User talk:Duke53

The threatening item was that sent to my home through the USPS got here okay and is now in the hands of the Postal Inspectors; they seemed to be quite interested in it. The first thing they are doing is to check for toxic substances.

In this day and age of terrorism and stalking they take all threats seriously and will be working hard to discover who sent it.

Have a nice day. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> I know that was some time back but it was probably sent because you are such a tool. You seem to like edit warring with everyone don't you, haha. Have fun being King Turd of Crap Mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.81.250 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Duke53, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --TimPope 21:26, 30 September 005 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me, cyber-fascist! 128.253.179.210

FYI, this is the E-mail I just sent to Cornell's IT department.

Sir,

I thought you might be interested in knowing that your network is being used by someone to vandalize pages at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duke53 (top message)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006&diff=prev&oldid=86720413 (section outlined in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=prev&oldid=86719946 (section outlined in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Crapper&diff=prev&oldid=86103615 (section outlawed in green)

Here is the whois report: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=128.253.179.210

I would appreciate it if you would respond to this and let me know what progress you have made in tracking down the person(s) responsible for this.

Awaiting your reply,

Xxxx X Xxxx

01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

__________

We have received your report dated 11 Nov 2006 and assigned it case number xxxxxx. This is a matter where the IT Security Office needs to seek guidance from another Cornell authority before proceeding any further.

If you have further information relevant to your report, or are wondering about its status, please write email to [email protected], referencing the above case number.

Thank you for your understanding.

---

I will keep everyone updated as this progresses.Duke53 | ^Talk 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You really have no life, do you? Read this, cyberfascist:

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/policy/responsible-use/#not-violations

Find something better to do with your time (a job, a girlfriend, a life, etc.) There's a whole world outside of Wikipedia. I believe you can do it, even if you don't believe in yourself. :) 128.253.179.210 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You; that one was just forwarded along also. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link? You're wasting their time. Now that I sent you that link you really have no excuse either. 128.253.179.210 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My next note will be to the CIT director.  :) Duke53 | ^Talk 08:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to mention your high level of authority as a Wikipedia security guard. 128.253.179.210 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

waa, waa, waa. Duke53 | ^Talk 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd drop by and leave you a message, so you'd know how the messaging system on Wikipedia works. Your question on the Help desk has been answered! Oh yeah, and don't forget to sign your name when you ask a question (using "~~~~"), or on talk pages. When someone leaves you a message on your talk page, you can leave a reply on their talk page, or can just respond below their message here, it's a personal preference. Good luck! --Commander Keane 06:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. From the description and use of Image:Turul.jpg, it appears you intended this media to be freely available. I took the liberty of applying a {{GFDL-presumed}} tag. Could you confirm this at by replacing my edit with {{GFDL-self}}? Regards, Dethomas 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my Talk page before archiving:

Are you the final word on all things Mustang GT at Wikipedia? I'm still relatively new here and don't understand the pecking order and decision making policies. Duke53 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

No, definitely not. No one besides Jimbo Wales is, really. Did you have a question or concern? ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Friday]], [[April 28]], [[2006]] @ 19:47 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that you made a change ('Sporty Coupe') arbitrarily and did it with a smartass comment besides. You also removed some pictures that I thought were pertinent to the article. Duke53 05:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

I don't recall removing pictures in that or any recent edit. "Sporty Coupe" isn't even a real class of car, so for someone to make that change was asinine. It is, by virtue of its very existence, first and foremost a pony car. It is, in fact, the source of the term. A lot of work has gone into that article by serious editors and for someone to "arbitrarily" change the designation to some made-up class like "Sporty Coupe" is just plain wrong. I know you've had some confusion in the past about image removal and who did what (last time, I was the one who actually RESTORED images that you and placed and someone else had removed, if you'll recall) so I'm going to assume that there's some confusion again. If I'm wrong, please point out the edit in question (using the page history tab as a starting point) and I'll try to explain my changes. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 14:53 (UTC)

Just did some quick research and the only image change I've done in the Ford Mustang article recently was this edit on April 9. In that edit, I put back a picture that someone else had removed. I explained this previously in a comment now archived here. Hope this clears things up! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 20:49 (UTC)

In your Revision as of 09:50, April 14, 2006 Brossow (Talk | contribs) edit did you remove two pictures? The 1987 is relevant because it was a completely different EFI system and many body changes were made. The 1994 was the last year of the FOX body Mustangs. Duke53 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Oh, yep -- I removed a couple images there for reasons described in the edit: there were simply too many pictures on the page. (I missed that edit when checking the page history -- oops!) The article is not a photo gallery. If those differences you mentioned were the point of posting those photos, then that should have been stated in the photo captions; otherwise, they're just more photos. And the fact that the '93 was the last year of that body style doesn't mean it has to have a picture. If the article featured photos of every cosmetic or, worse, fuel delivery change made to the Mustang since 1964, there would be dozens upon dozens of photos, which is clearly inappropriate. If one of those photos has to come back, choose one or the other as for all practical purposes they look extremely similar (aside from the obvious convertible vs. coupe distinction). Sorry for overlooking that change! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 19:42 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the image of the '87, but I'd ask that you add to the photo caption if you feel it's important to denote the differences from the previous year. I'd also like to point out that there's a link to the Commons at the bottom of the page where people can access many more Mustang pics. I'd encourage you to upload additional [non-copyrighted] pictures to the Commons if you like; then you could have as many pics as you like available for everyone without impacting the layout of the main article itself. :-) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 19:45 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, let's try to keep this conversation in one place so it's easier to follow. For whatever reason, your two most recent edits to my Talk page have included a lot of unrelated comments from other conversations that were previously archived. If we could just contain the discussion here, that would be great. This page is on my watchlist, so I'll be sure to see any comments or responses you make. :-) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[May 1]], [[2006]] @ 21:10 (UTC)

Please quit adding strange formatting to the Mustang article. I specifically said above that if you feel the images are necessary to illustrate differences from a previous model, then point out those differences in the photo caption, not with random bold or italics. Continued edits in this manner could be considered vandalism. Thanks for your cooperation. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Tuesday]], [[May 2]], [[2006]] @ 19:18 (UTC)

Considered vandalism by who? Using italics for emphasis is common when writing in the English language. I consider your signature far more annoying. As far as guessing what you 'mean' when you write something, well I don't have time for that. Unless you are a boss here, please refrain from telling me what to do ... your arrogance is not cool to some of us. Duke53 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2005 IronMan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture in question. That is why I put my name on it Duke53 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

For all we now Dan Carmichael could be the man in the picture. If you want your images to not be questioned, please document per WP:IUP#Adding_images. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know you are the only one to ever question them. Now you know. Duke53 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

If you have constructive comments to add to the UNC basketball articles please do it in a NPOV way. Thank you. Remember 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way? Not hardly. Duke53 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

The word you are looking for is vandalism. But why do you consider it vandalism? If you want vanity pages, then just say so (though I believe that they aren't allowed here). Is there any lie in what I added? I will be reverting both pages to my edits if you can prove that what I added was not true. Live with it. Duke53 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

p.s. you may be able to boss others around, but don't try it with me.

