This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tryptofish (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 16 December 2009 (→Re: December 2009: !!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:11, 16 December 2009 by Tryptofish (talk | contribs) (→Re: December 2009: !!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives | |||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Tag on Scientific opinion on climate change
As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to the ANI thread, please. tedder (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You do realise you broke two rules, as I don't think I saw that anywhere. Will you be reviewing your actions or will you be taking no further action in regards to this specific issue? Verbal chat 18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be doing whatever is prescribed at ANI. So far the thread has just been continued bickering by the usual suspects, not a consensus among administrators. tedder (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You do realise you broke two rules, as I don't think I saw that anywhere. Will you be reviewing your actions or will you be taking no further action in regards to this specific issue? Verbal chat 18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, it seems, I as one of the people you actually BLOCKED in all this wish to thank you for your attempts to foster a neutral and collaborative environment, whereas those whom you went out of your way to WP:AGF for are clamoring for your head. Do not take offense, though, this is typical for the GW pages which is why so many admins shy away from the fray. You are to be commended to being willing to at least dip a toe in. --GoRight (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't clamoured for anyone's head. What I'm asking for is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and some action to rectify that. Washing ones hands does not solve anything. If Tedder had not broken two basic rules (one for all editors, one for admins), then we wouldn't be in this situation. Other than this issue I think Tedder is an excellent admin. Verbal chat 10:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic. He's not the first well-meaning admin to have been bamboozled by GoRight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am too, which is why I can't understand the lack of mia culpa in this instance. Tedder, on the ANI thread I have invited you to review your own actions, especially in relation to 3RR and PROTECT policies. Verbal chat 23:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure if you may have missed the above request in the recent edits to this page, so applying a bump. Sorry if you already saw. Verbal chat 23:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am too, which is why I can't understand the lack of mia culpa in this instance. Tedder, on the ANI thread I have invited you to review your own actions, especially in relation to 3RR and PROTECT policies. Verbal chat 23:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic. He's not the first well-meaning admin to have been bamboozled by GoRight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page...
You said on ANI FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. This isn't true. You've asked for your protection to be reviewed. You said on that admins page can you take a look at my protection of Scientific opinion on climate change; B himself has said Ok now please listen to what I am actually saying: my only role in this is reviewing/taking over the protection.
Please correct yourself at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. However, the problem remains: no admin has reviewed your addition of the tags. I ask you to invite an admin to review your addition of the tags (this was effectively an admin action, and therefore subject to admin review). Perhaps not Beeblebrox - he seems to have become somewhat emotional about thse issue William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You've already invited admins to review it. tedder (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but it hasn't happened. However *you* have invited an admin to review your prot (subsequent to that discussion starting, so you cannot refer to that discussion as the answer). Why don't *you* invite an admin to review your tagging? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I only asked for the prot to be reviewed because it was the immediate issue. I'm not going to admin-shop outside of the ANI thread. The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling- it's unfortunate that the bickering has spilled over from the various articles into other namespaces. tedder (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the lack of admin comment *is* rather telling - unlike most such reports, there isn't any sign of admins saying "yes you did the right thing". You are wrong to assert that the prot was the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The protection was the pressing issue. The tag-and-prot is being dealt with at ANI. Please discontinue ranting and stirring up the issue on my page. The ANI thread should be enough. tedder (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree; but per you request I'll stop editing here. ANI: William M. Connolley (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note I'm not asking you to never come to my talk page, my real goal is to centralize this discussion. It seems like it's spilled over into many arenas. tedder (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree; but per you request I'll stop editing here. ANI: William M. Connolley (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The protection was the pressing issue. The tag-and-prot is being dealt with at ANI. Please discontinue ranting and stirring up the issue on my page. The ANI thread should be enough. tedder (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the lack of admin comment *is* rather telling - unlike most such reports, there isn't any sign of admins saying "yes you did the right thing". You are wrong to assert that the prot was the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I only asked for the prot to be reviewed because it was the immediate issue. I'm not going to admin-shop outside of the ANI thread. The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling- it's unfortunate that the bickering has spilled over from the various articles into other namespaces. tedder (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but it hasn't happened. However *you* have invited an admin to review your prot (subsequent to that discussion starting, so you cannot refer to that discussion as the answer). Why don't *you* invite an admin to review your tagging? