Archive: 2009 Archive: 2010 Archive: 2011

Hi! I noticed that you removed my prod from that article, saying that you'd found the musician to be notable, but you didn't add the sources you found. Could you stick them on the article, so no later person makes the same mistake? I didn't find the needed sources when I looked, but it certainly won't be the first time someone else found sources I missed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to the decline above, you were mistaken about the application of WP:TPG to a user talk page - it is perfectly allowable to have personal conversations on user talk pages, even non-English conversations, as long as it isn't carried too far, i.e. WP:MYSPACE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM makes no such subjective statements or allowances, but instead states very clearly that " talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages". Srobak (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk pages are not treated the same as talk pages in other namespaces - please read WP:UP for clarification. Particularly, Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit and In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the rules and policies (such as WP:SPEAKENGLISH and WP:NOTFORUM) apply, except when they don't. Fantastic logic - and people wonder why WP is such a mess. There is absolutely no distinction made in WP:SPEAKENGLISH, WP:NOTFORUM or numerous other policy and guideline articles between their application in article talk pages and user talk pages. In fact - WP:SPEAKENGLISH reads as to apply directly to user talk pages. If there is a distinction to be made - then it needs to be in those articles to ensure proper, uniform application of policies and guidelines. Srobak (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever. I give up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) And how do edits in another language negatively effect the quality of the encyclopedia exactly? Remember that rules and policies are secondary to the purpose of WP:5, esp. #4 and #5. Please remember, that our role as contributors is not to enforce rules but further the project. It is fairly clear that we don't think your recent contributions have furthered the project. Once you have taken an (albeit forced) couple day break and had some delicious warm drinks and low stress days, please provide constructive solutions to help further the project when you return! Best wishes, Sadads (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been. It's ridiculous that some folks don't understand that guidelines, policies, the adherence to and the enforcement thereof are indeed quite necessary to further the project. I didn't create the policies or guidelines - so your question is better geared for an RFC. Anyhow - it's downright scary for the project as a whole when it is actually an admin who fails to recognize the need and purpose of the above. Might want to think about why not only do they exist but why they are necessary as well as the need to for users to abide by them before making another statement like that. Now - as for your edit comment - there are far more silly things on WP (many of which honestly have no place here) than a legitimate discussion (no one is yelling about injustice or anything else) in my talk page. If you do not find substance to it - then you are free to change the channel. Srobak (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that this discussion has been rather missing the point. It is perfectly true that all contributions to English Wikipedia should be in English, including those on user talk pages. However,if someone posts in another language on a user talk page, then the thing to do is to politely explain the situation to them, not to summarily remove their message. It is not acceptable to remove another user's comments on a talk page other than your own, except under extreme circumstances, and a comment's being in another language is not one of those circumstances. In addition, Wikipedia's edit policy is, essentially "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think that you are right". No matter how convinced you are that posting a message in another language is so evil and inexcusable that it must be removed, and no matter how convinced you are that Wikipedia's policies support such removal, you were not justified in edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right - you have indeed been missing the point - which is in fact a much larger issue than what you seem to be pigeon-holing. No one is arguing about the edit-warring anymore. Try and keep up. Srobak (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruption and unacceptable aggression. 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I am sorry, but I feel I have to do this after reviewing your recent contribution history. I see a catalog of failing to act collegially, of inability to face disagreement in a civil manner, of edit-warring over various issues, of repeatedly and inappropriately accusing people of vandalism, of repeatedly deleting other people's comments on Talk pages, of issuing inappropriate templated warnings (and continuing after being advised against it), of accusing people of all sorts of things they are not guilty of, and of attacking people quite nastily after they try to interact with you in a civil and friendly manner. I'm afraid this kind of behavior is simply not acceptable here, and I think you should remain blocked until you make a commitment to change your battlefield approach to interaction with others, and can convince the community that you will be an asset to the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC) (PS: Any admin is welcome to review my block, but if you do, please have a look back over the history of this talk page to see removed interactions, block notice, past warnings, etc, and check the user's recent contribution history) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hahahaha.... Srobak (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see that you have done good work here in the past, and I'd like to be able to unblock you as soon as possible, but recently your approach to other users really has been way too aggressive - and it really is damaging to the project. So can I please ask you to review your recent interactions with others, and try to listen to what other people say rather than treating everything as an attack and launching a counter-attack every time. You also appear to be going over the top in terms of "law enforcement" here, attempting, for example, to dictate what people can and cannot say on user talk pages (removing people's comments and flooding them with warnings in the process). Please try to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly and collegial project in which we try to help each other, and not a rule-following police state where people get slapped down for every minor perceived infraction of "the law" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak - registering sock accounts is not the way to get back to editing Wikipedia. Your account here is indefinitely, but not necessarily infinitely, blocked, and if you wish to rejoin the community, what you need to do is convince us that you understand the problems that got you blocked, and that you are able and willing to adjust your style