User talk:Thewolfchild

♪♫ Believe it or not, Wolf isn't at home, please leave a message at the beep! I must be out, or I'd pick up the phone, where could I be? Believe it or not, I'm not home... ♫♪ - >BEEP!<

Curriculum Vitae If you ask me my name, age, race or, anything about my family, where I went to school or where I work, I just might answer... but it will probably be a sarcastic lie. ............ thewolfchild Regulae meae page "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." - SLC IMHO So many wikipedians want to be heros. "Well, people don't want heros, they want to eat cheeseburgers, play the lotto and watch television." - Somerset. Cookie jar "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking..." - GSP "A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words." - EB "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." - FN "So I said, "Look buddy, your car was upside-down when I got here. And as for your grandmother, she shouldn't have mouthed off like that."" - HS "Losers always whine about doing their best. Winners go home a fuck the prom queen." - SC "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." - IN "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." CMC "The best form of defence is attack." - KvC "Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges" - T

Old News

(do not post here)

FYI

File copyright problem with File:FBI ranks.jpg Thank you for uploading File:FBI ranks.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Actually, I created that .jpg, but after further research, decided not to use it. Wolf. Thewolfchild (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Your recent edits Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC) OK - Thewolfchild (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Vader image I removed the image of Darth Vader from your user page. Non-free content is not permitted anywhere other than articles. --EEMIV (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Just gotta' love WP's policies on image use... clear as freakin' mud. As it is there, Quickdraw, I found this on Wikimedia Commons (well, same label at least). This particular pic is also found in the Darth Vader article, where it states that it qualifies for Fair use. Isn't there a fair-use exemption for images being used for the purposes of a parody? Anyways, I found another pic (that I like better) that has been released to the Public domain. So problem solved. - thewolfchild 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A disagreement...

December 2011 (Notice of edit revert on the Zodiac page from: ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►) - Just to be clear, I was correcting an error and within seconds, you were all over it with reverts. Then when it turned out you made a mistake, you went on and on in the talk page trying to save face. Ultimately you were proven wrong. And now, since you don't want people to see the errors you made, you've gone and deleted anything and everything, everywhere that even makes mentions of the incident. - It's a wonder that you're an admin with the way that you get into constant conflict with wiki users and even other admins, and especially the way you abuse your privileges. (p.s. - You gonna delete this... AGAIN?) Thewolfchild (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC) - Wow. Found out you're not an admin. You just act like one... - thewolfchild 07:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC) (new sig) Another POV A couple of points: Berean Hunter isn't an administrator, and Rwenonah has been edit-warring with a number of other editors over the past year. I'm trying to help Rwenonah to understand the problem with his edits and you're not helping by dragging your apparent grudge against Berean Hunter into an unrelated matter. Please try to assume good faith. Your issue with BH appears to be a minor misunderstanding that has gotten blown out of proportion: he has the right to remove material on his userpage if he wishes. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Acroterion: I will assume good faith to the point that you are probably a decent admin, most of the time, but here you are clearly jumping in without being informed or impartial. The "minor misunderstanding" was both created and "blown out of proportion" by Berean Hunter. She made a mistake, compounded it by making another, then made a fool out of herself by trying to blame it on me. She has since gone and tried to delete everything and anything related to the incident to cover it up. Now I see an Edit War going on with Rwenoah, and you jumping in with a clear bias. I see no action taken against your little girlfriend "BH", while at the same time you and your admin buddies seem to continually punish Rwenoah without really providing clear reasoning, or responding to any of the counter-complaints that Rwenoah has brought forward. (yes, punish, as in "go sit in the corner and think about what you did!") We all appreciate the work you admins do, but you need to try to stick to the principles you preach. Wikipedia should be a meritocracy, administered with total neutrality and transperency, else it become an insulated, dictatorial, cronyistic regime. Good day. Thewolfchild (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Attempting to conflate issues and fabricate things now. Trying to interfere by instigating on an article talk page. I'll take his last comment here as confirming the account as a trolling sock. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @ B.H.'s B.S. - Do you even bother to read what you write before you hit "save page"? All you did was was support my points with your citations. Yes, I made an error, an instead of trying to blame it on others, and then delete everything to cover it up, (like some people) I simply added an edit to correct my error. Thank you for showing that. Then there's your cite with my request that you review and adhere to the policies of Wikipedia. The request I posted right after your insult at another user. Thanks again. (While we're at it, here's another page for ya': Hypocrisy) Basically, BH, I don't care for your attitude. It's counter-productive, and no matter how much you contribute (or think you do) to Wikipedia, the site doesn't need people with negative attitudes. I feel that you delibritely misrepresent things. "Trolling sock"? Show one iota of proof that I'm a "troll", or "sock". Otherwise, please be quiet. - Thewolfchild (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Warning (?) This [1] and this [2] are unacceptable direct personal attacks, and shall stop. You've been warned concerning disruption, and you've crossed the line into trolling and baiting. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Whatever... thewolfchild 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC) And I've brought it up at WP:ANI. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Your ANI is about as truthful as your 'warning'. In fact, your warning is pretty much all B.S., and I will respond to your ANI below. - thewolfchild 03:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

comedy central

Complaints Dept. "ANI #1" i am thewolfchild Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) has been grinding an axe against Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) over a minor tiff in December. TWC has since jumped into a dispute at hunting, where Rwenonah (talk · contribs) had been blocked for edit-warring (again) and agenda-pushing, in a matter in which I and BH were involved. I warned TWC that their intervention on Rwenonah's talkpage [3] was inappropriate and unlikely to help out Rwenonah. TWC has since escalated into obvious personal attacks and harassment [4] against Berean Hunter and baiting, who isn't entirely blameless (BH claims socking and has unwisely reverted TWC's comments on Rwenonah's talkpage), but to a much lesser degree. TWC has a habit of cross-posting that makes sorting out diffs rather confusing. I've issued a warning to TWC [5]. Based on their response [6] I doubt any actions on my part would resolve the matter cleanly (we passed the Godwin's Law point a while back), so I bring it here. Most of the issue can be discerned on my talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC) ("Are you finished? Well then allow me to retort"...) - Yes, Acro, I read it and I must say I am somewhat disappointed with you. Your account of the 'incident' is not entirely accurate now, is it? You are missing a few facts and you have 'bent' a few others. You have shown that you cannot be neutral. You have repeatedly demonstrated a clear bias in favour BH and against Rwen and myself. It is my opinion that you have a conflict here and that you should step aside and request another party review this matter, in it's entirety. I would suggest a panel of 3 admins. They should have absolutely no history or involvement with with you, BH, Rwen, myself, or any of the admins that were involved in previous blocks on Rwen. They should also have no prior involvement with Hunting, Zodiac, or any of our talk pages. They should review the incidents where you claim Rwen has made repeated edit violations, as well as any administrative and/or punitive action that has been taken in response to these claims. They should review the "minor tiff" that BH and I had in December, as well as all of BH's subsequent comments, edits and deletions. They should also review any other issues BH may have had with other users, including edit wars and personal conflicts. There should then be a thorough review of the incidents surrounding the Hunting page, including the edit war between BH and Rwen, the subsequent actions (and inaction) on your part as well as any other admins that were involved. Following that, they could review any comments I made as well as any and all comments made by yourself and BH. Then, perhaps a more clear picture of what has transpired here will be revealed, and some pressing questions can be answered; - Have you, Acroterion, conducted yourself appropriately in your position as an admin? - Was Rwen treated failrly and with respect? - Were his queries regarding his disposition as an editor handled promptly and properly? - Were his previous "infractions" adjudicated fairly? - Was/is the Hunting page up to Wikipedia standards? Or is it in need of revision? (by a neutral source) - Were Rwen's (initial) edits in complete violation of Wikipedia policy? - Was there a better way you could have handled Rwen's concern's about the content of the Hunting page? - Was BH justified in arbitrarily removing Rwen's edits? - Was BH justified in subsequently engaging in an edit war? - Was BH's conduct and attitude towards other users in keeping with Wikipedia policy? (in both the Zodiac page incident and the Hunting page incident) - Was BH justified in removing content from someone else's talk page? (ie: Rwen) - Was BH justified in posting comments that contain unfounded accusations, falsehoods and personal insults? OF course, IF this proposed review were to take place, it would have to be conducted by 3 honest, intelligent and unbiased admins. Following that, I would hope that the Hunting page could be revised as a better document. I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor. I would expect that the incident that occurred last December, between BH and I on the Zodiac page would be seen for exactly what it was; BH a little too quick to jump in, criticize and correct people and equally as quick to initiate reverts and warnings. That's perhaps why her attitude towards other users can be stand-offish and even condescending at times. That these actions on her part are from a lack of patience, which also leads to a quick temper, resulting in edit wars, complaints, personal attacks and insults, like "You're a troll!", "You're a sock puppet!", "You crawled out from under a rock!", "You're ignorant!", etc, etc. I would further expect that BH's actions during the Hunting page incident and subsequent dialogues on talk pages would also show a need for her conduct to be addressed. I believe that BH can be a positive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and that only a minimal amount of correction and/or guidance would be required to set her on the right path. I'm certainly willing to let 'by-gones be by-gones'. I would expect that it would likely be determined that you Acro, could have administered the situation better. Beginning with your treatment of Rwen, you're handling of the Hunter page edit war incident, your unwillingness to address any of the misconduct on the part of BH and fianlly, the continued back-and-forth you have in engaged in with myself, where you have continually manipulated the dialogue to purposefully create discord. There was no "baiting" or "disruption" on my part, just simply my response to your response to my response, and so on and so on. I did not call Wikipedia a "regime" - I said I hope it doesn't become one. I did not insult any admins, including yourself - I simply said that I hoped that admins here, in general, can refrain from certain kinds of actions that would be deterimental to this site. AND, I certainly did not call anyone here a "Nazi", nor did I refer to anyone here as "Hitler". The place the 'Godwin Line' was crossed, was in your imagination. This is an accusation that you should really consider taking back. Nothing I said was deserving of such a comment. In fact, if my conduct were to be reviewed, I believe it would be 'on the margins' sometimes, but still 'on-side'. I freely admit that I use rhetorical sarcasm as part of my debates. Any comments I make are usually gauged in response to the comments made towards me. I believe it would be shown that the December incident went down just as I said it did. Following that, I noted that another user was having similar difficulties with BH that I had. I found this on BH's talk page and decided to post a simple comment, based on my experience with BH, to let Rwen know that this was not a unique situation. BH removed that - and that's her right, but when I re-posted my comments on Rwen's talk page (for the benefit of Rwen), BH went in and removed them - That was wrong. Following that, BH and I have a a couple of exchanges that at least I can admit were not in keeping with the best of ideals. Unfortunately, hostility sometimes breeds hostility. I have since disengaged from BH. However, that is where I had looked to you, Acro, to try and direct the whole affair towards somekind of resolution. But you failed. Ultimately, I believe that any review would determine that you are a good admin, and should continue as such. You may still have a little to learn, but I believe you have alot to offer. In closing, I'm glad that you have brought this to ANI. Whether or not the review I proposed is conducted, I believe that this entire affair bears some kind of looking into. Questions do need to be answered. Policies do need to be reviewed. Changes do need to be made. This can only benefit Wikipedia and all it's users. If the are any questions I need to answer, or anything I need to answer for, you all know where to find me. This will all but conclude my involvement with this. I don't see any reason for any of our paths to cross again, so I will wish all of you the best, in your endeavours. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC) - (Love those Big Kahuna Burgers...) My initial concern was that Thewolfchild was using Rwenonah's block for edit-warring to continue a vendetta of Thewolfchild's against Berean Hunter. Nothing above changes my mind. TWC was warned for direct personal attacks against Berean Hunter: they haven't repeated that since my warning. It does (not very concisely) illustrate TWC's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to WP, and is using Rwenonah's problems at hunting as a proxy to serve TWC's own ends. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) By the way, Godwin's Law was passed with "admins who would treat it like a regime, with their self-serving, egotistical, condescending, fascist attitudes" [7]. Apparently I'm not one of those, which ought to be true in this case, since I've taken no administrative actions where Rwenonah and Thewolfchild are concerned. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Wow, Acro... you just keep going on and on about this. Your latest comments are, to put it politely, disingenuous, and only serve reinforce the need for you to step aside, as I had previously suggested. - You claim that I have a "continuing vendetta" against Berean Hunter (BH). I would suggest that to reacquaint yourself with the definition of vendetta. In December of last year, there was a minor incident involving some edits and reverts to one article. I believe that BH had acted inappropriately and I told her as such. Following that, I dismissed the matter, and that was the extent of it. By BH's own admission, I have been "inactive" since that time (hardly qualifies as "continuing"). - Recently, I noted that BH had become involved in an edit war with Rwenonah (Rwen). I also noted that you took it upon yourself, as an admin to, to intercede in the matter. However, the actions you took seem to be prejudicially against Rwen (as by your own admission, you have a bias) and in favour of BH. Rwen has not only been blocked, but continually ignored. Compounding the issue further was that at the same time, BH's actions/violations were not being addressed. I then posted a comment to let Rwen know that his confusions and concerns with BH were justified as BH does have a history of conflict. BH responded to this, and I replied, and so on. My subsequent comments to BH were no more violative that hers. Again, there were only a few posting and then I dropped the matter with her. - However, you once again decided to involve yourself and, once again you came in heavily in support of BH. It is not clear exactly just what the nature of the relationship is between you two, but you seem to give BH an exceptional degree of latitude when it comes to policy, to the point where you are effectively turning a blind eye and giving her a free pass for any of her transgressions. - Now, just to be clear... you posted comments to me first, sir, not the other way around. I am fully within my right to respond, which I did, but unfortunately, you have a habit of manipulating comments, taking them out of context and then presenting them in a fashion that not at all reflects the original message that was being conveyed. You seem to do this to depict the other person as someone who is acting in a manner in need of re-dress, and of course, since you are an admin, you take it upon yourself to apply remedies. Each time you respond to me, I have every right to reply back. Especially when there is a need to clarify any items that you have deliberately distorted. Yet, following this, you accuse me of "baiting", "trolling", "disrupting", etc, once again, characterizing me as "the disease" and you as "the cure". Under a veil of authority and feigned principled superiority, you have "warned" me, threatened me and now created an ANI entry which is at best misleading, but in my opinion, largely apocryphal. - There is a standard which admins at a minimum should be held to, but should also aspire to exceed. I'm sure you have done some good work here in the past, but your actions here in this matter have fallen short of that standard. I have been repeatedly critical of you, and justly so, but I have also been respectful. As an admin, you should be well aware that criticism comes with the territory. Perhaps you need to develop a 'thicker skin', if you are going to continue on as a admin. - There are also some concepts you need to grasp, such as subtlety, sarcasm, hypocrisy, irony, neutrality and superfluous generalizations. You also need to learn the difference between fact and fiction. - Fact: if an admin were to use his or her privileges to serve their own ends, they are, in fact "self-serving". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "self-serving". - Fact: if an admin were to consistently and unreasonably hold the position that they are always right and everybody else is always wrong, they would, in fact, be considered "egotistical". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "egotistical". - Fact: if any person were to consider that being a admin gives them some sort of moral high-ground that elevates them above their peers, and therefore look down upon other users and treat them as lessers, they would, in fact, be considered "condescending". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "condescending". - It was my position (and still is) that any admin here should avoid any behaviour of these types if they are going to be an effective admin. Any admin acting in such a manner as prescribed above would be detrimental to Wikipedia. This statement is somewhat obvious (isn't it?) and was made as a generality. You need to recognize it as such and not take it as some kind of attack. - You also need to learn what "fascism" means, in general, then compare and contrast the way in which I have used it, specifically, here in my comments. You also need to reconcile my use of the word fascism with the other comments I made regarding Wikipedia (ie: 'meritocracy', 'neutral', 'transparent'). These ideals are in keeping with democracy, fair treatment and free speech. All of these principles are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so remarkable. Therefore, I believe it would be fair to say, in general, that if any admin were to act in a manner that was in conflict with these principles and ideals, it would only serve to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of Wikipedia. If an admin were to impose his or her own will in a manner that puts their interests above those of other users and Wikipedia, if they were to misuse, or even abuse, their privileges in the process, if they were to do so despite a lack of consensus from the Wikipedia community, and if they were to try and enforce their own personal agendas without any personal responsibility, they would then be acting in an authoritarian manner and without accountability, they would be acting in a totalitarian manner. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are two of the basic precepts of fascism. Any entity administered in such a manner would be tantamount to a regime. In these instances however, 'fascism' and 'regime' have simply been used as basic descriptors to illustrate a point and not as direct comparatives. To say that having Wikipedia run as a 'fascist regime' would be of great harm is simply a general observation that is stating the obvious and in no way proffers the opinion that Wikipedia is a fascist regime. For you to claim that I have depicted Wikipedia as a regime or any of it's admins as fascists is deceitful. This seems to be a stratagem on your part to reinforce your position while at the same time distracting from the of the concerns that have been raised about you. - Lastly, for someone who is so enamoured with Godwin's Law, you really do seem to have a poor understanding of it. The basic theory is that is if an argument were to go on long enough, that at some point one of the belligerents would accuse the other of acting like a Nazi, or compare them with Adolf Hitler. I fail see how Godwin's Law applies to my comment. I used the term 'fascist' in the most basic and general sense, as part of an opinion, in which I stated that it was something to be avoided. You and I were not engaged in an argument and I did not call you a fascist. You seem to hold that the term fascism applies to the theory becasue Nazi Germany was a fascist state, and while that application is debatable, I certainly did not, at any time, accuse you of acting like a Nazi, nor did I compare you with Hitler. You have incorrectly, cavalierly and grossly applied this theory to our discussion. In doing so, you yourself have breached the principle behind the law. That is, you have taken a simple disagreement, on an relatively minor issue, and in trying to apply a theory (that doesn't even apply), you have attempted to draw a comparison between this and one of the darkest elements of human history. You have demeaned and trivialized the horrific, to serve your own needs with your reckless and unapologetic behaviour. Did you have anything else to add, or are we done now? - thewolfchild 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Acroterion handled this very well indeed, especially considering some of the weird accusations you've made. But leaving that aside -- TWC, you say, within your giant wall of text -- "I have since disengaged from BH" -- do that. I reviewed the situation and it is clear you are wikistalking BH, so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Antandrus: "Acroterion handled this very well..." - Really? Glad you think so... Antandrus: "...the weird accusations you've made." - Like what? Antandrus: "...giant wall of a text." - Sorry, I'll try to use more pictures and less big words next time. Antandrus: "(you)have since disengaged from BH -- do that." - Are you saying that I should do something... that I have already done? (or did you want me to go tell her off again, and then disengage again?) Antandrus: "...it is clear you are wikistalking..." - Really? It's "clear", huh? Then it should be easy for you to provide some proof to support this claim. Or, did you go to the Acroterion school of I'm-just-gonna-throw-out-any-baseless-accusation-I-please-without-backing-it-up? Antandrus: "...so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem." - >yawn< ...ok, thanks for stopping by. - thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos? Sheesh. Calm down. And you say that Acro "just keep[s] going on and on about this". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Lothar von Richthofen: "Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos?" - Yeah, I course I am. Just see the my 3 previous posts above... Lothar von Richthofen: "Calm down." - Um... do I seem angry or excited? Am I using any harsh, derogatory language? Have I made any threats? AM I USING ALOT OF CAPS? Am I using multiple exclamation marks!!!!!? Sheesh. Lothar von Richthofen: "...you say that Acro keeps going on and on..." - Yes, I did say that... because he does. He keeps repeating the same bogus complaints and baseless accusations. Quite frankly, I wish he had written more, to at least back-up some of his nonsense. But as it is, I'm left to refute what he claims happened and clarify what actually happened. All the while, asking some pretty simple, yet important questions that continue to go unanswered. Don't mistake thoroughness with ranting and raving. It's unfortunate that this discussion has left you so irritated. I hope your day gets better. - thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC) What we appear to have here is an argument-only account. It's plain that anyone who attempts to engage TWC for any reason gets treated to an ever-expanding Great Wall of Text on their own and Wikipedia's iniquity with digressions into an analyses of fascism and its role in the management of Wikipedia. My original post stands: a returning edit-warrior was reported by me to AN3, was blocked, and TWC, beginning with personal attacks against Berean Hunter, is using this as a pretext for verbose denunciations of all who come into contact with TWC. However, since they appear to have agreed to leave BH alone, this may be closed. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Sooo... that's it? How... anti-climatic. You created this oh-so-ominous ANI, only to let it die on the vine? Just what was your intention in bringing this up, anyway? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of review, discourse, accounting and hopefully resolution? You opened with your little paragraph of artifice and pulled off the neat trick of keeping it short while at the same time touching upon multiple issues, multiple users, multiple pages, and levying multiple accusations. To think that I actually took you seriously, was willing to take part in this kangaroo court, and going to the trouble of dissecting all your obfuscation so that I could provide some factual clarity. Quite simply, Newton's Third Law is at work here. I'm sorry if my responses were too overwhelming for you and you 'friends' to digest, but regardless of their length, there are necessary and reasonable. Aside from playing janitor with your comments, I also raised some issues of concern and posed some questions that needed to be asked as much as they need to be answered. I went even further and proposed the need for a (real) review of all issues and parties involved. I was ready to take part. I stand by everything I've done and I have nothing to hide. Funny how some other people here don't want the light shining on them. It seems you got punch-drunk early, and instead of presenting further, simply hung on to the ropes. Then a couple of your 'friends' came along and took a whopping 30 seconds out of their days to dump in some random, useless detritus, and then disappeared. Bean-Hunter is nowhere to be seen, leaving you without your cheearleading squad. Then you managed to regurgitate a little more, leaving me to craft another respose to these ongoing fables of yours. So, I can see where these ANI's can be useful tools in addressing some of the conflicts and violations that occur here on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your ANI sucked. I have shown that you were wrong, on multiple counts, both in your actions and your accusations. What did you accompish? Now are we done...? - thewolfchild 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC) - (I'm glad you didn't charge admission for this) No, I'm around...just busy. There is little anyone needs to say...you're doing a fine job at what you're doing. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Maybe too fine a job, eh? - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Proxy "Just for the record, I looked at the ANI complaint( I'm commenting here only because I am still blocked and cannot edit the noticeboard) and do not consider myself an uninvolved party, having been blocked for edit warring while User:Berean Hunter has not ( especially as my questions about User:Berean Hunter's questionable actions and nonexistent response went unanswered except by User:thewolfchild) . I completely agree with User:thewolfchild about the complaint on the noticeboard. (PS-My questions still haven't been answered-I sense bias)."(--Rwenonah (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)) The preceding was posted by Rwenonah on his own talk page. I have re-posted it here, for obvious reasons. - thewolfchild 04:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC) I remain concerned that TWC is egging on Rwenonah to further edit-warring on release of his block through comments like this: [8]. TWC's comments on BH and myself are in character, and he has elaborated on our alleged sins at length, but his interaction with Rwenonah remains an issue, as TWC seems to be engaged in validating Rwenonah's actions. This was the basis of my initial interaction with TWC, from which the mass above has sprung. A word with Rwenonah would be beneficial, not least to him, to try to keep him out of further difficulty. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Acroterion: "I remain concerned that TWC is egging on Rwenonah to further edit-warring..." Acroterion: "I have, however noted at ANI my concerns that [Rwen is] being encouraged to continue edit-warring..." [9] - This is now beyond comical. Acro, these fabrications of yours are out of control. I challenge you, here and now, to quote one, just one, comment of mine that shows I have encouraged Rwen to engage in any edit-warring. Quit playing straw-man and, for once, produce some actual facts to support at least one of your ridiculous accusations. - My "interaction with Rwenonah remains an issue"? Are you kidding? I can communicate with any user I wish, and as long as it is within WP policy, then it's none of your business. I don't know Rwen, and I know nothing of the circumstances regarding his previous blocks. I did, however, have an issue with the 'Hunting page incident' - where all this seemingly started. I did not encourage or support Rwen's edits. I, in fact, provided my own solution to that issue which I see that, as of today, remains in place. A solution that neither Rwen, BH or YOU seemed capable of. I have an issue with the fact that both Rwen and BH were edit-warring, but only Rwen was punished. Since then, he has repeatedly asked for feedback and clarification on the matter, but has been continually ignored. And, since he's blocked, he can't even address the issue beyond his own talk page. I have encouraged him to pursue his own ANI on the matter. I have very right to encourage this and he has every right to so. Or course, he can't create an ANI to question the actions of an admin since the admin has blocked him from doing so. (Like I said, this whole thing is a farce.) I'm not surprised that you are "concerned" however, heaven forbid there is yet another ANI questioning your misconduct. - As for quotes, you will note that in this very ANI, I have said "I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor." Hardly an inducement to edit-warring. - If all your "sins are alleged", then refute them. Seriously, try answering just one freakin' question. Directly. With facts. (If you can...) Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC) TWC and Civility After seeing this section on ANI, I took a peek at TWC's talk page, with these three edits in particular. Acroterion warned him and TWC's response was a simple "Whatever...". TWC needs to understand that civility is not optional. We just had an Arbcom case on this, didn't we? People make snide remarks from time to time, but these types of personal attacks are certainly beyond the pale. Ishdarian 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Honestly, I'm a bit sympathetic to TWC's plight here. He sounds frustrated and angry, and this being at AN/I can't be helping anything. Just because there was an Arbcom case which involved Civility doesn't give license to run around looking for editors who we can thwack over the head with the civility policy. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Ohm, as your response appears unbiased and somewhat reasonable, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no insult with your "frustrated and angry" comment. (You will note that I have already addressed that issue) I can tell you that I am neither "angry", nor "frustrated". I'm just not emotionally invested enough here for that. I haven't experienced anything other than mild annoyance and amusement. There are people here that seem to live and breath Wikipedia twenty-four hours a day but, when I log off, I don't give this site a second thought. I read some articles, correct the odd mistake and enjoy a litte rhetoric. Other than that, I simply don't care. Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not calling for him to be blocked, but a nice reminder from somebody outside of the current discussion could surely to no harm. Ishdarian 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Dear, Ishdarian. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to offer your insight to this issue. Wikipedia just wouldn't be what it is without the selfless efforts of people like yourself. One can only hope that you will be able to find a remedy for your selective tunnel-vision. Good Luck, All the best and Take Care. (see? I can be nice...) - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (btw - my wife "reminds" me to be civil every gawd-damn day) I'm not calling for TWC to be blocked: I after all could have blocked TWC myself. I'm concerned about the hair-trigger rhetoric and his use of Wikipedia as a battleground in which to pursue grudges, dragging in otherwise uninvolved parties such as Rwenonah. At the time of my original posting he was using Rwenonah's troubles to further TWC's own ends against BH, which was what caught my attention in the first place. At the original time of posting I wasn't sure where this was headed, and I wasn't going to be active on WP. TWC has avoided further incident since then. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC) "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) ROTFLMAO - of all of the wp:boomerang and wp:duck results seen here, this one escapes? Have any of the admins actually looked at the contributions from start to finish? There are some absolutely ridiculous thoughts in this thread. C'mon, I was mistaken for a sock on my first appearance here, why would anyone allow TWC to survive AN/I without scrutiny? - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) UError - Not surprised you're laughing, I've been laughing myself since the beginning of this farce. I asked for scrutiny too, but... (sigh) oh well. Anyways, there's already enough players here in this dog's breakfast, we really don't need you dragging in your sock baggage. It's old news, move on. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Can you point to something specific? I just looked though every single diff in TWC's history, and I don't see anything that is immediately obvious which even approaches being disruptive. I didn't look at any of his talk page comments, but his content contributions seem fine (and that's what's important, after all). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Ohm - you won't find anything in my history (I have better things to do than edit war and vandalize). My talk page... well, that's a different story, but (if I may quote FDR), "They started it!". But, seriously, I've already stated that's I've made some sarcastic comments that were more colourful that needed. BUT, I've also had some insults hurled at me, have been accused of all kinds of nonsense, have been deliberately misquoted and mischaracterized - all done with seeming impunity, and at the same time have have many questions go unanswered. My understanding was that the (mis)conduct of any party of an ANI could be examined. But, instead of any scrutiny, there's just repetition of the same baseless drivel. Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

