User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 35

User talk:Cavaleer

This chap has just tried to draw your attention with an edit summary in the Mimi Smith article. Britmax (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime (at all)! Britmax (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi dates

Possibly but I'm just allergic to people changing numbers without reason or source. Britmax (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Look here. I did apologize, but I will apologize once again. I'm really sorry, can we please move on now? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move on to your looking at your own version of a consensus that was achieved after many years of arguing? You don't like it, because people contributing to the "Wikipedia project The Beatles", like to work with each other towards a peaceful resolution. You are stirring up the mud, which nobody wants. Shame on you.--andreasegde (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea, I'll say it again. It was ip 99.251.125.65 that started it up again, look at the Beatles talk page and McCartney's talk page if you do not believe me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record there is no reason why your triangular diplomacy solution cannot be implemented at Pepper as well, it is the third !voting option, maintain. We just have to establish consensus at Pepper either way, that's all. You are getting a little worked up over this IMO. Just relax, it's only a "t". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bullshit me with your bullshit. Sorry, I couldn't think of a better word. Of the many that said "Support" on this page, you (of course), did not. You are dragging this thing back into mud again, because you did not "get your own way". People like you have tried these sort of tricks before, and you should be ashamed of your own willingness to have things as you want them. Wikipedia is an inter-active project, and you will never subjugate that.--andreasegde (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this has gone way far enough. I sincerely apologize for any comments you took as uncivil, and I will not address the point again. Also, I am formally asking you to cease and desist from posting to my talk page as your behaviour is bordering on harassment. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a good trick, but it's a very old one. I posted one single post (oops, two) on your page about your disgusting accusations, and you have posted more on mine. Do you know how long I've been here, and how often I have seen people like you use tactics like this? Wake up and smell the coffee. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc, by his apology, for something, and then attempting to blame me for another unrelated topic, either doesn't appear to know what he is apologising for, or is attempting another distraction from the real issue, here. I have to agree with you, Andreasegde, regarding this apology as a technique to confuse the issues as these actions exhibit WP:Battleground behaviour, even using guerilla tactics. This history has repeated itself many time in various Beatle's articles now. Insults and innuendos are constantly thrown around and then an apology is issued some of the times, if threatened with correction. The cycle repeats frequently each time a contradictory viewpoint to his is offered. Perhaps this editor is just too emotionally involved, overtired or WP:COMPETENCY is a problem. It would seem he should edit something less controversial for a break.99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems Mr. Cockerel wants to rule the roost, by any means at his disposal.--andreasegde (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is taking place on the "Pepper" page, and not on The Beatles or McCartney's page. Why, you may ask? Because McCartney is undergoing an FAC, and Mr. Mc doesn't want any fuss, so he thought he could slip it into somewhere else. Very underhand.--andreasegde (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warring

