User talk:Reene/Archive1

Note: This is an archive of past discussion and comments left on my talk page. Please do not add to or alter anything on this page.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Quinobi 08:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ingrown toenail

Qudos on making the front page! One question/suggestion, when discussing cutting the nails you mention that the nail could be cut too short or "peeled". What do you mean by peeled? Maury 11:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarification

Are you implying that I made that post on that other board? If so, I'd suggest you think again. I never knew about it, and if you were able to check the IP address you'd see I post from Australia and I'd say they are posting from America. Just thought I'd clear it up. Also, so what if they are voting? There is no policy against it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Care to explain what rules or policies I've broken? I suggest you read them a bit more carefully. I also suggest you check the history of the vote to see what's really been going on. Oh, and you might also want to be informed that I asked Netoholic to place the U.S. electoral controversy on the VfD page. Only you can't easily see this, because he keeps clearing his talk page, so you can't tell how I've been trying to communicate with him. Still think I'm suspicious? - 13:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's make this clear, as I've read a lot more of your comments on VfD. You seem to be under the impression that I will be performing an administrative role on the vote for deletion page I'm embroiled in at the moment. Your impression is incorrect. I will not be doing the final vote count, and I will not be blocking the page. Nor will I intimidate other users by blocking them from editting based on their vote. The only function I might use is the rollback function, and that's not much different to a normal everyday revert. Rest assured: I will not be abusing my admin powers. If you feel I've stepped over the line, please drop a message on my talk page, however I am not a psychic so in the unlikely case where I have abused my powers please tell me specifically where you feel that I am in the wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Much thanks for moving my VfD to the correct section. Too often I am in too much of a hurry. [[PaulinSaudi 09:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

May I suggest ...

... that your personal attacks on the integrity of Ta bu shi da yu are doing you more harm than good. When he actually does something that steps over the line, criticize him for it then. Your insistence now on claiming that he "has already made it quite clear he has no intent on being objective or NPOV", in other words, assuming bad faith of actions he has yet to take, does not reflect so much on him as it does on you. And it reflects badly on you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Disgusting"?

I had nothing to do with it but what is wrong with publicizing/requesting comments on other websites? I'd be fine if someone posted a link to the article on a conservative website and reverse sock puppets showed up, the more people respectfully debating the better. If these new users stick around wikipedia benefits. Though there have been some pro-article troublemakers yes.

You should reserve some of your disgust for Netoholic's behavior in this matter. There are many, like him, with valid concerns about the article, but judging just his actions the last day or so one would be accurate in believing he is a troll. His actions were not only in opposition to, but severely detrimental of wikipedia's principles of debate and discussion. Zen Master 17:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I encourage you to investigate

If you actually took the time to compare my edits with Netoholics you would see who is deserving of disgust. I can provide a list of incidents, others would be happy to as well, if you care. Please list just one example were I was "reprehensible" about an actual wikipedia article or wikipedia policy? I admit to being opinionated on IRC and in talk pages (where it's fair game), but my article edits are golden. I stand by my edit history, how does NH explain his? I understand you and I got off to a bad start because it's difficult separating agreement with NH's POV from the unacceptable way he went about pushing his POV. I have no problem with POV, but I have a problem with actions detrimental to debate and consensus building.

Sockpuppets are technically accounts that a pre-existing user creates to seemingly increase support for some cause/article etc, but if these "sockpuppets" are actually legitimate new users who stay and contribute I don't see a problem, do you? If you do, does that mean you are against publicizing wikipedia generally? Or do you and others call some new users "sockpuppets" just because they likely disagree with your POV and that pisses you off? I on the other hand welcome all new users regardless of POV.