democracy in action

The Nays have it "Skittles"... seriously? When noting Martin's movements just prior the incident, is it really necessary to specify that he was at a "7-Eleven", and that he bought "Skittles" and "Arizona Iced Tea"? The brand names of these items are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the confrontation. Considering the nature of this incident, this information seems needless and superfluous. I felt it was more appropriate to simply say a "local convenience store" and "food items". However, I was reverted by someone who feels that "Skittles have become iconic" because of this incident and therefore should be specifically identified within the article. Since the article is 1RR, I thought I would seek consensus, before reverting it back. Anyone else have an opinion? - thewolfchild 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Leave it as Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea (which can be used in a fight as a weapon -- not saying it was, mind.) htom (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Anyone else? (with a real response, a little more serious and reasoned) - thewolfchild 06:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Well, for one thing, we shouldn't have a one-sided article. While it might not be immediately relevant to George Zimmerman, it was relevant to Trayvon Martin, and it rounds out the story to tell the tale with this robustness. Skittles, 7-Eleven, a Hoodie, and young Trayvon are all central elements to the tale, and it seems a bit odd to leave some of the key players out. -- Avanu (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Providing these specifics gives Martins actions a sense of normalcy. He was a normal kid doing normal kid stuff at places and with items which our readers all know and can recognize. Not any unknown convenience store: a Seven-Eleven. I can picture the parking lot and where the counter is, and how transactions happen. Not just any can of pop:Arizona Ice Tea, which I know comes in a tall, SOFT tall tin can. Skittles...most likely in a little rectangular box colored red. I do not support reverting it back. Why deprive our readers of known, verifiable information? Is your concern free advertising? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I don't care personally, but such narrative trivialities are not at all encyclopedic.Whatzinaname (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It's an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement from the J. Peterman Catalogue. Items should be kept neutral, factual, necessary and specific to the event described. Perhaps, you would prefer something like: "It was unusally cool for Florida, but young Trayvon Martin was shielded from the rain and cold in his Acme brand, fleece-lined cotton-polyester hoodie. Available in sizes small to double-extra large and in six different colors, it's perfect for running errands or just lounging around the house. At only $29.99, you too can be warm and comfy, without the hassle and discomfort of bringing along that bulky extra jacket. The hoodie has features such as nylon draw-strings for the hood and waist, and the patented Kanga-roo-pouch-style pocket, in which Trayvon liked to carry his favourite comfort food, Skittles. Yes, Skittles, those whimsical little fruit flavoured candies adored by millions. Availble in 60 and 100 gram packages, they are a delicious snack, perfect for filling the 'hunger-gap' between lunch and dinner or, while watching a movie or driving in the car. Trayvon also enjoyed a tall refreshing can of Arizona Iced Tea, the tart, lemony beverage that can both lift the spirit and soothe the mind, body and soul all at once. It's iconic, SOFT tall tin can comes in a very fulfilling 23 ounce size, with just the right mix of caffeine and fructose to give you the energy you need. Both Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea are available and very reasonably priced at 7-Eleven, Amedrica's favourite corner store. With 40,000 locations world-wide, there is always a 7-Eleven near-by, with everything you need to get you going, and keep you going. Yes, Skittles, Arizona Iced Tea and 7-Eleven, what could be more symbolic of everyday Americana? Just normal, everyday things for a normal, everyday kid. But this wouldn't be a normal day, for just as the sun was touching on the horizon, fate would tragically cross the paths of poor young Trayvon with..." (point made?) - thewolfchild 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC) How is it unencyclopedic to include details that are obviously important to a large portion of the readers? Yes, he wasn't shot BECAUSE he had a bag of Skittles, but he did have them, and it seems, as Buster implied, that it helped people to identify with Trayvon Martin. 'Hey he's a normal guy who likes Skittles.' To make this encyclopedic, we need a neutral tone, but we don't need to completely take all the energy out of the narrative. Other than just your opinion, do you have some rationale as to why this bit of information is not encyclopedic? -- Avanu (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Avanu, Is it OK with you to keep it in the article but move it to the Public response section as described in the proposal below? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC) How are these brand names "important to a large portion of the readers"? How does removing them take away from the factual narrative of how Martin and Zimmerman crossed paths? - thewolfchild 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Mention of Skittles, Arizona Tea, and 7-Eleven by name should be moved to the Public response section. The names are insignificant for the description of the incident in the Shooting section but Skittles, and maybe the other two names too, would be significant in the Public response section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) "A local convenience store" and "food items" sounds a lot more reasonable to me. The media=-defined iconic nature of the skittles, hoodie, etc. can go in the Public Response section as Bob said. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Here's a proposed change for the shooting section: Martin was staying with his father at the home of his father's fiancée.[32] On his return from a 7-Eleven convenience store, where he bought a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona Iced Tea,[77][78] he was observed by Zimmerman,[79] who was in his truck on a personal errand.[80] At the end of their interaction, Martin was shot 70 yards from the rear door of the fiancée's townhouse.[81][Note 2] And here's a proposed addition to the Public response section: Bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were used as protest symbols too. Martin was returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store with a bag of Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea when he was shot. Once the main change of moving the info to the Public response section is done, additional editing of this material can be done as usual. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I like it. It is much simpler and clear for the lead. Details on the actual items should be in their own section and not the lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Please reread the discussion here. It was not pertaining to the lead. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Not the article lead, but the section lead in. Which now that I look at it, I think it the shooting section should be expanded and updated with more details as the "Sanford Police arrival and initial investigation" section has those points. Calls, accounts, and phone records before the investigation should be summed up there. This includes the background to the incident in which the candy and tea could be brought up. Its like a mini-introduction to the event and is a lead-in, not the article lead, but still serves to detail the information in the section. I do not believe skittles and tea are important enough to take center stage with the background events leading up to the shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. We're on the same wavelength now. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Moving the product placement brand names to the Public response section seems like a reasonable solution. Does anyone here object to this as an alternative? - thewolfchild 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC) In agreement to this reasonable solution. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) When the media first picked this story up, their mention of Skittles and Arizona iced tea were not meant to give a "plug" to those specific brands or "product placement." The narrative given at that time was that an unarmed african-american teenager carrying nothing but a pack of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea was shot and killed by an over zealous white guy who had not been arrested for the shooting. That narrative was simply carried over to the article, and no endorsement or product placement was ever implied by including it, nor is it implied by it remaining in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Moved Skittles etc from Shooting section to Public response section per consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It may be product placement - I don't at all trust the news media were unaware of the possibilities when writing these stories or choosing them to feature. But we can remain blissfully above such considerations, if we simply resolve not to remove information because we can. It is one thing to be concise, another to be deliberately vague in writing. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Distracts thewolfchild by opening the bag of Skittles, throwing them in his face, and then bashing him across the side of his head with the fat sturdy glass bottle of Arizona Iced Tea. I don't know that that's what happened, don't know if the Skittles were in a bag or not (around here they're in that annoying paper-plastic bag), how many there were in the container, and whether the Arizona Iced Tea was in a bottle or can (I've not noticed it in a can, but don't drink much of it, it's far too sweet for my taste.) Serious enough? htom (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Not sure what you're trying to say but, it seems something like "Waaahh... wolfchild was right and I was wrong. Now I'm sooo embarrassed that my lame attempt at sarcasm has blown up in my face... - htom" That's ok sweetie. Go take your lithium and have a rest. The big people will take care of big people stuff... - thewolfchild 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC) It was me that reverted your deletion of the skittles and iced tea. These are, UNDENIABLY, iconic symbols - so to remove them completely from the article would be ridiculous. Surely you agree? The location change seems like a good idea to me, although I don't think there was a problem to begin with.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, well it seems you were wrong. These brand names were not "removed from the article completely" - just from the incident history, were they simply do not belong. (So, no, I surely do not agree) They are still mentioned elsewhere in the article. Also, please note that I do not DENY that they are iconic symbols, nor do I hold that that they are... I really don't care either way. They just aren't relevant to the chronology of events leading to the confrontation. - thewolfchild 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC) (@htom)I know you're just being funny, but let's keep the dramatic violence off the talk page before somebody loses an eye. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC) I know, I know. Humor is a dangerous tool, as likely to damage the user as making the user's point. htom (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