I just noticed this unbelievably fruitless discussion about The Beatles vs. the Beatles, where there is hardly any talk of the The/the bit and mostly of the "I am good, you are bad" type of attacking. From a neutral point of view, while both of you seem to be acting like little toddlers fighting for the same toy, your comments are significantly less civil and extremely WP:BATTLEGROUND-inducing. Stop. Nobody cares to know who is wrong and who isn't, and your constant barbs are hardly helping you. And yes, any further escalation of this matter, either through insults towards each other or to uninvolved editors, will entail immediate reporting to WP:ANI. And that is not an empty threat. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest that you take it there. Being called a person with "OCD" (and other insults), by GabeMc was most unpleasant. I am not "Warring" with him; I am simply presenting the other side which is the present consensus. If you take the time to research the The/the problem, you will find that the aforementioned editor is doing his utmost to revive a years-long argument that nearly destroyed The Beatles Project. BTW, I resent your "little toddlers fighting for the same toy" comment, which is demeaning to both sides. Please proceed.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are far more childish than I expected. You resent practically everything that says something against you. I do hope you have better luck with the administrators. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "childish" is an insult, and for you to presume that I "resent practically everything" is nothing short of arrogance, as you do not know me at all. BTW, writing "far more childish than I expected", says an awful lot about your expectations. Why did you expect anything at all? You made a rash generalisation about a person, which is not acceptable. I did say "Please proceed", which was not a request for insults.--andreasegde (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, calling somebody "childish" is not insulting. I can give you an answer for every statement you make (and each of your statements are becoming funnier than the previous), but on hindsight, that's not necessary. I can see the pointlessness of your prickly and war-inducing comments, so I shall ask an administrator to deal with this matter. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed. Sorry, did I not mention that before, or are you just posting comments here to make further insults? End of, and goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish has been granted, Your Highness. The discussion can be seen here, that is if you wish to comment there, Your Majesty. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems (from your posts here), that you don't know when to stop insulting people. Nevertheless, I thank you for proceeding with the matter at hand.--andreasegde (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what is insulting and what is not is something that will be decided by a third party. Let me point out that more than one editor has squarely pulled you up for making an extremely uncivil comment at the The/the discussion, so attempts at condescending others is fruitless and may even be dangerous. Take care. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop commenting on my page, as you are being very tedious. The process is in place, so I will await a message confirming that. Of course, if you feel the need to "have the last word" (on my own talk page), it will confirm that you are fairly new here, and do not accept polite requests to cease and desist. The end.--andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final message: first, I am not new here, having been present for over three years and possessing a number of good contributions. I have had a share of unreasonable discussions, which has allowed me to spot one when I see it. I don't need to have "the last word", and "polite requests" filled with bad faith accusations are something of an oxymoron. Lastly, I have no desire of commenting on this page, especially considering the editor you are, but it is necessary to make oneself clear. I believe now would be "The end", though if you would like to insert another reply, you are free to do so. Good day. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the message was "Goodbye/The end", no? Do you often ignore simple requests? BTW, I congratulate you on your three years (26 January 2009), and your number of good contributions (10,463). Goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: this is the most childish thing I have ever seen on this website. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sad, isn't it? BTW, will you want the last word as well?--andreasegde (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is childish and anything but civil. I would suggest that you stop acting like a child. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would do that. More insults...--andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, where did I insult you? Mythpage88 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can not differentiate between an insult and a comment on Wikipedia, you haven't been here long enough. Hold on... 956 edits, since 23 August 2011? :))--andreasegde (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding the question. Where did I insult you? Just because you are "offended" doesn't mean that I insulted you. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop (cease and desist), commenting on my page. I have no interest in answering your inane questions. Please stop.--andreasegde (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is really interesting about these conversations is that they are all directed at myself. There has not been one word about a certain editor insulting me. Interesting, no?--andreasegde (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There

It has been agreed by outside forces, through reading your talk page and general wiki exploits, that you not only act like a child, but also think like one. Elvis Clay (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these "outside forces"? Do they have guns? :)) Wow, I didn't know that you had a mere 16 edits on Wikipedia, since 23 March 2012. That is funny. :))--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, do you think you tweaked your witty response enough there pal? Elvis Clay (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is "LOL", and I thank you for admitting that my response was witty; I thought it was as well. Try to make more contributions to Wikipedia, because it will help you, but please stop calling me "pal", because I am not.--andreasegde (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you've stopped editing your replies to much, it's bad talk page etiquette. But come on buddy, you know I've been racking up my edits elsewhere. Serious question though, are you autistic? You can tell me, we are pals after all. Elvis Clay (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, insulting an editor with a disability is in no way a sign of good faith. How about we drop this argument right now ;) Maractus (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit it? Beautiful. Elvis Clay (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"insulting an editor with a disability"? I take that as a joke, and I appreciate it.--andreasegde (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was referring to Elvis Clay, I know him, and he has cerebral palsy. Please love and tolerate. Maractus (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing; I am now being accused of insulting him, when I had no foreknowledge of that. How totally ridiculous. Is this Youtube, or Wikipedia? Interesting: "Maractus"; 32 edits on Wikipedia since 11 June 2012.--andreasegde (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHO are these PEOPLE? Has my talk page become a forum for random comments about anything at all? I do have to admit that it makes me laugh. :))--andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

When can I contribute? "The truth will out", as someone once said.--andreasegde (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being childish

