User talk:Isotope23/Archive 13

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

About the last comment you sent me

Thank you very much for reminding me for I don't intend on vandalizing Wikipedia at all. I'll be more careful. Bwjs 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:J_J_Wilsdon.JPEG

Thanks for uploading Image:J_J_Wilsdon.JPEG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That Little Church article

I removed the text per WP:V and WP:BLP as there was no sourcing for this. IMO, the editor should stay blocked though until they retract that legal threat.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the reason for your removal makes sense. And I'm not entirely sure what the policy on legal threats is, but I'm pretty sure he should be blocked for at least some duration for them -- especially since I warned him about it. Thanks for letting me know what you're doing. Gscshoyru 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That account is blocked indefinitely until they rescind the legal threat. While they content wasn't verifiable from what I could see, they have no reason to edit here if they are intent on pursuing a legal remedy.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. Thanks for following up and getting him indef blocked. Gscshoyru 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

Isotope23, you'll find that DVdm accused me of being a sock puppet first. Look at the article now. Can you see anything wrong with it? I've asked Dvdm to explain what exactly his problem is with it. I think that you ought to eagerly await his response if there ever will be one. I on my part would like to add references to the fact that this is still an active area of debate outside of the mainstream. Did you look up that reference on Galilean Electrodynamics? (Brigadier Armstrong 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Please see WP:V. Simply mentioning Galilean Electrodynamics as a reference is inadequate. What issues contain debates of Dingle's work? Right now what you are saying is akin to "George Bush choked on a pretzel see Time Magazine for proof". Even if it is 100% it isn't in any way verifiable from that statement. You need to have a cite, to a specific work, that people can fact check.

Beyond that, just because someone accuses you of being a sockpuppet doesn't mean you should turn around and accuse someone else of being a sock of your accuser. I don't know Dvdm at all, but DTobias has been around for ages... there is simply no way he's a sockpuppet of Dvdm and the suggestion that he is doesn't do much to help your position. Please be sure before you start dragging other editors in with claims like that, even if they are behaving like incivil jerks.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. To be honest, if I really wanted to find evidence that there is still a huge debate going on, I could find it. The very fact that there are continual edit wars going on on the Herbert Dingle page is in itself evidence.

However, I'm not going to bother digging all the evidence up. If you don't want to put that fact in the article then leave it out. But you are playing into the hands of those who are merely out to bash Dingle because of their own prejudices.

The article as it exists now is a pretty accurate and basic encyclopaedia type article. It covers the main points. I read Denverons' objections, and surely you should be able to see for yourself that he is an extreme opponent of Dingle. He expressed some very anti-Dingle POV viewpoints which would hardly be acceptable under wikipedia rules.

The existing article has got no POV. What was Denveron actually trying to say? Was he saying that Dingle was anti-relativity or pro-relativity? It looked more to me like as if he was claiming that Dingle didn't understand relativity. That is a very POV claim.

What we really need to get to the bottom of is why is Denveron so anti-Dingle. OK, Denveron is pro-relativity and thinks that Dingle is wrong. Dingle thought that Einstein was wrong. The article is about Dingle and states that Dingle thought that Einstein was wrong. Denveron is unhappy about this being reported. (Brigadier Armstrong 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm not interested in getting into a content debate on the article, but as I said on the talkpage there need to be reliable sources that verify text. The fact that there is debate on an article talkpage isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that there is a debate on that talkpage. All I want to see is verifiable information from reliable sources, without original synthesis, portrayed in a neutral way. I slept through my physics classes at Uni; I don't want to relive that stuff by debating it here.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your dismissal of the Galilean Electrodynamics link. That was clearly one example of a journal that specializes in anti-relativity disputes. The Dingle controversy was all about anti-relativity.

By the way, the dispute is not about factual accuracy. It is about the fact that DVdm doesn't feel comfortable with people knowing about the Dingle controversy. I'm going to add that to the discussion pages and I hope that you will add a tag to that extent as swiftly as you did in response to Denveron's specious arguments. (Brigadier Armstrong 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Hmm, I'm having trouble finding the "editors are trying to suppress the truth tag".