There is no need to get into an edit war over this. If you want to add criticsim to the Coach Smith article, please do. But the idea that one has to prove a negative (prove that the allegations you state are not true) in order to remove allegations that do not have proof for is not the way that wikipedia works. In addition, the way that you state your criticism indicates a bias against smith. I would recommend that you try a more NPOV way of stating your criticism if you want it to survive. One approach would be to state that while Coach Smith has been created with supporting his players and coaches, some have criticized him for his silence in several scandals involving his players and assistant coaches and then cite to articles that actually critize him for this. Remember 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to accept criticism from someone who can actually spell. I asked you a question above, which you conveniently did not answer: are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way? I can easily see the bias in favor of Ol' Deano a/k/a Coach Smif. Why do you insist that I be able to cite sources? I don't see many sources cited in the article as of now. I will be reverting to my version by tomorrow if I do not receive an explanation of your terms and an answer to the above question. I can play this game as long as you can.Duke53 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

"are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way?" - I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way. I and merely focusing my argument on your edits. If you want to add information to the Dean Smith article, please do. But when you do it, try to do it in a way that is in a NPOV fashion and has factual evidence to back up your claims. I have seen that you have edited other articles and have done this. I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia and I hope you can make the Dean Smith article more balanced.

"I can easily see the bias in favor of Ol' Deano a/k/a Coach Smif." - It is definately true that most bios, including this one, are probably bias towards those that like the individual (those in favor of a person tend to be more motivated to create a biography for that person). If you would like to counter this with some of your own evidence, please do so. If you want to tone done some praise that you think is NPOV, please do so. I am only suggesting that your edits show an obvious bias and should be revised.

"Why do you insist that I be able to cite sources?" - Because if you are going to claim that Smith did or did not take actions that some would consider controversial it is best to back up those claims with evidence so that your information will remain on the page.

"I can play this game as long as you can." - It is irrelevant whether you can wait me out on your edits. Every wikipedia article evolves over time. The Smith article today will surely be different from the Smith article a year from now. The real question is whether your revisions will last within the article. As long as you write them in such a bias fashion, they will not last. If the article is not edited by me, then it will be edited by all the other people that will visit this page. As for your ability to outlast me, I am sure that you can outlast me. I do not have much patience for edit wars. If that is your sole purpose, then you will surely win. But all you will have won is that your edits will remain on the page for a little while longer. Your edits will not last unless random people that visit the page think that your edits are in a NPOV fashion. Remember 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"are you saying that the Dean Smith article is done in a NPOV way?" - "I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not the Dean Smith article is  

done in a NPOV way".

There's the rub ... you are insisting that I adhere to some standard that other contributors to the article aren't being held to, because you are a Coach Smif disciple. There's a term for what you are demanding: hypocrisy. Don't expect me to uphold a standard that you don't hold everyone to. Duke53 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

"Other critics of Smith even contend that he orchestrated 'back room' deals to arrange the coaching situation at UNC-CH to his liking." I took this out because it is vague. What exactly did Smith arrange to his liking and who exactly is accusing him of this. Remember 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more vague than much of the rest of the article. DO NOT HOLD ME TO A STANDARD THAT OTHERS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW Duke53 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

If you have problems with other aspects of the article please feel free to edit them or you can bring them to my attention and we can work together to edit them. Otherwise, I do not know which parts of the article that you are referring to. As for your comments, please clarify your allegations about Dean Smith's actions and provide evidence for your allegations. Remember 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the following because the first part is unnecssarily pejorative: "Other critics of Smith even contend that he orchestrated 'back room' deals to arrange the coaching situation at UNC-CH to his liking."

The second part needs to be cited: "Smith reportedly called Roy Williams repeatedly asking him to leave KU and return to UNC-CH when Bill Guthridge fell into disfavor, and again when Matt Doherty was experiencing an 8 - 20 season."

And the third part belongs on the Roy Williams page and which I have added there: "Williams eventually did return, but not until after he stated (on national television): "I could give a shit about Carolina right now"."

"The second part needs to be cited: "Smith reportedly called Roy Williams repeatedly asking him to leave KU and return to UNC-CH when Bill Guthridge fell into disfavor, and again when Matt Doherty was experiencing an 8 - 20 season.""

This was widely reported at the time in many newspapers; unfortunately when you do a search you get '404' error messages (items are no longer available). Duke53 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

I think it is unfortunate that you expect more from some editors than others ... I would love to see some sources cited for the rest of the article. When time allows I will be reverting my parts of the article, then you can delete them; for someone who has no time for edits wars you sure have been persistent.

I have responded to this comment on the Dean Smith discussion page. Remember 22:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that Remember has misquoted you and then refused to apologize to you. If this is still a problem for you, perhaps you could find the links to the edit history where you were misquoted, show them to Remember, and then politely ask for an apology. Remember might interpret things differently, however. He might think it was an honest misinterpretation, so you might not get the type of apology you want. But if the incident bothers you so much that you feel the need to keep bringing it up, this approach might be worth the effort. But if it's not worth the effort to you, then everyone's interests are best served by just letting it go.

As an aside, your demand for sources was entirely justified, and it has resulted in the article being improved with several references since the earlier conflict. Well done. Rohirok 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does he go by Dave or David?[1] We could always make a redirect. Anyway what I really wanted to suggest was, rather than just adding a bunch of names to List of singer-songwriters, could you make sure the folks are included in the correct category under Category:Singer-songwriters? Near the bottom of the artists' pages (just above any stub tags) you would want to add something like this:

[[Category:American singer-songwriters|Mallett, David]]

Categories are much easier to maintain in the long run and have some advantages over lists. Regards -MrFizyx 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is how to make a redirect work. Now try looking up Dave mallet, while we're at it I should make one for Dave Mallett since the two don't seem to give the same results. Let me know if you have any other problems. -MrFizyx 20:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I will try it.

I have some CDs that are credited to Dave Mallett and others where it's David Mallett; I have heard him called Dave by more people, and it is how I've heard him refer to himself. Duke53 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned wanting a third party. You might look at this for help: [2] That, of course, is assuming the current version is not satisfactory to you. Hopefully it is at this point - I moved all mention of Dook/Carowhina, etc to the Trivia section UNC-Duke Rivalry article. It's better suited there, and won't needlessly drag the individual schools' articles down.

Also, thanks for sourcing the arson claims. I didn't doubt that it happened, but I thought we could do better than an editorial. I'm fine with including negative aspects of any subject provided they are written fairly and cited. Thanks Dubc0724 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George W Bush. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. AuburnPilot 11:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it is so pertinent to mention Bush's age at the time of the drunk driving arrest? He was not arrested for underage drinking (which would make it reasonable to explicitly state his age). Note that the reader can fairly easily calculate what was Bush's age at any point in the article, so unless there is a really good reason to explicitly write his age, it would seem to me to be unnecessary. --Asbl 05:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AuburnPilot, are you dense? Adding the age of a subject of an article is not adding commentary! I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of the items that you've pointed out to me. NPOV; try to grasp what that means before leaving a message like this, okay?