And while you're at it, grow a pair and learn some manners.--Matt Westwood 08:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This an old trick; keep insulting an editor until he responds in kind, which is the point the attacking editor cries "Look! He insulted me!!" It's a very old trick. "I do suffer fools, but not gladly", as someone once said. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOW LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!!here. LOLOLOLOL!!! What tangled web we weave! Poor Evanh2008 99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I have done? Capital letters? Someone needs a pill.--andreasegde (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was a joke! (sarcasm) 99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for a joke, at any time of day or night. BTW, the lads have been having a busy night, no? :))--andreasegde (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man! I have gotten about 6 edit conflicts tonight and it seems my text is lost every time. GRRRRRR... Anyway It seems GabeMc is trying to name you as the sockpuppet now in the same sock investigation...based on us signing in at the same time???? I been here for about six hours and it's way past my bedtime. I an in Canada and I thought you were a Brit??? Are we using the same accent by similar font usage, perhaps???? LOL! Too much!! GoodNight! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get into an edit conflict, just press the arrow at the top left to go back. Copy the text, reload the page and paste.--andreasegde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that doesn't work. A few times all I get was page not reloaded or something like that 'cause it was a webpage form or something. I got one back by a page refresh. Hot topics! It's frigging hot here now! Been running about 30c (94F) everyday for a week now. Beaches been great. Makes retirement worthwhile :) Wish I knew how to upload photos. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload photos? Serious? I could help, but it's a bit easier on Commons than Fair-use.--andreasegde (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

Apparently, on this page, I am now being accused of being IP 99.251.125.65, by GabeMc (who else?):

"IMO, this sock is User:Andreasegde. They have been having a fake dialogue with the ip 99 to throw us off. Compare the writing styles, and its interesting that they are preparing us for extremely close ISP addys. Gothcha! The ip in question and Andreas logged in within 10 minutes of each other tonight, to perform the fake dialogue. Take a look admins. They began a fake dialogue on andreas' talk page 18 minutes after I implicated andreas as a possible master. They became too close too fast. How did ip 99 know what continent Radio and Andreas live on within a week of editing? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)"

I suppose I should complain, but I'm laughing too much. :)) "Watson, the horses!!! The chase is afoot!!" Book him, Danno!--andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to some history. Unbelievable! He still hasn't learned anything about respect. The reviewers knew it and the list of results are goood sources for a bigger schtook (Deutsch please), when needed. We'll see how the next few play out. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now Evanh2008 is complaining about me plagerising his words! Unbelievable! ..and he gave an example where I used the same phrase as he did, too! I just can't believe all of us haven't had our asses kicked. I feel like I am in Kindergarten, here. Maybe I should use more "z"(American style) in my words and you stick to the Brit spellings? If we use the same letters we might look like we are brothers or clones or something. LOL. Nw somebody has brought in the IP faking argument. OMG! Too much! Dennis Brown is looking into this crap. I have seen some of his actions and the guy is almost too gentle but the most reasonable I have seen so far. I hope he soon realizes ( :) see the 'mericunization?) what is happening. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does he actually think he owns the rights to anything he puts on Wikipedia? He should have a word with Jimbo about that. :)) Hold on, every single time one saves something, this is at the bottom of the page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it".--andreasegde (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Beatles". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They did it again! They create s much bickering ruckus that any of these issues will never get resolved and the adins all seem to be afraid to kick a few asses for warnings to settle this crap down.99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found that whole mediation process a bit 'strange' to be honest. Penyulap said, "the MOS is saying it is meant to be left up to the local level to determine the exact practice to be used in that area", and "looking to the MOS itself for a wider consensus is flawed because it is trying not to give any consensus on the issue, it's turning the question back to the local level avoiding taking any substantial position on the issue".

I fully agreed with this, but what happened next? Closed down. I didn't like the comment, "Why are there editors who aren't listed as parties but are accepting the mediation? Gabe, are these people also part of the dispute?" Not neutral enough for me, and a bit on the friendly side, but there you go.--andreasegde (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a thought, 99. When "the editor who should be feared because he carry heap big stick" reads this, it'll set him ranting and raving again about how I'm you. He's really hot-to-trot about it. I even read, "Look at this, they use the same flowery language!" Want to buy some tulips? :))--andreasegde (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report filed

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that. Some people will go to any lengths, no? :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello"? :))--andreasegde (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still the teahouse and Auntie Pesky to drag you to, but I'm not telling him where Auntie Pesky's is, if he found that board, it would be curtains for my shenanigans. Can't think of any others off the top of my head.