heuristics? not…

User Talk Rant criteria? Is there a method you employ when you pick and choose which personal attacks you remove and which ones you leave? - thewolfchild 22:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm a new Wikipedian and don't know the answer to your question. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Well, if you're new and admittedly don't know what your doing, then perhaps you shouldn't be jumping in applying edits in such an unbalanaced, haphazard fashion. I see you're capable of looking up pages like "WP:NPA", now try looking up hypocrite. - thewolfchild 22:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I know what I'm doing, thanks! I just didn't know the answer to your question. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Yeah, you clearly "know what your doing" - hence the reason the you've just been blocked for disruptive editing. Anyways, I undid your revert, but I made some changes that hopefully agree with your delicate sensibilites. (though how 'delicate' I don't know, considering the blatently violent and threatening comments that you seem to be ok with...) You're welcome! - thewolfchild 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC) ANI Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am asking for admin intervention in an issue that cannot be resolved via content dispute. I am asking for admin intervention to block the page from edits/reverts by racist users. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Request denied. There are specific conditions under which articles are protected, and this is not one of them. Referring to other users as racist is awfully inflammatory, uncivil, it is an assumption of bad faith, and frankly, it's ignorant. I'd suggest taking a break from editing for awhile until you can discuss this calmly and rationally on the article's talk page. Continuing to make accusations of racism and otherwise go nuts will probably end up with you getting blocked for awhile. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 23:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Now I know how Wikipedia deals with racism. You're name's Wong? Permit me to assume you're of East Asian descent - I hope you're happy that you've just slapped the face of all those East Asians that contributed to African American culture, by allowing such racism to continue. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Your assumption is incorrect. You really need to step away from your computer for a few hours and do something else. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC) "You're name's Wong? Permit me to assume you're of East Asian descent" - LOL, isn't that from a Seinfeld episode? - thewolfchild 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC) "You really need to step away from your computer for a few hours" what a great attitude to racism. Good day. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC) "what a great attitude to racism" (?!) Um, didn't you say something about "the people editing Wikipedia are mostly anti-Islamic Jews"? (you didn't look up Hypocrisy yet, did ya'?) With your continued tirade on the African American page, (which a majority of Americans of African descent might just find offensive), along with your insult of ScottyWong and your blatent anti-semtic views... have you ever considered that some people just might think of you as a racist? (Food for thought) - thewolfchild 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC) I actually said this, how dare you take my text completely out of context."It's no hidden fact that many in the Muslim community believe the people editing Wikipedia are mostly anti-Islamic Jews (not saying I personally believe this)". You will be reported for a personal attack under WP:CIVIL. Good day. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC) How dare you accuse me of a personal attack. (LOL) This isn't an 'attack'. I simply asked you a question, and supported it with your own, properly cited quote. (you didn't answer the question by the way) But really, you wanna' complain... go ahead. You just let me know when and where. Are you thinking ANI perhaps? Cool. Just remember, everything and everybody in an ANI is fair game for scrutiny. I know there's already a bunch of users and admins who are fed up with your relentless, inane, purile, non-stop ranting and raving about your perceived racism on the African American page. Perhaps if you bring this to a broader audience, your insulting nonsense will finally be brought to a stop. You have a good day, too. - thewolfchild 06:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Just a word... Although due to my inexperience on the wiki I was unable to act as a mediator, might I have your ear for a moment? It is quite admirable to fight against bigotry and ignorance wherever it may be found, but do you think perhaps you are seeing patterns where they are not? On the African American talk page, you view the lack of information covering other ancestries as 'highly racist', I believe you said. The other editor, who appears to be African American (and none too bothered about it) points out that the Sub-Saharan ancestry is the defining trait, and asked you to get more reliable source. While I know that Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources can be a bitch, if you comply with his request and get strong, scholarly sources to reference these other ancestral lines (not blogs or tv shows; professors, researchers, etc) no one would be able to deny the information you put in. Also, I must point out you are destroying your own merit by proudly displaying the 'number of times you have been blocked by WP for aggressively fighting racism'. Experienced users will think you're just trolling, as a few of them suspect already. But as far as I've seen, everyone else is only putting a stop to your edits because they are what you could call 'crimes of passion'; in a flurry and desire to put information you feel is lacking on an article, the backing for your information is not supported, and thus must be removed until more fitting sources are provided. Race is a serious modern issue, so you must expect other editors to be highly critical of placing information relating to race (trying to support unbiased information, on their part). I understand you are trying to champion a cause, but you actually seem to be trash talking other editors who for various reasons have impeded your edits; calling their actions 'racist' is a jump to conclusions. I highly support unbiased, neutral, well-sourced articles. Racism has no place on Wikipedia; but I dare say there is none to be found here that I can see. If you like I can discuss and perhaps work with you on getting good sources and such for rewriting portions of articles you believe are racist; I am rather proud to say I wrote and sourced the majority of the article at Robert H. Brower, but had a lot of clean-up help and wikification of the article from other editors. If you wish to do so, I look forward to researching with you. Please reply! With all due respect, Orpherebus. (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC) First let me say Orpherebus, that was very well said. Then let me say "good luck", as Leaf Green Warrior (LGW) will usually only respond with stubborn invectiveness, or not at all. Through-out his mutliple ANI's, user and article talk page postings, he has continually ignored any rational, mature advice, much like yours, that has been offerred to him by several editors here. Not once but twice I even suggested that he create his own article on the subject of racial admixture, with proper sourcing, (similar to what you have proposed) as a solution, but... no answer. It seems the only comment he will find acceptable is something along the lines of: "Gee, LGW, you are right! We are all wrong. We are racists. Please, go ahead and make whatever changes to the (AA) article you like. Oh, and don't worry about sources... you're 'source' enough for us!" Anything else and he will demand that you "Stay on topic!", which pretty much means being in total agreement with him or you will be labelled "ignorant", a "troll", a "spammer" or a "racist" (or even an "ignorant-trolling-spamming-racist"). After his latest ANI, which in just the past few hours has gone down in flames, (which might explain why he never started the ANI against me that he threatened to) it will be interesting to see if and how he responds to you. His comments have been quite inflammatory and have thus garnered alot of attention. I'm sure several editors will be watching for a reply to your offer. I respect and applaud your approach. Let's hope it's not wasted. - thewolfchild 07:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I thank you for your input, but without insulting you might I ask you step out of the way? As much as you may applaud my behaviour, your discussion of his shortcomings is more a detriment to yourself; no matter how justified or unjustified your comments are, it is out of line for this sort of sarcastic 'wit' to take place, particularly while discussing it with me. You neither aid my cause and only fuel his anger at yourselves, and at Wikipedia as a whole. The only people who seem to be handling this situation correctly are the admins who are no doubt dragged across the floor to cleanup issues whenever they are brought up as complaints. You and the rest of the people complaining about Leaf Green Warrior's behaviour are understandably disconcerted and, dare I say, a little angered at his casual usage of the term 'racist' when he sees work counteractive to his own attempts at rewriting an article, but you are going about it the wrong way. It is not the right way to rant about it, much less on his own talk page. Do not mistake me for being on 'his side' and that you are 'in the wrong' - I merely state that you are destroying the strength of your own position by continuing to leave a little 'bait' behind you when you either applaud my 'diplomatic' behaviour or are informing the admins of what is perceived to be Leaf Green Warrior's misbehaviour. In short; don't bait him. If you think he's easily angered and accuses anyone who disagrees with him, give him no reason beyond doing the bare minimum to stop whatever you can justifiably believe to be unconstructive. Revert his edits when they are improperly sourced if you must, but do not fight with him. I do not mean to sound rude when you compliment me so, but this is a fact. With all due respect, Orpherebus. (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Heh heh... very well. I make no excuses, nor apologies. Sometimes when there is a wolf among the sheep, you need another wolf (*). I will again say "Good Luck" and with that, I am stepping out of the way... - thewolfchild 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC) With all courtesy, Leaf Green Warrior, you haven't responded to me at all. Might I request you do so as quickly as possible? Without meaning to sound threatening, it is in your best interests to do so. With all due respect, Orpherebus. (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC) I don't think WP:RS is the problem. The problem is that other editors do not wish the material I want to add, to be added. I want a sentence in the lede of African American, which says "they are a group that is a mixture of multiple races, but with a common theme of sub-Saharan African Ancestry". The problem isn't verifiability or truth, simply that they do not wish the sentence to be in the article. This is why I call out racism - when any group denies a large amount of ancestry of a group, and instead tries to make out that they are "purely" of one other ancestry, it's racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC) That is in the article right now: "African Americans[2] (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, and formerly as American Negroes) are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa.[3]" -- Avanu (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC) That is different to what I said I wanted. I like the sentence "at least partial sub-Saharan African ancestry", and think it should stay, but **after** that there should be a quick sentence that is direct, simple, and clarifying, for example: "As such, apart from the common theme of sub-Saharan African ancestry, they are a group that is a mixture of multiple ancestries, notably Native American and European". I believe that all ancestries should be mentioned, not just one. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Leaf, tell the truth. This [10] is your edit that started the problem. Quite a bit more there than what you now claim has always been your position. This is the material that you edit warred over, resulting in your block. It was the reversal of this edit by several other editors that led you to claim that anybody who disagreed with you is either ignorant or a racist. And, of course, Avanu is quite right -- the material that you now claim is all you ever wanted to add is already in the lede. How can you in good faith argue that the current language claims a "purity" of ancestry when the actual language says "partial ancestry". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC) See above. Also, the diff you posted above is essentially what I wish. Finally, saying "at least partial" simply isn't good enough (as I said above), as I believe that all ancestries should be mentioned, not just one. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) I'm beginning to get tired of this. I leave you to your stubborness, just be careful. -- Avanu (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Don't threaten me. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC) AA or ANAWEMEA? "Contra Principia Negantem Non Est Disputandum" Some of the debate here is clearly getting out of control, with the discussion far too often descending into ridiculous circular logic, juvenile insults, personal attacks and edit-warring. Some people here (I don't want to single any of you particular warriors out) are taking their cause too far. The term African American is one that applies to tens of millions of people (or more). As much as it is a currently and widely accepted term, it will not be accepted by every single person who may fall within that group (to one degree or another). To argue that it is offensive when inadvertantly applied to either Black Americans who don't consider themselves of African descent or, to Africans who happen to be in America, but aren't American, is silly. It's silly because the term itself it not pejorative. Through political correctness, we've already seen terms like 'the N-word', negro, negroid, dark, coloured, brown and black come and go. African American is what we have until the next one comes along. Also, some people here need to realize the article is about African Americans. African. American. Not Arfican-Native-American-White-European-Martian-East-Asians-who-may-or-may-not-be-American-citizens-or-tourists-or-other... The article is quite clearly about American citizens who are of African (sub-saharan) descent. Just because it doesn't include details of every strand of DNA that may be present from dozens of other races and ethnicities, doesn't make this article, or it's creators and contributors, "racist". Some people here seem to think that not making prominent mention of other races, who may or may not make up a minor, partial percentage of African American geneology, is some kind of morally outrageous, racist insult to entire, multiple, ethnic communities. Yet, other that this single person, there just doesn't seem to any huge outcry from multitudes of offended people that one might expect based on these exhausting protestations. So, really, how much of an issue is this? Perhaps some people here should simply consider writing their own article about the multi-racial make-up of some groups of Black people who may or may not be American and may or may not be of African descent. Then they can high-light the contributions of Native Americans, East Asians and White Europeans as much as they like. They can then list their article in the See Also section of the African American page. That really seems to be the only solution (that I can think of, other than leaving the whole thing alone) as there simply is no consensus for prominent inclusion in this article. (IMHO) - thewolfchild 23:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Wholehearted agreement. I think that the existing content regarding how the US government defines the term is probably of much more significance than the African Americans' percentage of genetic heritage from any group. Also, if this material were to be included in the lead, it would almost certainly create problems regarding the lack of mention of the specific percentage of genetic background African Americans have from the various African peoples. I personally think that information would probably be more useful and deserve more attention than their percentage of non-African blood. I myself, unfortunately, have no evidence, and have never seen any evidence, of information on that subject. That being the case, it is probably better to indicate the US government "position," the recent genetic studies, and any other such information relevant to this subject in the lower section. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Comparison with Arab American In the lede of the Arab American article, it is stated: "Over 1/4 of all Arab Americans claimed two ancestries, having not only Arab ancestry but also non-Arab." This is a very similar comparison to African American. African Americans are an even more mixed group than Arab Americans, yet there is no mention of the mixture in the lede of African Americans, I suspect due to racism. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC) The whole discussion is best summarised with a neutral example. Broad "Group X" is composed of peoples A, B, C, D. You belong to "Group X" if you have at least partial A in you. However, Group X on the whole has large amounts of, for example, C, in it, and thus should definitely be mentioned in the lede of the article (as it's done with Arab American). However, this is not done in the African American article, I suspect due to racism (i.e. people trying to propagate a false illusion that "African Americans" are purely African, which is completely untrue and is highly racist). Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC) OMIGAWD!! RACISM! It's everywhere!! Wikipedia is lost! It's floundering in a sea of prejudice! The dark days of elitism are upon us! Minorities everywhere are being subjugated and diminshed! Think of the children! Oh, won't you think of the children...?! OK, seriously, will you give it a rest already? You're whole Chicken Little routine is really starting to wearing thin. It's also contrary to WP: Don't Annoy Other Users - thewolfchild 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Hardly.. I already agreed to the proposal which someone made, which seems to have consensus. All that has been happening since then are people replying irrelevant things. "wolfchild's" recent post: (OMIGAWD!! RACISM! It's everywhere!! Wikipedia is lost! It's floundering in a sea of prejudice!) just highlights the immaturity some of these irrelevant replies have reached. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC) As usual, you've completely missed the point. My "immature" post was intentionally written to highlight how absurd your comments and arguments are. I noticed you paid no attention to the other comments I posted on that page. One has to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse to simply prolong the issue. You have several people here, all 'mature' and experienced, trying to help you, yet you remain obstinate and defiant. No matter how much reason and logic they present you with, you continue to go on (and on and on) with your completely unsupported claims of racism. There is a line between debating and trolling. Which side are you on? - thewolfchild 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC) (no answer as usual) Leaf Green Warrior; I see what you're trying to accomplish here (I in no way agree with you point of view, but you do have a right to it). What I, like others here, take issue with is the way you go about arguing your point of view. Your constant, constant accusations of racsim are insulting and inflammatory, certainly distracting and unltimately serve to undermine your own goal. You claim that "...this article is a big racist slap in the face to those millions of Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians...", yet not one person has stepped forward from any of these groups and complained. Of all your claims of racism, not one other person has stepped forward and supported you. Haven't you noticed that? At the same time, several editors here have (patiently) tried to help you, yet you just keep arguing. Have you condidered anything any of them might have said and considered an alternative that might actually find consensus? There is a proposal that you apparently agree with, have you done anything about it? Have you considered my proposal? (which could be done additionally) "...consider writing their own article about the multi-racial make-up of some groups of Black people who may or may not be American and may or may not be of African descent. Then they can high-light the contributions of Native Americans, East Asians and White Europeans as much as they like. They can then list their article in the See Also section of the African American page." IF you feel this issue is so important and in need of more prominent representation on WP, than why not create an article on it? It would probably be easier than all the effort you are wasting here. If you did it properly, I think it would go a long way to garnering some recognition and even respect for your point of view. As it is right now, you're just spinning your wheels... - thewolfchild 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