Kidding aside, I didn't add that tag in response to Denveron's post... I added it because clearly there are editors questioning the factual accuracy of the current article as it stands and I don't agree with your assessment that there isn't such a dispute. I've already clearly stated that I will not change versions on a protected article, but I of my own judgment felt it prudent to highlight the fact that there is a dispute ongoing about the factual accuracy of the article since it is protected and not possible for any editors to make changes to it right now.

Beyond that, I again reiterate that the Galilean Electrodynamics article and link absolutely do not source your statement at all. If you disagree than kindly provide me some sort or links or references to actual text from that publication where Dingle or his theories are discussed. You need absolutely explicit references that people can follow to verify that statement. The Galilean Electrodynamics website provides nothing of the sort from what I could see.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The first line in that Galilean Electrodynamics reference that I gave you reads, "Galilean Electrodynamics is a journal devoted to criticism of relativity theory". The Dingle controversy is about his criticism of the theory of relativity.

The bit which was deleted, that I tried to restore, said that the debate about relativity is still ongoing in dissident journals. That was clearly a true statement and it was deleted.

Which editors questioned the factual accuarcy of the article? Denveron? And you immediately took his message on board and put a tag on the article and invited him to apply for unblocking? If you had read Denveron's message properly, you wood have seen that it was nothing other than unsourced POV criticism of Dingle.

It was then upheld by Wwoods as being some kind of credible and legitimate criticism of the existing article.

Do you really believe that you are behaving in a neutral manner? Can you not see that the object of DVdm and Denveron is to smear Dingle?

Is it not possible to have a neutral article about Dingle in which the basic simple facts are stated, Ie. that Dingle was pro-relativity in the early days when many of the heavyweights were still anti-relativity. Dingle later did a U-Turn but was marginalized by the now pro-relativity scientific community.

Does it not occur to you to enquire into the motives of DVdm, Denveron, and Wwoods as to why they feel so threatened by the facts surrounding the Dingle controversy?

Last week this article was blocked too. I put in a suggested guidelines section in the discussion pages. No administrator told me to apply for unblocking.

I get the impression that there is a team of editors working together who have a bias against Dingle and that they are conspiring to undermine his credibility.

Either you are one of them, which I don't think, or else, you haven't studied the controversy in sufficient detail, but have made the knee jerk assumption that DVdm and Denveron are good, consciencious wikipedians with no hidden agenda. (Brigadier Armstrong 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

• OK, but that is original synthesis. "Galilean Electrodynamics is a journal devoted to criticism of relativity theory" + "The Dingle controversy is about his criticism of the theory of relativity" != "There exists even today a growing number of dissenters who support Herbert Dingle's arguments". The logic doesn't work. You need to provide concrete, verifiable evidence of dissenters writing papers specifically in support of Dingle's theories, not just general criticisms of relativity. Beyond that you still didn't provide a cite for "the debate about relativity is still ongoing in dissident journals". Please remember that wikipeidia works on verifiability not truth. The fact that you provided one journal website still doesn't source that statement.
• Beyond that, I've explained why I tagged the article. I also believe I have acted absolutely neutrally here. I've not taken sides in this debate in any shape or form; all I've done is protect the article from an edit war, point out some relevant policies (WP:V; WP:OR) and add a tag that alludes to the fact there is a factual dispute on the talkpage. I've taken no sides in this dispute... I can't imagine how much more neutral that that I could be. If you feel the article should be unprotected, please feel free to request unprotction. If you feel there is a concerted effort to skew the article, please follow the steps to dispute resolution, specifically in regards to requesting a 3rd opinion or a request for comment on the article. If you feel I have not behaved neutrally, you are always free to file a request for review of my actions at the administrator noticeboard.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And if I file a notice to the administrators notice board will it be taken as seriously as when DVdm does the same thing? I have just seen what happened yesterday on the administrator's notice board. You were swayed by DVdm and you told him that you realize that you have blocked the wrong article version. You were swayed by him because he pointed out that allegations of malpractice had been made against me. He did this in order to undermine my credibility.

What he didn't point out was the fact that he himself made every single one of those allegations against me in the first place. And he did so for the singular reason that I had been arguing with him about the very issue in question.

That is an extremely devious and dishonest tactic and it illustrates the extent that DVdm will go to, not only to undermine Dingle's credibility, but also to undermine the credibility of anybody who tries to defend Dingle. DVdm is a first order calumnist who knows exactly how to abuse the wikipedia regulations to his advantage and get the administrators on his side.