of interaction with other Wikipedia editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Srobak, please do not refactor other people's comments - the "not" in the above message is correct and should be there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the love of all that's Holy... I did not re-factor other people's comments. I restored a comment which you left to the state in which you left it. It was previously re-factored here by Vanisaac, in violation of WP:TPO, which reads in part "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". As the edit in question did change the meaning of the comment 180 degrees in fact, it also violated WP:MINOR - which states in part that "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can change the meaning of a sentence, is a major edit." Ironic that the example used in the policy article is in fact the exact word which was changed on my talk page! It is a real shame when one admin doesn't pay attention to the accuracy of edit history (that would be you), and when another violates 2x WP policies in a single edit (that would be Vanisaac) and when both of them need to have these things pointed out to them. Those who cannot understand and follow such simple, basic practices and guidelines have absolutely no business in position to police others into doing such (especially when they already are). If the meaning of your statement was incorrect - then per policy it needed to be changed by you - and not result in you barking at me for restoring what you posted to the state in which you posted it. Srobak (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vanisaac edit was done in good faith, correcting an obvious typo. It might be nice to actually thank him for this rather than creating another edit war, especially as this sort of behaviour is what you are blocked for. If you want to be unblocked then it will need an indication that you have altered you approach taking a less confrontational atitude. --Salix (talk): 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First - there is no edit war. You need to take a look at the edit history. Second - good faith or not - per TPO it is not to be done. Third - even if it is obvious it is still TPO. Fourth - I was not being confrontational. I reverted a TPO & MINOR vio on my own talk page and was then "confronted" by being wrongfully accused of TPO. In response I explained the situation - which is something I should not have to do - because those involved ought to know better. Why stuff this obvious needs to be explained to folks who certainly ought to be able to figure it out is mind boggling. Srobak (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, Salix. As to the edit in question, I considered it - and continue to do so - to be a minor grammatical fix, and as such, perfectly acceptable for marking as a minor edit. Moreover, as the intent of the edit was a good-faith attempt to clarify another's comment, and that edit was, in fact, welcomed by the original contributor, I was not in violation of WP:TPO (see the first example of acceptable edits). In the end, Srobak, I think the largest source of your problems can be boiled down to a single principle: WP:AGF. If you assumed that my edit was a good-faith effort to clarify a murky grammatical point, then none of this happens. Admitedly, I probably set an unintentional trap for you by making that edit, but you stepped in it all yourself. Just ask yourself, "Was Vanisaac trying to make things better?" If you honestly can't answer "Yes" to that question, you probably don't belong in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vanisaac simply fixed a typo for me, and I think it should have been blatantly obvious that I'd accidentally missed out the word "not" from that sentence. The Wikipedia TPO rules are meant to be interpreted sensibly, not blindly followed, and it would have been pointless for me to revert that correction and then redo it myself, don't you think? Also, we don't generally go round reverting edits simply because someone didn't check the "minor edit" box, and it's not so applicable to Talk pages anyway - the piece you quoted says "the meaning of an article" (my emphasis). I'm sure you thought you were doing right by trying to enforce rules, but the blind enforcement of "rules" and becoming aggressive with people you see as breaching them is a large part of what got you blocked here - it's just not the way Wikipedia operates -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aaaaaaand we are once again back to "the rules and policies apply - except when they don't." Lovely, circular logic. Srobak (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's more that most are really intended to be guidelines rather than hard and fast rules, and need contextual interpretation, which is why we have WP:IAR. Or do you honestly think it's better to blindly enforce "rules" over obvious common sense? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Nope - but when I was doing things that were obvious, common sense - I was given the rod by admins saying "that's not policy - those aren't the rules". It gets very tiring trying to keep WP accurate and vandal free when overly restricted by administrative double-standards and double-talk. Some have even gone so far as to actually harbor habitual detractors to the project by applying rules where common sense should prevail, and applying common sense where rules should prevail. Let's pick a cake and eat it. Srobak (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sure there are inconsistencies over the whole of such a large project, but we're not going to solve that by blindly sticking to the letter of rules and reverting an obviously correct typo fix - and then arguing it to death using "rules". I'm trying to help you understand why your over-bureaucratic focus on rules is not the way we work here, and that you need to change that approach to get unblocked (and others are saying the same things to you). In the end, though, it's up to you whether you listen or not, and I'm not going to argue this one any further -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Actually, just one more general point about "rules". Some aspects of policy are more important than others, and so are closer to being actual rules than others, and the trick is in using judgment to understand which is which. For example, WP:BLP policy is very important, and we really need to avoid doing harm to living people (and as a secondary consideration, avoid libel suits). But many aspects of talk page policy, using good edit summaries, not using the "minor edit" checkbox, etc, carry far less importance, and they need to be treated differently. So someone adding a libelous claim to a BLP needs to be dealt with more severely than, say, someone saying hello to someone else in a language other than English on their talk page. Intelligent judgment is what's needed, based on the context itself, the balance of good and bad being done, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see WP:NOTBURO. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point - as it says there, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there is a constant changing of the genre of the 1995 film Heat. Your input on the talk page would be a big help.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]