User talk:Dryguy/Archive 1
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! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Eduard Einstein
edit(note - this discussion is transferred over from the 71.16.30.178 discussion page that was created as a consequence of me not logging in. Part of this was originally posted to Wknight94 talk, but he moved it to my talk page. dryguy 15:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
See my note in the afd regarding Eduard Einstein. I didn't say the article was too short, I said it's not noteworthy. If you can convince me he's noteworthy, I'll be happy to withdraw. But we don't include relatives of famous people and we don't include schizophrenics — why would we include a relative of a famous person who happened to have schizophrenia? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please stick to the facts. Speculation about people under 30, snide comments about my edits, etc., don't help determine the merit of the Eduard Einstein article. BTW - if you don't like my edits - this is Wikipedia - you can improve them as you see fit. My writing skill has no bearing on EE's noteworthiness. 71.16.30.178 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't begin the speculation about Paris Hilton and her dumb dog. It also wasn't me that claimed that the article was too short or that said that Eduard Einstein - whom I'd never even heard of before this - is more notable than Paris Hilton - who I'd heard of long before she even started getting on TV and movies. I'm sorry that Paris Hilton is far more popular and interesting than Albert Einstein's son - even if it's only because Hilton's a filthy whore. Ted Bundy is one of the lowest pieces of garbage to ever walk the earth and you'd get laughed off Wikipedia if you Afd'ed him. I'm also sorry your edits to the Einstein article look like a pathetic attempt to make him look noteworthy. If it wasn't in this situation, those edits would have been small one-line bulleted entries buried down in the references and external links section of the article, wouldn't they? You might as well have written, "he's really notable, really! Please, please, please don't delete him!" And you've misconstrued almost everything about this, from why I even nominated the article in the first place to why I commented about your edits to the article. I didn't say your edit style was bad - just where you put them. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK - now that you've blown off your steam on my user page, I would encourage you, after you calm down, to go back and re-read what you wrote to me. If you want to come back later and have a civil discussion, I'll still be around. 71.16.30.178 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm defending myself, not blowing off steam. And, again, I'm not the one that started leaving demands to "stick to the facts" on anyone's talk page. The circular nature of this bizarre exchange is pointless so this will be my last response. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK - now that you've blown off your steam on my user page, I would encourage you, after you calm down, to go back and re-read what you wrote to me. If you want to come back later and have a civil discussion, I'll still be around. 71.16.30.178 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't begin the speculation about Paris Hilton and her dumb dog. It also wasn't me that claimed that the article was too short or that said that Eduard Einstein - whom I'd never even heard of before this - is more notable than Paris Hilton - who I'd heard of long before she even started getting on TV and movies. I'm sorry that Paris Hilton is far more popular and interesting than Albert Einstein's son - even if it's only because Hilton's a filthy whore. Ted Bundy is one of the lowest pieces of garbage to ever walk the earth and you'd get laughed off Wikipedia if you Afd'ed him. I'm also sorry your edits to the Einstein article look like a pathetic attempt to make him look noteworthy. If it wasn't in this situation, those edits would have been small one-line bulleted entries buried down in the references and external links section of the article, wouldn't they? You might as well have written, "he's really notable, really! Please, please, please don't delete him!" And you've misconstrued almost everything about this, from why I even nominated the article in the first place to why I commented about your edits to the article. I didn't say your edit style was bad - just where you put them. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Lurking?
editWow, you're an extreme lurker, eh? No edits since last March and suddenly you appear 10 months later just to vote on Afd?! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No - just lazy. I rarely log in. You can see my work under IP's 71.16.30.178 and 69.180.51.7, (maybe some others since I use a number of different computers), but you already knew that. Kind of creepy to have you following me around. I logged in to use AfD since it gives more weight to my vote. dryguy 14:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, you're that guy. And now you're on Afd just to vote against my Afd's. That's a little sad - and even a little stalker'ish. You probably should've voted on someone else's too just to make it look less like a vendetta but that's your prerogative. Wknight94 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Now you are really getting creepy. Buzz off. I'll vote on AfD's as I see fit. I didn't vote against you on Tinkerbell. 71.16.30.178 14:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of the zillions of Afd's, I've started about five. You've voted on two and they both happen to be mine. And you're using three different IDs to do it. But I'm the one that's creepy? Wknight94 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I have voted on three, and looked over many others that I did not vote on. If you are going to follow me around tracking my every post, at least get the facts straight. 71.16.30.178 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Eduard Einstein, Rockets Red Glare and what else? Tinkerbell (dog)? That one you started yourself after debating on Eduard Einstein and after I suggested it. Are there missing facts now? Another user ID? And no, I will not be following your posts even though you're apparently following mine. I don't even want to do the math on the probability of you hitting three Afd's since you started in 2004 - and they are all related to me in some way. Just FYI, I have all my major edits on my watch list so I'll be tracking those closely now. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- On your user page, you have created a list of people that you are "keeping a close eye on" and you have put my name on that list. And you say you aren't being creepy? All I have done is respond to posts you made to me or about me. How is that creepy? dryguy 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- See above. Voting only on Afd's somehow related to me and using different user IDs to do it. And lurking around with three different user IDs in general. Creepy. That's my POV. Wknight94 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have three user ID's, I have 1, dryguy. I have access to the net through several computers, which is quite normal, I understand, and each of these has a different IP address. When I am too lazy to log in (usually), that means my work shows up under the IP address of the computer I logged in on. I have been completely up front about this fact; it is the first thing I said in this thread. 