Asbl, His age is pertinent to a section where his rationalization for being a drunk is linked. Take out his excuses and then mentioning his age is not necessary. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was his excuse? If it was something along the line of "youthful indiscretion"? then I'd agree with you that his age is pertinent. In that case, however, please bring his excuse into the article, otherwise his age just appears to have come out of nowhere and would therefore appear to be out of place. --Asbl 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read the paragraph in its entirety, and I now understand what you are talking about. How do you like this modification? --Asbl 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. AFAIK, anybody who is 30 can't blame their indiscretions and mistakes on their age. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just as an aside, it's better to use {{subst:test2del}} than {{test2del}}. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning-war removed

I hate interfering with another person's talk page, but this is the only way I think I can de-escalate this entire situation without resorting to bans. Duke53: People make mistakes, 2nd Piston Honda made two mistakes and apologised. End of story. --  Netsnipe  ►  21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not good enough for me. How do I appeal this to someone at a higher level than you?

p.s. did you delete any images I uploaded? Was his apology when he called me a douche, an asshole or an ass? "Duke53 | Talk" 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just went to his talk page; quite a different message over there. Why? I would have to say that you have much to learn about being an administrator ... you dropped the ball on this one; does Wikipedia policy mean nothing to you? Thank You "Duke53 | Talk" 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted per Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion: "UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia." Apologies for forgetting to notify you on that issue. Anyway, you can always just link to the diff instead of wasting Wikipedia's server resources. Yes, you can try and take this issue further by following the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process and the next step is to seek mediation with 2nd Piston Honda. And for your information, this is my first day on the the job as an administrator and I was just following the advice at Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments. --  Netsnipe  ►  22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since it's your first day, I will try to work with you.

• I did not break Wikipedia policy ... 2nd Piston Honda did (more than once). Wikipedia's policies should be foremost in your mind when doing the job. It wasn't even close.
• The image was (is) useful in this encyclopedia, for me to prove the point that 2nd Piston Honda lied about deleting my posts. Your 'forgetting' to notify me was very convenient for some people.
• I did not call him any names ... he called me a douche, an asshole and an ass; I don't recall seeing an apology for any of that. Did I miss it somehow? I'd like for you to point out that apology for me, please.
• As much as you hate altering a user's talk page I dislike it more. If a guy has the balls to say something then let it stay forever.

Your 'compromise' here is way too one-sided. Remember, I did my thing according to Wikipedia policy, others didn't. I wouldn't worry too much about having to spend a lot of time here administering if this first case is any indication of your abilities. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Buser.7CBillsonator.7D.7DWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Duke53_and_2nd_Piston_Honda. WP:AIV is a place for obvious cases of vandalism that can't be disputed, not for long discussions.--Konstable 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Just giving background in case an impartial administrator cares to take it up. Did you do the same for the other guy's message?? Hmm .... "Duke53 | Talk" 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean? I did leave the other guy an identical message a minute or two after I left this message on your page. See - [3]--Konstable 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against you, I assure you. I'm just wondering why I was directed to leave my message in a different spot than where others are told to leave theirs. I'm getting a bit suspicious of how people are treated differently on Wikipedia. so I did check to see if you left the same message over there. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV has a huge green banner describing that this is a page for clear persistent vandals who have received a variety of vandal warning and it says that the summary should be "short". This is a page that admins should just be able to go to and after a brief review block vandals. You and 2nd Piston Honda started a whole debate there, and I'm not sure what the exact problem was but it didn't seem to be clear persistent vandalism to me, but rather a personal dispute between you two. For things like these, and anything involving discussions, WP:AIV is not the place, WP:AN/I is the specialised place for that.--Konstable 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You; you have been more help to me than anybody billed as an administrator. "Duke53 | Talk" 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have realised already that your dispute is going nowhere, except maybe insulting an administrator and maybe a couple of other people - which will do you no good apart. So why not just stop? Why not stop making comments against the admin, even if you still think he wronged you, remove Image:The truth hurts?.jpg from your talk page - it achieves no point anyway. Why not just drop this matter and getting back to editing? The longer the dispute stretches out the more anger will be built up, which I'm sure no one wants.--Konstable 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your concern, but I believe that I will do this my way. I didn't come here to make new friends or to sit around singing verses of Kumbaya. I really don't care who gets angry ... "Duke53 | Talk" 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 21:05, 3 September 2006 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Confused again.png" (unencyclopedic)

• 07:55, 5 September 2006 Guinnog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:The truth hurts?.jpg" (only existed to perpetuate a dispute. no encyclopedic value)

• 05:29, 6 September 2006 Eagle 101 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:A point to make.jpg" (disparging image used to troll another use after issue has been settled, see User:Duke53 for the other two instances of deletion.)

The sysops will keep deleting your image. Please stop beating a dead horse as continuously uploading a deleted image may be considered vandalism. Hbdragon88 07:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any fucking thing may be considered vandalism, just as vandalism may be allowed depending on the whim of the bigwigs. Why make rules if they don't have to be followed?

Now I should be allowed to delete your comments from my talk page, right? Or will that be considered vandalism?

Since you seem to be such an expert, I have a question; can a barnstar be deleted? I've read a lot about them, but can't seem to decipher that. I'm starting to believe that Wikipedia obscures details just so they don't have to follow any hard & fast policies. "Duke53 | Talk" 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" [4] The rules tell you how people expect you to behave, and what the usual response to various actions is. The rules are interpreted by humans and there is always room for variations and there are always special cases. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much wasn't talking about guidelines but rather what wikipedia calls its 'policies'; why waste time making them up and publicizing when they don't have to be followed? Guidelines may tell you "how people expect you to behave" but policies tell you how you have to behave. TTFN, "Duke53 | Talk" 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are followed when they make sense. That's most of the time. Sometimes, they don't make sense. Sometimes we can't agree. Having written rules makes it more consistent, but there are always inconsistencies. That's life. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aah ... sometimes the rules don't make sense'? Then what's the point of having them and posting them? The only consistent thing I've noticed here is that the level of horseshit stays pretty high at all times. "Duke53 | Talk" 13:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have the rules because they make sense often enough to be useful. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest then, they are 'suggestions', to be used whenever some bozo feels like invoking them. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use the word "bozo"? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fits. Why do you use the word 'rules' ? TTFN, "Duke53 | Talk" 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fits. There are times that rules should be broken and times when rules should be followed. I wish you luck in your quest to work out which is which. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... pretty much what I've been saying all along; the rules here are set up so that people can use them if and when they choose. What a crock of shit. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, people can follow or ignore rules as they choose, and there can be consequences to doing so. Just like in the real world. How else could you arrange things? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Under "Image vandalism," we have: Uploading provocative images. The image is clearly meant to provoke incivility and hostility, and has and will be deleted. Just giving you a fair warning about the image. Hbdragon88 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a 'guideline' or a 'policy' ? BTW, thanks for the early warning.

p.s. None of you experts have answered my question about the barnstars (another Wikipedia 'quirk': ignore a question when you don't want to answer it). "Duke53 | Talk" 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then...this could be considered a warning, although it's not an official template warning, so it's a toss-up to wehther you can delete it or not. The community hasn't reached a firm consensus on how user talk pages are handled. Barnstars are meant to be nice gestures to the editor who receives it - it would be up to the editor to remove it or not. The top of the page says that it's an official policy, by the way. Hbdragon88 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that clears things up nicely, like a bucket of mud. Thank You, we have all seen how official policy around here works. "Duke53 | Talk" 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think about what Wikipedia would be like without policies. It would have run straight down into the ground a while ago. The policies are followed by the good contributors that assume good faith. Sure, sometimes the way admins or users follow the policies are questionable, but who cares? Unless they're clearly violating the policies on purpose, who cares? The way you're looking at it is the way a vandal looks at it. The good faith contributors read the policies and say, "That makes sense. I should help Wikipedia by following/enforcing this." while the bad faith contributors say to themselves, "This doesn't make sense. This is bull shit. Wikipedia is a conspiracy/anarchy." It's all just a matter of POV. Just like good faith and bad faith is a POV. It's a really complex issue, but there's really nothing you can do to change it, so it's best to just drop it. Wouldn't you agree?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that load of claptrap? Ha! Policies ≠ Rules. When the 'rules' are open for interpretation by over 1,000 people then they are no longer 'rules', just suggestions that admins can either follow or ignore. I don't have to 'imagine' what wikipedia would be without rules ... that's how it is now.