'On Wiki'

definitely 'beyond'... "In popular culture" Not really a new issue for some articles. What is, and is not, worthy of inclusion within an In popular culture (ipc) section? I added an item to this page's ipc sec. Another editor has resorted to edit-warring to have the item removed. The issue has been touched upon in several different locations. I have copied everything here to one place to make things easier; ( - thewolfchild 04:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)) Clausewitz Wasn't "Clausewitz" also the name of the orders to evacuate the Wehrmacht in April 1945? Is there an article about that?- JustPhil 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Yes, Operation Clausewitz was the name of the plan to evacuate Wehrmacht and SS personnel from Berlin during the final days of the Third Reich, as well as destroy documents and prepare the city for front-line defence. Interestingly enough, I learned of this while viewing the film Downfall (2004). It was mentioned repeatedly in the film and, as it was a sub-titled foreign language film, the name "Clausewitz" was displayed multiple times on screen. When viewing the article for Downfall here on Wikipedia, there is a reference to the operation and, of course, the article for the operation references Clausewitz himself. Stranegly, however, there was no mention of the film here in the "Pop Culture" section of Clausewitz's own page. I did add this this information, but somebody tried to remove it, claiming it was "not relevant" (?). - thewolfchild 07:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC) I removed it because this is an article about Clausewitz, and though the operation as named after him, it has no relevance to Clausewitz himself or his philosophies, which is what this article is about. Its use as the name of a military operation is as relevant as would be including Operation Desert Storm in the article about Sirocco. Please do not restore it again until you have a consensus to do so here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC) "Desert Storm" and "Sirocco"... really? (Does Sirocco even have a Pop culture section?) You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you can do better than that. Maybe look up the term "analogy" if you need to. In the meantime, you seem to be missing the point of "In pop culture" (in good faith, I'm sure). Perhaps you should look at the other films listed in that section and consider their varying degrees of minimal, vague and/or simplistic references to Clausewitz, before you jump all over mine. But at the end of the day, they are just that, references to the man, made in media considered to be as part of pop culture. Your strange meteorological quip aside, you really need to provide a more "relevant" argument for "relevance". While you work on that, I have an idea... why don't you leave my entry there until you have a consensus that says it should go. (or, do you wanna go for your 3rd revert?) Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Clausewitz division I figure we ought to mention Panzer Division Clausewitz here - as well as perhaps 12873 Clausewitz - but I'm not sure where. Anyone? Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC) This is known as trivia in Wikipedia and is generally discouraged--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Mmmm... yes and no. Trivia sections are certainly discouraged! However, there's often a "stuff named after X includes" mention somewhere, especially when it's directly relevant - as a military unit probably is, here. I ask because it seems significant enough to mention, but I didn't want to just ram in a trivia header... Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I was thinking that under different circumstances it could have been called a commemoration except we know that was not the intention of the Nazi command to name the unit in this way; rather to link it to a sense of superior military prowess...in 1945--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe we need a 'Subsequent Acts of Staggering Hubris' header ;-) I'm quite surprised how few things were named after Clausewitz, in fact; I could only find these two with a quick search. Shimgray | talk | 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Interesting points. There is currently an editor disputing whether or not the film Downfall should be mentioned in the "Pop culture" section as it repeatedly references Operation Clausewitz. But the question above really raises the issue of whether or not to acknowledge the impact von Clausewitz has had on military culture, conventions and institutions. How many biographies have we seen here that denote all the schools, libraries and streets named after the person? - thewolfchild 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Please see my comments above. Operation Clausewitz could have been called Operation Toilet Paper - military operations generally have nothing whatsoever to do with the literal meanings of the codenames given them, because if they did it you would be giving away information to the enemy. If "Operation Clausewitz" related in some way to Clausewitz' thoughts, the Allies would know something about it should they come across the name. On the other hand, a list of schools, libraries and streets is an indication of the person's impact on the culture and the respect and honor shown to him. A military operation is not that, it's just words used because the operation has to be called something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Operation Clausewitz wasn't called "Operation Toilet Paper" (is this the kind of low-brow shtick I can expect from you?) It was "Operation Clausewitz" for a reason. Have you ever heard of a soldier named "Gunther Hans-Klaus"? No? Neither have I (or anyone else). That's why they didn't name the operation after him, they named it after von Clausewitz. That in istelf is a reference. The operation and it's name were repeatedly mentioned and displayed within a major motion picture, which makes it a pop culture reference. Does the reference in the film I listed "...relate in some way to Clausewitz' thoughts"?[sic] Does it have to? Is that WP's policy, or yours? - thewolfchild 04:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC) WP:BRD Please review WP:BRD. The practice is that you made a Bold edit. I disagreed with it, so I Reverted. The next step is that we discuss it, whixh is now happening on the article's talk page. What does not happen, is that you get to keep reverting to restore your edit to the article while we discuss. Please leave the article in the status quo ante while discussion takes place. To do otherwise is edit warring, which, as I'm sure you are aware, is not allowed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Well, since you can't seem to respect the simple instructions I left on my talk page, I deleted your message and moved it here. we`ll your your talk page instead. - You reverted an edit with no worthwhile explanation what-so-ever. A simple "not relevant" doesn't cut it. - When asked for an explanation, you provide a ridiculous 'analogy' that doesn't clarify or support your position - at all. - When further pressed to explain yourself, you go to cite yet another idiotic analogy ("toilet paper"... are you kidding?). - You then refer to another comment of yours that you don't bother to link to, so it seems it doesn't exist. - You then have the nerve to throw out WP:BRD policy... right after your 3rd revert in 24 hours, you arrogant edit-warring hypocrite. Now I see why sooo many people on WP don't like you. I will continue the Clausewitz issue on the talk page for that article. Any comments you feel you may need to make that aren't relevant to that article you can make here. Stay the hell off my talk page. - thewolfchild 03:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Beyond My Authority Some light reading... - Help:Reverting, - Wikipedia:Reverting, - Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, - Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", - Wikipedia:Consensus, - Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and finally; - [WP: Manifesto of the... ?] Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 14:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

¿Dónde está el baño

¿Dónde está AN ANSWER? Question Hello, don't take this as a complaint, more just curiosity. You recently edited my user page. I had inserted an infobox and apparently had inadverntently copied and pasted some uneeded code along with it. ({pp-semi-blp|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}) Your edit summary simply said "removing a protection template from a non-protected page" How does that string affect my page? And, how did you become aware of it? Thanks, - thewolfchild 14:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (I will look for your reply here) All you need to know is at User:DumbBOT/Protection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Nope. Thanks for the 'non-answer'. I guess you have jumped around editing other people's user pages so much that you have to resort to creating a standardized faq response to fend off all the users you have annoyed? I thought it was pretty clear that I didn't protect my page. As for the small line of code, you could have simply messaged me to point it out. As well, your faq states "A5: while there is no specific policy against that, I believe this is generally considered wrong...", so it is also pretty clear you had no business editing my user page. I'll thank you to leave it alone... - thewolfchild 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Your user page? You really need to understand who own the information you post. If the DB's page doesn't answer your question, it is simple: Your page is not protected, and adding pp-templates won't do so, and only adds a backlog to an administrative category, is this simple? Or you need an essay to justify my editing? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, perhaps you should provide an "essay". It would interest me to see you explain why you didn't address the simple question I put forward to you in the first place. Then you can go on to explain why you need to put the focus on my bolding of the word my when referring to the user page that I do not own, (the one about me that I created and maintain) instead of addressing the real issues here such as why you feel it's so important to quote policies such as WP:OWN while at the same time ignoring others such as WP:CIVIL. And lastly, I'll ask again why you felt the need to edit MY user page, instead of just messaging me? You are a perfect example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. You had an opportunity for a positive exchange of co-operation and education (see [11]), but instead chose to just march it and edit with only the most minimal explanation. Even when I politely tried to ask you for more information, you simply direct me to a useless faq. Considering all the work you claim to put into the project on your user page, I am somewhat surprised at your rude and dismissive arrogance. I look forward to that essay... - thewolfchild 12:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "...And for the essay above I'm not going to do so, if you are an "expert" in sarcasm you should know when someone is being sarcastic, even in written text. I don't need your permission to edit a page that belong to the community, even if you don't like it. Furthermore, even if I don't remove the templates, the respective bot would do so or somebody else. If you don't like people editing a page that doesn't belong to you, create a monobook version of your page, transclude it, and ask full protection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)" (This is amusing...) Obviously there is a discrepancy between your recognition and use of sarcasm. But that's not the issue here. Perhaps you need to re-read my original question, which I posted both directly and politely - no sarcasm at all. You removed a string of protection template code from my user page. I advised you that I had inadvertantly copied and pasted it along with the infobox I had added (check the Hx if you like). So, to be clear - I had no intention of trying to 'protect' my page. I have no issue with that template being removed. If I was aware of it, I would have removed it myself. I wasn't aware of it because there was no padlock icon or any other indicator showing on my page. Hence the reason I asked you "How does that string affect my page?". I then asked "...how did you become aware of it?" You failed to answer either question. Your response was just as minimal as your edit comment, which could be considered somewhat impolite. Instead of answering the actual question I asked, you chose to focus on the fact that I referred to my user page as just that, (instead of Thewolfchild's user page?), and go on to lecture me about ownership. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. And, while I did not state you required "permission" to edit my page, I did however, point out that you seem to lack the policy to do so - by your own words. I further pointed out to you that I had no intention of trying to protect my page, (a fact you seem to continually ignore,) and I commented that perhaps you could have messaged me about the template beforehand. (you know, communicate on the issue, perhaps educate a little...) But instead, you chose to be arbitrary and belligerent. This is hardly the conduct of the admin wanna-be that you clearly are. Your user page brags about your 110 million contribs in only 2½ months. You rollback, review, autopatrol and fight vandals, (all while being a mild mannered reporter by day) yet you don't seem that well versed in concepts like WP:MYOB, WP:EQ, WP:AGF, WP:NOCLUE, WP:BITE, WP:ETC, ETC... - Also, please note that I will not consider ESL an excuse a factor. Your user page claims that you are an "advanced" user of english. You willingly and extensively contribute to the english edition of the project. So, let's not play that 'card'... - Now, why don't you take a moment -focus- and try answering the simple questions I originally posed. Can you do that? - thewolfchild 00:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC) No, good night. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC) LOL! Of course not. Good night to you too, sir. - thewolfchild 00:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC) polite? Does this fit in with WP? "As you have read, the rules are simple; it all depends on whether you want to play by them. As I see it there are only two options: either help me or (sorry to say it so boldly) just shut up." Whether it's the writer's intention or not, could some people people be offended by this? - thewolfchild 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC) People can be offended by just about anything, if they choose to be. As the text stands, it doesn't insult anyone or attack anyone, but it is rather bold, as noted by the bracketed section. Really this is up to Tbhotch, so I'll leave it to them. CMD (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC) - "...this is up to Tbhotch..." How so? - thewolfchild 14:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC) It's their page. CMD (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "It's their page". - Thank you. That is exactly what I was hoping you would say. - thewolfchild 15:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC) A pleasure. CMD (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) No, no... the pleasure is mine. But you do realize that tbhotch disagrees with you? - thewolfchild 00:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC) If you find "shut up" offensive, I find many other things offensive. As Chip said, people offends by anything. If you found it "offensive", others will not. And for the essay above I'm not going to do so, if you are an "expert" in sarcasm you should know when someone is being sarcastic, even in written text. I don't need your permission to edit a page that belong to the community, even if you don't like it. Furthermore, even if I don't remove the templates, the respective bot would do so or somebody else. If you don't like people editing a page that doesn't belong to you, create a monobook version of your page, transclude it, and ask full protection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Let's keep things simple, shall we? This section is simply to address your demand that people 'follow your rules or just shut up'. Do you even care that some people might not find that to be an appropriate comment for Wikipedia? Also, let's not be lazy. Your response to the template issue should be posted in the appropriate section. (see above) Let's take it there, shall we? - thewolfchild 22:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC) "Do you even care that some people might not find that to be an appropriate comment for Wikipedia?" Please care yourself in not adding material "that some people might find [inappropriate] for Wikipedia", like: I AM YOUR FATHER (just ask your mom...) This user is laughing at YOU This user is a native speaker of Bullshit. This user is able to contribute with a professional level of Sarcasm. If you have a problem with me or my editing (which is clearly obvious), request for help at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. I have many other things to do than this circular chat. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Fine... if I answer your question, will you (finally) answer mine? I AM YOUR FATHER - is a parody. This user is laughing at you - explain how that's offensive? (or are you just reaching?) This user is a native speaker of Bullshit. - this is a pre-established userbox/humour template in wide usage. This user is able to contribute with a professional level of Sarcasm - this is a pre-established userbox/humour template in wide usage (it's also true). I didn't have a problem with your editing. I simply asked you a question about it. The problem I have is with your attitude. The only thing circular about this is that you can't seem to answer a simple question. You instead mischaracterize my actual comments and further claim to argue against comments I never made. So, do you think you can finally put all your hostility aside and just, for once, answer a simple freakin' question? Thank you. - thewolfchild 00:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC) No answer? Just as I thought. What an appalling sense of entitlement you have. We're done here. Hasta la vista, baby - thewolfchild 03:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians... Assemble!