I must say, I like how I can place my bets early on, like buying apple shares at $1, that sort of thing. I'm bored of ANI, I gave a lovely set of diffs, and my word, GabeMc showed me the way to go on Diffs, I've never been so out-done. Penyulap ☏ 12:30, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This comment, "Please, please, pretty please allow me to continue to donate several hours per day of my time to the project, please!!! I need it!!!" on this page pretty well sums up his attitude right now.--andreasegde (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreasegde, you GRUMP !!!

I expect you know I'm no idiot (all evidence to the contrary) and while I do support your aggressive drive to improve things, and say WOW are you ever holding up well under the onslaught of puppetry and all that misbehaviour sort of thing, I can't help but notice ownership issues at Pete Best. That's something to watch. The other thing to watch is the circus ZOMG, how did you find these guys ? how many actual editors do you think there are amongst this lot ? I can't help but think if it was just one editor with that many socks that he'd melt his keyboard from friction. But like, WOW.

Anyhow one thing you'll notice about me is I never give hand crafted awards to critics or bad editors, so even if the answer to the question 'is this an award OR a criticism?' is yes, then I'm sure you are reasonable enough to see that it's friendly criticism. But don't think I'm not huffing and puffing at you I am (oh who am I kidding, I'm not). Thing is, that is ownership, I know ownership because that was all I ever had to deal with on the ISS talkpage for like the first half of my wikilife, now, I can edit the wp:own policy page and make real improvements to it. But your drive is fine and proper, you mean well, I'm no idiot there. Keep up the good work. Penyulap ☏ 06:43, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of the Pete Best article? How come? Nearly all the talk page comments are complaints. If I'm guilty of that one I'd love to know how.--andreasegde (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it can be read the wrong way, I mean easily read the wrong way, I mean well, a LOT of people might read it the wrong way. Ok, well me for one, :) but I know too much in this area (I can edit the WP:OWN policy page and get away with it :) )

The first opening statement on the talkpage at the moment looks more like a challenge to newbies really, because you're not giving the example of an edit or edits you're talking about. If you put up "edits like this" or some such, it would come off better. The way it is now, even though it is old, it doesn't refer to anything, and so it seems you are challenging the reader, although I read it as you are referring to some other string of edits that has you p'd off, I compute that many new to that page editors feel the ownership. It's not wrong, but it could be a lot better. I'll have a look for more in a second.

Then there are plenty of edits that are 100% fine, and no problem at all

"I'd advise you to talk about major changes on this page, before you start." is a bit ownish, but then you go to great pains to make people feel welcome anyhow, helping them and so on, overall it's all good, I see no real problem. I do see that Jusdafax seems to muddy things and work you up, but of course I also see you don't really let it bother you far too much. Penyulap ☏ 09:59, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh.... I've got it now. This little spat with User:Jusdafax. BTW, I notice he's talking to GabeMc as well.

User:Jusdafax came onto Best's page on 8 May 2011 and ripped into the article, saying "[I] have it in contemplation for reassessment, pending observation of how matters go here." Sounded to me like someone expecting to be listened to and obeyed. His ideas were very suspicious, and I got the distinct feeling he was out for an argument. When I checked his background, it became obvious that he had started various stub articles that had few or no references. What a cheek! :))--andreasegde (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that but you left yourself wide open, it's not my fault. Penyulap ☏ 13:19, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! I actually did "laugh out loud" when I read it! Poor little mouse, "Squeek, squeek!" :))--andreasegde (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Szyslak