As far as comparing me to a vandal: I follow the rules that the powers-that-be posted, a vandal wouldn't. Your logic is flawed in many ways. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"just suggestions that admins can either follow or ignore."

Not really, because the ones that ignore them are usually de-sysoped. And you're right, in the large ammount of people that come here there are ones that are bound to break the rules, just like in society the people that break the laws are considered criminals. Here, the people that break the rules are considered vandals.

"I don't have to 'imagine' what wikipedia would be without rules ... that's how it is now."

If there were no rules, what would WP:AN3, WP:AIV, and WP:ANI be for? There are rules. The rules are followed by the good contributors, and are ignored by the bad contributors. Now... which category would you be in?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these 'rules' followed by good admins and ignored by bad admins? Keep on drinking the kool-aid. Make your own judgments about me ... I've already made mine about you. TTFN, Duke53 | ^Talk 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:SUBST for a good idea of what my bot is doing. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know how to do it, do the following:

To revert a page to an earlier version:

Go to the page you wish to revert, click on the History tab at the top of the page, then click on the time and date of the earlier version you want to revert to. It will not work if you click on 'cur', 'last', or "Compare selected versions". When the page displays, text similar to this: (Revision as of 23:19 Jul 15, 2003), will display. It appears below the page's title, in place of the From {project name}, usually seen. Verify that you've selected the correct version, then click edit this page tab on the top of the page. You'll get a warning, above the edit box, about editing an out-of-date revision. Ignore the warning and save the page. Be sure to add the word "revert" (or "rv") to the edit summary, along with a short explanation if it is not obvious

This is from [5]. I also didn't know how to do it for a long time, but it is pretty easy once you figure it out. Cheers. Remember 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I knew that there had to be an easy way to do this but never could find it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to know how to revert in order to remove vandalism, check out this page about popups. The only stipulation is that popups should only be used to revert vandalism, not content disputes or otherwise. Whether that's an official rule or not, I don't know. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue but let me just ask a question. From what I understand you are determined to get the piece about Roy leaving Kansas on his bio, which is understandable. However, did you know that people continually delete coach k's ref controversy from his bio, when it got and continues to get far more media attention, and refs were suspended directly as a result of bias. Do you agree that this is a bigger news story and event than the Kansas thing, yet it gets deleted while Williams's leaving Kansas remains up? Let me know, just curious as to your opinions. Thanks

Do yourself a favor and go check to see if I ever deleted it. Then you can go to their user pages and ask them your question. ICGAFFL. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jut re-read your comments here. " ... and refs were suspended directly as a result of bias". Could you cite a source that says that for me? Duke53 | ^Talk 07:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't an excuse honestly, I just thought the image didn't look right where it was. I know all about the US conservatives censoring the Anti-Americanism article so that it doesn't make them look bad, in fact they have blocked me on several occasions for reverting their censorship! feel free to leave me a message back on my talk page--Frogsprog 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, it was just that it messed the format up. I've been trying to find a more effective image of flag burning, but someone deleted the one i loaded up --Frogsprog 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've designed quite a few web pages; the first version looked fine and this one is okay. Leave it alone now. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your image instead of the other one because the latter had been on the page for some while and arguably represented the consensus of active editors. Although my personal view is that your image is better, in general it's preferable that such changes undergo a round or two of discussion on the article's Talk page. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the UNC-Duke rivalry webpage. I think you have helped to make the page better and I definately want to encourage further contributions to the article to make it as good as possible. I was curious why you cut the following sentence: "From 1997-2003 UNC won only 5 games of 19 against Duke and many were saying that the rivalry was on the decline.[6]". I thought it accurately characterized the decline of the rivalry and the dominance of Duke over UNC for that time period. But what is your opinion? Remember 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever deleting anything on that page and if I did it was unintentional. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this edit [7], but since you say the deletion was unintentional, I will just add the deleted information back in. Cheers. Remember 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I did was to change the status of Redick and Williams from 'graduating seniors', perhaps there was someone else editing at the same time. None of the other changes were done by me. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed a lot of americans are reverting the widely accepted image, they are very stubborn so just keep reverting, they're only trying to make a point --Frogsprog 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what's your point? do i detect some racism on your part? should we AMERICANS step away from our beliefs just to appease others? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no racism, its hostility towards the united states, but basically I think that the image should stay, and I noticed you do also, I'm just encouraging you to continue reverting--Frogsprog 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let it go. He's clearly seen your comment since he had to revert it, and its pretty clear from his removal of it that he doesn't see any point to continuing the conversation. Using vandalism templates on established users has been viewed in the past as harassment. If you really feel that strongly about this issue I would suggest creating a user-conduct WP:RFC (request for comment). Syrthiss 19:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that since he's an admin that he doesn't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us? He's rude and arrogant, and there is no place at Wikipedia for either trait, IMO.Duke53 | ^Talk 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm telling you that warning him for removing items from his talkpage as vandalism isn't productive. That clause of the WP:VAND page routinely causes escalation of situations (there are 2 at this moment on WP:ANI at least). FWIW, I too tend to feel that people shouldn't remove comments from their talk pages (I've objected to people at Requests for Adminship because of it), but I don't like pushing the issue...and I think I've even done it once or twice with clearly bad faith messages on my talkpage. Syrthiss 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike it when someone pees on my leg and then tells me that it's raining. Why does Wikipedia tell us to not delete items from our user talk pages but rather to archive them? That guy proudly states on HIS talk page that he deletes rather than archives. Some pigs more equal 'round these parts? Duke53 | ^Talk 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Wikipedia should delete the templates they don't want us to use; simplify the whole process that way.[reply]

View it as you wish. Unless he actually deletes the comments, they are still in the page history and anyone worth their barnstars when investigating a situation will check the history to see if something is being swept under the carpet. Even if he deleted them, other admins can view deleted edits and regular editors can see there are deleted edits. In any case, I made a good faith request and you disagree...and thats fine. Happy editing. Syrthiss 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's puzzling to me why you would make that 'good faith' request ... you don't have a dog in this fight. There seems to be a 'class system' in play here at Wikipedia: admins and peasants; hardly a comfortable situation for we peasants. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Very generous of you to allow me to view it as I wish; Thank You, boss.[reply]

Only because its part of my responsibilities as an administrator to try to assist other editors (whether you believe that or not). I only noticed you leaving comments and him removing them because I still had his talkpage watched from the Mykungfu thread a little further up the page. I have his article watched because WMC and I work in the same field. I don't know why you are making pithy passive agressive comments to me. I haven't threatened you, and in fact was suggesting possible ways to get satisfaction regarding your complaints. Syrthiss 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" I don't know why you are making pithy passive agressive comments to me". That's the beauty of Wikipedia: you can defend a fellow admin no matter how he acts; I can comment on it.. It is very kind of you to not threaten me ... I haven't done a friggin' thing to you or him. I reported a 3RR violation; it is the admins' job to take care of that violation, preferably without being a sarcastic puke to the one who made the report. Him (or you) being an admin does not impress me one little bit ... apparently he wanted the position; if he can't be civil while doing the job he ought to get out of it. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment said "Trivia - source? (unc-ch message boards and fan sites don't count) D O O K = S H I T. NPOV?)"

