User talk:Axiomatica

WikiProject Wikify Alert: Check out the backlog cleanup taskforce

Melissa Farley RfC

I've created an RfC section at Talk:Melissa_Farley#Request_for_Comment:_Melissa_Farley. I've written a statement giving my view of the situation. You should write a statement giving yours. I'll then post the request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Notice_Board. Iamcuriousblue 07:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer Vision Article

Hi, I'v written some comment on you proposal for the computer vision article. --KYN 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Farley

I have reverted your last edit to Melissa Farley for reasons that should be patently obvious. Removal of critical statements that are cited and referenced simply because you happen to disagree with them completely flies in the face of WP:NPOV.

I will continue to work on the Farley article and will endeavor to work toward an NPOV version of the article regardless of my feelings about her. I happen to know a lot about Farley, and I think that qualifies me to contribute to an article on the subject. You have no place challenging my right to edit this article based on my off-Wikipedia statements about Farley. As you should be aware of, if you've read over Wikipedia rules and guidelines at all, Wikipedia does not bar individuals with a clear POV on a particular POV on a subject AS LONG AS that editor makes an effort to comply with WP:NPOV. I believe I have done so, and in fact, have made far more of an effort in this regard than you have so far. In fact, I have to say that you've been entirely dishonest about your agenda through this entire editing process, going so far as to pretend that you don't have one.

I insist that if you are going to challenge my edits that we reopen the previous Mediation Cabal case, and that you not try to simply dodge this process like you did last time. Iamcuriousblue 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Melissa Farley. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Ongoing references to any and all edits by another editor as "vandalism" fly directly in the face of the assumption of good faith. Iamcuriousblue 06:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll only respond to this particular nonsense entry because it is so amusing. You are "welcoming" me to Wikipedia? LOL. Actual belly laugh on that one. I have been an editor at Wikipedia for many years, thank you very much. In my latest incarnation as Axiomatica, I have been in intense discussions with you in the Melissa Farley article for the past 4 months as you childishly try to use someone's bio for your own personal campaign. So maybe I should welcome you, young Peter, to the land of educated adults who don't like to see the work of serious researchers besmirched by activists like yourself who are trying to make a name for themselves in some trendy campaign, which seems to be what you are attempting to do with Farley's bio. There's no doubt that what you are trying to do to Farley's bio is vandalism, and you are being called on it now, after months of trying to work with you in a reasonable and intelligent manner.

I'm sorry it had to come to this, frankly. In reading some of your materials, I agree with you on issues more than you might think. But no matter how strong your feelings are, they have no place on the bio entry of a professional researcher. Let each person's bio reflect their thoughts and works and publications -- yours, Weitzers, and Farley's. That is how intelligent discourse works. People don't have to be beat over the head with your opinion about Farley, they will make up their own minds.--Axiomatica 07:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the interest of full disclosure, you might like to state what your "previous incarnations" on Wikipedia were, particularly since you seem to have such a weird interest in "outing" me. Iamcuriousblue 08:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited a number of entries on subjects of interest to me as well as cleaning up and improving articles about subjects I know nothing about. I find it to be a good way to learn about fields of study that are new to me. Thanks for asking. I certainly never "outed" you. I do not "out" people, although I would consider doing so if the person involved was a politician! On the contrary, your Userpage at iamcuriousblue clearly states who you are. You also posted with your own name in the Melissa Farley talk page, so I obviously assumed you were already "out." I don't have any weird interest in you at all, although I must confess, I am curious about the depth of your passion against Melissa Farley. Is there some kind of personal history between the two of you? --Axiomatica 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25_Melissa_Farley

I am going to repeat what I have stated on the Melissa Farley talk page:

No, I will not stop editing this article. What I am asking is that you re-enter the mediation process and re-open Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25_Melissa_Farley. I have nothing more to say to you in the meantime, and I'll note that you have no power whatsoever to demand or request anything of me without going through the dispute resolution process, of which Mediation is the first step. Continue with your temper tantrum if you wish, Axiomatica, I will simply keep editing and will no longer respond to you. Iamcuriousblue 07:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Melissa_Farley