Here's a diff. But yeah, Fut.Perf. is not acting "as an admin". I fully realize that admins don't govern article content, etc. I wish you would rethink your habit of demanding that an admin punish those you disagree with. szyslak (t) 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said, "You are now disrespecting administrators and their work here. They decide if something is foolish, or not". That was nothing like "obeying". Please stop bending the truth; it's painful.--andreasegde (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call me a liar. More to the point, please stop edit warring to "close" the RFCs at your beckoned call. szyslak (t) 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who used "quotation marks". By using those you made it appear as if I had actually said that. As for my "habit of demanding that an admin punish those you disagree with", I ask you again for a diff. I do not remember ever asking an admin to "punish" anyone.--andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For one, you've repeatedly said "I request an admin's help" in your edit summaries: [1][2][3]. What else could you possibly want an admin to do in those cases, aside from issuing punishments? And yes, I used quotation marks. I shouldn't have to explain this, but I was not directly quoting you. They were what is known as "scare quotes". Again, you have no right to call me a liar. szyslak (t) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help is not asking someone to "punish" someone. Look up the word "help" in a dictionary. OK, I've had enough of this. Please stop posting on this page. Goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I plan to continue this discussion, but you have no right to order people off your talk page, just as you have no right to order RFCs closed. szyslak (t) 20:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You plainly do not know about WP:Harassment. Go have a read; you might pick up a few tips. I have asked you politely to stop this. Now go away.--andreasegde (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Andreasegde. You have new messages at Szyslak's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just for your information/convenience szyslak (t) 21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Final warning

Stop it, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop what?--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well what. I have re-opened the discussion to get you banned on ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use indents correctly. FYI, I did not remove anything or stop anything. I was informing editors about this:

The RfC at this page has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. To add anything here while the mediation case is being looked at is not recommended.

Please stop deleting useful information.--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you to "recommend" whether or not to continue the polls. I see no reason why they shouldn't continue. I, for instance, am not going to take part in the mediation, but that doesn't mean I want the opinion I registered in the polls to go lost and forgotten. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this, you will see that another editor has said, "Okay, sure I'll stop until this is settled."--andreasegde (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you, or any other editor, to declare the straw poll closed, much less to edit war to that end. And since you're so big on "obeying" and "respecting" the admins, I'd like to helpfully inform you that Fut.Perf. is an admin. szyslak (t) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore the remark about "obeying" and "respecting", unless you can show me a diff where I said that.--andreasegde (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was some other guy who made some rather daft remarks about that. But in any case, I'm not acting as an admin here, according to the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can remove the "recommended", and rephrase it to however you wish, but the information should be noted. Having two polls running when a mediation case has been opened will surely confuse the situation.--andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC at this page has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. ?--andreasegde (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither of the two RfCs has completed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a mediation case has been opened, do you think it wise to conduct polls?--andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. The few people who are going to take part in the mediation won't have any authority to decide this on the behalf of the community anyway, independently of the opinions of the many more editors who have already commented on the polls. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1: So, as one Rfc at Sgt: Pepper's has been completed, you agree with opening two more? I find that absolutely confusing, and destructive to the mediation. 2: Editors should be informed that a mediation case has been opened. Is that allowed, or not?--andreasegde (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What RfC has concluded, and what two more have been opened? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself (above), "No, neither of the two RfCs has completed".--andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I said that. So, which are you saying has closed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one at Sgt. Pepper. That's why the mediation case was accepted. (It was suspended until that particular RfC was over). The two new ones are at The Beatles, and Paul McCartney.--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no idea what those mediation people think they are doing, but right now the RfC isn't closed, as anybody can see. It's still open, and has attracted new opinions as recently as a few hours ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you contact WGFinley, as he represents the mediation committee. "*Accepted. It's pretty clear no consensus is going to be reached at that RfC, this case is accepted, we will have a mediator or mediation team assigned shortly. For the Committee, --WGFinley"

I ask again if editors should be informed about the mediation case.--andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for you to notify the users named as parties to the case. All listed on the case page were notified by a bot about five hours ago. -- Dianna (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Future Perfect is right; the fact that the mediators have accepted the case does not automatically close any Request for Comments or preclude continuing to work on a solution outside of mediation. -- Dianna (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please just wait this out

Please stop posting notices at the discussions about the 'T'. There is a move on now to have you blocked, at which point you will not be able to participate in the process. You are right and you know it; Gabe refuses to link to the part of the discussion where consensus is clearly in favour of the capital 'T'. I don't think the mediators will overlook that as well. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 00:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feet up, kettle on......--andreasegde (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought

I am not sure if you know my Auntie Pesky (well, not my Aunt, but everyone's Aunt in the Indonesian sense of a respected elder). Anyhow, she seems to know about people who have sometimes ridiculous gifts. You know, like tesla, or John Nash and so on. Something that she said here (the bit I liked highlights on my screen, it's the latter half of the whole comment). Some of what Pesky says and sometimes assumes about different diagnoses are things I don't really argue with even though they don't apply to me, I'm not Autistic, not according to the Doctors who know me, but I do apparently have what I thought everyone had, and that is the ability to look at everything across many talkpages, archives and all, and see everything that is going on. I know perfectly well there are liars, that is for certain. But when I look at how slow people are to see those liars, and often showing them and diffing doesn't seem to help, and sometimes I think well, that person is new to the dispute and has no reason to be lying too when they say they cannot see it, I think they just have not bothered to read the bloody page. I do get seriously frustrated, because it's right there in black and fricking white. In front of them, and diffed if they need it too. well, anyhow with what Auntie said, and looking at the Savant page here and knowing I'm not autistic, I was thinking of what is badly expressed in Treffert's comments, that a lot of people are Savants, and not Autistic, and how that would be a plausible explanation as to why so many people have appeared to me to be so freaking dense. Anyhow, someone was trying to read through the pages for the problems editors on the ISS talkpage were having, and they were beginning to get a bit of a grip on the situation, and I was surprised and delighted that someone had actually gone and done some of the reading that is required in order to make an informed comment, I was pleased, and thought it best not to point out the errors, because that person was like the first set of eyes that had actually taken the time to have a decent look in...., I don't know if anyone really has, come to think of it. Auntie can see what is going on over there, but I would expect that, she has that spectrum thing going on and never ever seems to miss anything (she can read my mind most of the time, like on jimbo's talkpage where I was looking for people who multi-dynamically processed symbolic speech patterns, she was like one of two people who could. Oh, and Rich Farmbrough‎ speaks EVERYTHING zomg. the guy is a genius of the highest order, read this till your brain hurts, I love it, and my favourite moral of the story was how people ruin every good idea by opening and dismantling it.)

The manner in which people can pick up on game theory and what different editors are up to is like, well, maybe half a percent of editors are able to cope with analysing the nastier disputes. Sure, your current dispute is a total nobrainer to you and I, but Pesky is always saying to me to be more patient with everyone else, and I am pretty sure she is right. Yes, the bad people are obvious, yes, there are a few people who are not doing their job, or taking the wrong side, but what about the masses, Andreasegde, what about the middle 70% ? I imaging that it's worthwhile catering to them, making it easy for them, giving them time to catch up. There is a comment that I saw you make which was a pivotal window into your thinking for me, where you mentioned 'the truth will out', yeah, you and I think so, and if arbcomm went to town on it, they'd get it halfway right at best, but I realise now it is a slow process, frustratingly slow, and Auntie Pesky is right to say that I should wait for people to catch up and be patient.

I noticed in game theory a little funny, "Nash has developed work on the role of money in society. Within the framing theorem that people can be so controlled and motivated by money that they may not be able to reason rationally about it, he has criticized interest groups that promote quasi-doctrines based on Keynesian economics that permit manipulative short-term inflation and debt tactics that ultimately undermine currencies. " Come on, you have to laugh at that one, it applies to 99 % of the people, and then it applies double to the 1%. The facts are there, in a nutshell, people can't see the big picture most of the time, if not all of the time. It takes time. Penyulap ☏ 09:26, 16 Jul 2012 (UTC)

One can only wait and see if the sun breaks through. All I have to concentrate on at the moment is one mediation page, and paying 390 Euros for a new windscreen tomorrow. I'll wait and see which one troubles me the most: one extremely small splinter of a stone that hit the glass 1" away from the frame but cracked the whole thing, or one very small "t" that should be in a cup with hot water, milk and sugar. "Namaste", Penyulap. :))--andreasegde (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well for advice on RL you'd need to use email. You could also amuse yourself by leaning a new trade, sockhunting. I always thought it required finding both ends of the duck with the very first account(can't recall why I though that), and as a consequence I didn't want to spend time on it, (I don't have time for my critics) but I found out that any two make a pair in the laundry basket of wiki, and so it's an amusing time-waster. But nothing beats a cup of T. :) namaste bro' :) Penyulap ☏ 10:02, 16 Jul 2012 (UTC)