I'm not sure we're dealing with an NPOV dispute. Wikipedia is not making a judgment about Duke by including the nickname Dook; it's only stating that the nickname exists. Hopefully that will clear this matter up once and for all.

As an aside, I believe fan sites, etc COULD be used only to indicate the prevalence of a nickame. I could be wrong, however. It doesn't really matter as I've not included such sources, nor do I plan to. Thanks Dubc0724 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo ... all I have to do is show some websites where Dean Smith is referred to as 'The Schnozz', 'Coach Smif' or 'Drunken Deano' and you'd be good with it? All you showed was where some unc-ch fans spelled DUKE in an ignorant way.

I believe a Google search will quickly reveal that "Dook" is a far more prevalent name for Duke than any of the alleged Dean Smith nicknames you listed. I understand that Duke fans don't like the nickname, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hopefully we can drop this, finally? Dubc0724 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care in the least what you believe about Google searches. I asked a question: would it be good enough for 'sources' to cite web pages where smith is called those names? That is what you did, so your past history tells me 'YES'. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given that there were enough of them to prove that the nicknames were actually prevalent. That's what the Google search would indicate. It's not a difficult concept. Dubc0724 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many is 'enough'? Just want to get your ground rules straight. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Carowhina", "Dook", "Bronx Bombers", or "Steel Curtain" and then Google "Drunken Deano" or "Coach Smif" and see the difference in the number of pages that come up. Is Google the definitive answer, the end-all, be-all? Of course not. But it gives us an idea of how widely used (or obscure) something might be. Again, just because you object to "Dook" doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who use the term. Dubc0724 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Widely used', my ass, give me a number. Do you have hard time understanding the questions? You seem to be attempting to leave yourself an 'out' here; I don't want there to be a dispute later. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being ridiculous. We both know it's subjective. Below are the results of a quick Google search:

• Carowhina - 1,930
• Dook (only searching for pages containing both Duke and Dook) - 42,200
• Bronx Bombers - 424,000
• Drunken Deano - 5
• The Schnozz - 733
• Coach Smif - 4 (2 of which are Wikipedia pages where you typed those words!)

So no, there's no set number cut-off, but any reasonable person can see the difference. Are you about done? Dubc0724 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dook, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Just wanted to make sure you saw this, and thought I would ask if you might be a part. If not, I understand and will re-write it leaving you off. Thanks. DukeEGR93 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Duke,

My name is Steve Caruso and I'm the Coordinator of the Association of Members' Advocates. OkamiItto (talk · contribs) had requested my assistance as an Advocate and I would like to bring up some concerns about the image that you uploaded: Image:Anti_America.jpg.

Although it's a bit of a shock-image (which really isn't the issue), it was not given a copyright tag so I have listed it for Speedy Deletion under Wikipedia Policy. If you have any questions about my action, please leave a note on my desk. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You told me (on my talk page) to leave you a message there, but I couldn't determine the proper place.. I uploaded an image which was in many newspapers around the world. One guy is complaining about it. I first saw the image when it was E-Mailed to me in a letter asking for money to support hospitals in the Middle East. I have uploaded it again with an explanation of its history. It is widely used on many websites the world over.Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you have already deleted it. I find it interesting that the complainant had no issues with using the first panel, just the ones that showed that idiot catch on fire. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image, as it was, was not in accordance to Wikipedia Policy so deletion was the proper course of action to take. Editors need to work together to enforce these policies and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Editing-warring over a copyrighted, non-licence-tagged image does not work towards these goals. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((Cross posted from Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/October_2006/OkamiItto#Summary:)): Duke, unless you are invited onto this page, it is a bit inappropriate for you to post here. Requesting an Advocate is not a form of harassment, but a form of requesting help when a Wikipedian is in over their head. Each Advocate is supposed to research into each dispute as requested by their Advocee and lend whatever assistance they can to solve their issue. Many times this entails acting as a mediator between two or more parties, as a representitive when their Advocee cannot articulate their concerns under Wikipedia Policy, and a source of constructive criticism, as sometimes an Advocee may be a bit "in the wrong" and needs to compromise to work towards resolution. If these claims are incorrect, correct, or a bit of both, it's an Advocate's job to see so and act accordingly and work with the situation, rather than against it. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who invited OkamiItto to that page? Seems like everybody has a right to face their accuser (he did accuse me of violating 3RR). That's why I posted there. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OkamiItto filed an Advocacy Request and the page was created for the purpose of fielding that request. It's not a rule that you cannot post there, it is just strongly frowned upon until you are asked to relate your end of things. We have had situations in the past where disputatnts have used AMA requests as a quarreling forum, innundating the Advocate with too much information to read over, including personal attacks, flame warring, and various other uncivil behavior. When an Advocate gets down to handling a case, they need time to do their research and go over preliminary preparation to continue on with things. That is why responding to a claim that has not been verrified and researched yet can be taxing. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the date stamps that were posted it is fairly obvious that you were not going to (and did not) ask for my side of anything. You had already taken actions with no input from me. Therefore, it wasn't mediation on anybody's part. Where does one go to address the issue of being falsely accused of breaking Wikipedia policy? (That actually did happen) Duke53 | ^Talk 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, what exactly are you referring to? Remember 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just an outside view of your user page, some people might view this comment, " Interesting that a unc-ch fan (Dubc0724) would be using that anti-Semitic, white supremacist website as a source about DUKE University. Must tell us something, right?" as an insinuation that Dubc0724 is a white supremacist and/or anti-semite. This could be taken as a personal attack. I don't mean this to sound like a warning, but you might want to reconsider. (If thats not what you meant to do, maybe just reword it?) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the concern. I was just posting it as a public service; people might be interested in the source of some cites used by editors here. (I know that I am). It mostly just says that some editors don't mind taking a source from anywhere they may find it. I called nobody a name or made any accusations. I am comfortable with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the party accused of anti-Semitism, I think I better jump in and defend myself. When sourcing the article, I Googled "University of New Jersey at Durham" and used a couple of sources to show that Duke is known by that nickname fairly commonly. One of them happened to be "vanguard News Network" which I was later informed was some type of hate site. Since the only Vanguard page I've ever been to was the one containing the term "University of New Jersey at Durham", I didn't know who the hell they were. I reverted it and apologized. The article has subsequently been deleted [by Duke fans] and now UNJD redirects to Duke University. No biggie.

