User talk:Redrocket

Re: Speedy question

Re your message: Sorry. =) The generic {{db-a7}} would be fine. You could also use {{db}} and then fill in something. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your reply. It was really, really kind and thoughtful. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Thank you.Thright (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Yay for you!!!! A Special Message from a Banned Sockpuppet, Nmdenison (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the background. It really does help me to evaluate situations like that. I'd appreciate you giving me a heads up if you see anything funny happening there.

Thanks, also, for your very kind comments about my work. I appreciate that more than you know. Best wishes, - Philippe 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

I see that you flagged a comment where I called another user a coward as a "personal attack". While I understand your concern, please take into consideration that I only used the term after he had made blanket statements describing my own and other users` contributions which he had not read as "steaming crap". I ask you, who is being more personal here? Kont Dracula (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, you've said that before, you'll need to provide some DIFFs for those to provide context. However, it doesn't really matter. There is no "tit for tat" policy on wikipedia that entitles you to make personal attacks on another editor if you feel like they started it. Redrocket (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn`t provide any DIFFs when you decided that I was the one being personal. I am afraid that my context has gone, it has been deleted. The person who deleted it will no longer respond to my questions. Let`s get it straight- I am not haranguing some haplesss bureaucrat. I am questioning someone who had the temerity to decribe my own contribution as "crap". He is hiding away from my responses. If he is allowed to call my contributions "steaming crap" then surely, by anyone`s measure, I am entitled to call him a coward when he will not respond to very specific questions. How can you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kont Dracula (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can disagree because that's not the way we do things around here, by policy and by common decency. Don't do it and expect to get away with it, regardless of the circumstances. By the way, I did provide a DIFF for your personal attack, it's on your talk page. If you'll go through the contributions page of this editor here [1], perhaps you can find the edits that upset you and bring them to the attention of someone who can help you. Redrocket (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)So the "way you do things around here" according to "common decency" is to delete other people`s work and describe it as "steaming crap" and then to delete their comments when they respond? By saying I am the one who has unfairly had his work deleted on grounds which the person which deleted himself does not even conform to? Not content with just deleting my work, the administrator who deleted it then proceeded to engage in a mutual back-slapping session where my work, and others were described as "steaming crap" and one administrator actually "awarded" another for deleting it. It is all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NawlinWiki.
When I have aired my grievances over this matter, my comments have again been deleted. So I am not sure what you perceive me to be "getting away with". As I have written in previously deleted comments, where I think I was owed a little apology, I instead received an astonishing level of arrogance and had my justifiable complaints deleted. So don`t worry, I am well aware of both "the way you do things around here" and the concept of "decency" that is common currency. As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed. You can tell your cowardly friend that he can open his talk page again. Hilariously, despite being the person who inflamed this situation with his insults, he hilariously closed his talk page when he got some negative response. As I told him in comments he promptly deleted on the page quoted above, if he is not prepared to take it, he shouldn`t dish it out. Kont Dracula (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest you read up on some wikipedia policies, such as WP:5P and WP:MOS. You don't seem to understand what a DIFF is. For example, I can show you here [2] where you made a personal attack. If you say this editor was incivil, please provide a diff showing where it occurred. Deleted comments can easily be found by checking user's contributions.

I don't know what your article was, I don't know if it was a steaming pile of crap or not. If you really feel like you're having a raw deal, take it to WP:ANI where other editors will see it. Arguing on a talk page isn't going to help at this point. Redrocket (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you shall never know what my article was or whether it was "steaming crap", as it was deleted while I was still writing it. I can`t help but wonder if it is good practice for wikipedia editors to weigh in and publicly describe articles they have not read in those terms. I would have thought that would not be the best tone for an ""administrator" to adopt. It is hardly encouraging for potential future contributors. I suspect though, that is just the way some people like it. Do you have an opinion on that? Or are you just going to direct me to the "relevant" pages?
You have got me on the diff thing though. I don`t know what a diff is. At this stage, I don`t know if I even care to find out. However, I did post a link to the page where the uncivil comment was made. I think you are being more than slightly disingenuous to try to latch onto my ommission of a "diff" (whatever it is) as a reason for genuinely being unable to appreciate the nature of my grievance. I am not really seeking redress at this stage. I am merely responding to your message on my talk page where you said that I was making a personal attack. You can clearly see that on the link I provided, I was being personal towards an "administrator" who made the initial personal attack himself. As I said, this issue is pretty much closed as far as I am concerned. While I can`t help but take umbrage at your flagging me for making a personal attack and claiming not to be able to see the personal attack which prompted it, I can see that you at least are coming from a good place. As I said, the issue is closed as far as I am concerned. Kont Dracula (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would suggest you do a little more research on wikipedia, and read WP:FIRST, which will help you write your first article. If you were writing your article on wikipedia as an active page and it got deleted while you were working on it, I can tell you that's standard operating procedure around here. You can work on an article in your own user space and get it properly referenced and written, and then upload it to the main space. Unfinished articles should not be on wikipedia, since it's an active encyclopedia at all times.

