User talk:Dlabtot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:46, 3 July 2008

You may leave messages for me here. If I reply, I will do so here. If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do it on that article's talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weren't expectin' that, were ya

cuz nobody expects the Span..... yeah, you know :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whole

Read the whole thread and click the links, and you'll get it. And, don't be provoked. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huh? not only do I have no clue what thread you are talking about, I don't really want to know. Have a nice day and happy editing. Dlabtot (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

"the IP was blocked as an open proxy." What does this mean and signify. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PROXY Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Regarding this, an example:

In the 9/11 article, I can find this sentence:

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories // Various conspiracy theorists have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks.[145]

I consider this one sentence not enough to be DUE proportionate representation of the minority viewpoint that there could be a coverup. Can you find more sentences which sympathetically and fairly describe the significant minority viewpoint?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Editor on NPOV/N

Could you explain if there is any truth to a comment made by Filll?[1] Could you provide a diff if there is any truth to this? Anthon01 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want comments about Filll's edits, you'll have to ask Filll to explain them.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to politely request that you no longer post on my talk page. I don't want explain or discuss this request; you can either respect it, or not. Dlabtot (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article help

I'm sorry I haven't responded - you have been asking appropriately, but I'm swamped. I may get more bandwidth, but I don't know how soon that will be. Hopefully another administrator on the list can help. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This particular incident has pretty much caused a loss of faith in WP for me. When such clearly egregious behavior on an article on probation elicits not even a yawn from the monitoring admins when reported on the probation page, it tells me that something is seriously wrong, something well beyond my ability to fix or even influence. Dlabtot (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette_alerts

You don't think anything needs fixing? Great! Then let me discuss my concerns with the others who are responding, please. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's not what I said. I'll continue to post where ever I see fit to do so. Cheers. Dlabtot (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm missing your perspective entirely. If you want to summarize here, I think it would help. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want an example?

Right at the moment on the talk page of homeopathy, disagreeing with the precepts of homeopathy and having critical material about homeopathy in the article is viewed as unCIVIL. Disagreeing with homeopathy supporters is viewed as a personal attack. Abiding by NPOV is viewed as UNCIVIL and a personal attack. NPOV is being redefined. FRINGE is being redefined. If you disagree, you are viewed as mounting a personal attack and being unCIVIL and there are calls for you to be blocked for disagreeing. So in other words, if you want to abide by NPOV, this is viewed as unCIVIL and there are calls for editors who want NPOV to be blocked. In other words kids, we have a problem. If you want to see this in action, go to [2], [3], [4]--Filll (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no interest in the subject of homeopathy; I tried to help on those articles, but my efforts failed. As far as I am concerned, you, and all of the editors obsessed with the topic, can battle to your heart's content. You can edit war, name call, bring complaints to various noticeboards, fight about NPOV, FRINGE, whatever - I don't care. Happy editing! Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to stay away for a bit too. Because of the phenomenon which I tried to describe to you before (and I thought you disagreed with, but maybe I was mistaken-if so I apologize); that CIVIL is viewed as more important than any other principle on WP. And in my opinion, enforcing CIVIL alone is not a useful way to run this project. So I give up. And wish them good luck.--Filll (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Dlabtot. Unfortunately, I haven't got any real examples that include pages I've worked on in the last year. This is for the simple reason that I got tired of the stress and effort involved to make changes that seemed to me to be; emphasising what any reasonable person familiar with the literature would recognised as the well established academic position on the topic. One might reasonably ask why I stand on the sidelines and make comments like I have, in this case - the answer is that I'm waiting for a shift in tone here so that I can avoid conflict in the future. I've been through RfCs, struggled against revert warriors who weren't censured, been swamped by a consensus of low quality edit(or)s, and it isn't something I wish to suffer if I can avoid it. I realise that change might not happen, but in the meantime I only edit non-contentious topics. If I see any topics where you might be of assistance, as a 'third' editor, I'll let you know. In the meantime, thanks very much for the offer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally hear you. I've only been editing here for about 6 months. I've been into open source as a programmer for a long time so maybe I was a little idealistic at first - I've become pretty cynical. However I still think the collaborative editing model might work but only with more aggressive administrative actions. So that's what I'm arguing for in these policy discussions. See you around. Dlabtot (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

Thanks for the message - incidentally, you can link directly to the SSP page here - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CrunchEl - even though its been archived. To be honest, even if it were on the list, I wouldn't have automatically blocked it as a sock, as I don't think there's enough to go on. The other socks were editing the article, not just talkspace, and this one just seems, erm, out of kilter with the actions of the rest of them. I'm assuming good faith, so will let this one be.