Auburn, I appreciate your efforts to try to talk reasonably with Duke. However, I think that's a lost cause, as he's proven amply on several articles. Even his user talk page displays his combative attitude toward any criticism. Posting this little blurb on his user page was clearly intended to paint me as some sort of racist just because I happened to point out a popular nickname for a major university whose sports teams are adored by many and hated by many as well. Duke's posting was in poor taste, and I'm afraid, was more of the same. Talk about going to extreme lengths to defend your school's sports team. You might want to consider getting a life. This Policy once existed for a good reason. Perhaps they need to bring it back. Good day. Dubc0724 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(I tried to revert to the actual pages ... don't know how and don't want to learn to do it) Duke53 | ^Talk 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which version you want it reverted to or I would, but you might like having the power of the popup. I suggested it about a week ago up in your revert section; not sure if you ever looked into them. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at it (and couldn't figure it out). I would like everybody's comments restored as I don't want anybody to think that I'm censoring or hiding anything. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be difficult to 'mediate' when you are only told one side of a story, when that story includes lies; I was accused of 3RR falsely and you just let it pass. Why? Enforce all Wikipedia rules or enforce none of them. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, I did let the 3RR accusation pass because there was no 3RR violation that I could see or do anything about. The issue then became a matter of proper copyright tags, and when that happened, under both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia Policy the image had to be removed. 3RR had absolutely nothing to do with that; never the twain shall meet. :-) If you can find the copyright information for the image and re-upload it with an acceptable application of those copyrights, then by all means please do so. Otherwise, the image was simply inappropriate, and Wikipedia is having enough actual legal trouble as it is with copyright violations and the like to let things like that remain in place. If there are further problems in terms of the article's content I request that you please leave "your side" of the story under Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/OkamiItto#Duke53. There was no 3RR violation, so further discussion about something that did not happen would not be suiting, so I respectfully ask you not to focus upon it. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 22:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something did happen (which you continue to gloss over): I was accused of something that never occurred. I wish that you'd explain how that isn't a personal attack or harassment. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Nandesuka 19:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia one bit; 'one' = 'one'; more than 'one = 'some'. 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duke53, I'm Royalguard11 from the AMA. I have accepted your case. The problem seems to be more of a grammar one than anything. You are asking that the page say "one feature" and User:Nandesuka is asking that it say "some features". I know that in my editing experience, being vague is usually better than being specific. For example, I often have something say "many people" vs it saying "most people". Many makes someone think of a non-specific large number, while "most" applies that there have been studies and evidence to suggest as much. In this case, "some" is vague, while "one" is a specific absolute, implying that they are no other criticisms. Even though there is only one example given, I believe it's in the best interest to have the word "some", as it applies that there may be other criticisms that we might have missed. After all, Wikipedia isn't perfect, as the General disclaimer suggests.

If you require any more help or advice, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or on my advocates desk, or to contact my by using the e-mail this user feature on my userpage. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... "Even though there is only one example given" That is exactly my point ... until other criticisms are added let the description reflect the truth rather than something that may or may not occur in the future. So far the critics have come up with exactly 'one' item to criticize. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being vague has it's time and place, but an encyclopedia isn't that time or place. If you read the article you could see that only one feature of OS X is being criticized; saying 'some' isn't being vague, it's a distortion of the truth. Big difference. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If and when other criticisms come to light then the article can be changed; as for now, it simply is not factual. Wikipedia should strive to be better than that. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I work on a Mac, and I know there are lots of criticisms for Mac OS X, but googling criticism + "Mac OS X" and criticize Mac OS X, but couldn't find anything outside of chat fourms. I know that one criticism is that Mac can't run as many games, but then again that's a corporate and supply/demand thing. My advice would be to ask on the talk page and come to a solution there. If you like, I can also get involved, just ask me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have made my point for me: if the 'Macbashers' would add other criticisms then the article as written would be okay. Let them find (sourced) criticisms and then add those to the article. It is BS to allow anyone to call something 'some' when in actuality all they have been able to come up with is 'one'. p.s. I did ask for a mediator and am shocked that you would puposely leave an article 'vague' when it is anything but (as written). Duke53 | ^Talk 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have come to a agreement to just delete the whole section instead of arguing "one" vs "some". I've never heard anything bad about the dock anyways (I think it was a great addition). Do you require anymore advice or help, or are you good then? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't part of that (or any) decision; my whole argument was / is the characterization of one feature as 'some'. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. The Dock was a stupid feature to attack as it can be re-configured by the user in seconds and in many different ways.[reply]

If you are no longer requiring assistance, I'd encourage you to fill in the followup on the request page. I hope I've been of some help to you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duke. Thanks for taking some initiative on trying to clarify things on the LDS Church. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I did revert some of your changes, and am considering more. The church did move because of persecution. In fact they were kicked out of most places by either the government or the surrounding non-Mormon locals. Although Joseph Smith was in hiding much of the time or in counties where he was immune from extradition for "so-called" crimes, that was never an issue in the churches abandonment of a settlement.

Also, on your addendum on baptism for the dead, you are correct that there is controversy particularly amongst the inclusion of Hollocaust victims, your statements are too vague. Also the Baptism for the dead article has a ton of detailed information on it, and since the topic is covered elsewhere in such detail, it is not deemed critical to the main article. We are discussing ways to include such controversial topics, so feel free to help.

Lastly I do not want to discourage you from participation, and hope you can contribute to this and other articles to help make them more complete without violating POV. Bytebear 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about discouraging me from participation; do not expect me to go along with edits that are POV. The POV being pushed here is strictly the POV of the LDS church ... we all know that early church leaders were arrested for various cirmes; that would be a good reason to move out of those jurisdictions. I will not sit by idly and allow the LDS church's POV to be used in these articles. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) p.s If the baptism stuff is covered elsewhere I propose that the whole section be deleted.[reply]

See my response on my talk page. Bytebear 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. I don't have a problem with making this more neutral, and I was not trying to push a POV. My concern with the information being added is that it is not referenced, so I can't verify if it is accurate or not. This problem is all over the article, as most of the editors seem reluctant to add where the info comes from, but I have been trying to fix that. To discuss this further, we should probably bring this to the article's talk page so everyone can get involved. --Lethargy 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I added was just as verified as the sections I amended ... that was my whole point of the changes. Do not expect others to cite sources when the paragraph itself has no cites, but is simply LDS POV. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not expect others to cite sources when the paragraph itself has no cites. I was actually the one who tagged the paragraph with {{facts}} in the first place. If I may explain my actions: I have tagged most of the article as needing sources, and I have been trying (probably not hard enough) to stop the flow of further unverified information until sources are provided for what we already have, rather than trying to hit a moving target. Also, I do not expect people to cite sources in an already uncited paragraph, that is why I tagged the paragraph for sources. I hope they will cite sources, as I said in my edit summary: removed "other things" and "other events" becasue they are too vague and unsourced. As for "fear of being found guilty of breaking laws" idunno. In other words: I am unfamiliar with this topic, please provide sources.

When I added my first edits to the article there were NO ^{[citation needed]} tags whatsoever ... seems odd that they weren't deemed necessary to have then, but are so important now. A POV was being pushed and that is not the Wikipedia way; either it is all verified or none of it has to be, IMO. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, the {{facts}} tag was there and still is, there wasn't one in the lead, but in the Movement of Church headquarters section there was (look at the end of the paragraph).