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I expect and ignore the kinds of accusations ATren and his like make as fact, but I do not expect them to be endorsed by an admin. I hope you will reconsider this quickly, and speak in your own words. Please stop making this situation worse for yourself. Please strike or remove your endorsement. I say this out of surprise and shock - I still think you are a good admin, but this is not the way to deal with valid criticism. Verbal chat 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- There have already been too many words said about this. There's not much unique to be said about it. Please, pile on at the ANI thread, not here. tedder (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Usage of one of your images
Hello. I used your image of the Boardman Coal Plant by linking it to the Boardman Coal Plant article I just created. Is that okay? I'm kind of new to this. I hope it won't be a problem. Cheers! TimeClock871 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! That article needed to be created, you did a good job at it, it seems. Welcome. I assume you are an Oregonian? tedder (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I live in Oregon (the portland metro area). I've used Misplaced Pages for a long time (as a reader) and I've recently begun editing. TimeClock871 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Me too- downtown PDX, actually. There's a very lively group of Oregon editors, centered around Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oregon and the talk page. You might enjoy joining us there, and if you have editing questions, feel free to ask me. tedder (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I joined WikiProject Oregon recently, it's a great project! I'll try to add what I can. Thanks for the assistance. TimeClock871 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Me too- downtown PDX, actually. There's a very lively group of Oregon editors, centered around Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oregon and the talk page. You might enjoy joining us there, and if you have editing questions, feel free to ask me. tedder (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I live in Oregon (the portland metro area). I've used Misplaced Pages for a long time (as a reader) and I've recently begun editing. TimeClock871 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your protection at Scientology status by country. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Tedder, please have a another look at the talk page. I've linked the relevant source and a translation of it; the edit we currently have in the article really doesn't make sense, from a WP:V point of view. Cheers, --JN466 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes having the wrong version of the page helps give incentive to change it- see WP:WRONG. With that small of a consensus, it needs to wait a day or two so it's clear the the edit is supported. It won't hurt to let it sit in the current state for a couple days. tedder (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's no big deal; but basically, we have had the correct wording in that sentence, accurately reflecting a good source, for at least a year ; then an editor comes, changes the text so it says the opposite, but leaving the existing citation in place, and bingo, the encyclopedia is improved. ;) --JN466 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. But if I change it now, I'm just continuing the conflict. If we wait until the consensus is a little clearer, it's very easy to justify. tedder (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please wait for my long answer about racism.Wispanow (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. But if I change it now, I'm just continuing the conflict. If we wait until the consensus is a little clearer, it's very easy to justify. tedder (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's no big deal; but basically, we have had the correct wording in that sentence, accurately reflecting a good source, for at least a year ; then an editor comes, changes the text so it says the opposite, but leaving the existing citation in place, and bingo, the encyclopedia is improved. ;) --JN466 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes having the wrong version of the page helps give incentive to change it- see WP:WRONG. With that small of a consensus, it needs to wait a day or two so it's clear the the edit is supported. It won't hurt to let it sit in the current state for a couple days. tedder (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Tedder, please have a another look at the talk page. I've linked the relevant source and a translation of it; the edit we currently have in the article really doesn't make sense, from a WP:V point of view. Cheers, --JN466 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
re your block of User talk:68.114.130.234
