In my haste I forgot to linebreak my last few posts,
Are the long lines objectionable to anyone? I haven't seen any complaint, but
I will try to rememeber to add linebreaks so that my posts are more readable
in the archives.
Thanks for your patience, I haven't used an email list in about twenty-five
years, and then I was using a dinosaur and playing on BITNET relay chat.
Codie Vickers
I cite here an example where I committed a minor breach of faith, I mocked another user. If I remember correctly, this was in response to a comment I made, I asked in an edition summary if SheikYerBooty was a human being or a poorly-designed AI. I admit this was glib, but I only meant if he were a cleverly-designed AI I wouldn't suspect he was an AI.
***BEGIN QUOTE***
Please refrain from mocking other users. Review Wikiquette when you can. Thanks! Kingturtle 06:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good advice, Kingturtle. All I can say is it's all meant in fun, I mean no disrespect. - Plautus satire 06:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough :) Kingturtle 06:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
***END QUOTE***
As you can see here, I realized I may have inadvertantly offended somebody, perhaps SheikYerBooty's talk page would have been the place for me to discuss it with him but he didn't comment on my edition summary so I didn't think it had offended him.
Codie Vickers
Is it just me, or are these people scrambling very hard to find "the goods" on me? I submit if it's this difficult, it's not worth pursuing, time would be better spent finding a compromise.
***BEGIN QUOTE***
Plautus, your constant manipulations of talk pages is not going to work. I will check every edit you make and revert them when I see moving other people's comments around. You've been asked not to do this and it's been pointed out many times that it's a violation of accepted practice. So cut it out. --SheikYerBooty 06:13, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
It's not a violation of accepted practice to organize a thread so it's coherent instead of one long incoherent ramble. - Plautus satire 06:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Maybe check out the Big Bang talk page.. Plautus hasnt touched it in a while, and another user has completely moved things around, almost even more incoherent. I swear that some paragraphs of mine have been removed.. odd too, since I try to write with grace, clarity, and references. I dont know what Plautus has been up to, but its obvious he is not the only one who edits talk pages. -Ionized 23:38, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
Correction, my paragraphs where not erased, just moved. Im trying to piece togethor the original order again. -Ionized 00:08, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
***END TRANSCRIPT***
This little exchange reminds me of a recent blunder, where I accused silsor of deleting pages to cover a setup of me. I quickly learned this was an erroneous belief and I immediately retracted it and tried to lessen the effect of that nonsense.
Should we all be punished similarly for the same acts? Perhaps these two are good candidates for a ban...I doubt it, but "try it, it might work" seems to be the attitude of some.
Codie Vickers
I have accepted Tuf-Kat as a moderator and Tuf-Kat informed me that Curps would not participate in moderation over his vigilante actions unless 1. Raul654 was also involved and unless 2. the moderation was kept secret.
I do not accept Curps' conditions, so to follow the guidelines it should go to arbitration, with Curps as the defendant for his admitted vigilante action, and me as the claimant or injured party.
How this got turned into a ban for me is truly mysterious. If you look at the request I initiated, the section contains many statements from me, all of which state quite clearly that I intended to seek mediation with Curps for his vigilante action, and he admitted he did it.
The case seems open and shut to me. All of my statements in that section (my request for mediation) and the compendium I added to remind everyone which quoted the relevant statements I made confirm what I say is true.
Why is the process being ignored here? I am the claimant or injured party? Why am I the one being punished?
Codie Vickers
Plautus writes:
> This is just a technical issue, in the abstract, but before anyone
> else points it out, I'd like to say that the apparent jump in size
> of the archive (increased traffic in this forum) occured with
> little or no input from me.
There is no jump in the size of the archive. When the current month
is compressed in gzip format, it will only come to about 350K or so,
I think. It might actually be slightly smaller than last month's.
--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
If I recall correctly, a certain user named Ed Poor had a campaign spring up to ban him when he was discovering wikipedia. I suspect this is because he is able to easily (if tediously) and effectively and most importantly convincingly construct very compelling arguments while simultaneously being able to deconstruct opposing arguments.
I postulate that because he is able to do this so easily, he was perceived as a threat. A threat to existing knowlege (are we all ignorant or is Ed Poor?), a threat to authority (who do we believe, the newspaper or Ed Poor?), a threat to wikipedia (should wikipedia be a forum for Ed Poor to post facts?).
Did Ed Poor ever make a mistake in his life? I don't know Ed Poor, but I can categorically state "yes". And I will make similar statements about us all if necessary, and then make my case for my belief if warranted.
Codie Vickers
(P.S.: Ed Poor's alleged sense of humor may also have contributed to the prior campaign to expunge him.)
Due to already-large (nearly twice as large as any previous) archive:
Unless I am compelled to do so and am provided limited immunity while doing
so I do no longer intend to defend my claims here that my recent behaviour
conflicts with the characterizations of that behaviour by others. I feel a
determined look at my record will show I have chosen to and striven always
toward waging peace and engaging in fruitful constructive behaviour in this
forum and on the wikipedia project proper.
Codie Vickers
Hi,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_attribution_for_an_edit
This list seems to be growing and growing. Is anyone going to process
this at some point? If there aren't enough people who can do this in
their spare time, how about giving access to more people?
Thanks,
Timwi
This is just a technical issue, in the abstract, but before anyone else points it out, I'd like to say that the apparent jump in size of the archive (increased traffic in this forum) occured with little or no input from me. All of this noise was /about/ me, not by me or instigated by me or amplified by me. I did everything I could to prevent all this noise.
Where is the real problem?
I know it's tempting to isolate one user and deem them "the problem". If that user is "the problem" then why are there so many of us out here who are now just "that user"?
Codie Vickers
I see my fat fingers have struck again, and I made an innocent tpyo. (<- joke typo)
I assure you I did not mean to imply that Mr. Wales is "jumbo". While if he were "jumbo" I am quite certain it would not reflect badly on him as that would be a lifestyle choice that people have to respect. I am quite large myself and the last thing I would do is intentionally try to falsely characterize somebody as "jumbo" while I am trying to resolve a dispute with them.
Codie Vickers