SHA-ZA... oops, never mind Cast list improvement There is a proprosal to improve the cast list by adding a major character. One proposed cast list is as follows; Proposed cast list A (cont'd) Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury: The director of S.H.I.E.L.D., who was revealed in previous films to be coordinating the "Avengers Initiative". Jackson was brought to the project with a deal containing an option to play the character in up to nine Marvel films. In April 2011, Jackson's script was stolen and leaked on the internet after a digital copy was left in a printer. Jackson said he does more in The Avengers than in any of the previous films: "You don't have to wait until the end of the movie to see me". About the role, Jackson said, "It's always good to play somebody that is a positive in society as opposed to somebody who is a negative. . . I tried to make him as honest to the story and as honest to what real-life would seem." Jackson compared the character to Ordell in Jackie Brown, calling him "a nice guy to hang out with. You just don't want to cross him". Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill: An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who works closely with Jackson's Nick Fury. Smulders, whom Joss Whedon once considered for his unproduced live-action Wonder Woman film, was selected from a short list of potential actresses including Morena Baccarin. Smulders' deal would integrate her into nine films. Regarding her preparation, Smulders said, "I hired this amazing black-ops trainer to teach me how to hold a gun, take me to a shooting range, how to hit, how to hold myself, how to walk and basically how to look. I don't do a ton of fighting in the movie, which is why I wasn't offered a trainer, but I wanted to look like I had the ability to." On relating to the character, Smulders said, "I can relate to her being a mom and being a businesswoman and trying to work full-time and raising a family and having a career. We're asked to do a lot of things these days. I feel she is just all about her job and keeping things going." Clark Gregg, Stellan Skarsgård, and Gwyneth Paltrow reprise their roles from previous films as Phil Coulson, Erik Selvig, and Pepper Potts, respectively. Paul Bettany returns to voice JARVIS. Frequent Whedon collaborator Alexis Denisof portrays the Other, and Damion Poitier portrays his master in a post-credit scene. Avengers co-creator Stan Lee has a cameo appearance in a news report. Harry Dean Stanton also has a cameo as a security guard. - Note that actor Clark Gregg/character Phil Coulson are relegated to a mere blurb at the bottom of the page. Yet, Agent Coulson has a more prominent role in this film than say, Maria Hill, and is in fact part of a major plot point within the film. Gregg is credited equally with Smulders in the end crdits on screen. Coulson is a significant recurring character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, appearing in 4 of 6 films so far, second only to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury. With that said, perhaps Gregg should appear in the cast list. The following is a proposed entry; Proposed cast list B (cont'd) Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury: The director of S.H.I.E.L.D., who was revealed in previous films to be coordinating the "Avengers Initiative". Jackson was brought to the project with a deal containing an option to play the character in up to nine Marvel films. In April 2011, Jackson's script was stolen and leaked on the internet after a digital copy was left in a printer. Jackson said he does more in The Avengers than in any of the previous films: "You don't have to wait until the end of the movie to see me". About the role, Jackson said, "It's always good to play somebody that is a positive in society as opposed to somebody who is a negative. . . I tried to make him as honest to the story and as honest to what real-life would seem." Jackson compared the character to Ordell in Jackie Brown, calling him "a nice guy to hang out with. You just don't want to cross him". Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill: An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who works closely with Jackson's Nick Fury. Smulders, whom Joss Whedon once considered for his unproduced live-action Wonder Woman film, was selected from a short list of potential actresses including Morena Baccarin. Smulders' deal would integrate her into nine films. Regarding her preparation, Smulders said, "I hired this amazing black-ops trainer to teach me how to hold a gun, take me to a shooting range, how to hit, how to hold myself, how to walk and basically how to look. I don't do a ton of fighting in the movie, which is why I wasn't offered a trainer, but I wanted to look like I had the ability to." On relating to the character, Smulders said, "I can relate to her being a mom and being a businesswoman and trying to work full-time and raising a family and having a career. We're asked to do a lot of things these days. I feel she is just all about her job and keeping things going." Clark Gregg as Phil Coulson: An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who oversees many of the division's field operations. Gregg was first cast in the role for Iron Man (2008) , and subsequently made appearences in Iron Man 2 (2010) and Thor (2011) after signing a multi-picture deal with Marvel Studios. Gregg also stars in a series of Marvel short films that center around his character and can be seen on the Blu-ray releases of the films. Said Gregg; "I didn’t have any idea that they would bring me back in Iron Man 2 and taking care of business in Thor and when Joss pulled me aside at San Diego ComicCon promoting Thor and said "I want to introduce you as part of the cast of The Avengers".… "and he said "I’m really going to use your character in a big way." Stellan Skarsgård and Gwyneth Paltrow reprise their roles from previous films as Erik Selvig and Pepper Potts, respectively. Paul Bettany returns to voice JARVIS. Frequent Whedon collaborator Alexis Denisof portrays the Other, and Damion Poitier portrays his master in a post-credit scene. Avengers co-creator Stan Lee has a cameo appearance in a news report. Harry Dean Stanton also has a cameo as a security guard. - The notation and references are both appropriate and fitting, along with the rest of the cast list. If people feel the Gregg entry could/should be improved - great, but anything's better than just reverting/deleting. - thewolfchild 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC) TT The proposed change, contains no information unique to this film and is nothing but mere filler that is rehashed from the character's stand alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC) So you are in favour of improving the entry and keeping it in the cast list? - thewolfchild 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Not in that state, add specific Avengers content if you wish but adding filler just for the sake of having something isn't constructive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC) So you do agree he should be on the list. Just what "Avenger specific content" would you suggest go into his entry? - thewolfchild 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Nevermind. The entry has been changed, so... how about now? - thewolfchild 01:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Not yet. I mean specific insightful information about the actor's performance, motivations, preparations, etc in this film. I'll try to hunt for any useful info tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Straw polling is fine but Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Just looking for consensus. What's the big deal? - thewolfchild 02:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Because concensus is not based on vote and your accusation of bad faith is disheartening.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC) The only thing disheartening here is your myopic intransigence. - thewolfchild 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Thats a shame, I guess we're now resorting to personal attacks. I said I'd be willing to help find some relevant information, and I guess you haven't bothered to look at that the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC) The shame here is that including Gregg in the cast list was an obvious move you failed to make. When I first added him, you simply dismissed it with your intractable need to control the content of your this article. Then once you saw that others agreed, you actually had to put aside your arrogant condescension and make the change - your way. And now that it's done, I'm supposed to forget your little straw-man shot and fall to my kness in thanks to your wonderful benevolence? And, let's not forget I tried asking you about this on your talk page and you simply ignored me. ('glass houses, bro) Anyway, the cast list is now that way I wanted it and I could really care less about you and your nonsense. We're done here. - thewolfchild 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I was wrong, your assumption of bad faith in other editors is beyond disheartening. If you really think I own the article, I advice you take it up with the appropiate noticeboard but I can tell you that this article and my work here has been a collaborative effort, any of the articles regular contributors can attest to that. There was no conspiracy to not include Gregg, I have no personal agenda against him in fact I rather like the character. If you notice the sources I included were all published LAST WEEK, the majority of the cast section was put together months ago.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC) (sigh... Apparently we're not done) Look, let's keep this simple shall we? From the beginning: Considering the make-up of the cast list at the time (3 days ago) I felt that Gregg should be included. I made an edit to that effect. You dismissed it - outright. I disagreed with you. I brought the issue in general to the article talk page. I made it clear that the content of the entry wasn't important. I listed the two versions to see if anyone else agreed with me, simply because I didn't care for the way you dismissed the idea. I also asked you, politely, about your personal reasons for your decision on your talk page. I even complimented you on your work. This went ignored. Instead, on the article talk page, you quite bluntly complained about the content of the entry - again, even though I made it clear that wasn't an issue. I then - again, asked you about having an entry in the first place, regardless of content and you ignored me - again. After, again, asking about an entry, you finally stated you would look for the content yourself. But then immediately after you accused me of "straw-polling" and felt you needed to quote/preach about WP:Democracy. (both unnecessary and a little rude) By then it was getting to be a bit much. I clarified that I was seeking consensus, which is allowed, and I used your own little quote method to raise the ownership policy, which quite frankly, you were brushing up against (IMO). You then lecture me on consensus vs. voting, falsely accuse me of claiming bad faith, and lay on your little 'disheartening' guilt trip. And it pretty much goes on like that. But, seriously, who is the 'chicken' and who is the 'egg' in this whole scenario? You may not care for my reactions here, but they're just that, re-actions. You really feel you couldn't have handled this any better from the beginning? - Now that's disheartening. And even when I said this was done, you couldn't let it go. You ceratinly aren't being helped by your little friends, Mr. Nole, Mr. Blake and Mr. Tenebray, with their ridiculous comments. They are disingenuous to the point of embarrassment. "Assuming bad faith"? Hardly... - thewolfchild 05:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC) "I made it clear that the content of the entry wasn't important" ergo your fallacy. Content is everything. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We do not add information for the sake of having information. After I reverted your edit (with the edit summary "very little is avengers specific") and if you still weren't sure why, you should have came here asked why and sought to improve it instead of re-reverting then asking to vote for either "A" or "B". From the start you assumed bad faith asking "why have you sought to preclude Gregg/Coulson" as if I had an agenda. You accuse me ownership then you talk about 'getting what you want'. Its not about what either of us want but what is best for the article. Good faith is to assume that we both want what is best for the article, even if we disagree about what the best is, without assumed malicious intent.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Interesting that you would use the word "fallacy". If I were to assume GF, then I would have to assume that you are not deliberately mischaracterizing this situation with your latest comments. So I will try to clear this up. My objective was to have Gregg included in the cast list. That was the goal, not just a 'first step' to dumping in any random info. I posted the (then) current list which excluded him, then followed with my inclusive example. I thought I made it clear that given the addition of Smulders, and taking Gregg's role into consideration, he should be included. At no point did I write "must be included solely the way I wrote it - no exceptions". In fact, what I did write was "If people feel the Gregg entry could/should be improved - great, but anything's better than just reverting/deleting." I thought it was obvious that it was the content of my example that wasn't important, not what would go into the final draft for the article. So, you are (good faithedly) mistaken and your "Content is everything..." lecture was unnecessary. (Look again, I asked repeatedly about having an entry, without debating the content of the entry) Issue #1 - Should Gregg have a entry in the cast list. I believe so. It would seem others agree. I just don't care for the way you outright dismissed the idea, instead of at least giving consideration to some acceptable alternatives. But, the entry is there now so, issue resolved. Issue #2 - The content of the entry. Again, I think it's clear I didn't have an issue here. I welcomed any changes or improvement to my example. I took no issue with what you ultimately came up. In fact, I'm glad it's a good entry. Issue resolved. Issue #3 - Conduct. I brought it to the talk page to discuss. Again, I was initially focused on getting an answer from you as to whether an entry was even 'do-able' and getting some opinions from other users. Perhaps you didn't understand or agree with the way I went about it, but it was you, my friend, that started with the "straw-polling", "WP:DEM", "WP:VOTE", "Bad faith" and "disheartening" comments. I started out with compliments and questions, you started out with 'dismissive neutrality' and became negative. I followed. (doesn't look good for either of us) And I'll say it again, some of your 'friends' were no help. Most of their comments were simply ridiculous. I know I'm a smart-ass. Do you think you could've done anything better? Funny thing is, in the end, we don't even disagree about what went into the article. - thewolfchild 17:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC) It was not clear, as anything is not better and given a choice between "A" or "B", which appeared to be a request for a vote. I only outright dismissed your edition to the article for the reasons stated above and said feel free to "add specific Avengers content if you wish" and that I'll help find useful information". "Straw-polling" is not a negative accusation, as I said "Straw-polling is fine", which it is. I just wanted to remind you that it is not a majority rules method of determining consensus. In the same comment you left on my talk page complimenting me, you accused me of deliberately seeking to preclude Gregg, which was a bad faith assumption and an accusation you reinforced here. I no where stated that Gregg's entry is not to be expanded.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones... - thewolfchild 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Also let me remind you of the actual occurance of events you started this topic at 20:09, May 8, 2012 and left a comment on my talk page at 20:22, May 8, 2012, so why would I respond to you there when you already started a topic here?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC) And I would remind you that you ignored my question and my compliment, but apprently I don't have to. Even after I removed my own post, you re-posted it, still without a response, as some kind of monument to your own rudeness. Anything else? - thewolfchild 05:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC) DWB The shame is that you think Gregg was omitted when he was in fact in the cast section, you just were not happy with the status given to him, because in your opinion he is a major character. Which is POV, and accusing TripleThreat of owning the page because of it is childish at best. In my opinion (POV) he's a minor character at best in the other films and a supporting character here, he shouldn't even be in the infobox, his is not a starring role and there was billing given very specifically to eight people. Quite frankly Gregg had the amount of space he required and if anything Smmulders is over represented. I notice you aren't complaining about Skarsgard not being up there even though he is apparently notable enough to go in the infobox and have a supporting role in the same amount of films as Gregg and was part of a major plot point since the end of the film doesn't happen without him.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC) The shame is that you can't seem to just read what I wrote, instead of trying to tell me what I'm thinking and feeling there, 'Carnac' - He was "omitted" - from the cast list. I disagreed with that. So do others. - I never claimed he was a "major character". I simply pointed out his prominence in comparison to Hill. - I gave no "POV", I simply stated facts. - I could care less about your "POV". If you feel he's such a minor character that he shouldn't be in the list, then change it. Then after I revert you, make a case for your edit on the talk page. (wiki:101) - I gave no opinion regarding Skarsgard. You want him in the cast list, then make a case for it. (But don't go by "number of films"... you're a little off on that one) - Was this the point of your post? Insult me and put words in my mouth? Thanks, but no thanks. - thewolfchild 06:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Did you not write " Note that actor Clark Gregg/character Phil Coulson are relegated to a mere blurb at the bottom of the page. Yet, Agent Coulson has a more prominent role in this film than say, Maria Hill, and is in fact part of a major plot point within the film. Gregg is credited equally with Smulders in the end crdits on screen. Coulson is a significant recurring character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, appearing in 4 of 6 films so far, second only to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury. With that said, perhaps Gregg should appear in the cast list. The following is a proposed entry;"? If not you might wish to clarify that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC) OMIGAWD! You got me! I did write that. What was I thinking? I'm so, so... um, wait sec... So what? You need this "clarified"? OK, here goes... - "Note that actor Clark Gregg/character Phil Coulson are relegated to a mere blurb at the bottom of the page." - I wrote that - Because. He. Was. - "Yet, Agent Coulson has a more prominent role in this film than say, Maria Hill..." - Which. He. Did. - "...and is in fact part of a major plot point within the film." - Which. He. Was. - "Gregg is credited equally with Smulders in the end credits on screen." - Which. He. Is. - "Coulson is a significant recurring character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe..." - Which. He. Also. Is. - "...appearing in 4 of 6 films so far, second only to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury." Iron Man + Iron Man 2 + Thor + Avengers = 4 (the other 2 being Incredible Hulk and Capt. America to make 6) This doesn't even include the upcoming Iron Man 3, Marvel One Shots and Ultimate Spider-Man (TV series) - "With that said, perhaps Gregg should appear in the cast list." - Which. He. Now. Does. - Clear enough? Maybe you could "clarify" just what your point is? If you have one... - thewolfchild 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) A or B? B - I vote to include Agent Coulson in the cast list. - thewolfchild 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC) B. he should be there. 206.47.78.150 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC) B – I don't see a problem with adding the new info, even if it's mentioned on the character's article or anywhere else. It helps provide a more rounded view of the movie without having to search through other articles. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC) A - First, to note that consensus is not based on a vote. Secondly, the only reason I would say to not have a section for Coulson is because everything that is currently being proposed is not relevant to this film. His section is 90% copy and paste from his individual article, and deals with his appearances in stories OUTSIDE of this film. Articles should not mirror each other in such a way, so if there is not independent information about the character in THIS film, then at this time he shouldn't have a section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC) B - Res Ipsa Loquitur. (um, nole, are ya sure it's "90%"? I could've sworn it wasn't anywhere above 84%) Anyway, can you or your friend show me where I used the word 'vote'? As for the cast list addition, it wasn't a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposal. Obviously the content of the addition could be changed, just as it was obvious that Gregg/Coulson should be in the cast list in the first place. But I agree with you on one point; some things here shouldn't mirror each other... - thewolfchild 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) A -- First, why is User:Thewolfchild voting twice? Second, as User:Bignole rightly notes, we're here to reach a consensus, which may mean a compromise. Just because one editor gives two and only two options in no way means that these are our only two choices. Third, with all due respect to the fine and charismatic character actor Clark Gregg, this isn't a fan site, and we're not there to provide filler just to pump up his cast-list mention. If he has substantive things to say about forming the character and filming the character specific to this movie, that's worth looking at. Otherwise, no. And finally, just on principle, I would prefer not to reinforce Thewolfchild's inexcusable name-calling and belligerence, especially against someone who has proven himself time and again to be a hard-working, meticulous editor who has helped Marvel Cinematic Universe articles achieve Good Article status. Thewolfchild's behavior, including his immature snarkiness to Bignole just above, should not be tolerated nor rewarded. --User:Tenebrae (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC) B - If this wasn't so amusing, I'd be tempted to just move on. But... You need to take a moment and catch your breath... you seem to be missing some things. It would be easy for me to say "go back a read everything", but apparently you need things spelled out. - First, the cast list as it was 3 days ago was simply wrong. Gregg/Coulson should have been included, as he is now. Now when I tried adding him, my edit was summarily and arbitrarily reverted as "not Avenger enough", by Mr. Threat, with no effort on his part to recognize the issue or make improvements. SO - I brought the issue to the talk page. I posted the current version (A) with a note as to why I found it unacceptable and I then added the edit with Gregg included in the cast (B) to illustrate my point, with another note that specifically stated; "If people feel the Gregg entry could/should be improved - great, but anything's better than just reverting/deleting." FOLLOWING that, Mr. Threat simply criticised the content of the entry (despite my comment) and blatently ignored the the idea of having an entry made to the cast list, again. - Second, then I'm admonished for "straw-polling". I simply replied with a comment that I was seeking consensus. Now, up to this point, where have I do anything wrong? I am simply trying to make an obvious improvement to the article. But, apparently since I don't have my wiki-comic-book-club-decoder-ring, my edits don't mean anything. You have the nerve to come to my talk page and preach about how all you avenger editors are so wonderful, polite and hard-working, making the wiki-world a better place while you hold hands singing kum-bah-yah, yet look at hostile, elitist attitude I and some others here have been met with. We all want to appreciate the work you guys put into this, but you make it hard to care - at all. And, at the end of the day, this is not your aticle. - Here is an article you need to look up: Hypocrisy (seems I can't post this enough). Don't you and the rest of the fan-boys presume you can preach "wiki-civil-this" and "wiki-ediquette-that" while at the same time, using improper reverts, violating wiki-policies, blatently lying with straw-man rhetoric and throwing out insults like "belligerant", "immature", "snarky", etc. Your comments following your "vote" might be called bs, IF they made sense; "...why is Thewolfchild voting twice"? - It's "not a vote", remember? "...as Bignole rightly notes, we're here to reach a consensus..." - Um, I'm the one who said we were looking for consensus. "...one editor gives two and only two options..." - Could you possibly get that more wrong? "...with all due respect to...Gregg, this isn't a fan site, and we're not there to provide filler just to pump up his cast-list..." - Jeepers, there you go again. Did I not make it clear that the content of the entry was not important? And just how am I trying to turn this page into a "fan site" And you "vote" for 'A"? Riiight... you really believe Gregg should be kept off the cast list? That just confirms how silly your comments here are. Quite frankly, since you and Mr. Nole "voted" out of spite instead of common sense (and my second "vote" was in jest to all this nonsense), it seems that the consensus was in favour of my idea by a count of 4-0 (which is now a moot point since the cast list is now the way I wanted it anyway). Look again. You will see I started out "playing nice" and then only met hostility with hostility. I may be more colourful and blunt, but who cares, Wikipedia has got alot more bigger problems (including you and your crew). The real question here is, since you seem man enough to speak up for your friends, are you really man enough to admit when your wrong? ("Here endeth the lesson." - Malone) - thewolfchild 04:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Your behavior is obsessive, and "colourful and blunt" are euphemisms for impolite and uncivil. "Man enough" is juvenile taunting. If you really think all the other editors are ganging up on poor you and behaving out of spite and not in the best interests of this article or Wikipedia, that's simply incorrect. You call yourself "child" in your own Wikipedia tag, and that's exactly how you're behaving. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC) So you do admit you were wrong. Good for you, I knew you could do it. Admitting you have a problem is an important first step to good mental health. You obviously have a long way to go, but good luck! We're all rootin' for ya'. - thewolfchild 11:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC) ?? Your post made no sense. I would also caution that if there's a particular etiquette line admins really don't want to see crossed, it's when you start making personal comments about mental health. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Tu quoque - thewolfchild 00:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Thanos in this section We could refer to Thanos by name in the cast section, could we not, given that it's not the plot? - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Ask tripletreat, it's his article... - thewolfchild 01:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Avengers Your post "Ask tripletreat, it's his article... " was uncalled for and a breach of Wikipedia etiquette. Please do not attack other editors, and do not make snarky innuendos. That kind of behavior does not contribute to the constructive atmosphere needed in order for a wide variety of people to collaborate on building an encyclopedia. We can all make our points in a respectful and diplomatic way. And as a practical matter, keeping the heat turned down low makes for a more positive and less contentious experience for everyone concerned. I and I'm sure other editors would appreciate your understanding. Thanking you in advance, Tenebrae (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Please don't come to my talk page and preach to me about CIVIL & EQ, when at the same time you are on the Avengers talk page insulting me - thewolfchild 06:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Another cast list change? "I notice you aren't complaining about Skarsgard not being up there even though he is apparently notable enough to go in the infobox and have a supporting role in the same amount of films as Gregg and was part of a major plot point since the end of the film doesn't happen without him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012" You're right! He should be in the cast as well. I couldn't agree with you more. Time for another vote consensus; New Proposed Cast List (cont'd) Clark Gregg as Phil Coulson Minor nobody that does nothing. Carries around Batman trading cards in his pocket. Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill Some chick, kinda' looks like a young Jennifer Connelly. Basically eye candy, but really cute... Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig An astrophysicist first seen in the film Thor, an now part of a multi-picture deal that will see him reprise the role a third time in Thor 2 Skarsgard [stated] that he is excited about his role in 'The Avengers' as he has something new to do in the movie this time around. The actor insisted that his role is a bit different from Thor and is hopeful of the film’s success. “I haven’t seen the film yet but it’s the same character as in the first Thor film, although something happens in The Avengers which changes him and which gave me the pleasure of playing something different,” he concluded. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury Some black dude with an eye-patch. Like to quote Ezekiel 25:17 before he busts caps in alien asses. Time to 'consent' (or not) - thewolfchild 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) ('A' it does not get added.) ('B' it does get added like Darkwarriorblake wants.) B - thewolfchild 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) B 123.45.678.90 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC) (Wolf's secret sock puppet) A 098.76.543.21 12:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC) (Wolf's other sock. They don't alwways agree) (second time around) Cast list question A question has been raised regarding Stellan Skarsgard and the cast list. At present, it has been noted that he is the only cast member listed in the infobox that is not part of the list. I am simply posting this to create discussion and seek opinions. I do not have an opinion myself either way. This is not a vote. The entry posted below is merely an example of what a potential entry might appear as. I am not putting this forward as a an actual proposed entry itself, rather just using it to ask two simple questions; 1) Should he be a part of the cast list (and/or infobox for that matter) and, 2) what content do users feel the entry should contain? Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig An astrophysicist first seen in the film Thor, an now part of a multi-picture deal that will see him reprise the role a third time in Thor 2 Skarsgard [stated] that he is excited about his role in 'The Avengers' as he has something new to do in the movie this time around. The actor insisted that his role is a bit different from Thor and is hopeful of the film’s success. “I haven’t seen the film yet but it’s the same character as in the first Thor film, although something happens in The Avengers which changes him and which gave me the pleasure of playing something different,” he concluded. Discuss. - thewolfchild 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Like Gregg, I do not have a problem with Skarsgård's entry being expanded as long as he has insightful information to add. This specific example could use more work. Being excited about a role and hopeful for its success, really isn't that notable (for lack of better term) because I'm sure every actor feels the same way. "The actor insisted that his role is a bit different" is a good start but he fails to mention how exactly it is different. More specific insight into the role, preparation, methods, etc would be useful. I hope this is taken as constructive criticism and not taken personally.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I agree that the content of this example is not sufficient for inclusion in the article (nor did I expect it would be). I do not take anything you (or anyone elsefor that matter) say(s) personally. That would be silly. - thewolfchild 11:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Play nice I agree with Tenebrae. I've been watching your contributions for quite a while. Practically every one of your edits breaches WP:CIVIL in tone, and by personally attacking others. This really hurts the collegial atmosphere and chases other editors away from the project. Please, be civil. Thank you very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Well, first, Ms. Frodesiak, let me say "thank you". And I do mean that sincerely. Judging by your contributions to the wiki-world, you're certainly due some gratitude. But, I also thank you for taking the time to speak up on an issue you feel needs addressing, such as retaining editors. However, with that said, I must ask that you qualify your remarks. You have (perhaps inadvertently) characterized me as some out-of-control petulant troll, running around disrupting page after page. Haven't you noted that my comments are usually in response to some equally offensive edits? And, if you have been following me as closely as you claim, then surely you've witnessed multiple violations of wiki-policy, some of a much more serious nature. I take you have also made an effort to personally address every, single, one of these ocurrences? Would I see similar postings on the talk pages of other offenders? (except for Tenebray of course, because apparently you "agree" with his incivility) Well, I not going to bother looking, because frankly, I don't care. I will take your comments under advisement. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 06:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you, my friend. I was a bit expecting to be yelled at. :) Well, if you could point out (here probably: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) where Tenebrae got nasty, that would help. But, incivility and personal attacks are not the right way to go in response to anything. Super polite wins. I do see with your edits, however, a pretty consistent pattern. Of what? They pretty much speak for themselves. Honestly, the best way is to respond to dickishness and violations is with pure civility and brains. Nasty words look effective, but it is a pea shooter in effect. Use your obvious intelligence and calmly, civilly, blow their arguments out of the water. That's how expensive lawyers win. It is a huge gun at Wikipedia. Plus, it will garner the support of all. Best wishes, and happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC) "Yelled at"? My dear, if you have been rifling through my edits like you say, then you would see that I respond with hostility to hostility. Otherwise, I'm a pretty nice guy (just ask my mom). But, I do agree with your point, the whole "quill of diplomacy vs. the broadsword of sarcasm" (or however that goes), but sometimes people need to be called out on their inappropriate actions. If I don't, they'll just do it again, and the next editor might not bother responding to them... or even coming back to Wikipedia at all. Avengers is a good example. There you have a small club of "hard-working, meticulous editor[s] who [have] helped Marvel Cinematic Universe articles achieve Good Article status". Any "newbie" or "non-comic-book-guy" with an idea that differs from theirs is instantly (and repeatedly) dismissed with no discussion, no follow-up, no nuthin'. As for the Avengers, feel free to peruse through the talk page and search out any CIVIL & EQ violations you like, but I won't be pointing any out for you. Any concerns I had there, I've dealth with (though, perhaps not with your grace or finesse...) I'm not one to go running to an admin or throwing up an ANI everytime my 'feelings get hurt'. But thanks anyways. Cheers - thewolfchild 10:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I do understand, and you make good points. I know how frustrating some article talks can get. I trust you will post edits designed to achieve the ultimate goal: for them to say "You're right. I agree." Best wishes, :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, I don't care if they agree. As long as they can disagree without being dimissive, contradictory or out-right lying. - thewolfchild 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PAX WIKIPEDIANA?
-place holder-