I took a look at this and, while I can see harsh comments and the unsummarized edit (should have been summarized, but on the other hand he did explain it on the talk page), I don't see much justifying a week-long block, certainly not for a first offense. There's been no direct personal attack, there's been no edit warring.. a week seems excessive. I say drop it to 24 hours as a cooling off period for everyone. Do you mind if I do this? --Golbez (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that's fine with me- especially if you'll leave a note for the IP to be very aware of WP:CIVIL. tedder (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Cooling off: so noted. At the same time, I hope that it is understandable that I am entitled to feel sensitive about what has been unjustifiably directed at me for what is now some weeks. Tedder, in that regard I note this: . I feel as though that leaves a comment directed at me (that I don't care about facts) just hanging there. Could you consider, please, instead removing the entirety of that thread, from where the other IP (24...) said "Wow, that's really rude."? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, this just happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Try to let some of that roll off, but it's probably worth collapsing some of the random comments on the talk page. I didn't want to remove it further, because it is at least marginally related to the article. tedder (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'm trying, thanks. I would not feel right about taking it on myself to collapse anything on the talk page, as there would be the appearance/reality of me having a COI. If you could feel able to do it, or ask someone else to, I'd be grateful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe take it to WP:WQA and see if someone uninvolved will figure out how to clean it up without losing the relevant content? As the above drama shows, I'm a little reluctant to edit on one side of a polarizing issue right now.. tedder (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do that. I reverted that edit I linked above, the post by Yzak Jule on TJRC's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe take it to WP:WQA and see if someone uninvolved will figure out how to clean it up without losing the relevant content? As the above drama shows, I'm a little reluctant to edit on one side of a polarizing issue right now.. tedder (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack, 67.175.201.29
Excuse me, but telling a person he can't use the phrase "personal attack" to protect him from all criticism is not the same thing as making a personal attack myself. I don't quite understand what's going on here, but I do think it's contradictory to the stated ideals of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.201.29 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The real issue is civility. Don't turn the talk page into a battleground for your grudge against an editor. tedder (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Pravesh Rana protection
Hello. You semi-protected Pravesh Rana, but it seems you might have missed a step in your admin actions, as a bot removed the protection template for being used on a non-protected page. Mbinebri 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Done I miss a step about once every 10 protects I do. Sorry 'bout that. tedder (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- No need to apologize. No harm done! Mbinebri 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Crucifixion in art, the sequel
Thanks for the semi-p. I reverted 2 different IPs content blanking, and User:Yzak Jule has posted a {{uw-3rr}} on my talkpage. Not that I'm mentioning the word SOCK mind:). You know, I can understand people being enraged about the history of their nation, but this..... Ah, well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. Yzak has also declared me to be evil (I think). Don't forget this conversation about how this isn't a personal attack. It's a lot of energy these people are spending to not discuss the issue. Good times. Is it a full moon? tedder (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, but the wind is in the east :) All the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're not evil, you've just shown a pattern of poor judgment, in my opinion, when you intervene in edit wars. Glad to see both of you are taking this issue seriously, though.Yzak Jule (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I got a template too! Does it count as a barnstar? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, but the wind is in the east :) All the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Windward Reports
I did as you requested and created a suggested page in my user space and posted it at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Windward_Reports for feedback. It's been up there for several days with no feedback so I am guessing no one has any suggestions for it.
Does the proposed page meet the wikipedia guidelines for notability & being factual? If so, can you take it live?
thanks - dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThi808 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi David- that article does appear to meet the standards, or is at least close enough that it needs to go through WP:AFD instead of being eligible for WP:SPEEDY. I'll unprotect the page and move it live. You work for Windward, I assume? If so, please state the COI, preferably at Talk:Windward Reports to make it very clear (per the recommendation at WP:COI). tedder (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Yes I have a COI and will list it there. I stepped up because past attempts were by customers and ex-interns and they were too "enthusiastic." I write a lot so I felt I could do a better job of creating an evenhanded page. Interesting how sometimes it works that way. I will post this on the talk page.