Can you not see that this guy is a single purpose user who guards the Dingle article and the special relativity article jealosusly night and day? He can't afford there to be even the slightest doubt over the credibility of Einstein.

It is time that you administrators caught on and saw right through him. There is clearly something wrong here. If Einstein was definitely right, DVdm would not be worrying about these articles. (Brigadier Armstrong 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

• Did you read the link I provided when I said I had protected the wrong version? What I meant was that no matter what version of the article I protected it was the wrong version to someone (as evidenced by the requests by others to go to a different, previous "consensus" wrong version). It didn't matter what version I protected. That is what tends to happen when an admin protects an article under dispute; one or both parties are pissed off about the version that is protected. Read the link... it's actually quite funny.

Beyond that, I will reiterate again that I have no intention of getting involved in the core content dispute here. I was and am not swayed by anyone. I'm not on anyone's "side". The fact that I have categorically declined every request for me to change the article after protection should be your first clue there. We have a dispute resolution process that should be followed by the editors arguing over the content if you cannot all come to a reasonable consensus amongst yourselves. Sorry, but I'm a sysop, not a mediator. Like I said before, you are free to lodge a report at the admin noticeboard if you feel I've acted inappropriately. To be honest I can't tell you how it would be received; I don't speak for anyone but myself here.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We'll leave it at that then. I'm satisfied now that you were only trying to end an edit war but I'm sorry nevertheless that you had to admit to DVdm that you realize that you locked it on a bad version. I'll write that off as a knee jerk reaction, not having been fully aware of the full circumstances at the time you made your statement to DVdm. (Brigadier Armstrong 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, other than the fact that I never actually admitted to anyone that I locked that article down in a "bad version" (again, follow that link above for context on my "wrong version" statement...), I'm happy to let this thread end.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was this quote "Hmm, I didn't see this report, but I managed to find my way to this page via an alternate route and protected what is undoubtedly the wrong version.--Isotope23 talk 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)" which led me to believe that you were telling DVDm that you had protected what is undoubtedly the wrong page.

I see now however that you are saying that it is always the wrong page that is protected. However, in the context of responding to DVdm's letter which was pointing out the allegations against me (made by himself), you claimed that you hadn't seen those allegations and then went on to make your statement. In the context, it could easily have been construed that you were automatically accepting DVdm's allegations as proof of the fact that I am some kind of vandal.

Anyhow, we can drop this now as I know you are not directly involved in the dispute.(Brigadier Armstrong 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes... that is exactly what I was saying. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I will monitor the progress of the talks on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In reference to Mudaliar & Sengunthar

Hi Isotope23,

I have been a passive follower of the various edits in the Mudaliar and Sengunthar page for sometime, until now. Saedirof is lying a lot and thinks that he can force his POV on everyone by saying the same lies over and over again. He is actually a banned user (was banned by arbitration committee) who has been using multiple accounts to edit-war for a long time. He has been proven wrong on multiple counts but he simply denies the facts or starts questioning the validity of the academic references. He has also been shamelessly modifying the quotes from the references which some of the other editors have already been complaining about. Just my 2 cents. Maruthavel 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a third party...

User:Candy156sweet added a "Recent News" section to the 3 Doors Down article. One snippet is about their forthcoming studio album (that they are in the studio), one is about some songs they played at a show, and two are on a "controversy" that is nothing more than allegations in a divorce case. I removed the section with edit summary, and was given a vandalism warning for it. I believe the album should be added when it comes out (per CRYSTAL), the songs are fancruft, and the allegations are over a month old, were denied, have had no effect on the band, and are unencyclopedic in terms of the overall band. However, 3DD seems to have become a pet article of Candy's, and as few people edit the article, I don't believe any talkpage resolution will occur without third-party intervention. Please see User talk:MSJapan#Removal of Content and User talk:Candy156sweet#3 Doors Down for the pertinent discussion threads. MSJapan 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something. I realize that the recent news section of the article is not current, but I found that blanking the section out without reasoning to be in the wrong. This is not a "pet article" as User:MSJapan implies. I edit many different articles on wikipedia, and I merely saw that this was blanked without a relevant reason until I approached this user. I treated this situation as I would any other person who would blank the page. I didn't create the recent news section and I only added the cited information in good faith. Relevance of the subject matter is arbitrary, and I agree with that point. I didn't send him a warning, I merely asked to not blank sections from articles period. I see no harm in that. --Candy156sweet 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'll respond at the article talkpage about the content issue.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Block request