Although I don't know exactly what your article was, I can tell you admins see a lot of random articles uploaded to wikipedia and the majority of them aren't ready and get deleted. That's just the way it is, and the way it should be. There's plenty of space on the wiki to write your article before uploading it. Redrocket (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate your advice but, as I am sure you are aware by now, the nature of my complaint extends a bit further than the mere fact that I had the notability and relevance of an unfinished article questioned. It is the sheer hypocrisy that I can not stomach. The very same "administrator" who deleted my article on the basis that i did not have "references"? It took me all of 2 minutes to find an article of his which did not contain references. Was his article deleted? No. Was mine? Yes. Not content with deleting my work, the very same "administrators" rubbed salt into the wound by congratulating each other and describing it as "steaming crap". You seem to be a fair-minded person. Surely, surely you do not believe that things are "as they should be". There is a blatant double standard at play here, so I can not, will not agree with you when you say that this is the way things should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kont Dracula (talk • contribs)

I appreciate you trying to make your point, but you're completely missing what I'm telling you about wikipedia policy. If you were working on a new page in the main space, it very well may have looked like unsourced "steaming crap" to an uninvolved administrator who deleted it. Without you showing me what he said, I have no idea what the context was. You're making a lot of accusations, but not backing it up with links and differences.

Again, if you'll look on the history of a page, you can find the various revisions and changes that have been made. Furthermore, you can click on the editors and check out their contributions to find what you're looking for. Redrocket (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While your feelings about the matter are understandable it's very important to realize that, at least at Wikipedia, policy does not allow us to consider things in that light. An impropriety in "situation A" is never an acceptable justification for an impropriety in "situation B". However, if you feel that any article, even one initiated by an admin, is not fit for the encyclopedia or fails to meet some policy then the easy solution is to nominate it for deletion. This can take a couple of different forms including Speedy delete and AfD. As a registered editor you can do that yourself, just by following the instructions on the pages I listed. If the article is judged to not meet WP standards then it will be deleted. But as RR noted, the best way to avoid a frustration like this is to work on the article on a personal page and bring it up to WP standards before saving it into the mainspace. If you're not sure how to do that, drop a note on my takpage and I'll help. Doc Tropics 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While, as I said, the issue is closed as far as I am concerned, I can`t let your claim that I am making a lot of unsubstantiated "accusations" pass. I posted the link where you were very clearly able to read what I was referring to. If you had a problem with the link, you should have told me. Not for the first time, I feel that you are being disingenuous. A wikipedia administrator has displayed flagrant double standards. Another congratulated him for it. Witness the "barnstar" at the bottom of this link, awarded to someone who deleted my article, not due to any vandalism issues but because of contested "notability" issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NawlinWiki/Barnstars

Let`s disregard my experience for a moment, as I am well aware that while it is permissible for adminsitrators to make personal attacks on my work describing it as "crap" without references, any rebuttal of mine must contain all the necessary links, quotes, annotations and "diffs". Boy, are double standards alive and well on wikipedia.

So just hypothetically, do you have any personal opinion about whether administrators describing other people`s work in those terms ("steaming crap"), which has been deleted over contentious "notability" issues is conducive to the spirit of communication and consideration laid out in wikipedia guidelines? I am not asking for any clarification of wikipedia policy here. I am asking for your opinion about a hypotheical issue. I am asking you to make a personal judgement, just as you did when you weighed in with your own personal judgement to condemn me for making "personal attacks". Kont Dracula (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, you've never provided anyone with any DIFFs of these comments, so this is the first time that I've seen what you are talking about. If you are concerned about the editor who deleted your page getting a barnstar that thanked them for deleting "crap," you ned to realize that may not have been directed at your page. Admins delete a lot of pages, some of which are, for lack of a better word, "crap" that has no place on wikipedia. Again, I don't know what page you had deleted, but you should understand no one specifically called your page "crap."

If your page was deleted for notability issues, you can try and find more sources and re-add it. Unless you can show where an editor directly called your page "crap," you're reading too much into this.

Again, for future reference a link is not a diff. This is a link [3], showing a page full of information that's hard to determine a specific point from. If you'll go to the "History" page of any page (or the "Contribs" link for any editor), you can find the exact edit where disputed material entered the page, such as here [4]. It's much easier to show other editors what you're referring to by providing DIFFs.