- And again, thank you very much & Happy Holidays - dave DavidThi808 (talk) 9:53, 14 December 2009 (MST)
- I see that, and thanks. I'm of mind that most people have COI over articles they are interested in, it's just they don't admit it. Good job on the article, and please stay active here. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- And again, thank you very much & Happy Holidays - dave DavidThi808 (talk) 9:53, 14 December 2009 (MST)
The opposition
Hi Tedder, I have requested protection for the opposition leader now David Cameron repeated IP vandalism in the run up to an election, could you please give him the same protection as you gave Gordon Brown . Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi- looks like Malinaccier (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) already protected Cameron. Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
I'm going to be away for a while so....
Kiwiteen123 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for your help and support this year, you are one of the best admins I have found. I look forward to coming across you again next year. Kiwiteen123 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Edits on Joseph Schlessinger page - return of blocked user?
A new editor (ScienceAndTruth) has recently re-introduced things to the Schlessinger page that previously led to the blocking of TrutherTruther, including defamatory links and statements that led to earlier editing disputes. I have edited back to a non-defamatory state, which I hope is appropriate, but I wonder whether these could be the same person?Hillhealth (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest filing a WP:SPI. tedder (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
El-Shaddai Christian School
Hi, I blanked the talk page for El-Shaddai Christian School which you undid, I blanked it because that page (El-Shaddai Christian School) is a Redirect page, and there is already a talk page on the correct page Talk:Colegio Cristiano El-Shaddai, and since there cannot be two talk pages about the same article I blanked it, could you blank it this time? mijotoba (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Mijotoba. Since there was an AFD associated, it's worth preserving the talk page to point to the AFD. The projects may or may not be worthwhile- it depends on the project. Does that make sense? tedder (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Bling!
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For your regular hard work at RPP, which is a personal boon to me! GedUK 09:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks Ged
I appreciate it. tedder (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Kenny G
Hi, I think you may have forgotten to protect Kenny G as you mentioned here and only put the protection template as I noticed it was removed by DumbBOT. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I fairly commonly bork those. Fixed now! tedder (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't make me take that barnstar away! :p GedUK 12:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Heh! Hope you like your WP:BEANS for dinner. tedder (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't make me take that barnstar away! :p GedUK 12:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would have given you a kitten...
{{kitten}}... but I'm afraid of MC Hammer. For the longest tl;dr EVAH. Congrats on having it Resolved. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about. I don't want to get accused of collusion or something. @_@ Katr67 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. Yeah, pretty silly WikiDrama. Thanks. I'm tempted to create a section on my userpage to track that sort of thing. tedder (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: 58.173.18.123
I was in rush, glanced through their talk, noticed your anonblock message and thought is Ok, but I missed the point that it was your signature and 1 month term there. Thanks for reminding, left now. Another thing - that block is borderline - activity is low, but not constructive - non-evident vandalism ("good-faith" (?) addition of incorrect information), thus feel free to reblock. Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I just usually look at the talk page diff to see why an IP was blocked, but there was no talk page diff. Thought a little prodding wouldn't hrut :-) IP blocks are always hard. tedder (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Chilean people
Hello, I want ot thank you for having protected Chilean people against vandalism. However this page is permanently under attack from vandals that remove sourced content and some subtle edits such as replacing images of ameriand people for one of blond Chilean girls or putting "just an extra" immigrant photo in the article. Would you mind to keep and eye on Chilean people and Demographics of Chile?Dentren | 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi- you're welcome. I have an abundance of articles on my watchlist, but if it needs protection again, bring it back to WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry about protection requests, I misunderstood the policy. Thanks for the clarification - I'll come back if anything kicks off Mycroft (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! It's likely the enthusiasm will turn abusive, but it's better to wait until it happens. tedder (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Louis Hayward page vandalism
I responded to your question regarding my request for protection for the Louis Hayward page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't see it, as it was already archived. The thing is, it could be not actually vandalism. It's important to assume good faith and presume the reference is valid, it's just not well-cited. However, it is in violation of WP:BLP and should be removed aggressively under that policy. You are immune from WP:3RR if removing them for vandalism or BLP- do so, but make sure to use WP:UTM on the IP page, and it wouldn't hurt to have some sort of discussion on the article talk page. tedder (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, as an admin could you please move the following pages to the mainspace I think they are ready:
Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason for admin intervention there- the pages don't exist and they aren't protected. You shouldn't have a problem moving them. tedder (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Some interesting reading
Thanks again for your help, which is deeply appreciated. For your reading pleasure (?), there is interesting background at 4chan and Yzak Joule. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't know about the yzak article. What's the connection between Yzak/anime/crucifixion and 4chan? tedder (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure; I was just noting where he got his user name. I suspect that if one wanted to do some digging into the unsavory (I don't), there was probably some 4chan noise about that particular anime, but I'm just guessing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. It's certainly a safe bet they are related and all of that. Certainly I understand the Yzak-Aspergers connection now and don't feel so guilty about the big userpage warning. tedder (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- From where I sit, if there's anyone who should feel guilty, it isn't you. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. It's certainly a safe bet they are related and all of that. Certainly I understand the Yzak-Aspergers connection now and don't feel so guilty about the big userpage warning. tedder (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure; I was just noting where he got his user name. I suspect that if one wanted to do some digging into the unsavory (I don't), there was probably some 4chan noise about that particular anime, but I'm just guessing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: December 2009
But by refusing to answer any of the comments by editors, regardless of whether they violated policy by using personal attacks or not, that's exactly what he is doing. They may be uncivil and unregistered, but that doesn't mean the points they bring up are invalid. Furthermore, the willful ignorance shown by you and others involved towards policy violations on the part of User:Tryptofish is staggering and completely uncalled for. Yzak Jule (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Great. Handle them at the places I've recommended several times. And it's interesting that you accuse others of harassment- even quoting policy that says "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person". Note the emphasis I've added. In any case, please take your objections to the proper place rather than continuing to be disruptive. I'm tiring of your continual disruption. tedder (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's clear from the thread above this one who is being harassed (cool personal attack, too), but based on your behavior at Crucifixion in Art and the AN/I thread about you, you clearly aren't interested in the truth or applying policy to your own actions. And if your talk page isn't the proper place to talk to you, where should I go, then? Yzak Jule (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to use the avenues suggested to talk about me all you'd like. I don't believe I've told you to stay off my talk page. However, the combination of article talk behavior, continually removing warnings from your talk page and implying a personal attack, and not dropping the stick point to you being a high-functioning troll. I've lost patience to treat you with good faith. It's ironic that you remove everything from your talk page, yet accuse me of not handling issues. tedder (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only warnings I remove from my talkpage are those I feel have been issued in bad faith. I also find it ironic that I'm the one accused of not dropping the stick by doing a simple talkpage revert since you're deleting pretty much every issue people have with the page's status, while Tryptofish continues to act incivily, stalk myself and others, vandalize tangentially related pages, and generally waste the time of other editors and admins and you have no problem with that.Yzak Jule (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only warnings I remove from my talkpage are those I feel have been issued in bad faith. I also find it ironic that I'm the one accused of not dropping the stick by doing a simple talkpage revert since you're deleting pretty much every issue people have with the page's status, while Tryptofish continues to act incivily, stalk myself and others, vandalize tangentially related pages, and generally waste the time of other editors and admins and you have no problem with that.Yzak Jule (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to use the avenues suggested to talk about me all you'd like. I don't believe I've told you to stay off my talk page. However, the combination of article talk behavior, continually removing warnings from your talk page and implying a personal attack, and not dropping the stick point to you being a high-functioning troll. I've lost patience to treat you with good faith. It's ironic that you remove everything from your talk page, yet accuse me of not handling issues. tedder (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's clear from the thread above this one who is being harassed (cool personal attack, too), but based on your behavior at Crucifixion in Art and the AN/I thread about you, you clearly aren't interested in the truth or applying policy to your own actions. And if your talk page isn't the proper place to talk to you, where should I go, then? Yzak Jule (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)