User:Hugh shakespeare seems to be a sockpuppet of Italways, as he has made the same edits to the same articles (as evidenced by the SSP report here). I was wondering if the account could be blocked based on the quack test. MSJapan 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, though I still have no idea why Italways is being used as the master account... makes it harder to connect the dots when that account doesn't acutally have any contribs in the log.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, I am having a problem with the user Kukar, who has been engaged in an edit war over the geographical town page of Vrlika. As you see [1], he reverts all edits back to his even though there are errors in the article and it removes other information, not to mention no other town or village page on goes into such an extent over insignificant churches in villages. I believe he is trying to insert his own personal revisions in the article, and refuses to listen or discuss rationally. I don't know how to handle it. He is close to violating the 3 revert rule. Thank you for your time. --Jesuislafete 00:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Great... except the version you are reverting to is full of spelling errors, grammatical mishaps and (no offense to whomever the primary author is) looks as if it was written by a grade schooler. Beyond that, your revert appears to be removing valid, sourced, geographical information from the article. Please integrate the content you want to add into the current version of the article rather than just reverting back to one that is a complete mess. Just to be clear, my revert back to the version Kukar (talk · contribs) added is not an endorsement of the content, but that would be the better written version to work from if you want to integrate the Croatian War of Independence text. I would also add that population figures would require a citation from a reliable source.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein

Hi...I don't know how to leave you a message on your talk page. Just trying to find out why you deleted my bio page. Bill Lichtenstein. (redacted).

I don't know how to respond to you except to post here.

There is no copyright problem. The previous bio that was up for years was deleted some months ago, likely vandalism. I can confirm any information in the post, and can re-add the links that were there previously in the prior version. Just for my understanding, what is one fact in the post that you were not able to confirm. Finally, there are hundreds of articles and posts about Bill Lichtenstein and Lichtenstein Creative Media, so there is a lot of material out there. Please help! Thanks.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.1.241 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm moved this to the bottom and redacted your email so you don't get spammed. I deleted it because large sections of the article appeared to be lifted from lcmedia.com/presskit.pdf & http://www.lcmedia.com/bio1.pdf. There is no clear indication that these are not under copyright; we can't incorporate text unless it is in the public domain or released under the GFDL. This was the primary reason the article was deleted. However, beyond that, there are other reasons this article would likely be deleted if it were to be recreated in the same form. The text is taken from a press kit and therefore has some neutrality problems. Press kits are, by nature, not the most balanced information source. I'd also say that the article did not clearly demonstrate how the subject is notable from a Wikipedia biographical article standpoint. When I went looking for sources I wasn't able to find multiple reliable sources, that were independant of the subject, covering the subject. I'm also going to wager a guess from your message that you are the subject and the fact that you are writing an article about yourself could be seen as a conflict of interest. Usually it is a good idea to wait until someone else writes an article about you. I hope that answers your questions. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask. You also can contest the deletion of the article at deletion review if you wish to. Regards, --Isotope23 ^talk 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Break it up! Your feuding with 74.97.109.210 over Ivana Milicevic must stop. If it continues, both of you will be blocked. This is your first warning.--Gp75motorsports 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feuding? An anon made exactly one edit in June adding some commentary to the article, which was reverted. lame edit warring ensued over the nationality/ethnicity of the subject involving multiple editors and a very extensive discussion which you can read in the Archives. After discussion, the text that currently appears was agreed upon. Someone else came along, and apparently in good faith added back nationality information. This person appears to be a new editor, not the IP you mentioned above. I reverted with a very descriptive comment. I don't want to go back to the silliness of editors constantly arguing over nationality... hence the consensus version. There is no edit war, just bold edits, revert, and discussion (if that editor has a problem with this). I will say though that your hidden comment wasn't at all in the spirit of WP:AGF, nor is warning an anon for "edit warring" when they had 5 consecutive edits to an article without an edit in the middle. Perhaps you should be a bit more judicious in how you assess situations and hand out warnings.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've warned him, it should be over. Alert me if anything else on the war comes up. --Gp75motorsports 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that you warned an IP with no edits...and even the IP's that have edited that article have, with the exception of one banned sockpuppeteer, been good faith editors. I somehow think you missed the point of what I wrote above.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Milcevic is NOT of Serbian background. Doesn't that anon know that you can have any name anywhere at any time? I just don't get why other editors fight with the CREATORS OF THE PAGE when they know they're wrong...--Gp75motorsports 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to that I would say it is a fairly complex issue... without getting into details, the subject was born in a country that no longer exists (Yugoslavia), in a city that is now part of another country (Bosnia and Herzegovina), to parents that were Croatian ethnicity (though her last name is more typically Serbian) and then emigrated to the United States and possibly now holds citizenship here. Given the history of the Balkans and some of the ill will there, lots of people want to claim her as "one of their own". Again, assuming good faith, editors are not trying to be malicious here, they are just stating their viewpoints which have been by and large unsourced. It's not fighting per se (well except the one banned editor who used to edit there); this is just the give and take edit process that happens ever day on every article. It just gets amplified on contentious issues.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that couldn't be more true. Would it be fair to say that the subject is Serbian/Croatian? It would seem to me that that would be the ideal meeting grounds.--Gp75motorsports 13:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Who is the aforementioned sockpuppeteer?--Gp75motorsports 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a decision made to simply state "American" and with the exception of the occasional editor who comes along to add some other nationality/ethnicity information, the current version has proved to be the least contentious. You can look at the article history, pretty much every other combination has been tried. ("Bosnian-American of Croatian descent" for example). It just all proved to be entirely too contentious any other way... which is why I reverted to the consensus version.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The puppeteer was Afrika Paprika.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad we could reach a consensus. The article looks better without all that pointless arguing going on, doesn't it?--Gp75motorsports 14:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct

Yes, it would seem that you were not the perpetrator. I'll talk to him.--Gp75motorsports 14:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As president...

...I have reorganized the UWU and given it a new name. It is now called the Wikipedia Users' Alliance, or WUA for short. It now focuses more on the blocking policy and reverting bad edits as well as making good ones. The sole purpose of having a meeting room is to discuss what edits we shall make. It is not a standalone government, but rather an anti-vandalism department of Wikipedia.--Gp75motorsports 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC), President, Wikipedia Users' Alliance

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR are each subject to an editing restriction for one year. Each is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Herbert Dingle Page

Isotope23, have you not twigged yet as to what is happening on the Herbert Dingle page? Denveron, who is almost certainly DVdm, insists on putting his own POV right in the centre of the main article. He wants to get on his soapbox and give his reasons why he thinks that Dingle was wrong.

The insertion about the Lorentz transformations looks extremely unprofessional and it breaks the coherence and readability of the article. Can you not see when you are dealing with a fanatic? This is probably a young undergraduate who has just learned about relativity and wants to show off about it.

It is DVdm/Denveron that you need to address as being the source of this edit war.

Yesterday Brigadier Armstrong removed that section. It resulted in a revert war with DVdm in which you then blocked Brigadier Armstrong but did not block DVdm. The relevant passage is still in place.

Can you not see how ridiculous that passage is? It is pure POV and there are many pro-Dingle supporters who could easily shoot it down in flames.

Why is this article only open to editing by Denveron? Why are you allowing a childish little fanatic to ruin a good article about Herbert Dingle? (58.136.72.238 06:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Twigs make some delicious tea!

Let me respond to this point by point:

1. Denveron, who is almost certainly DVdm - If you think so, please feel free to submit a sock investigation request or a request for checkuser.
2. He wants to get on his soapbox and give his reasons why he thinks that Dingle was wrong. - I'd strongly suggest you pursue some type of dispute resolution as it has become clear that there are two sides here who do not agree.
3. you then blocked Brigadier Armstrong but did not block DVdm. The relevant passage is still in place. - Brigadier Armstrong (talk · contribs) broke WP:3RR; DVdm (talk · contribs) did not from what I saw. Thus, Brigadier Armstrong (talk · contribs) was blocked. I've no desire or intent to edit the article in any way unless I see spelling/grammar/or usage errors.
4. Can you not see how ridiculous that passage is? It is pure POV and there are many pro-Dingle supporters who could easily shoot it down in flames. - I've said this several times, I'm not interested in commenting on the core content dispute here. I'm not a judge or arbiter. I'm not here to decide which wrong version of the Herbert Dingle article is displayed at Wikipedia. If editors cannot work this out amicably amongst themselves, then I may have to use the tools again to push that process in the right direction. I hope that isn't the case, but if I have to I will.
5. Why is this article only open to editing by Denveron?, well, right now it is open to editing by anyone registered with an auto-confirmed account... which would be more editors than just Denvron. I've already stated my opinion of this protection on the article talkpage. If you have an issue with the protection, you can either contact the protecting admin, create an account (presuming you are not one of the editors recently blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs); otherwise you need to request an unblock on your main account), or request unprotection for the article (though I imagine that will not be fulfilled if requested).--Isotope23 ^talk 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how somebody can do an edit, DVdm reverts it, that person undoes the reversion, DVdm reverts again, that person undoes again and gets blocked but DVdm doesn't. He gets his way and the page gets protected.

No. There is something seriously wrong going on here. Like I've just said in the talk pages, an encyclopaedia ought to write about a dissident simply by explaining his dissidency and his failed battle to convince the establishment. We don't need that highly technical POV section from Denveron/DVdm stating their view on why Dingle was wrong, when in actual fact, I for one would be quite capable of shooting their argument down in flames. But then I deliberately avoided getting drawn into that because they would have been the very first to claim that the article is not about discussing Dingle's argument, even though they themselves are doing that very thing.

I am very disappointed in wikipedia. Actually, the reason that I got drawn into this at all is because I was e-mailed for assistence (not by Swanzsteve). When I started to look into what was going on, I read Swanzsteve's user page and I could see exactly what he meant. I felt sorry for him and decided to back him up.

But now I can see that there is indeed a very entrenched bunch of fanatics guarding the article for fear that any doubt may ever by cast on Einstein's theories. It really makes one wonder why.

If I were you, I would keep an eye on DVdm/Denveron. 58.8.180.181 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again, please have a look at WP:3RR. To be honest, I have no intention of "keeping an eye" on any specific editors in regards to that article. The content issue should be worked out by the interested parties on the talkpage or via the dispute resolution process. While I am watching Herbert Dingle and will deal with disruption if I see it, I personally don't have the time or energy to be constantly babysitting an article or a group of editors who feel the need to bicker like kindergardeners over content. Sorry, but that isn't what I do.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the information and the links...I understand that it can be shut down, I will carefully go over the links that you have sent me...By the way, how did you find out about what we are doing? Where did you hear it from?--Greenwood1010 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

tHANKS

tHANKYOU FOR THOSE LINKS--Greenwood1010 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

response

This is the response i gave on the wikiproject council page When making several statments that I made I was not sure how to word the group, therefore I referred to it as a leagl branch of wikipedia. However it was indeed a simple misunderstanding. What I meant to say was a Wiki Project group. I have since changes the term legal to the term Wiki Project group. It seems the the above two gentelman / ladies (sorry, I not sure of your genders) are trying to take my mistake of wording it as a legal branch and try and make it look like we (myself and Gp75motorsports) are trying to do something wrong--Greenwood1010 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, there are indeed a few other groups that are similar to ours. So why the need for our group? A good question, heres why...In real life there are many groups that basicly do the same thing, charities are a great example, however different groups appeal to diiferent people. To many the cuurent establsihed groups are not very appeling, there fore having a new "fresh" group will drawl in more people, therefore bringing in more members to the larger "anti-vandelism" community. What I am saying is this, that to say "This One Group is the only Anti-Vandelism group allowed on Wiki" will only turn numerous wikipedians away from wanting to join, however having a small varity will drawl in more wikipedians who will "hunt down" vandels...just my thoughts. Founder of this group --Greenwood1010 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Isaacs

Aw, you took my new toy away, and I was still playing with it! Oh, well, I suppose you're a better person than I am. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I've become quite the eventualist these days and eventually that was going to be deleted. You can always try WP:DRV. I'm sure there are more than enough people who would be salivating at the prospect of raking me over the coals for not following the exact letter of process.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Iso! You should probably put all these sockpuppets on report while you're at it. --Orange Mike 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't going to bother. They are almost certainly single purpose accounts that will never get used again. I've seen so many AFD's like this...