Incidentally, if the occasion ever merits it, then you can open up a new WP:SSP case, of course, for the same user - the instructions are on that page itself. _GB^T/C 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

Sorry - I must have goofed an edit conflict and deleted your comment. It was not my intention. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GWI

Would you please help provide some guidance at Gulf War syndrome? I think banned User:Hempbilly/User:TDC is trying to push an unsourced POV, which you have already pointed out on Talk:Gulf War syndrome. Listing Port (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you file a suspected sockpuppet report, or ask for page protection. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Christopher Dodd; Gibson Chet Atkins SST; List of talk show hosts; Ted McCarty; Gibson L5; Spermatozoon; John-Paul Clarkin; Ozark Mountain Daredevils; Stratum spinosum; Matt Casamassina; Paul Bigsby; Katrina vanden Heuvel; Sunburst; Banjoline; Karina Les Paul; Balanced Budget Amendment; Widow's peak; Double neck guitar; List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton

Cleanup: Thalidomide; Sam Brownback; No Gun Ri
Merge: Guitar tuning; Clark Clifford; Pejorative
Add Sources: List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States; Arlen Specter; Dave's World
Wikify: Louis Farrakhan; Fast Patrol Craft; Pier Paolo Pasolini
Expand: Peshmerga; Canadian Bacon (film); David Vitter

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Nice edit [5] Do you seriously want me banned? I find myself agreeing with a whole lot of what you say. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:CIVIL

I said this on the talk page too, but... I think you mean the words "taken out of context" to imply that it's not part of a pattern, but in my opinion, their effect goes further than that, making the sentence read that not only must the offense be isolated and minor, but it also must not be an offense in the first place if a person not to get sanctioned over it. That, of course, is going to far. I've changed "single" to "isolated", which gets both points across without overloading with qualifications. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration

Please reconsider this comment. There are very good reasons for limiting or not including the quote. A google search isn't going to show these reasons. This is not a matter of "whitewashing", it is first and foremost a do no harm issue and a verifiability issue of what the actual reasons for not including it due to lack of proper background, current information and changes, or reasons are. I'll be happy to discuss this in detail, but making such a blanket statement is not the best way to pursue the issue. Ask questions, don't make accusations. Dreadstar † 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Dreadstar. The article can definitely be improved, and you (Dlabtot) are encouraged to edit it to be better, or to participate in discussions at the talkpage. But just coming in and saying that things "suck" is not particularly constructive. --El on ka 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments. Happy editing. Dlabtot (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored the section heading to be more neutral and responded to your concerns. Dreadstar † 22:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit my talk page comments again, especially to blatantly and radically change the meaning of what I posted. See WP:TALK Additionally, I respectfully request that you refrain from posting on my user talk page. If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do so on that article's talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored the heading from an uncivil attack on other editors and will not tolerate further attacks. I did not change the content of your post. Dreadstar † 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I have made uncivil comments, I urge you to pursue the issue in one of the appropriate venues, such as WQA, or an RFC, etc. I did not comment on "Sources" - I described what I see as a whitewash. You may believe that it is uncivil of me to point out this whitewash, but the fact that you believe something does not make it true. I urge you AGAIN to stop. Do not alter my comments. Pursue formal dispute resolution rather than edit warring. And I AGAIN respectfully request that you refrain from posting to my talk page. If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do so on that article's talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
 :::: Do not edit my talk page comments again, especially to blatantly and radically change the meaning of what I posted. See [[WP:TALK]] Additionally, I respectfully request that you refrain from posting on my user talk page.  If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do so on that article's talk page. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot#top|talk]]) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 :::::I have refactored the heading from an [[WP:CIV|uncivil]] attack on other editors and will not tolerate further attacks.  I did not change the content of your post.  [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::::: If you believe I have made uncivil comments, I urge you to pursue the issue in one of the appropriate venues, such as WQA, or an RFC, etc.  I did not comment on "Sources" - I described what I see as a whitewash.  You may believe that it is uncivil of me to point out this whitewash, but the fact that you believe something does not make it true.  I urge you AGAIN to stop.  Do not alter my comments.  Pursue formal dispute resolution rather than edit warring. And I AGAIN respectfully request that you refrain from posting to my talk page. If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do so on that article's talk page. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot#top|talk]]) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)