There should be a ^{[citation needed]} tag for each individual statement being questioned; the way it is now does not necessarily ask for a citation concerning the 'persecution' statement. It is ambiguous, at best, about what exactly needs verification. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be messy in places where there are a lot of things to verify, but it would avoid the confusion. I probably shouldn't have used the {{facts}} at the end of the paragraph, but I didn't want to add 20 tags... perhaps {{unreferenced}} would be better. I don't think this solution applies to every instance of {{facts}} in the article, but I'll try to be more specific with the tags. --Lethargy 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some more about this subject I feel that an expanded section on it should be added to the page. I didn't realize how controversal it had become, epecially when it concerns Holocaust victims. Since it is an official policy of the church I feel that it should be included on this page; a separate article seems to lessen the severity of this practice. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have been discussing it on the talk page. My preference is to remove it from the section it is in, and maybe include it in another section on other beliefs and practices. Mainly because the section it is included in is organized based on the Second Artile of Faith of the LDS Church, of which baptism for the dead doesn't really apply. Bytebear 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a discussion concerning Baptism of the Dead at that talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was one, but I will start one. I also added a quick historical paragraph about temples where the baptisms take place, so I think if we beef up the temple section we can add more info on the subject. Bytebear 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of civility, please remove the personal attack against Dubc0724 from your userpage. While userspace is basically "your" space on Wikipedia, it is not a space for making personal attacks against other users, no matter what. Jimbo himself has said so:

“

libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea

”

- Jimbo Wales[8]

If you persist, I will take administrative action, as personal attacks are disruptive to the Wiki, and are not allowed. Thank you. if you have any questions, feel free to enquire at my Talk page. (Click the "M") ♠PMC♠ 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made an attack against anyone, simply an observation of what some people will use for 'sources'. You do what you have to do, I will do the same. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. This isn't North Korea, we should have some freedoms.[reply]

Oh, (and this may surprise some folks), 'Jimbo' may not be right about everything. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMC, I came back and read this again; who exactly decided that it is an attack? If it's just you that made the decision then it's an opinion; you know what they say about opinions. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. You might want to check out the page history on his user page ... seems like some folks can pitch but not catch. I never once whined to anybody about his page.[reply]

When I passive-aggressively accuse you of being an antisemite, you can "whine" to anyone you see fit. But until that happens, you'll just be talking out of your ass as usual. I will say this: you've proven to be a zealous and loyal supporter of your school. I'll give you points for that, however poor your judgment. As for me, I think it's time to take a nice (maybe permanent?) break from Wikipedia. Enjoy. Dubc0724 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally we agree on something: I also think that it's time for you to take a permanent break from Wikipedia; don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classy. Dubc0724 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, the problem with the comment is that it suggests - subtly yes, but still suggests - that Dubc is a racist. I'm asking you again: please remove the comment from your userpage. I've looked at his User page history, and yes, there is evidence of incivility there, but the thing is, it's gone. You're the only one left in this dispute with violations of WP:CIVIL on your page. I've asked Dubc not to be uncivil towards you in future, (see his Talk) and if you could please extend that courtesy in regards to the comment on your userpage, I would appreciate it. Thank you. ♠PMC♠ 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my observation as much as I am willing (or going) to; the 'thing' about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever really 'gone'. Unfortunately he wanted to partake in a game and when it didn't go the way he intended, he cried 'foul' ... that's not the way it works. His bad for not realizing that he wasn't setting the rules for the game. I don't feel that I am in violation of anything (you pretty much admitted that yourself; a subtle suggestion does not equal a violation). Sorry that your time was wasted. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately he wanted to partake in a game and when it didn't go the way he intended, he cried 'foul'" Well, that's hardly true. Let's set this straight once & for all: (1)The Vanguard thing was an honest mistake, and you know it. I've explained it here (it was deleted, of course), on the original article's talk page and on the article's DELETION page. You're the only person who's made an issue of it. Your attempt to accuse me of being a racist can only be explained as irrational, slavish support of all things Duke. (2)Whatever incivility I've displayed (bred of frustration with your edits & attitude in general) is hardly on par with the incivility you've shown me & others. Yes, I've gotten snippy & impatient. My bad, I'll do better. But your Vanguard accusation on your user page was just plain bad taste, and you know it. (I guess I could display equally poor taste by putting something on my user page asking you if Crystal Gail Mangum was white -- or if the story involved the Carolina lacrosse team -- would you still attack her character so vigorously on Wikipedia? But I won't do that.) Sorry you've embarrassed yourself again. Now, can you just comply with the warnings and let it go? Dubc0724 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever presume to tell me what I 'know'; you put crap up on your page, I retaliated. You decided to 'remove' yours, I haven't made that decision. (I did edit it) You don't get to make the decision for me. Sorry. Post whatever you wish; I will respond in the manner which I deem is appropriate. Live with it. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what user page "crap" are you referring to? Dubc0724 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help". Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Duke, are you confused? I posted the above message on my user talk page well after you posted the Vanguard crap on your user page. I thought you were supposed to be showing me what I posted on my user page that led you to "retaliate" (your words) by posting the misleading Vanguard information on your user page? Dubc0724 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Thanks. I know I lost my cool. Sorry about that And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page, and I won't bring it up again. We'll just let Wikipedia run its course. Again, sorry for probably making the situation worse by arguing. Thanks for trying to help". Dubc0724 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I get it, I get it. I meant that I was done with trying to get you to remove the nonsense from your user space. However, I will still respond to statements made about me, as I have done. (By the way, I'm still waiting to see what it was that I did that supposedly provoked all this...?) Dubc0724 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________

And I've added my final reply to Duke on his usertalk page

_____________________________________________________________________________

I guess we're done here. Dubc0724 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but an unfounded suggestion of racism is a violation of civility policy, as in "ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another." Dubc has removed the citation, apologized for and explained his use of Vanguard. Not only that, but this is the first time Dubc has done something like that, lending credence to his apology. I'm asking you one more time, please remove the comment from your page entirely. ♠PMC♠ 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some un-helpful remarks at Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum. First, you continued to argue with a user even after he had apologized for any hard feelings he may have caused. More recently, you have made an insulting remark about a user's contribution. I have removed your latest remark and notifying you that incivil behavior is not appropriate. Johntex\^talk 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who, exactly, are you? The last change to my edit there was done by a sockpuppet, I believe, or a guy who keeps getting impersonated by others. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying you made this edit, which is the one I removed? Johntex\^talk 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying anything ... I never denied anything; that was in response to something from a sockpuppet named Abe.Froman. I meant it. Are you some kind of inquisitor around Wikipedia. Do I have to answer this line of questioning? Duke53 | ^Talk 06:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Duke, go to your library or bookstore and get Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. It is a very good bio on Joseph Smith. I am sure you will think it is too pro-Mormon, but it has gotten excellent reviews from the academic community. See for yourself [9] Bytebear 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it claim that Joseph Smith killed two men before being killed? I had never heard that before. I'm wondering if any of those articles have an citations associated with them. Thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Joseph had a small pepper-box pistol (which his associates brought into jail for him), with which he fired at the mob several times through the closed door and was able to kill two members of the mob. This is a quote from the Joseph Smith, Jr. article here at Wikipedia. I already asked for a citation there, too. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you asked for a citation. That's what I was going to do, too. I'm guessing that is bogus. I'm pretty sure I would have remembered reading that he had killed some people before dying. If nobody comes up with a citation after a while, I think we should just remove the claim. Thanks for catching that. I hadn't read that article, so I hadn't noticed it before. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm getting into this a bit I have noticed more than a few claims on one page that are directly contradicted on 'associated' pages ... I will continue to ask for sources. I expect that many of those will be sources that I cannot easily verify. C'est la vie. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of it all is that you don't need to verify ... you just need to point something out, and let others verify. ;^) It is up to the people making the claim to substantiate their material. I think what happens often is that somebody starts typing and every so often inserts something that they believe as opposed to something they know. It is very hard to write verifiable NPOV text. In fact, I'm guessing it is impossible, but we still keep trying. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Joseph Smith article is the most frequently vandalized, by my casual count, of the LDS related articles here. I have reverted the "two men killed" claim half a dozen times in the last year. I know of no documentation, not even a tall tale, but someone(s) insists on placing it there. I would also urge that it be removed. WBardwin 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrp103 (Bill Pringle), I'm not sure that 7+ hours is long enough to keep a ^{[citation needed]} request up on a page (Smith page and LDS page); I usually give it three or four days to be verified before pulling a statement. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case it is clear that the claim was unsubstantiated, and has been removed multiple times. I've read multiple accounts of the event and have never come across any claim that he injured anyone, let alone killed anybody. If somebody wants to add it back in, then we can slap a {{fact}} tag and make them cite a reference. Unfortunately, a lot of people make random changes to LDS pages just to be funny. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read a blurb somewhere in the last day or two that said two men were hit, but it didn't say that they died; I will look to see if I can find it again. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..

