User talk:UninvitedCompany/archive1

Nominations for Adminship

Hi. I nominated so many people for adminship because I wanted to make a lot of friends on Wikipedia. I don't think the nominations are inappropiate.

Also, I am planning to nominate User:Chrisn4255 (also known as User:128.12.53.90) for adminship. He has made approximately 1000 edits. Do you think this would be an "appropriate" nomination? --Lst 27 20:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find 1000 edits, he has shown no interest in administrative matters, has not participated in deletion or page protection debates, has been with the project for about two months, and has a blank user page. Do you believe you are making friends by nominating people who then get voted down? UninvitedCompany 20:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I miscalculated the number of edits the user has. He has made approxmimately 550 edits. So I will think about nominating him later, maybe in June or July. But I do think I am making friends by nominating (or trying to nominate) people for adminship.

He has been here for more than four months, not two. --Lst 27 20:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Whose user page did he blank? --Lst 27 20:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced page protection

Please don't protect the Caucasus/Georgia-related pages currently being attacked by an anon - this is the former user Levzur, who has a history of refusing to discuss, justify or compromise on his edits. The Arbitration Committee is due to review the situation - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur for background. You're welcome to add your views to that page if you wish. -- ChrisO 22:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

They had been listed on Vandalism in progress, and since there I see no other editing taking place other than the revert war, protection seemed wise, and likely to deter Levzur. If you disagree you are certainly welcome to unprotect them. UninvitedCompany 22:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Levzur has been at this in one form or another since December. He is simply trying to make us give up and go away. Zviad Gamsakhurdia, for instance, has already been protected at least six times over the past few months and Levzur has resumed attacking it within hours or days at the most after protection is lifted. Protection will achieve nothing except blocking anyone from editing the articles, which is apparently his aim. We can't leave articles protected permanently, which is what would be necessary if we were solely reliant on protection; I'd suggest blocking his IP addresses instead. -- ChrisO 22:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

His IP is different each time, making this difficult. Perhaps those wishing to make further constructive edits could copy the page to a temporary location and work on it there. UninvitedCompany 22:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Block the entire /24 - i.e. 213.157.202.0/24, 213.157.194.0/24. RickK blocked a third /24 last night, forcing him onto the other two that his ISP uses. And as a point of principle, I don't see why every other Wikipedian should be inconvenienced by a vandal's campaign. -- ChrisO 22:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, I've now blocked both /24s for six hours, which should give him a reasonable cooling-off time (he always edits during a restricted time period). -- ChrisO 22:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I don't know the history and you do, so I'll bow out. It seems to me that blocking three /24s isn't any better than protecting the pages. How many other users will be affected by such wide blocks? UninvitedCompany 22:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The only user I've ever seen from those /24s (owned by Rustavi 2 Online, a Georgian ISP) is Levzur, so I suspect that there probably aren't too many Georgian contributors to Wikipedia. A wide ban is occasionally necessary if a user goes on a vandalism rampage from multiple proxies on the same IP block. It's happened before, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 22:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly still have faith in the project and, in fact, feel it may very well prove a vitality much greater than many anticipate. But I'm reminded, just a bit, of Plato when I'm left wishing for an educated and benevolent dictator to which I could appeal for enforcement of an agreement. I like decentralized systems but, like the free rider problem, they usually evolve effective ways to deal with troublesome components.

Incidentally, semiotics isn't really a subset of psychiatry. :) I was just trying to give a clear synoptic view in whatever way Mr. Church was willing to oblige. And I never feel good about smart people doing dumb things, be it he, me, or anyone. - PilotPrecise 03:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.

I didn't realize there was any kind of review process for new articles. I imagine my 20 working saves were a bit of an annoyance. Now that I know, I will use the preview button. Cheers! Erikp 16:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany and Kat

Is User:UninvitedCompany the same person as User:Kat?

Discussion moved to User talk:GrahamN/UninvitedCompany and Kat

Special characters

You can use Wikipedia:Special characters, but I just copied and pasted the diacritic from the title of the page in this case. Maximus Rex 22:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk here. What don't you understand?

I'm confused. Others have ascribed various motives for what you're doing, and I don't believe they're accurate. I'm not sure I know what you're trying to accomplish. As I think you know, I respect the work that you did here, and I don't know why you would do something that would, at least in some people's minds, detract from that. UninvitedCompany

Can't you read what I'm saying, on the Village pump or on User talk:Jimbo Wales? I demand that my user space is not vandalized.

