding to the block threat and to strikeout the portions of your comment to Michael Hardy that you would like to revise after reading round 2, if any. Save your breath for a real block, should it ever come. And even then, unless it's an indefinite block, consider not responding and instead just wait it out. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should I strike my comments even when they are still true? Are you encouraging dishonesty? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There are things I believe to be true that I choose to not to mention for various reasons. A prime question to consider is: Will it do any good? Choosing to strike it doesn't mean you no longer believe it, just that you wish it had not been said. Since you have the good fortune of having made the comment on your own talk page, you also have the option to just delete it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not regret saying it. I don't hide the truth. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the welcome! Don't worry, no soy un vándalo. :D HeyJohnWhatsYourNameAgain (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Misguided NPA warning

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Let us be very, very clear. This is NOT acceptable on enwiki. Commit another personal attack, and you will be blocked. Your style of communication with other editors, both established, new, and IP needs to change radically for you to have a long future on this project. Read, absorb, and deeply understand WP:BITE and why biting is worse for the future of this project than the worst of vandalism. I've read almost every single edit you've made on this project during the course of reviewing your requests for flags, and I'm deeply troubled by what I found. Courcelles 03:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks. Please refactor your misrepresentations and distortions of the facts. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't recognize "You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse." as highly problematic, I'm not sure we'd be able to agree on anything. This kind of behaviour is why you are indefed over on Simple, and it won't long be tolerated here. Your communication style almost seems to be designed to raise the tension in the room, instead of lowering it; which never helps a situation. Courcelles 04:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't recognize "You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse." as not a personal attack, I'm not sure you are qualified to be a mod. [1] Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I, if I were an admin, would be equally unqualified. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest, unlike many of the mods here. I respect you for that. :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're not aware, you can delete anything you want to from this page, including this whole section. Deleting a message is considered acknowledgment that it has been read. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Copied from my userpage
Hi Protector of Wiki, Do you know why sometimes there isn't an "edit" button available to a section of an article? Does that mean that section will be there permanently? Thanks. AiyaAiya2010 (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:HD#Edit. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

If you don't want to have a userpage, you may find it useful to redirect it to your talk page to prevent others from accidentally creating it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you like the red link, I can set it to create=autoconfirmed, which by and large would accomplish the same thing. Courcelles 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"create=autoconfirmed" sounds good. Thanks, Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

THANKS!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, I set it, and forgot to note it here. Sorry. Courcelles 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I noticed that. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A Battle Ground Mentality

Since you asked. From the above "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts...." which is exactly what you've done because of your problems on simple. Please, clearly you do want to help and have been doing some good stuff but you need to drop the attitude. Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All that I've done regarding the users on Simple is edit constructively some of the same articles they edit. What's wrong with that? My attitude is fostered by the presence of those who misapply and misrepresent WP:NPA and other policies in AfDs. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm right with you on the misaplication of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. People need to get thicker skins. Nevertheless you are bringing your grudges over to en.wikipedia from simple. If you come here expecting to be treated poorly and your attiude is one of using all caps, asking for rights to get "half mod" status etc. etc. then - well you will get treated poorly. Pedro :  Chat  08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect to be treated poorly at all. When I came here, I expected that people would have "thicker skins" than The Little Boys, but apparently that's not true. Regarding the grudge accusation, I do nothing but state the facts whenever I interact with Simple users. If I see something that needs to be called out, I will do so without hesitation. I don't entertain the practice of hiding my opinions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)