As for my opinion, I see nothing wrong with it. There was no personal attack involved, merely a reward for an editor who had deleted some articles which didn't belong on wikipedia in the first place. Unless there's more to this, you're being far too sensitive about a comment not directed at you. Redrocket (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. "Fantastique"

Thanks for the assist on the issue with my homepage. I'd dislike to take this fellow to AN/I, but it sure seems like it's headed that way. RGTraynor 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abtract

Hey, I noticed you are also trying to talk with Abtract about his editing of late. His responses do not seem to be very promising. On my talk page, Sess and I have been discussing what steps to take next and I'm thinking an WP:RFC/USER may be in order. Mediation has failed, as have numerous warnings and multiple editors attempts to help Abtract understand why his actions are disruptive. What do you think? Are there other options that should be considered, or any other ideas? Collectonian (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I fully admit I don't have a lot of patience with people who refuse to be civil and game the system. I think the next step is him probably continuing to edit war, and getting a short block from an admin. Hopefully that'll make him realize what other editors have tried in vain to express to him. Redrocket (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mediation has failed" how? When? Have you looked at Sess as a potential stalker? Consider it from my point of view - he follows me around and reverts or opposes me whenever possible, and has rebuffed my attempts at making peace three times. I can give details if you will listen. Thanks for your interest. :) Abtract (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated to you repeatedly, you are responsible for your own conduct. You are the one repeatedly going to the edge of WP:3RR and being incivil. When you show no respect for civility or the rules of wikipedia, you're going to attract people who try and make sure your contributions are legit. Redrocket (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my actions. And your answer to my questions was? Abtract (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see glancing at your relationship with Sess (and you're welcome to provide DIFFs, rather than just making accusations), I'd say he's been on the other end of you disrupting wikipedia and edit warring. Good faith only goes so far. It's certainly not wikistalking to check in on the edits of another editor, especially someone who's been repeatedly warned about his conduct. Redrocket (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The I suggest you look more closely at See's history of removing awkward comments (from many people) from his talkpage, refusing my olive branch on three occasions and following me around in an insensitive way. Abtract (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now we've come full circle to the event that led me to comment on your talk page in the first place [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbtract&diff=208357198&oldid=208356328. A user can delete comments from their talk page at any time for any reason, it's considered acknowledgement that they have read the comments. If Sess doesn't want your comments there, he can remove them just as you have done on your talk page numerous times. Redrocket (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Abtract's responses to your attempts to help correct him, and mine, I went ahead and started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. Collectonian (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I figured Sess would certify the RfC, but he's been offline since the 2nd so I guess it will end up closing and nothing done :( Collectonian (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't any help but literally less than an hour before you opened the RfC, I had a long talk with Abtract on his page and sort of reached an agreement with him. I've advised him to just start fresh, to stop complaining about past issues and just go forward and be productive. I'm willing to reassume good faith with him at this point. If there's any more problems, please let me know. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it, but his responses to others, and to the RfC (basically seeming to smirk and dismiss) don't seem to show that he is really intending to change his overall attitude. I hope he will keep his agreement, but guess we'll see.Collectonian (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hi, thanks for your message. I have made relevant statement there. The main issue with the article is now solved. The article in its present version is without the references which could be considered excess. The only issue now this user is bombarding my talk page despite my request to stop which I find abusive. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

For taking care of that vandal on my user page. I appreciate it. --JaGa (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, that's what I'm here for. Take care! Redrocket (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is due process but it is NOT proof of murder

i apologise for using the wrong legalese term. hokay. it's due process but it's not proof of murder, unless at least the body or the weapon is found. i've added a section in the talk page. let's continue this conversation there, k? Project2501a (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really seems to be splitting hairs. I've also left a comment on the talk page. Redrocket (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I want to offer my belated thanks for your help with our buddy Mr. Daye last week. He's been a thorn in the side of the game show community for seven and a half years, and he holds a particular disdain for me, since I was involved in his first banning from a The Price Is Right website. The guy is seriously beyond weird, and you deserve a lot of credit for involving yourself in a very ugly situation when you had no particular reason to do so. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all. I'm not sure how I found ytour page, but I'm glad to help. Redrocket (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism by the banned sockpuppet to both my talk, and the talk of my user review.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thank you for intervening on my behalf concerning some uncivil behavior toward me from another editor, as you did here. How did you happen across it? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, probably either through the recent changes page or the WP:3RR report. YOu're welcome, glad to help. Redrocket (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Didi

The user readded the link at [5]; could you please deal with it? :) I'm working on a few articles right now. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didi

Hi Redrocket, Thank you so much for having intelligence and integrity to explain what gary's problem was. Had he shown consideration instead of making insinuations, I would have removed the entry from the page myself. So simple to resolve when one has a healthy upbringing and sense of self.

Thanx again. Glamourdomme (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help with an explanation. Please don't make personal attacks on other editors, Gary made a decision to label your contribution as vandalism when it was actually only a violation on the external links policy. No harm done now. Redrocket (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]