I don't believe that your user space is being vandalized. Both your user page and your talk page are protected, and blank except for a one-line comment about your dates of participation, and Jimbo's note. And my note, which I placed there because I couldn't think of any other way to reach you, and which I have since removed. Am I missing something? UninvitedCompany

Yes, you're missing the subpages that Quagga has created at least 15 times (see the deletion log).

Ok. I see one of them, anyway. So, Quagga is being a pest. The pages, at this time, are all deleted, are they not? If not, tell me which ones are still there. I'll delete them. Is that all there is to this? UninvitedCompany 02:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I want to leave knowing my userspace remains intact. I can't be expected to stay here and check for the vandalism that Quagga recreates every day. Repeat vandals are to be kicked out. RickK just banned Neumannkun for doing a fraction of the amount of vandalism Quagga has committed. But if it's vandalism against Wik, the rules are obviously different.

Let me see if I've got this straight. There is no vandalism of your talk space at present, but you engaging in a persistent, high-volume campaign of vandalism to the Wikipedia because Quagga might vandalize something tomorrow? I don't get it. I think a number of people have already promised to watch your user space and delete any new pages. So what do you want, exactly? I'm still confused. UninvitedCompany 03:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He "might"? He has done it about 15 times in a few days, I must assume he will. Or just how long do you suppose I should wait until he might appear to stop? And even then, how could I ever know he has finally stopped? He may make a pause and start again when I'm no longer watching. That's entirely unacceptable. What I want, exactly, is that he is permanently banned.

You were here long enoguh to realize that that isn't how things work. He creates pages, people delete them. I'll delete them myself. He'll tire of the game soon enough. If he carries it on long enough, he'll get banned. And what's the big deal? He creates some subpage with no content other than "Hi Wik," and you respond with this barrage of vandalism? If you were playing tit-for-tit, I'd understand, but you're creating a lot of extra work and upsetting many people. Besides, you yourself have demonstrated that bans aren't particularly effective. We ban him, he comes back in a month anyway, what have you gained? Wouldn't you be better off letting us do the watching for you, as we will, and leaving the details to us? (I'm calling it a night for now and won't be back until tomorrow, so please don't expect a rapid reply) UninvitedCompany

1) Sure this is how things work, vandals are banned all the time. It's an absurd idea that vandalism should be just reverted over and over again when you can simply cut off the source. 2) He is not tiring of that; sooner will you be tiring of reverting. If he carries it on long enough, he'll get banned? Excuse me? Just what exactly is "long enough"? Does he have to create the page a thousand times before you call him bannable? 3) The content of his pages is irrelevant (I'm not reading them). He has no business putting pages in my userspace, end of story. 4) I did try tit-for-tat, that didn't stop him. Without my "barrage" we wouldn't be talking now. Before I started this, I was shrugged off and nothing happened. 5) If he is banned and continues vandalizing using proxies in a way that you can't stop, I will not complain to you. But at least he must be prevented from doing this using his regular username. 6) I'm not calling for a one-month ban but a permanent one. 7) No, watching is not enough. Some time you'll miss such a page (watchlists don't help as he can choose whatever name, and as far as I know there is no "allpages" function for the user space to see all subpages) and then it will stand there for who knows how long. I don't have to accept that when it can be so easily prevented.

Oh please...Wik...when will you get that I wasn't trying to vandalize your "page"? I was just trying to get it so people could talk to you on your page. Secondly, you're beyond banned for 7 days. You've been posting again and again and it's only getting you into further trouble. --Quagga

Wik

Oh, come on RickK, there are many things that might be said about Wik that are true, but he isn't an idiot. Besides, no personal attacks, right? No, his actions aren't justified. I do not necessarily hope for his return. And all is not forgiven, at least not now. But, I'm still trying to talk with him and understand what in the world the problem is, as several others have encouraged me to do. I strive to treat everyone with respect, and hope you will at least treat Wik with respect for now. UninvitedCompany 02:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer

I very much appreciate the confidence you show in me by offering to nominate me for an admin position. Regrettably, I must decline at this time. While I have been with Wiki a while, (five months is practically forever here), I feel I have much more to learn about the internal operations of this project. To this time, I have primarily edited, written, and hung around VfD. I need a broader scope of experience. Second, things are happening in the real world (it's annoying how often that gets in the way of things) that mean I will be away from Wiki for a good part of the next few months. This would be a very bad time to take on new responsibilities.

However, with the flood of newbies we've had, and a simultaneous and wholesale changeover of hardware and software (Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo...) I know the current admin could use help. Give me a little more time, allow me to spend more time with MediaWiki and in pursuing some of the more general policy documents, and in a few months I may feel more prepared to accept this responsibility.

