User talk:58.96.94.12/Archive 1

Archive 1

All Pages:

1 -  ... (up to 100)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Global Agenda, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Global Agenda was changed by 58.96.94.12 (u) (t) deleting 46123 characters on 2010-01-23T05:34:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The above was the result of an FP over Global Agenda where I reverted earlier vandalism, ClueBot seems to be really confused there and keeps reverting attempts (by several different anonymous editors) to fix up repeated vandalism (by one logged in user, Falconmooch), this protection of the vandalism has been reported to ClueBot's owner. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and The Road to En-dor was created.

• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
• If you would to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits by 58.96.94.12

Hello, 58.96.94.12. You are hereby being warned not to engage in further Wikipedia-policy-violating edits on the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article.

Recently a group of I.P. addresses were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations.

In the edit summary of your second edit of this article, you incorrectly state that "Clearly there is some dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved." What there was was this group of I.P. addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one person (69.230.175.35, with possibly this same person using one or more of the other I.P. addresses) ending the "dispute" with an act of vandalism in addition to the message "You know what fuck off James Redford. I want to see how much you can take before you crack." <SNIP> --71.0.146.150 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

^^^ This guy is a crackpot who pops up whenever anyone criticises the related lunacy and spams copypasta full of spurious references and biblical verses. An editor reviewing anything related to this is requested to do some quick research on the topic before any well-meaning intervention is made that furthers the WP:GAME of the crank in question. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Note: Disruption at article page, Omega Point (Tipler). Both of the IPs blocked. Both were contributing to the disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

58.96.94.12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm just reverting a crackpot's whitewashing of the article on his pet theory

Decline reason:

..and you'll remain blocked due to your violation of WP:NPA(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Cirt: The block will expire before it has time to be reviewed but whatever. If you look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and search for "Tipler", you'll find this same crackpot complaining about and becoming passive-aggressive with anyone that tries to point out the lack of credibility, support or backing for his pet theory. I'm not diplomatic enough to enter into a debate about this in the accepted form and have no stomach for insincere etiquette so I didn't try to engage with the idiot, I just added an appropriate tag to the article, as others have done previously. Incidentally, I'm on a static ip and he's on a dynamic ip so you've really only blocked me, who was attempting to add a note of scepticism to an article that is strongly supportive of pseudo-science. As this guy is pretty persistent and uses a dynamic IP, if you want to maintain an encyclopediac style here, then you'll need to semi-protect the article or just delete it as it's already covered sufficiently under Omega Point. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, 58.96.94.12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemichelle (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added Jamiemichelle

User talk:74.4.222.208

Hello, ip address 58.96.94.12, was the above address your previous ip? It would help so much if you answered my question. Regards, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the comments central to my talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

About the SPI, do you mean WP:TAGs or WP:TAGTEAM? Just want to make sure before I edit your post. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for all your help notifying the other users of the SPI. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, neither apparently. I was *trying* to describe his practice of adding various WP:XXX tags to his replies as part of his wikilawyering and thereby playing the victim and accusing other editors of breaking various wiki policies in editing his articles or even making accusations about him. I didn't realise there were other uses of the term WP:TAG. I'm not quite sure what a better way to state those concerns would be. Also, feel free to edit whatever of mine you like, you seem sensible and good intentioned. And WRT adding eyes to the SPI, you're welcome. Increasing participation can only bring a result more representative of the broader community, something that has been sadly lacking in this affair. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read your comment and I'll remove the talkback later. I appreciate all your efforts. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:OUTING

Recently you have engaged in personal attacks against Jamie Michelle, and attempted to out them. This is unacceptable, and if you continue with this behavior you may be blocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is partly my fault as well, see the comments on my talkpage in the talkback above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, the guy's a nut. Maybe there's a WP:NUT tag I should be using or something but I don't have the patience to use the double-speak and play the WP:GAME that he loves to so I'm just not engaging him with him. The rants he has posted on this elsewhere under his alternate user name are relevant as they are revealing of his agenda and his immunity to reason on these topics. An accurate observation isn't an attack, do a little research and you'll see that my assessment is well deserved and indeed that this is a consensus reached by everyone that he edit-wars with, which is essentially everyone else that edits one of the articles that are his obsession. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. No matter how you feel about another editor, you must act in a polite and civilized manner towards them. It doesn't matter if "you're right, they're wrong", incivility towards another editor is not tolerated. Swarm^Talk 09:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not an attack, it's an accurate and justified description that saves considerable time and is based on observation and research of the individual in question. This individual has abused civility and good-faith assumptions over a period of years, also insincerity makes my skin crawl. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be commenting on or "describing" the contributor, even if it's "based on observation and research", in the first place, and doing so in a negative way constitutes a personal attack. Swarm^Talk 20:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're dead wrong and that the idea is harmful to the project. I should definitely comment on and "describe" the "contributor" (since we're in the mood for scare quotes). I should do this literally without regard for the feelings of the guy in question. Anything else limits communication and leads to the sort of appalling naivety that has allowed him to very successfully own several pages for literally years while credulous admins applied exactly that sort of thinking in blocking everyone that he edit warred with until they all gave up and left the POV-pushing content up and let him continue to push his pet mania without review. This has happened really quite a lot of times now and it's my feeling that it's been enabled by the well-intentioned but misguided consensus building that is admirable in many situations but is disastrous when dealing with a fanatical crackpot. You can block me if that makes you happy but I'm not going to censor myself just to save the feelings of this guy from well deserved criticism. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Be assured that everything I'm saying comes directly from Wikipedia policy. It is not necessarily my opinion, but it's the way things are. There are many methods of dispute resolution where you can make a complaint about an editors behavior for outside opinions, and there are places to report disruptive editors. (WP:WQA for incivility, WP:RFCU for community comment on prolonged inappropriate behavior, WP:ANI for behavior requiring administrator action, WP:Dispute resolution for more links on how to deal with problems you're having with editors.) You're not forced to ignore bad editors, in other words. However, criticizing editors outside of these channels is not productive and not tolerated. If you continue to make personal attacks (criticizing someone) without a good-faith effort to solve the problems you're having, you may be blocked from editing. Swarm^Talk 06:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

While this user indeed may be blocked, it won't be done by a non-administrator such as yourself. Going around pestering others about conflicts you have no intention of understanding or contributing a solution for is not going to improve the encyclopedia at all.

That said, I encourage the unregistered user to consider that holding back on certain comments might actually help lead to positive change in the content. If you refuse to do that out of some ideal of avoiding self-censorship, that's certainly one valid choice, but being blocked doesn't help you enact the changes in the articles that you apparently desire. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping out of it for the most part and trying not to get drawn into debate with him, I appreciate that more experienced people are dealing with it in their way. The content itself is something that I do not have an emotional investment in, I would like to see it improved but I don't care who does it and (like those who gave up in the past) I'm not interested in making this my crusade. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Omega Point (Tipler)

Hmm, I see this article has a host of problems, the least of which are whitewashing of criticism, over-use of quotes and its associated copyright violation. I also note the signs of long-term advocacy and ownership from at least one editor involved with the article. My advice is to abstain from personal conflict, disengage from the battleground and let things take their natural course. I've noticed that Wikipedia articles suffering from similar problems are like ships that have taken on too much water; they may list to one side for quite some time, but eventually they right themselves with the help of many hands. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that (all of it) was rather my thinking also and why I was reluctant to post on the noticeboard. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

All Pages:

1 -  ... (up to 100)