The essence of wikipedia is encouraging honest and respectful debate over controversial issues while working towards a peaceful solution, it's not just about writing articles (this point NH seemingly does not understand or cares about). NH had some valid concerns, but he went about it in a manner in opposition to the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines and policy. Zen Master 01:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You misinterpret

You misinterpreted what i was saying above, I never asked for those votes to be counted, I just wonder why all the rhetoric and "sockpuppet" backlash, new users should be welcomed on wikipedia, don't you agree? You also are wrong about flameage and personal attacks but i will stop mentioning him. Again, I would happy to submit to a third party analysis regarding my actions regarding the election controversy article matter as to conformance with wikipedia guidelines, if you ever have specific instances of problems with my edits or disagree with me please discuss. Zen Master 02:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hiya. Apologies. The issue isn't with Netoholic per se. Its with interference with a vote. For that purpose having already taken it to his talk page, and witnessing others say the same on the VfD and elsewhere to him, I posted the alert. I did so because the vote is being vandalised, not because of a battle with him. Please either discuss or reinstate, Im reasonable but i dont know how to get through to the guy, not to delete other peoples stuff to suit himself. he says he isnt then repeats. Ideas? For the short term I mean, the life of this VfD that lasts 2 more days, and which he has removed others comments from routinely. FT2 08:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stop removing comments from the VfD page

Others would disagree with you about the "personal attack" bit of this. The conduct of Netaholic on the VfD page is actually quite relevant to the vote. I have had to repair damage to the page by him several times. For instance, I had to move all the comments back into the main page after he decided to clear them from the page and shift it to the talk page. This is a definite no-no on VfD, because if you look at WP:VFD you will notice it includes all the pages comments. There is not a single VfD there that has had comments moved to the talk page. I'm going to wait from a response from you, then restore FT2's comments. I won't be doing it as an administrator, by the way, I will be doing it as an editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the comments are on Netaholic's conduct in VfD, why not point it out?! Also, the messages keep getting cleared without response. Have you noticed that? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the big red letters. That was a bit silly. I'm talking about the conduct of the user. Personally, I have had to make a few notes on the page to note what he has done. I did not put this on the talk page. Basically the VfD page is a talk page! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted them under the discussion page. I agree with you that comments about Netaholic should be under the comments section. Incidently, it's not nice to give ultimatums, especially to moi. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reene, you'd do much better to try to work out a compromise on the basis of keeping separate articles and the sales data in some form, because there's absolutely no way you're going to get away with this attempt at merging. And your petty "disendorsement" of me has been noted. Everyking 10:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, Reene, we shall see how this situation turns out. Everyking 11:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

Reene, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate what an extraordinary editor you are. Great edits, great insights, and a great big bloody toe! ;-) Good job. :) func(talk) 01:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I will be happy to mediate, Reene, but I will discuss matters only on a constructive rather than a destructive basis. I have seen enough removal of perfectly valid information from the article. I will continue to employ my three daily reverts if you continue removing information, in addition to making sensible improvements to your text in the meantime. Everyking 08:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! I thought it was inspired, myself. Everyking 08:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol wow you are fast...ty for adding the word i accidentally deleted on InuYasha =)) — LegolasGreenleaf 00:21, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I did not join just for the purpose of voting! A few days ago I contributed improvements to one of the pages in question, cleaning up style, and adding footnotes to facts, where the material was not properly referenced. Please point me to the place where it mentions how many edits I am required to do before voting!--Boscobiscotti 03:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re this and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#how__many_edits_before_voting: can I suggest that you not actually delete comments on VfD even when they are made by people not qualified to vote? They are still qualified to debate. If you are really worried that someone will count a vote they shouldn't count, just remark on the vote being by a brand new user, or a possible sock puppet, or whatever, but please don't delete. It makes people angry and doesn't actually gain anything. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

User_talk:Jmabel#Think_before_you_type Reene^✎ 08:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, he said at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#how__many_edits_before_voting that you had now deleted his comments. I took that at face value. Probably someone else did it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Who knows. Sorry I took it at face value; I was just trying to make a constructive suggestion about not escalating. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

No apology needed, but it is happily accepted. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I misunderstood the page, and thought my vote was "revoked" or removed. I did not claim that my comments were removed. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Here is why I misunderstood, and thought you had invalidated my vote: You stated unequivocally that "I may not vote". "Your votes are therefore invalid", "Sorry". And that I was "making too big a deal of it." When I read these comments I assumed that you had some kind of right to make that call. I am still unclear. Are you an administrator, who decides what votes are counted on this particular page? Or are you stating an opinion? My interest in this page is not in 'bad faith' I am not a troll or a 'sock puppet'. I am a computer professional who has done extensive reading on this issue, and wanted to 'clean up' and contribute to this important page,and others which cover the subject of computerized voting. I think the wikipedia is an excellent place for pulling together accurate information on this issue.