Denni 18:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your comments

Your not very good at reading are you. You just did again, what you did on the vote page. You take my actions and twist them to something that is not the truth. I am getting tired of it. I may be young (turning 18), but I am not stupid. You are trying to discredit me. You keep lying. I have not tried to "drum up" any support for my nomination. If you took the time to actually read what I posted you would see that all I said was that I was up for renomination. There is no rule in letting people know that. The people that I posted to, happen to want to know when I am up for re-nomination. So keep it up, you are only making yourself look like what you really are. ChrisDJackson

Let's see, poor reader, tiresome, questionable motives, liar, won't take time to read before replying. Yes on all those. You left out "30 pounds overweight," "wears geeky glasses," "votes for Bush," and "sings loud in church even when he doesn't know the tune." UninvitedCompany 20:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I should have known you were a Bush voter. All those motives compare to those of his. ChrisDJackson

Chicago Surrealist Group

I am unclear as to what is your position regarding the Chicago Surrealist Group. Are you describing it as a "form of questionable content" or are you merely characterizing the views of others? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I question its suitability for inclusion in the Surrealism article. I believe that article, at present, has excessive focus on the post-1970

This just goes to show how little attention you have been paying. The Chicago Surrealist Group began in the summer of 1966 and if you would do the slightest amount of research you would realise its direct connection to, and continuity with, the Paris Surrealist Group. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

aspects of the surrealist movement, which is at most a footnote to the much more enduring work done before then and prior to the era when abstract art gained currency; also, I believe that there is presently excessive attention paid to aspects of surrealism unrelated to the visual arts. Since the Chicago Surrealist Group is post-1970, and since from what you have written about it, it has much of its focus outside the visual arts, I don't think it is particularly relevant to Surrealism, stricta sensu.

Surrealism had much of its focus outside the visual arts from the beginning, as I have substantiated again and again and again. Did you read the Manifesto (a link is on the Surrealism page)? Initially it was even questioned whether anything in the visual arts could even be surrealist. It is beyond bizarre you are talking about surrealism stricta sensu when how you have redefined it is anything but "stricta sensu". --Daniel C. Boyer 17:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am well aware that you don't agree with any of this reasoning. Your views are not shared by mainstream authorities. I realize your views are deeply held and you cannot be convinced,

I could say the same thing of you. You are apparently unconvinced by the Surrealist Manifesto. Despite the obvious fact that other sources should be consulted as well, why do you think that an article on Surrealism should be written without consulting the Manifesto at all? Should an article on communism be written without any reference to the Communist Manifesto or Capital? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and so I await the arrival of others interested in surrealism who are better equipped than I to set the article right.

That said, I'm not about to allow an anon to post wild accusations about you and your role in the art community, even to a talk page, which is why I reverted him.

UninvitedCompany 00:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Village pump

Thank you very much for your support; so far you seem to be the only one. I don't think I'll be leaving though, at least not any time soon, so no worries. While it'll take more than an unpleasant pile-on to break me, the fuss has made me think twice before being "bold", that's all (in this case, having the audacity to accuse an IP of spamming). Too bad there's no "don't bite the well-intentioned admin" guideline. I've already conceded defeat, so to speak. Thanks again, -- Hadal 07:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

For your kind note on my talk page and your efforts to protect me from verbal abuse by another editor. I appreciate it very much, and hope that, should the need arise, I can perform some small service for you. May you edit frequently and remain unreverted. :-) If there are discussions you feel my voice would be useful in, please let me know where to go. I try to avoid back-and-forth, preferring one, carefully considered longer statement at a time, but discussion is important here and I'm willing to adapt to whatever style is happening. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm going to try to stay long enough to post some articles that I have finished on my MS Word browser. 172 06:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:63.169.104.2

63.169.104.2 is engaging in blanking of my user page and Richard Genovese without giving reasons and removing any arguments made against his positions without removing his expressions of the positions. Would you visit Vandalism in progress and see what you think? Thank you very much, --Daniel C. Boyer 19:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines

"I believe that such behaviors, left unchecked, drive valuable contributors away, and embolden those who remain to engage in troublesome behaviors themselves."

(emphasis mine, obviously)

At the risk of delving into self-indulgence, with regard to that, I believe I may be falling into that behavior, as I have before elsewhere. I'm not one to check myself, but may respond to being checked by others who have earned my respect, as you have. If you think I'm acting out of line, please let me know.

That gotten out of the way, excellent post. I think you really hit the nail on the head there. - Hephaestos|§ 02:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Internet Democracy" being attacked again

The same vandal as before is replacing the article with junk text. Can it be protected again? Thanks. -- Stevietheman 13:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind. There's already an effort to ban the vandal. -- Stevietheman 13:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFROAA

(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, —No-One Jones 14:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)