I am in the process of getting help in mediating the matter. People are arrested often for kidnapping children after killing family members. Do not come here with smarmy advice; I will find sources where I find them. You CANNOT and WILL NOT dictate to me what sources I may use. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twice I've written articles defending the word "Kidnapping" and twice it has ether been rejected or sent to the ether. The first time,yesterday, I entered the edit on the discussion page along with my name, went to the history section and it was there with my name. When I went back a few hours later, my edit was no longer in the discussion page nor in the history. The second time. Wrote the edit again on the discussion page, but when I entered it a message said it would be merged with another persons edit. Well it wasn't. It disappeared. How does a person make this thing work? Should I write my edit in Word, & cut and paste it every hour to the dicussion page? Tinosa | ^Talk 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that you hit the 'save page' button after you have made your edit. It's the only thing I can think of. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Duke53 | ^Talk 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What with? Daniel.Bryant 06:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get a dispute resolved and seem to keep messing it up. Perhaps you can guide me through the process? Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you handle it Dan, I was just removing the template, so it stops reporting in the channel :) — Deon555^talk_Review 08:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some confusion over who is going to help me with this situation? Duke53 | ^Talk 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to

You may want to go check to see who made the 'stupid' comment (and when). I parroted back your words about' limited understanding'. Please do not post here again as I am getting help from the admins to settle this once and for all. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for assuming I cared about the Duke-Carolina stupidity. Personally I don't think any of those stupid names belong in Wikipedia. Sonria 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry; then can I assume that you put the 'speedy deletion' tag on the other two items as well? Duke53 | ^Talk 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • •

Calling me a troll is not a personal attack?  :) I think that I understand things better than you do. Feel free to make all the suggestions you want; I will feel free to ignore them. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡

Weasel words. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, calling someone a troll on WIKI because their behavior is that of a troll is acceptable". "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom" Yeah, you know the policies. The bold quote is from Wikipedia's official policies. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I understand how it can sometimes be frustrating dealing with new users, and IP, who sometimes add content which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. I noticed this example[10], which you quite rightly removed. However, please assume good faith with new users, and assume that they are trying to help Wikipedia. Calling their edits "vandalism" isn't a great inception into this great community, and according to Wikipedia's vandalism policy, "tests by new users" aren't considered vandalism. Don't take this message as a warning or anything; more of a heads-up to help make your time at Wikipedia more enjoyable and easy-going. Thanks for all your cleaning up of Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy contributing! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I thought that you were the person who was going to help in a dispute over the use of the word 'kidnap' in an article concerning a massacre where the children weren't slaughtered, but rather spirited away. The whole situation with a few editors has spiralled down hill (see just above your post). Please help. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit change had the edit sumary "Comment removed by admnin..." You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff. Johntex\^talk 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought that particular thread up as 'evidence' then you should want an exact record of what took place, if you want it judged fairly. Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Hmm... Duke53 | ^Talk 06:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? I can't find a rule that tells me that; I did find one that says that admins shouldn't use their position to bully others. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you want it for evidence, then you can use a diff - you don't need to revert the change. Johntex\^talk 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a problem answering when I ask questions of you. I will ask them again. Why wouldn't you want the entire exchange documented? Are you telling me that by reverting that I was breaking a Wikipedia rule? Duke53 | ^Talk 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you just what I said "You should not revert that sort of edit. If you want a record of that comment for some reason - use a diff." You knew you were reverting an administrative action and you did it anyway. That wasn't a good thing to do. Shouting isn't going to change anything. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sitting here wondering why an admin won't answer direct questions when asked. Is bolding something shouting? I consider you deleting his comment 'not a good thing' to do. I consider your commenting 'don't revert me like that' 'not a good thing to do'. You're right, I knew what I was doing; I also couldn't find a rule telling me that I couldn't do it. Now I'm asking an admin (you) to show me that rule. I know what you are telling me; why won't you give me the answers to what I've actually asked?Duke53 | ^Talk 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, policy encourages administrators to use discretion in defusing situations. Interfereing with an administrator is against policy. If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting. If discussion fails to satisfy your concern, then you can report me. You should never, however, revert an action made by an admin if the admin has stated that are acting in their administrator capacity. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you disagree with my actions, you should talk to me about your complaint rather than reverting".. I believe that your idea of 'talking' is quite different than mine; I have asked you numerous questions to which you have never given a straight answer. Your idea of 'talking' is simply for me to 'listen' to you and not expect any answers; I don't feel that admins should act in that manner. You ignore my questions but continue to be evasive; why? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to what you should have done prior to reverting. You should have discussed. You did not do so. You reverted. That was wrong. I've explained why it was wrong, and I've warned you not to do it again. I will spell it out for you again - Never revert an action taken by an administrator if they label it an administrative action. Don't try to distract from the issue, which is that you should not have reverted my change. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the rule to me. You keep saying 'should', but haven't shown me why I can't. I am not 'distracting' from anything; I asked you questions before ... you simply ignored them. Your actions here are highly suspicious for an admin. Being an admin doesn't give you the right to be a dictator or misuse the admin power. The 'situation' that you were trying to 'diffuse' was pretty much laughable; you were attempting to put a slant on something. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed someone else's comments, not yours. You had no reason or right to restore them. You are being argumentative and you keep wanting to distract from the issue at hand, which is that you were wrong to remove my change. This conversation is not going anywhere so I'm taking a break from it. As I said, if you feel I've acted inappropriately, file a complaint. From my perspective, this converation is over. You may have the last word if you want. Just be aware that you have been warned and that if you do such a thing again, I will block you. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke, Not everything that makes sense is written down. If you don't understand something Johntext says, please say so, and ask for an explaination. Wikipedia isn't about some set of rules that say exactly what you can and can't do in all circumstances. Some things are against the spirit of wikipedia even if there isn't a written rule saying so. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Aveling, I waited to answer you because I think that you may have inadvertantly stumbled upon Wikipedia's biggest flaw: "Wikipedia isn't about some set of rules that say exactly what you can and can't do in all circumstances". That is why it will never be a credible source to many people; I have asked over and over to have a rule pointed out to me and have been ignored. If each admin is allowed to do as he / she pleases with no accountability for their actions then it is anarchy, with 1,000+ petty tyrants doing exactly what they want, when they want. WP is destined for failure under such a system. Ignoring questions about the system doesn't strengthen the system.