--Boscobiscotti 18:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your toe

Reene, thanks for your input re: Schiller Institute. I was just about to write to you to say how much I enjoyed your ingrown toenail article, which I've just stumbled on (as it were), and especially the photo!  :-) Slim 11:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your talk page

Reene, perhaps as an aid to users, you should put a message at the top of your talk page saying that you delete comments on your talk page, and that they should check the page history if they want to see past dialogue. Kevin Baas | talk 01:17, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

This is false and misleading. I'm perfectly within my rights to remove comments made on my talk page that are deliberately inflammatory in nature (others have agreed on this). That includes comments that are incredibly uncivil, which yours were. Likewise I do not feel a need to tell anybody reading my page to check up on these flames. Now, if you wish to discuss something with me (instead of rudely flinging accusations that are bolded, italicized, and capitalized) I would encourage you to do so in a calm, civil manner. Anything else will be removed for the mindless flames they are. Reene^✎ 01:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

You said that what I said, that you "delete comments on your talk page" is false and misleading, and then you went on to explain how you delete comments on your talk page. Perhaps this wasn't the alleged *cough* "false and misleading" part? Was it the part about "aid to users"? or the "page history...to see past dialogue"? Please point it out, so that I can avoid such "false and misleading" statements in the future. Kevin Baas | talk 01:39, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

It's false and misleading to imply I'm removing comments on my talk page for no reason, and that they should "check the page history if they want to see past dialogue" when no dialogue took place save for between you and zen master, whom I'd asked to stop bothering me here anyway. It isn't an aid to users either. If anybody is truly interested in seeing your flames, I'll be sure to direct them to the history if they ask. But I certainly won't comply with your request that I "put a message at the top of (my) talk page saying that (I) delete comments". Reene^✎ 01:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Pretty soon I'm going to stop "harrassing you", or as I percieve it, trying to communicate, because frankly, it is beginning to seem quite futile. I did not imply that you are removing comments for no reason. I have not said anything false or misleading except that which you have imagined. Do not imagine me, see me as I am. Read what I write as it is, nothing less or more. "no dialogue [taking] place save for between you and zen master" is dialogue taking place. How would people ask know to ask if they have no means by which to be informed of the issue? People have every right to not have to ask. It aids users in that they can learn about how you and other users have interacted. Whether it reflects poorly on the other users or you is for them to decide freely, and they have every right to the information and by it to judge you, me, and zen master. I did not make a request, I made a suggestion, hence the word "perhaps", and the tone.

I do not demand things from others. It is against my principles. I do demand, however that people respect the borderlines of justice. In this case I will "tell" rather than "ask". The logic for this is that asking is respecting borderlines, and when people don't ask, I tell them to ask; "tell" is the line, "ask" is not crossing it; people cross the line, I "tell" them no; I "tell" them where the line is: exactly half-way between any given two people, exactly, precisely half-way, not a millimeter in either direction. .

I am not "flaming" or being aggresive. I am asserting; I am stating matters of fact simply and candidly. I am communicating in "a calm and civil manner." If you want to hear me, take what I say at face value; do not extrapolate. Kevin Baas | talk 08:31, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Actually, saying something like "If you do not, then you are lying and slandering a person, and that is WRONG. Do you hear me? It is just plain WRONG." (excessive use of bold and italics removed) is not merely "asserting". It's being quite aggressive and extremely rude as these comments were based upon absoloutely nothing. Ta Bu made a (what I felt to be) misleading statement on a VfD page; I responded to it (and notice that he's not objecting to my response to his statement, possibly because he (rightly) feels that each and every person deserves a fair say without being harassed). I made no accusations against anybody. Do you hear me? Absoloutely none, zilch, zero. Both you and zen seem to have some huge problem with me though, perhaps because I don't share your POVs and perhaps because I've made it quite clear to zen that I have no interest in speaking to him (since you two seem to be friends or at the very least willing to back eachother up). That said I'd like you to stop posting here now. Your only interest seems to be to attempt to badger me into doing something and that is not something I will allow you to do. Goodbye. Do not comment here again on this issue. You've said enough and so have I. Reene^✎ 08:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)