Welcome To Blockipedia

Seems 'schools is out'... So much for Wiki U's three ring campus

-User:Thewolfchild/sandbox- Hello. I've deleted the page. If you don't like this place, find another playground and don't insult people working on this project. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• What do you care what I have in my sandbox? You weren't mentioned there, why are you even looking at it? Who are you to delete my page? Maybe you need to work on your sense of humour. Also, your ridiculous message makes no sense. Where did I say "I don't like this place"? Just how was my page an "insult"? Doesn't your insulting little comment make you somewhat of a hypocrit? And lastly, don't you have anything better to do? Guess not... - thewolfchild 07:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the direct link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thewolfchild.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. - thewolfchild 09:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The short version: every page on Wikipedia belongs to the Foundation, even your sandbox. Admins are required/expected to act on breeches. Your sandbox violated WP:POLEMIC, which has been held many times by the community-at-large to be immediately removable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is in ANI now, so I'm done posting here. - thewolfchild 10:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's move there. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

Deletion was (I'm relatively sure, can't actually see it) righteous; starting ANI not a good idea. If an editor receiving admin action refuses to accept your appropriate explanation, it's a very good idea to cease discussion and you're certainly entitled to tell to drop the stick on your talk page, but tell them they can start the ANI thread instead of starting it yourself. Nobody Ent 20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. I have a little experience with this part of the admin work and I didn't want to sanction anyone. In my naivite, I just thought that I search for an independent assessment of my action. If I only knew... I can tell you... I would never do that again. Such a tirade :D It was the most disgusting experience during my work here. A perfect "online vomiting". Thanks gods it's over. Sorry. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

"ANI #2"

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. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the direct link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thewolfchild.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bigger than October 17, 1931

User:Thewolfchild (Blocked for 24h by User:Sarek Of Vulcan)

Hello. User:Thewolfchild has created a list of people (editors) who complained of his behavior and interactions with others on his talk page. The header was: Wikipedia University - Institute of the Clowning Arts & Sciences. Class of 2012. Congratulations Clown College Graduates! The page was nominated for speedy deletion as an {{db-attack}}. I've deleted the page and left an explanatory note on Thewolfchild's talk page. Thewolfchild's response on my talk page seems to me somewhat upset, but I may be mistaken. I admit that deletion of the above mentioned sandbox and my subsequent comments were influenced by reading of Thewolfchild's talk page. I refuse to continue communicating with an obvious troll (I think that User:Thewolfchild is an exemplary case of WP:TROLL) and I'm asking here for an independent assessment. Thanks for any opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh, seems you're not kidding. OK, here we go... I was playing around with something, in jest and temporarily, in my sandbox only, and not posted anywhere else. You found it sooo offensive that you had to immediately delete it, only to re-post here on the widely read ANI boards? You made no effort to "communicate", you simply left a comment telling me off and then went on to delete the entire page, including non-related content. Why not just remove the section you had an issue with? Or the user names? Why not contact me tell your concerns and ask me to correct it? I tried asking you about your concerns and you refused to answer. Instead, you claim I'm "upset". (why? DID I USE ALOT OF CAPS? Did I use alot of exclamation and question marks?!?!???!!!) If anything, I believe you're the one getting to emotional here. Lastly, I may be many things, but I am not a troll. You have gone overboard, and I expect more of an admin... - thewolfchild 09:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You should pop on over to User_talk:Vejvančický to see my response to your first rant over there, then maybe rethink not only the above, but indeed all of your interactions on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I popped. I saw. I re-thunk. And I answered. But I have to wonder, just why is it that when someone asks a question of a admin that the admin doesn't care to answer, it suddenly makes the asker "angry"? - thewolfchild 10:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@thewolfchild: I found the page in the CAT:CSD, it was nominated for deletion by another editor. You've called the editors who disagree with you "wiki academy clown class graduates". Why don't you address their concerns in a normal way instead of creating cowardly lists hidden in your user space? Usually I tend to avoid people of your kind and I'm not a frequent visitor here on ANI, as I don't think it's worthy of my time. But today I posted here immediatelly because I consider your behavior as grossly dishonest and offensive. I want to see this admin action of mine reviewed and scrutinized by others, independently. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You could have simply pointed out your concern and I would have removed it. As you said... it was "hidden" in my userspace (for all of what... 2 days?), how offensive can that be? But regardless, it's gone and I'm not disputing the removal. But I do feel the ANI was needless. With the initial issue resolved, now you and your friends are digging thru old news for... what? To pick a fight? Flex some sysop muscle? Seems you admins are dying to delete and block instead of trying to discuss and resolve (you know... like in a collegial environment). AND - just how am I "grossly dishonest"? - thewolfchild 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

thewolfchild, I have no admin friends and my status here is totally unimportant, at least to me. I do not need to step on others to feel better, I edit here A) because I want to help to keep this project strong B) for fun. I edit articles and the last thing I want to do is to moralize wikimartyrs. However, I can't accept mean and cowardly attacks, no matter how long they are in wiki space. That's just me. You talk about a collegial environment yet you treat others like crap, calling them crybabies and hipocrites, creating stupid and disparaging lists instead of providing constructive answers. That's the dishonesty on your part. I don't think all your edits are unconstructive and bad, it's just your style of communication with others. Please no more bullshit about my hypothetical friends and sysop muscle. That's a trolling aspect in your comments, and I expect (with regret) more of it. Please, avoid that. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vej, According to you I "step on others to feel better", I'm a "wikimartyr", I'm "mean and cowardly", "stupid and disparaging" and "dishonest". Any other "constructive" comments? While you're busy "treating me like crap", keep in mind that the "collegial" comment wasn't mine, I just responded to it. You say I created "lists" (pleural). I created one - in my sandbox. It's gone now. Get over it. Then you go on about me calling someone a "crybaby" and a "hypocrit". First you are the one now taking things out of context. Comments like "crybaby" were made during an antagonistic debate over reverts. Insults were thrown at me as well. The issue has since been put to rest. As for calling someone a "hypocrit"... yes, I've done that before and I will do it again. When someone takes a moral stand, then acts in a manner that contradicts their position, they are a hypocrit. Take you for example... you are a hypocrite. And while we are talking about definitions, I may be a smart-ass, but I am not a troll. You keep throwing that word around, but you ain't backing it up. You paranoid thin-skinnedness does not make me dishonest. I called it in the beginning - you over-reacted and now you're just trying to pile it on to justify all this. Talk about "bullshit". Your repeated protestations are starting to wear. Your initial concern has been addressed, is there anything else you are hoping to accomplish here? - thewolfchild 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered above. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vej; Show me how I'm "an obvious troll". - thewolfchild 12:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• You were right to delete it - merely show the policy and back away. I don't think bringing it to ANI (even for a review) is going to dispel any anger :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• LOL! Who's angry? - thewolfchild 10:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've also deleted a section on his talk page where he edited another user's talkpage comments to change their meaning and then altered their signature to read "Hypocrite" and "Cry Baby". Whilst he might want to parade the fact on his talk page that he is capable of being sarcastic and patronising (neither particularly useful traits for a collegial environment) he certainly doesn't get to do that. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I was wrong :-) Bringing all of his behaviour here was was the right thing to do! Not the good way to grab the attention of the project in the long or short run (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is for my sandbox. If you have some constructive comments to make regarding this issue, then please do. However, if you have a separate concern, regarding a separate issue on a different page, then perhaps you would care to address it with me on my talk page to see if your concerns can be resolved. Failing that, perhaps bring an ANI for that issue. I think that much like your very good and close friends, "Vejvančický" and "Bwilkins", you have gotten quite carried away here. - thewolfchild 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In case you had not noticed when you read the top of the page, all behaviours will be taken into account for incidents posted here. You really should attempt to address your behaviours in front of the admin community - you're not making yourself out well right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What's to address? There was a joke in my sandbox that Vej didn't like - its's gone. There were some comments from an old agrument that has since been addressed by another admin and reviewed at an ANI. They're gone now too. You guys are just digging now, fueled by your own self-importance. And I have to "make myself out well"? Problems solved. Move on. I'm sure there's plenty of other wrongs your could be righting now... - thewolfchild 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that User:Black Kite and User:Bwilkins are not my very good and close friends. My work here is independent. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Methinks... - thewolfchild 13:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides that, the topic is "User:Thewolfchild", not "User:Thewolfchild's sandbox". Nothing indicates this would be just about the sandbox and nothing else.--Atlan (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And my commet didn't state that "this this would be just about the sandbox and nothing else." For the sake of simplicity, the comments should focus on the topic at hand, instead of going all over the road with multiple complaints from different pages. Don't you agree? - thewolfchild 13:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

...and he has restored the attack on that editor on his talkpage. Final warning issued. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting read when you expand those sections. Copy/pastes (losing all attribution); modification of comments to suit his needs; cherrypicking; endless sarcasm. Really doesn't get the "community" aspect of Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Specifics? - thewolfchild 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The more I dig into his interactions, edits, talkpage and all contributions, the more I'm becoming convinced that we as a project are, indeed, being trolled. When he signed up, he agreed to the 5 pillars - not just a selected one or two. His behaviour right in front the community when asked to explain and amend shows it's not going to change - he's just as sarcastic, arrogant, and wrong. I'm becoming sadly convinced that WP:RBI is the best way forward unless they (or anyone) can magically show some better way forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is sad. Show me, exactly, how I am a troll. Then, reconsider your comments about "...asked to explain and amend shows it's not going to change - he's just as sarcastic, arrogant, and wrong...". An issue was brought forward. I provided an explanation and amended it. Then a second issue was brought forward and was also explained and amended as well. So I'm sarcastic sometimes - so what? If you tried to kick every sarcsatic user out of wikipedia, (including some of the other contributors and admins on this very ANI) then this site would become a very lonely place. "Arrogant"? That is merely your opinion. I call it "confident". Either way, show me a wiki policy against it. "Wrong" about what? As I've said, I addressed the concernes that were brought up in this ANI so, what am I "wrong" about now? AND... WP:RBI?, (I guess if you were a state governor, you'd put shoplifters in the gas chamber, huh?)... you show me exactly how I'm a vandal. As for "moving forward", I have made overtures for resolution - with no response. What have you done? I look forward to your responses. - thewolfchild 13:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It may have very well been wrong but it cant be unilaterally deleted by an admin who then refuses to discuss. It should benom'd for deletion here ot elsewhere. As WP is a community drive even the something like this needs cdiscussion (however easy it may seem) instead of arbitrary decisions refusing ot discuss. The comment on the users talk page to fined a nother playground was not the most civil thing either. This doesnt show any DR having been tried.

But lets not dig into everything from the issue on hand. It dealt with this page alone not his overall behaviour, which should be discussed on another board if need beLihaas (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As BWilkins said above, all behaviour can, and will be, taken into account when an ANI is raised. Per WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:UP#DELETE, attack pages are usually deleted without the need for MFD or AFD. Had their behvaiour been the only thing being discussed then WP:WQA would have been the starting point, but as it's now part of a wider issue, ANI is actually the appropriate place for this to be aired. Blackmane (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Lihaas: You are right. I should've said that I refuse to discuss it privately on my talk page, which is what I meant. You may notice that I joined the discussion here without much delay. I don't need others to defend me for anything, which is - I believe - apparent from my edit history. However, I apologize for any confusion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Gotta' love these ANI's. Admins have dragged me here complaining of insults and policy violations, yet let's look at some of their comments about, or towards, me - right here in the ANI;

Vejvančický;

• "If you don't like this place, find another playground..."
• "Thewolfchild's response on my talk page seems to me somewhat upset, but I may be mistaken...",
• "I refuse to continue communicating with an obvious troll.",
• "(I think that User:Thewolfchild is an exemplary case of WP:TROLL)",
• "Why don't you address their concerns in a normal way instead of creating cowardly lists...",
• "Usually I tend to avoid people of your kind...",
• "I consider your behavior as grossly dishonest and offensive...",
• "I do not need to step on others to feel better...",
• "...last thing I want to do is to moralize wikimartyrs.",
• "...mean and cowardly attacks...",
• "...you treat others like crap...",
• "...creating stupid and disparaging lists...",
• "That's the dishonesty on your part...",
• "Please no more bullshit...",
• "That's a trolling aspect in your comments..."

BWilkins;

• "...see my response to your first rant...".
• "...I don't think bringing it to ANI (even for a review) is going to dispel any anger.",
• "...you're not making yourself out well right now.",
• "...modification of comments to suit his needs; cherrypicking; endless sarcasm. Really doesn't get the "community" aspect of Wikipedia.",
• "The more I dig into his interactions... the more I'm becoming convinced that we... are, indeed, being trolled.",
• "...he's just as sarcastic, arrogant, and wrong...",

(With honourable mention going to the rest of the bangwagon; Black Kite, Atlan, Blackmane and Calton)

Very contructive, mature and articulate. I can see why you guys are admins. You actually have the nerve to preach about policy, the pillars, politeness, community, collegial atmosphere, hand-holding, kumbayah, etc, etc... ?

Not one of you tried to discuss and resolve. Not one of you has answered any of my questions regarding your claims, accusations and insults. One minor issue is suddenly brought to ANI, the issue is immediately resolved without dispute, yet you all keep going on, and on and on. Slow day at the office? - thewolfchild 15:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

May I ask a tediously obvious question? What administrative action is being requested here? (I mean things that require use of the buttons, such as blocking or page protection.) If there isn't anything specific I propose to close this discussion as I'm not sure it's serving a useful purpose right now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked for 24h by Sarek of Vulcan, presumably for this after warnings. So, yes, closing this now. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Very thorough job... - thewolfchild 20:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

more "talk"...

If you put the attack on Berean Hunter back on your talk page again I will block you. You do not get to refactor other people's comments to make them look bad, nor do you get to mock them by changing their signatures to insults. I hope this is clear. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• First, do not move comments from one place to another on my talk page. You do not get to do that. I left indtructions (that you can't seem to follow) as to where I prefer comments be posted.

• Second, before removing that whole section, again, did you even bother to read it? I changed and/or removed the comments that you had an issue with. However, aside from those comments, you have repeatedly removed other content, including a discussion between another admin and I. You do not get to do that either. Please get control of yourself and don't threaten me with your willingness to abuse your admin privileges.