I've filed a case with the Mediation Committee (which is the next step beyond the informal Mediation Cabal we had used earlier). The process is voluntary and requires your approval to begin the process. You can go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Melissa_Farley and under "Parties' agreement to mediate" can state "agree" or "disagree". I would like to settle these issues concerning the article, but frankly, I feel that in all my discussions with you, you have been single-minded and completely uncompromising in pursuit of your own agenda, hence, trying to talk to you one-on-one is rather pointless. I simply do not feel I deal with you at all without some kind of third party mediation or arbitration. I think with a third-party "reality check", we actually can reach some kind of productive agreement that will allow the article to move forward. Since User:Ninorc has become involved with editing, I have also asked that they be involved in the mediation process as well. Iamcuriousblue 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you are actually taking some interest in the mediation process. However, the Mediation Cabal case you responded to is actually closed right now. We can go either of two ways right now. We can re-open this Mediation Cabal case, put up announcement and have another peer mediator step in. Or we can move the process to Mediation Committee, which is more formal mediation process. Since you have specifically said that you don't think peer mediation is workable, I think the latter course is called for. If that's the case, simply respond to the Mediation Committee link above. I prefer to go through Mediation Committee, but your choice. However, if you're not interested in mediation at all, I'd like to get a clear statement of that, in any event. Iamcuriousblue 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley.

Kind regards,
Anthøny ん 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for your response

The Mediation ~~Cabal~~ Committee case is open and I would like to get on with the task of settling this dispute over the content of the Melissa Farley article. Last time we went into mediation, you basically "disappeared" until the case was closed and I'm hoping that's not what you are doing here. We have serious disagreements over the shape of this article, we've discussed it to death and still don't agree on fundamentals, and really need to engage in a mediated process if anything is going to be accomplished at all. Iamcuriousblue 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think Iamcurios meant "Mediation Committee" case ;) Anthøny 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we are awaiting your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley. Please leave a note there, stating that you are still active on the case and interested in its outcome. If there is no response within 24 hours, I will be moving to close the case as stale. These reminders are an extension of similar messages, both through User talk pages and email, over the previous 2-3 weeks. Anthøny 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

With regard to your comments on Talk:Melissa Farley: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the article page, I did not realize you would take offense at being described as a john a you have proudly mentioned the fact on public Internet pages. I sincerely apologize for any offense.Axiomatica (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#iamcuriousblue Appropriate links will also be given on the Melissa Farley entry talk page . axiomatica (talk) Axiomatica (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Arbitration Committee declined to take the case, leaving iamcuriousblue to continue to vandalize the Melissa Farley entry.

Melissa Farley

Hi there, I don't know what is going on on the Melissa Farley article but blanking it is not the way to get the article deleted or to resolve disputes. If there are WP:BLP problems they can be dealt with either through usual dispute resolution or the subject of the article may email us at OTRS, but please don't just blank pages. Thanks, Sarah 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sarah. We have been through Mediation. The Arbitration Committee declined action. We have spent tens of thousands of words on this entry. Basically, one editor has claimed ownership of the article iamcuriousblu and refuses to let others edit. I am too old to engage in childish edit wars or revert wars so I used reason. Unfortunately, iamcuriousblue is an activist who detests the subject of the biography and tries to trash their reputation all over the Internet, not just on Wikipedia. Melissa Farley is a researcher whose views and research are being misrepresented on Wikipedia. I've tried all the Wikipedia processes to bring neutrality to this article, but so far they have failed. —The preceding comment was added by Axiomatica on 03:51, 8 May 2008.

I come here from WP:3O. I think this should be resubmitted to formal mediation (not arbitration), but given that you say the subject of the article requested that content be blanked, she should be invited to participate in the mediation process directly. If blanking is the only outcome acceptable to her (if she claims that she is non-notable, for example, or she believes the article is an undue invasion of privacy), this should go to WP:Afd as well. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of Melissa Farley dispute

I am interested in reopening the Mediation Committee case, since the process never began due to your absence. It has also been suggested that Melissa Farley herself open an account and take part in the same mediation case as well. (Any interested third parties can also join in as well, though I consider you and myself the only essential parties in this dispute.) If you are willing to engage in the process, I will open up a new request for mediation. Please note – if you aren't willing to engage in mediation, I will note that you are formally refusing mediation and take that issue up with the Arbitration Committee again. If I simply don't hear from you within 60 days after this notice (by July 16), I'll assume that you are no longer actively involved in this dispute, and proceed accordingly. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Axiomatica. You have new messages at talk:Melissa Farley.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I again urge you to take this to mediation. Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Farley RfC

You haven't been active on Wikipedia for some time, so I'm assuming you're no longer an active party in this dispute. Nonetheless, I am giving you this heads-up for a Request for Ccomments for the Melissa Farley article:

Talk: Melissa_Farley: RfC: NPOV and BLP issues?

This RfC will be active through the month of August 2008. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.141.231.74 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock puppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/71.141.231.74, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely.
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MuZemike 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]