I'll watchlist em, just in case.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

...and right now I'm watching FisherQueen (talk · contribs) block them all as socks.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt she'll come back, so it's kind of pointless, but I went ahead and sockblocked them. It made me a little sad. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's Friday... by Monday I'm sure you'll find another wikifriend... you seem to find quite a few.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it --

I was writing my deletion reason when I saw you zapped it. I was trying to think of a way to write "Article is clearly crap" without it coming back to bite me at DRV.  :) -- Merope 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I saw your redirect while I was deleting... also see my response to FQ about DRV, which I almost expect to happen (though no FQ doing it).--Isotope23 ^talk 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I got it, and thanks for that, would you suggest if I encounter that editor again I not leave warnings, and if not, what would I do to get the editor blocked, simply report to AIV as a sock? Ariel♥Gold 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

thankyou

I will remove the e-mail soon...any how i have come to accept that wua will be deleted..i was saying that we could have a unofficla group...no webpage on username site just people who come togather under the name..no formal stuff.--Greenwood1010 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took the @ out... that way a bot won't recognize it as an email address. Yes, you guys can still talk to each other on talkpages or via email and help out with welcome templates, etc. I've never been a part of a project per se and I like to think that I've still been able to do some useful stuff around here since I started editing.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by sockpuppets in article Mudaliar Confirmed

Hi Isotope23, Earlier I had mentioned all these users Casper21 , SiddharthRaju , Raghav_NS are sockpuppets of the same user user:Mudaliar who had been banned by arbitration decision. You protected his version of the articles in Mudaliar. After investigation, it has been confirmed that they are all sockpuppets. [2]. Can you please revert to the correct version with valid proofs instead of protecting the POV version?

Sincerely Saedirof 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked the socks, however I'm declining your request to switch versions of the protected article as there were other people involved in this besides those socks who were cleared by the RFCU; making this more a POV edit war amongst several editors than a clear case of sockpuppet vandalism.. Besides, as an outside observer I would say neither version is the "correct version"... both are the wrong version in so much as both are POV. You all need to do a bit more in the way of discussion to reach a neutral consensus version of the article.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Isotope, I have posted all proofs for my claims. However, the opposite side has NOT furnished any proofs for any of their claims. I think it is fair to assume that other than the sock puppets nobody is interested in any discussions. What is your suggestion about the next step? I understand that you cant show preference for any one version of the article. However you must consider that by locking the vandalized version, you have made their version correct and the opposite side is now complacent. In order to move forward on the discussion, I think you should protect my version. Maybe then I wont have to wait till Nov 8 for any positive discussion. Saedirof 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You can request unprotection by another admin if you wish. I'm not going to edit a protected article and at this point I'd like to wait a bit longer before unprotecting it for general editing again. Another admin may disagree with my caution though.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WUA

I've been watching the train wreck that is the Wikipedia Users Alliance since they started. I once considered offering to help them understand how things work around here, but don't think there's any hope for people who can't even organize a threaded discussion. I blame texting and chat, personally. Right now, they seem to be constructing a walled garden here [3], as indicated here [4]. I tried not to look at it too hard - the cap lock made my eyes hurt. You've been kind to them, and I see no malicious intent either, but it's all going to end in tears. Acroterion _(talk) 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to gently nudge them in the right direction, but I don't think I've been very successful... I'll blame texting and chat too.

I'll keep an eye on it.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Users' Alliance

Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks.--Greenwood1010 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know.

Oh Yes

Just paid my dues to the dark side. Casey Abell 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Block template

Hello Isotope23 and thank you for reporting larceny of my template. The kanji is meant to represent "blockade". On the Japanese Wikipedia they seem to use "block" written in katakana instead (ブロック), but I chose a similar word so to be able to use the more fancy-looking kanji. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I did not know that at all. If you want, I'll nominate it for deletion. -Goodshoped 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

...and now I know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

...and knowing is half the battle!--Isotope23 ^talk 12:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

What all can I do with an external domain? --Gp75motorsports 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)