• Third, try to have a nice day. - thewolfchild 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Since the whole section was only on your page in order to attack the other editor, it doesn't belong here. Changing a few parts here and there isn't really relevant. To be honest, since the entire collapsed section isn't there to foster a collegial environment (in fact, the opposite), removing the whole thing wouldn't have been controversial. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The "whole" section? I think not. That section started with a notice from another editor. I didn't agree with it. That editor was just as hostile and insulting as you claim I was. It was a disagreement that an admin responded to. Who are you to delete another admin's comments? I have taken note of your concerns regarding my comments towards BH (and your lack of concern for her inappropriate comments towards me) and I have edited the section accordingly. However, the other content should remain and I am placing it back. Your carpet-bombing solution is simply wrong, as are your strong-arm tactics. Should you choose to edit-war with a 3rd revert in 24 hours or even block me, then you can explain why you weren't willing to work towards a resolution when I clearly have been making an effort. I would ask that you review the revised content before taking any action. If you somehow still find an issue, please notify me and perhaps we can work towards a solution. - thewolfchild 12:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, your talkpage does not belong to you. The edits to it and content of it must conform to policy. Do you believe that it's ok for you to abuse your user privileges, yet an admin is unable to exercise theirs accordingly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I have "abused" my user privileges, have I? How is attempting to keep my talk page organized abusive? However, when an admin repeatedly removes content they shouldn't have and threatens to do it again unless I 'do as I'm told', that's abusive. - thewolfchild 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The attack page in your sandbox was an abuse of your editing privileges. Re-adding cherry-picked attacks of another editor, and changing their content is abusing your editing privileges. Not sure how you can't see this en masse (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem like a helpful fellow. So, why don't you help? These blanket comments with empty accusations are getting us nowhere. Please show me some examples, and maybe we can come up with some resolutions... - thewolfchild 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This talk page doesn't comform to Wikipedia:TALK#Layout, which says new posts go at the bottom of the page. You can't demand people will follow your unusual page layout instructions.--Atlan (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Had a quick look at Wikipedia:TALK#Layout, couldn't find specific policy that states "new posts must go to very bottom of page - no exceptions". However, you seem to care about this alot more than I do, so I have changed my lay-out. Just for you. Is there anything else I can do for you? Please let me know... - thewolfchild 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for a continuing pattern of attacks on other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello SarekOfVulcan. If you blocked due to this edit or my conversation with User:Thewolfchild at ANI, you can unblock, I'm not offended and I don't think the block is fair. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thewolfchild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Could this "continuing pattern of attacks on other editors" be clarified? What comments are being construed as "attacks"? Thank you - thewolfchild 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Exactly as described. I'm surprised it's just 24 hours; that's not likely to change anyone's behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Excerpt from Sarek's Talk Page

User:Thewolfchild

Hello SarekOfVulcan. If you blocked due to this edit or my conversation with User:Thewolfchild at ANI, you can unblock, I'm not offended and I don't think the block is fair. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's called a "response" -- notice the quotation formatting? -- and a prediction of the inevitable result of his current course. If he doesn't like it, let him complain. --Calton | Talk 03:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's called a "joke". And since when are people punished for what they might do? - thewolfchild 16:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (btw - don't you have your own talk page?)

User:SarekOfVulcan

Now that I've given you a couple days to cool down, perhaps you care to explain the block? Thank you. - thewolfchild 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I already explained it in detail on your talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You did? Where? - thewolfchild 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting... - thewolfchild 03:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm sure you read this part of your talkpage before starting the badgering? The surprise is how short the block was, considering the consensus at ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You again? Talk about trolling. How flattering to have my own personal wiki-stalker. If Sarek contributed that, perhaps he should have signed it. (as per wiki-policy... you guys are pretty selective about what policies you follow, don't don't follow, enforce, ignore, huh?). Now, BW, as much as we all appreciate your thoughtful comments, I must ask, are you Sarek's personal spokeswoman? Can't he speak for himself?

How about it Sarek? Any reason why you don't seem able to provide any justification for the block? I'm on your talk page, asking you a direct question and I would appreciate a response from you. - thewolfchild 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You could only hope to have me as your own personal stalker. As my comment said, I stalk this talkpage. Dream on though. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

- "You could only hope to have me as your own personal stalker." Wow. So humble...

- "I stalk this talkpage". Hence the reason you are all over my talkpage and my ANI. What's next? Showing up at my house? Peeking in my windows?

- "Dream on though." Ugh.

I hope things get better for you soon. Then maybe you'll find more contructive use of your time. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 22:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Try this again...

• Sarek, Could you please provide some sort of rationale for your block? It does not appear to be justified to me. Thank you. - thewolfchild 22:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC).

• The block was June 7th. It is now June 19th and you continue to refuse to respond to my requests for clarification. I will take your continued silence as tacit acknowledgement on your part that the block was, in fact, not justified. Thank you. - thewolfchild 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sarek? - thewolfchild 01:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins

I think the part in the above section that says "I already explained it on your talkpage" means they're not going to explain again. So V's lack of reply is tacit acknowledgement that they WP:AGF that you have the capacity to have read the original explanation. Further hounding of of anyone regarding this can (and will) lead to additional blocks for harassment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"I think the part in the above section that says "I already explained it on your talkpage" means they're not going to explain again."

- Needless sarcasm. Commenting on a post that was not directed to you.

"So V's lack of reply is tacit acknowledgement that they WP:AGF that you have the capacity to have read the original explanation."

- More sarcasm and a veiled insult of another editor's intellect.

"Further hounding of of anyone regarding this can (and will) lead to additional blocks for harassment"

- A threat.

Wow Sarek, um... er, I mean BW, that's quite the post. Who's gonna block me? You? For what? I'd like you to show me just how this is harrassment, while at the same time showing that what you're doing isn't. I stand by my queries, I don't not see how that handful of quotes constitutes a block. It's certainly not an explanation... it's just quotes. There are also many questions I asked in and following the ANI that went unanswered and there were issues with some others peoples conduct that I raised that were not addressed. Quite frankly, that ANI was a piss-poor crock of crap. I want answers.

Now you'll notice I've given you your own little section so that you can troll away and blather on about whatever nonsense you like as the self-imposed official spokeswoman for the all so silent Sarek. Perhaps now you'll refrain from addressing issues that do not concern you. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 01:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wolf's Talk Page Cont'd

• I'm not going to respond to the unblock appeal as I was involved earlier, but I presume the blocking admin is referring to this, so I'd suggest you address that in an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Very constructive, mature, and articulate
  • You paranoid thin-skinnedness does not make me dishonest
  • Gee, you must have a lot of free time
  • I guess if you were a state governor, you'd put shoplifters in the gas chamber, huh?
  • You guys are just digging now, fueled by your own self-importance.
  • now you and your friends are digging thru old news for... what? To pick a fight? Flex some sysop muscle?
• Belatedly signing response to "what comments are being construed as attacks". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC) → (SIGNED 9 DAYS LATER)

I'd also prefer if you did not lump me in with the "bangwagon" (although I do like this term, I'll keep that for future use elsewhere). My response was to Lihaas about their question, not as any intent on hopping on that wagon. If you read that as ny aim, it was entirely unintentional. Apologies if that was what you interpreted. Blackmane (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Accept my apologies. Things like that happend when you're ganged up on. Thanks for the follow-up. - thewolfchild 16:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)from declining: Your conduct at the AN/I was appalling. Instead of making comments on how other editors must be having "a slow day at the office", I'd suggest you take this 24 hours to consider that, if everybody else is saying you have a problem, maybe the issue isn't them, maybe it's you. Re-reading WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POLEMIC might be good, too. We're not here to hound you off the project, we're here to help you understand that you have an issue that affects your ability to be a productive and contributing part of a amicable community. If you refuse to accept that and continue to insist that the problem is others, however, you need to be aware that the next block may be for a much longer duration. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Appalling"? The entire ANI was appalling. Let's get some things in perspective here... I had an innocuous post I was playing around with in my sandbox. For some reason, Vej goes in there, gets all bent outta' shape and deletes it. Did I dispute that? No. In fact, I said I would have deleted it myself had he simply asked. So, not only was this harmless, but I wasn't even taking any big stand on it. That should have been the end of it right there. But, no... after it's deleted, we go off to ANI anyways (?) And, then another admin goes digging back thru months of stuff to dig up an argument that's already been addresses by another admin and gone thru an ANI. (I guess there's no Double jeopardy here) At ANI, I am repeatedly insulted and mischaracterized. You will see that I made several, repeated requests for discussion and resolution. I didn't debate any of the content of my page, but I question all the accusations about lying, trolling, etc, etc - with no answers forthcoming from any of my accusers. I see above that Kite "thinks" it "might" be the handful of comments of mine he quoted, and while they might not be to your liking, you will note that I was responding in kind to the way I was being treated. As for quotes, have a look at my last post in the ANI (@ 15:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)) and tell me if any other offending contributors are being blocked (rhetorical question). As for my last post to Vej, I stand by it 100%. The only controversial comments are actually quotes from him, with the exception of Hypocrisy. I stand by that as well as there is alot of that going around. There are alot of accusations with no support. There's alot of "teaching people to be nice", but doing it with insults and misquotes. And nowhere is a block with no explanation.

So, Bush... I don't need you to "help me to undersdtand" how to contribute. Go through my edits. I read alot and as I go along, I correct minor errors every now and then I even make some worthile contributions to improve an article. I have never been blocked before. The handful of debates that I have catalogued show that I "respond in kind", as far as "attitude" goes. This ANI was uncalled for and this block is ridiculous. - thewolfchild 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall we reformat that into the actual real world here? You weren't "playing around in your sandbox", you were compiling a list of editors who you'd been in conflict with, entitled "Wikipedia University - Institute of the Clowning Arts". When Vej quite rightly whacked that little attack page and brought the issue to ANI, it was found that you also had copypasted other editors comments onto your talkpage, and then edited them to make it appear they had said things they hadn't, whilst changing their signatures to insults. Frankly, you're lucky you weren't blocked then. When I deleted that, you restored it with some parts removed (but not all - you'd left the refactored comments in). Meanwhile, a number of other editors had looked at your contribs and found that whilst they were generally fine, your interaction with others left quite a bit to be desired. Your reaction to that was to continue to attack other people on the ANI. As mentioned before, if you're finding yourself in conflict with a number of other editors (as related on your talkpage), you probably need to consider that the problem is not them. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite;

• "...into the actual real world here." - This isn't the real world. This is the virtual world of wiki user space. If we were all in the same room, we wouldn't have anywhere near as many problmes.
• "You weren't "playing around in your sandbox..." - Yeah, actually I was.
• "Wikipedia University - Institute of the Clowning Arts" - It's so offensive (?), yet you guys keep repeating it.
• "...copypasted other editors comments... changing their signatures to insults.''" - Again with pluralization? That is completely misleading and disingenuous on your part. That was done once, some time ago and it was already addressed (dead dogs...)
• "...I deleted that, you restored it..." - It's fine now, right? Why go on about it?
• "Your reaction to that was to continue to attack other people on the ANI." - I've asked repeatedly for this accusation to be clarified, with examples. Show me how anything I've said is any different, or worse, than what has been said to me here.

As for the rest of your comments, you are being unrealistic. There will always be conflict and debate. When I engage in rhetoric (sarcastic or not) at least it's for a purpose (Don't just look at the means, look at the ends). And consider what other's are also saying in reply. As long as there is an open means of anonymously modifying the subjective material on this site, the "Pax Wikipediana"™ you seek will never exist. Your efforts at maintaining (enforcing) civility are noble, but should be more focused and objective. This, however, is a waste. - thewolfchild 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that some of my comments to thewolfchild were of similar caliber. I disagree with the block, this is not fair ... @thewolfchild: I have to say that your ability to manipulate anything you read in your favor is fascinating. My position in the ANI discussion was still the same so I don't take your accusations of hypocrisy. Paranoid thin-skinnedness? You must read a lot of sci-fi. ...but I don't want to continue because I came to realization that debating with you makes absolutely no sense. It is not debating. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. The admin that started all this doesn't even think I should be blocked. The blocker seems to have nothing to say and now the appellate judge says... what exactly? Is there not one admin here capable of objectivity? Fine, whatever. I have to take my kids to the mall anyways. My wife and I have a party to go to tonight and by the time I sleep it off and roll outta' bed tomorrow, this nonsense will be over anyways. So you can skip my appeal and leave the block on. But I will be looking for answers. Heaven forbid there's actually some accountability for some of the admins here.

• potentia corrumpit, potestatem corrumpit absolute
• ratio decidendi est repugnat ratio legis
• nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali
• obscuris vera involvens

• Vale - thewolfchild 17:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're starting to suggest that someone else created the list in your sandbox, not you ... or that someone other than you were screwing around with copy/pasting/changing posts/signatures on your talkpage, and then kept putting them back on when they were rightfully deleted then you're correct - the block is unfair, and I'll unblock you right away! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice spin, but no... I'm not biting. There is no "suggestion" here. I created the "list". It's gone now. Not worthy of a block. I said nothing of "someone else screwing around with my talk page". There was one instant of an altered post/signature (not the dozens that you keep implying). It was an old post that has since be addressed by another admin and an ANI. (ECHO!... Echo... echo...echo...) For some reason, Kite needed to dig it up. He could have simply asked for an edit and I would have complied, but instead he removed an entire section that he shouldn't have. In trying to retain the appropriate content while also trying to cooperate and remove the questionable content, there was some re-posting and reverting. But it now seems resolved, so let it go (and again, not worth a block). So, yes... the block is unfair and you may remove it. (unless, of course, you were lying about that also...) I would "suggest" that you read this comment. - thewolfchild 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So your list was a personal attack. Gone yes, but could have been blockable in and of itself. That could have been considered your NPA warning. The modified post/falsification of a signature was directly blockable from the start. You re-adding was a required block, as it was necessary to protect the project - which is the purpose of a block. Through all your entire posts today, you show zero signs of recognizing that your actions were improper - indeed, I'm not convinced that such NPA's will not recur. As per WP:GAB, that recognition and assurance of no more future incidents are key. How do you address this??? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Address what? Aren't we done here? - thewolfchild 08:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Cal

Thewolfchild's previous appearance at AN/I, for those who want a taste of where this is likely to go. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, Cal... you must have alot of free time. Anything else to add? - thewolfchild 14:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, Cal...

That's "Calton": six letters, not three.

...you must have alot of free time.

Nope, just efficient. Old trolling: not hard to find. Also, I was saving other people time regarding looking up your track record, so it's a win-win as far as overall efficiency for Wikipedia as a whole goes.

Also, that's "a lot": two words, not one.

Anything else to add?

Enjoy the first of your no-doubt-many-more-forthcoming time-outs. Remember, they escalate. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

- You're right! "Calton" is six letters. But I used "Cal" which is only three...

- Right again! It is "a lot". Now that's you've pounced all over that typo, Wikipedia is a much better place...

- "Old trolling: not hard to find." - Oops! Wrong on that one, (2 outta' 3 ain't bad) trolling from me is more than hard to find - I don't do it. A far as anything else being easy, well considering it's all right here on my talk page, all you really need to do is look under the big bow.

- "Enjoy the first of your no-doubt-many-more-forthcoming time-outs." - Is that sarcasm? Hmmm... interesting. I'll have to try it some time.

- Have a nice day! - thewolfchild 08:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Baiting

Can you please avoid saying things like Enjoy the first of your no-doubt-many-more-forthcoming time-outs to blocked users? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Cal, stop 'Baiting', it's hurts the project and it's bad for the community. You wouldn't want to get blocked, would ya'? - thewolfchild 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued incivility/personal attacks after expiration of previous PA block, as shown here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention...

• "What's next? Showing up at my house? Peeking in my windows?"
• "Now, BW, as much as we all appreciate your thoughtful comments, I must ask, are you Sarek's personal spokeswoman?"

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that works out fine. I'll be up at my cottage from June 20 to June 26. Theres's no internet, but ther is plenty of beer, water-skiing, fishing, beer, swimming, golfing, beer and bar-b-q's. I will deal with you when I return. Maybe you take the time to really consider how far you want to take this admin abuse. These blocks are bogus and you know it. Have a nice week! - thewolfchild 07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thewolfchild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just wondering if there is one admin out there that is mature and impartial, capable of considering all angles and looking at the big picture, is thoroughly knowledgeable about wp blocking policy and knows how to implement properly. Is there such admin? If so maybe he/she can put an end to this blocking nonsense and deal with the real problems. I'll see of anyone steps up when I get back. Cheers, - thewolfchild 08:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You returned to making personal attacks pretty much as soon as your last block expired, and the above unblock request is essentially a statement that you'll continue with a confrontational attitude when this block expires. As such, I'm extending the block duration to indefinite. Please note that this isn't a permanent block, but rather a block which will remain in place until you demonstrate that you'll work constructively with others. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Is there such an admin?" - Apparently not. [sigh] Ok... what's next? - thewolfchild 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

TWC, you're coming across as far too aggressive. You've belittled and harassed other users. The point of this project isn't to smash down and lay waste to those who you don't see eye-to-eye with; we're here to collaborate and build a better 'pedia. Honestly, I think your best bet is to read WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. Read over these pages, look at how your behaviour could be amended, and take the time to fully formulate a well thoughtout unblock request. If you need any help or have any questions, list them here. I'll watch the page and help you out if needed. Ishdarian 02:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ishdarian, though I do not agree with all of your comments, I do certainly appreciate you taking the time to respond here and further appreciate your offer of assistance. This situation has gotten waaay out of hand. I really do believe that if Sarek had shown even the slightest bit of willingness to discuss the block he put on in the first place, instead of ignoring me, this could have been resolved. Through my efforts to communicate with him, I instead had unsolicited responses from and self-admitted stalker and troll. After my exchanges with him or her, the block was extended to a week by Sarek, still without any meaningful dialogue. As it was, I went away for that week, and when I come back, I find the block is now indefinite (?!) Still no response from Sarek, and the latest block comes from Nick-D, whom I've had no exchanges with and has thus far refused to communicate with me. If these admins are going to exercise their sysop priveleges and block people, should they not be accessible and willing to discuss these blocks? THAT is what I am looking for. - thewolfchild 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wolfchild. We're on good terms right? I'm neutral for sure. May I butt in and be frank?

Since the get-go, you may have had cause to complain. I don't know. Complaining is allowed. Snarky, sharp, aggressive edits intended to insult and get the last word, get editors blocked. That's what this is about. People annoy me all the time. The trick is to drop it and walk.

The way forward is simple:

1) Request an unblock with something like "I acknowledge that combative, bitchy edits got me blocked, and I will cut it out, you bastards." (Just kidding about the bastards thing. Nobody's a bastard, and don't include that. Just trying to cheer you up.)

2) Then, drop all grudges, be really nice and polite, and edit in a collegial fashion.

That is the only way forward. Please consider it. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anna... I know you think this is the "simple way", but it's not simple for me. My actions have been called into question and addressed - both summarily and severely. But really, I'm not dancing alone here. I have questions about how all this has been handled, right from the beginning and I have a right to pursue those questions and seek answers. Now, IF I do this in the "nice-huggy-kissy-wiki-way", without any sarcastic comments, there shouldn't be a problem then, should there? Well fine, I'll try it your way. I'll be "nice". Let's see how it goes...

Thanks for stopping by - thewolfchild 01:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I love when Anna comments, because she is always an excellent voice of reason. She makes a valid point: sometimes we need to try and refrain from getting the last word. Nick appears to have indeffed you to prevent you from further disrupting the 'pedia. If you take a step back and look at your edits through his eyes, it may provide insight on his rationale. I don't know if he has your page watchlisted, but I'll ping him to let him know of this discussion.

From what I see, you are open and willing to discuss issues with other editors, but I think you just need to tone down the approach a little bit. Ishdarian 02:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thewolfchild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge that combative, bitchy edits may have got me blocked, and I will try to cut it out

Decline reason:

Sorry, but that half-hearted request really doesn't convince me of your sincerity. The words might be good ones if used in a convincing context, but we really would need to see some proper understanding of just how inappropriate your approach to Wikipedia so far has been, and see a convincing undertaking to adjust that approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

- thewolfchild 01:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping you'd add "...my..." in the unblock request, and the word "...try..." might put the whole thing a little below what's needed to convince.

Also, if your intention after an unblock is to pursue the matter, that's not good for anyone. Is that your intention, or is it to move on and help build the encyclopedia? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Anna, let's recap. I was blocked. I don't think I should have been blocked. I tried to get some feedback to better understand this, but I'm ignored, then further blocked! And if that's not bad enough, during the entire period of the second block, I don't do anything (I'm not even near the internet) and I'm suddenly blcoked even further - indefinitely. I want this to make sense. I'm not looking to disrupt anything... I just want answers. You say that "pursuing this is not good for anyone". How so? Shouldn't a blocked editor understand why he was blocked? Can't admins be held to any kind of accountability? Is there not some way I can resolve this that isn't considered "disruptive"? Thanks for your help - thewolfchild 06:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refresh your memory. Your very first talk page edit included "...What is wrong with you?..." in response to a good faith revert. So please, no talk about injustice of blocks. You've dished out plenty of abuse. If you want to edit here, you must drop this. Actually, in light of "...will try to cut it out...", and this latest post, I doubt they will be convinced.

It's all about cost-benefit here. We don't care about vandals. We eat them for lunch. What we loathe is editors who get into disputes over small stuff and drag it on for a million keystrokes. Convince them that you're here to work constructively. No guarantees, but that's your best shot. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Anna and Ishdarian's comments above. As I noted in my block message, I extended the block as you started making personal attacks on other editors almost as soon as your previous block expired, and then continued with a confrontational attitude after you were blocked again for this. Your various posts over the last day or so are a further continuation of this behaviour. However, you're not blocked permanently, and all you need to do to be unblocked is to genuinely acknowledge that your previous conduct was unhelpful and provide a meaningful commitment to edit productively in the future (something, to be frank, your above unblock request and the associated post you made at 01:18 clearly doesn't do). Ishdarian's post identifies the relevant policies you need to take into account here, but there's nothing very complicated about this - all you need to do is treat other editors here with the same kind of respect with which I presume you treat your friends/classmates/colleagues. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to echo much of what has been said above. I will not decline the unblock request at this time, but there's no choice other than decline. "Indefinite" blocks mean "until the community is convinced the problem will not recur". To say "I'll try" does not give anyone the confirmation that it will not recur (and by the way - if you do get unblocked in the future, ANY future hounding or incivility will lead to an immediate indefinite block, with no chance for unblock for an minimum of 6 months (as per WP:OFFER)). Some day you will need to learn to drop the WP:STICK. Your first block was explained, yet you then hounded the admin ... bad idea because look where you are now. All admins have been 100% accountable in their actions, and indeed, they have been overly patient with you. There's only one person who has been "immature" and "partial" here, and I'll let you guess who that is (hint: they're currently blocked for being immature and partial). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D

You've got mail - thewolfchild 02:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your email, an unblock request along the lines of first part of it is pretty likely to be successful - as I noted above, all that's needed is an acknowledgement that your past behavior was unhelpful and a convincing commitment that you'll treat other editors with respect. The final bit of the email where you threw my comments in my face are a cause for concern though. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not "throw your comments in your face". I provided a sincere response to what you indicated was required to have the block removed. Following that I quoted one part of one comment you made that "I needed to treat other editors the same way as my friends, etc." To that quote, I simply said I can't do that if I'm blocked indefinitely. That wasn't meant as sarcasm or hostility, it's simply pointing out the obvious. I do understand that many of my comments come off as sarcastic, but now it seems that you and your cohorts are now taking everything I say as somehow innappropriate. That's simply not the case. Too much is being misinterpreted here, whether accidentally or intentionally, because of the nature of this medium or the personalities involved. Now, if you feel you've made your point, then remove the block. Otherwise, I'm just really not sure what more you want. - thewolfchild 19:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your email, please post an unblock request which in line with the various suggestions above. However, I didn't extend your block to make a point; I did it to prevent you from causing further disruption. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thewolfchild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I assure you I had no intention of harassing or personally attacking the users in question. My sole purpose was to try and to restore in them some appreciation of their obligations as editors and/or admins. If one can challenge an abusive user I felt, one might help them regain their sense of neutrality and collegiality. This was on my mind. Now I freely admit that my method was wrong, but I hope you can understand my motive, and will accept this explanation, and this apology. - thewolfchild 16:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Judging by your last few edits here, I don't think you're ready yet to operate in a collegial, rather than confrontational, environment. You've made some good steps here - understanding that your past methods weren't useful is definitely good insight - but it just doesn't look like you quite grok that you not only need to speak the right words, but you also need to take the right actions and approach people with the right intent. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As someone might wrongly accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED, I will not act on this unblock request. I think the dangerous and inappropriate portion of this unblock is the outright suggestion that a specific admin (or indeed, 2 of us) were being abusive, non-neutral, and non-collegial when this is obviously not the case. As such, this really is not acknowledging that such action was inappropriate, but that is simply did not function as he had desired. As such, this unblock wholly misses the point of the block, and is therefore non-WP:GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BMW

If your words are being misinterpreted, maybe you need to deliver them differently (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well

I will leave the comments as they were, but I was typing out an explanation for this when it was lost in the edit conflict. I will re-post those comments.

I had preferred to confine Mr. or Ms. Wilkins comments down here. They will note that I have not responded any further to their comments since I was blocked. I find they do not lend any assisatnce to this matter what-so-ever. I am trying to make a sincere effort at having the block removed. But I find that bwilkins, who has admittedly stalked and trolled the pages I post on, leaves comments that are simply veiled hostility, with sarcasm and insults and really are basically baiting - a violation of the policies I was asked to review. I think it would be better for all involved if bwilkins and I did not interact any further, as this leads to me being blocked, while he/she is shielded, due to their admin status and/or their relationships with others here. I would simply like to move on, I think bwilkins should as well.

I emailed my unblcok request comments, as you see above, to Nick-D first, and he indicated that they should suffice in having the block removed. Now I find Nick is being contradicted by bwilkins. I accepted responsibility for my actions and even went as far as to apologize to the community. I feel I am ready to contribute in a positive manner, as I have in the past, while refraining from any negative interactions, much like the one bwilkins and I have recently been involved in.

There is my explanation. I'm trying to keep things simple and avoid any further inflammatory issues. Like I said, I am ready to move on. - thewolfchild 03:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a watchlist. So do you. I have admitted that I have SoV's talkpage watchlisted. That's jokingly referred to as being a "talkpage stalker", and there's even a template I used on their page when I saw you harassing them to explain your previous block for the 3rd time - a block that came out of a well-documented ANI report.

• And yet, he has never provided an explanation. His so-called explanation was a handful a quotes that he didn't sign for over a week. Why is it I had to ask 3 times? WHY could he simply not answer? Why is you feel you need to answer for him? HE blocked me. I asked HIM about it on HIS talk page. You calling that "harrassment" doesn't make it so. I do not understand why SoV has to be so uncommunicative. I think if he was simply willing to have some dialogue with me, (even to provide guidance) then much of this could have been avoided. I don't use a watchlist, but apparanetly I am on yours... Why? - (wolf)

You are aware of how unblocks work, and WP:GAB is clear on the process. As such, you also know that e-mailing or secret requests are not permitted. I want you unblocked - but you're showing this project that you're not ready.

• Please do not tell me what I'm "aware" of. Obviously, after (3? 4?) requests, I'm still blocked. My email to Nick was not a "secret". That's an inflammatory comment on your part. The FACT is, WP:DR specifically states that it is acceptable for a blocked user to contact the blocking admin. Please stop preaching policy, if you're going to quote it incorrectly. Also, to be frank, I don't believe you "want me unblocked". I think you're getting quite a kick out of this. I've asked you repeatedly to remove yourself from this situation. Why can't you respect that? I am seeking to have this blocked removed, but it is difficult with your antagonistic comments. - (wolf)

Your continued accusations that I'm being hostile when the proof is clear (my contributions here and everywhere are out here for the world to see) is disconcerting, and is merely supporting my statement above. Almost everything I have said has been to ASSIST you in getting unblocked, but you are personally choosing to WP:BATTLE rather than make the most simple of changes in your behaviour and your unblock request.

• I do not agree. That is allowed here, isn't it? Or, is having an issue with one admin's conduct really a cause for an indefinite block? Because that's what all this boils down to here. I've addressed everything else. My last unblock request was denied, despite the indications I was given by Nick that it should be successful. Why? Because of interactions with you. So I think the solution is clear; unblock me, let contribute in the postive manner that I have in the past, and you and I will just stay the hell away from each other. Problem solved. - (wolf)

Oh, and as you are 100% aware that I am male, your continued "mr or mrs" (I think this is the 3rd time you have done it) is clear proof as to who is attempting to create the negative environment around here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, yes. I've addressed that below. From now on, I will address you in the masculine sense (if I ever have a need to address you again, that is) - (wolf)

What's next?

Thewolfchild, what would you do if you were unblocked? (eg, how would you work with other editors, and what edits would you make?). Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick, if you look over my history, you will see that for the most part, I make corrections and small changes as I go along. I have no stake in any particular article or subject. Every now and then, an edit of mine will be reverted. Usually not a big deal. But, when it's done summarily, without justification, I challenge it. I don't try to be outright confrontational, but when I'm met with rudeness, I usually respond with the type of sarcasm that you've seen previously. I have already acknowledged that is not the "wiki-way" of doing things. So, as for "working with other editors"... obviously I will tone down the sarcasm if I feel they are being rude or confrontational. "What edits would I make?"... the same kinds I always have. The fact is, most of my edits go unnoticed. The few that have resulted in any controversy, have ultimately remained, as they were correct and/or proper. So the question now is, are you going to unblock me? I keep posting requests, and they keep getting declined. And, surprise, surprise... the latest decline reason has to do with my "latest edits", which all have to do with Mr. Wilkins. (no, I wasn't "100% sure he was male". you have a 50-50 shot here in the wiki-land of anonymity. maybe mr. wilkins can explain to all the female wiki-users why guessing that someone is female is such an insult.) But I clearly stated I did not wish to interact with that user anymore. I clearly stated I don't want that user contributing to my talk page anymore. His surreptitous baiting is creating a carrot-and-the-stick routine with these unblock requests. You, sir, are the one who 'indef'd' me. What more do you want? How much further do you need to take this, before you are satisfied? - thewolfchild 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thewolfchild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will abide by the policies of Wikipedia. - thewolfchild 22:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are continuing to argue the same points that got you blocked in the first place. Take some time off and then come back and request again when you are ready to behave appropriately. -- Selket ^Talk 17:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I bristle

I'm so sorry to write this. It is astonishing that a blocked user, while trying to get unblocked, can still have such a confrontational and defiant manner.

If unblocked, will "tone down the sarcasm"? "I don't try to be outright confrontational..." I find that incredible. Before the block, talk page edits were deliberately and consistently confrontational.

And "...but when I'm met with rudeness..."? Remember the first ever talk page post? Others were met with great rudeness. Trying to make a case for being unblocked while still juggling the fight, and frankly not having a leg to stand on, worries me greatly.

Dare I say that this is nearly a pathological editing pattern? I bristle at the thought of this editor being unleashed, only to stay just barely on the right side of the law, while poisoning talk pages with wiki-lawyering and ill-will.

Sorry to say it. I've been trying really hard not to say what I've said, but I feel obligated. I'm sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Anna, you should be sorry. Your comments are quite harsh. I am not trying to be confrontational or defiant. I am trying to meet the demands of the admins who have blocked me. Quite simply, I do not agree with every single thing that every person has said since the very beginning of this. Do you want me to lie and say that I do? Am I not allowed to disagree with someone's comments, even if they are an admin without being punished? Is there any way that any person can say "I disagree" without being blocked?

You have an issue with comments like "tone down the sarcasm". Should I say I will eliminate it altogether? Will that suffice? When I said that I "don't try to be confrontational"... I was referring to past events. Isn't unblocking about looking forward? I have made repeated commitments to edit in a fashion that would be acceptable to the community. Does that not suffice? When I said that I had been "met with rudeness"... again I referring to the past. I in no way stated that in the future, I would take rudeness as an excuse to be confrontational. I have, in fact, acknowledged that being confrontational is wrong, and even went a further step and apologized for it.

Now, as for your comment: "Dare I say that this is nearly a pathological editing pattern? I bristle at the thought of this editor being unleashed, only to stay just barely on the right side of the law, while poisoning talk pages with wiki-lawyering and ill-will."... Am I allowed to say I take offence to that, or does just get me blocked futher? (if that's possible. you sound like you want me banned for all eternity). Using a term like "pathological" is simply beyond your scope, unless you are a medical professional, and you are applying it as an observation. Otherwise, it's basically an insult from an anonymous lay-person. Along with comments like "being unleashed" and "poisoning talk pages". Is that what wikipedia is about? IF I am "on the right side of the law", then what's the problem? Isn't that what all of you are going for here?

And, I must ask... why are you commenting here? I followed the suggestions from WP:DR and contacted you for assistance. You declined... with equally harsh comments. So I'll ask again... What's next? I was blocked for 24 hrs. Requested an unblock and was declined. I tried to seek an explanation, was given none and instead was blocked for a week. I took the week off, but left a second unblock request asking for a neutral admin, but, before the week is is even over, I'm declined again - AND - blocked indefinitely! I tried yet another unblock request, using your suggestion, but I didn't get the wording quite good enough for you people, so once more - declined. I follow the dispute resolution process. I tried contacting you, you chose to not offer and assistance. I also contacted the blocking admin, and provided him with a copy of my next block request, which he said was likely to be successful. So, off I go again, with another unblock request, and... declined! By some other guy. Why? I wouldn't know where to begin. So... I try once more time... (my 3rd? my 4th? I've lost count), and I simply state my pledge that I will abide by the rules of this project. Yet, somehow, that's not good enough for you. Dare I ask what is? There hasn't been a response yet, but your latest comments all but guarentee that it will be declined. It that what you want? (why not just decline it yourself?) In fact, I wonder... will this response of mine to you here be cause for yet another decline by whatever admin happens to come along? Or will someone finally just say "give him a chance and see what he does"? There has to be some kind of end to this. What do you want? What does Nick want? What did SoV want? I don't really care what bmw wants. I already know what Vej wanted (he started all of this along). What does flutternutter want? What does Zebedee want? What? I'd really like to know... - thewolfchild 02:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe it was inappropriate for me to have rendered an opinion here. I felt I had to.

"...and contacted you for assistance. You declined... with equally harsh comments.....": I replied to your email frankly, politely, and not harshly. I will publish it here if you like for others to decide.

As for a pathological pattern of edits, yes, I'm talking about the edits I see. I am very wary that the pattern will continue.

You want me to forget about the past, but I'm referring to post block stuff. Read above. Start with "I will deal with you when I return." and continue down. This is your 4th unblock request, and this whole defensive and combative thing is still happening. In a single breath, I read "Yeah, I'm sorry, I was kind of out of line, but was quite justified, and you made me do it."

Anyway, I've expressed how I feel. I'll leave it to others to do as they see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep going over the same old stuff. I have acknowledged wrong-doing, accepted responsibility, offerred an apology and gave a commitment to abide by the the rules and policies. So, I'll ask again, from this point on - what else do you require from me to get unblocked? - thewolfchild 04:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

imagine my suprise

Most recent decline reason: You are continuing to argue the same points that got you blocked in the first place. Take some time off and then come back and request again when you are ready to behave appropriately. -- Selket ^Talk 17:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Very well, that actually sounds like a good idea. I'm off to my cottage again tomorrow for a couple weeks. Maybe when I get back, we can finally get this all sorted out. Like I've stated many times before, I don't take all this very seriously, (though this latest episode is a little frustrating), so that being said, I don't take what happens here personally. I sure hope none of you do either. Maybe in a couple of weeks this anonymous user can convince all you anonymous admins that I can be a good wikipedian, and finally this account can be unblocked. So, no hard feelings and have a nice summer everybody! - thewolfchild 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

a month later...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Thewolfchild (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have "taken some time off", acknowledged wrong-doing, accepted responsibility, offerred an apology and gave a commitment to abide by the the rules and policies of wikipedia. - thewolfchild 18:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

In the spirit of Wikipedia's guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I am lifting your block. Please understand that any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)