71.16.30.178 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll give you that - after I happened to stumble on the coincidental edit pattern of this user ID. Still creeps me out. Wknight94 15:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- By pattern, you are again referring to the fact that I have voted twice against you and once with you? Get over it. If I happen across another AfD I disagree with, I'll still vote against it, even if you created it. That's what voting is about - it will not always be unanimous in your favor. 71.16.30.178 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it. I don't care if you vote for or against me. It's that you're only voting on ones related to me! Besides, you voted with me (kinda - merge vs. delete) only when you voted first. And no, that's not what I was referring to when I said pattern (that's about the fourth time you've assumed my intentions and been wrong). I was referring to the pattern of this User ID's contributions which was to disappear into obscurity for 10 months only to suddenly resurrect for the sole purpose of voting on my Afd. That wouldn't seem odd to you if you didn't know any better? Esp. if you had started an Afd and pissed off an anon by pointing out the flaws in his logic? The fact that I was correct and there was indeed a relationship should show that I was quite astute in my observation. Check my contrib's and count how many times I've wondered aloud about a user's contribution pattern. Including you, the answer is once. Your vote on Rockets red glare was the giveaway - there's no way that band or its labels are notable enough and you probably even know it. Anyway, go ahead and watch for other Afd's I initiate and blindly vote against regardless of evidence or policy. I really don't care (I don't even care if the Afd's are voted down - if people want to flood Wikipedia with useless articles, fine by me). Just don't exepect me to be quiet about what i think you're doing. You can vote any way you want and I can present any evidence I want to discredit you - and you've given me plenty. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're just repeating yourself and ignoring my answers to your insinuations - for that reason, the previous post will be my last response to these particluar points. Now a request - your post about me on your user page insinuates that I am about to start using sock puppets to get around the voting system in AfD. That amounts to a personal attack and I'm requesting that you take it down, per policy. Likewise for your disproven claim on Rockets Red Glare AfD page that I only voted Keep because "I always vote against you". 71.16.30.178 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I re-worded my user page to remove the sockpuppet threat despite your unorthodox usage of user IDs. I'm not changing anything on the Afd because it's the truth and your contribution record supports it. Everyone is free to interpret that evidence any way they see fit. I would add a note that you did vote once on your own Afd - before I did - but you already said that. And I'm not changing anything about User:Jackjohn because he has a proven record of adding nonsense and needing to be watched over (he's even been blocked already). I'm perfectly within my rights to do that. Wknight94 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Only to then add text implying I'm some kind of stalker who has done nothing on Wikipedia but come after you. I have made many, many contributions here having nothing to do with you, and exactly two on pages you have made. Are those the only two pages you have ever contributed to? Your new change to your user page is still a personal attack, and I am again requesting you take it down and remove all mention of me from your user page. dryguy 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing there untrue and I won't change it. You are scaring me a bit. Go vote on some of the other Afd's you claim to be looking at and I'll get less scared and then remove the text. From what I can tell, the last 20 or 30 of your edits (from the IPs I know of) have all been related to me somehow - and all in ways unrelated to each other - so I don't think anyone will question my concern. Wknight94 20:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The vast majority have been replies to your posts here on my talk page or posts you made mentioning me specifically.71.16.30.178 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing there untrue and I won't change it. You are scaring me a bit. Go vote on some of the other Afd's you claim to be looking at and I'll get less scared and then remove the text. From what I can tell, the last 20 or 30 of your edits (from the IPs I know of) have all been related to me somehow - and all in ways unrelated to each other - so I don't think anyone will question my concern. Wknight94 20:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Only to then add text implying I'm some kind of stalker who has done nothing on Wikipedia but come after you. I have made many, many contributions here having nothing to do with you, and exactly two on pages you have made. Are those the only two pages you have ever contributed to? Your new change to your user page is still a personal attack, and I am again requesting you take it down and remove all mention of me from your user page. dryguy 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I re-worded my user page to remove the sockpuppet threat despite your unorthodox usage of user IDs. I'm not changing anything on the Afd because it's the truth and your contribution record supports it. Everyone is free to interpret that evidence any way they see fit. I would add a note that you did vote once on your own Afd - before I did - but you already said that. And I'm not changing anything about User:Jackjohn because he has a proven record of adding nonsense and needing to be watched over (he's even been blocked already). I'm perfectly within my rights to do that. Wknight94 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're just repeating yourself and ignoring my answers to your insinuations - for that reason, the previous post will be my last response to these particluar points. Now a request - your post about me on your user page insinuates that I am about to start using sock puppets to get around the voting system in AfD. That amounts to a personal attack and I'm requesting that you take it down, per policy. Likewise for your disproven claim on Rockets Red Glare AfD page that I only voted Keep because "I always vote against you". 71.16.30.178 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it. I don't care if you vote for or against me. It's that you're only voting on ones related to me! Besides, you voted with me (kinda - merge vs. delete) only when you voted first. And no, that's not what I was referring to when I said pattern (that's about the fourth time you've assumed my intentions and been wrong). I was referring to the pattern of this User ID's contributions which was to disappear into obscurity for 10 months only to suddenly resurrect for the sole purpose of voting on my Afd. That wouldn't seem odd to you if you didn't know any better? Esp. if you had started an Afd and pissed off an anon by pointing out the flaws in his logic? The fact that I was correct and there was indeed a relationship should show that I was quite astute in my observation. Check my contrib's and count how many times I've wondered aloud about a user's contribution pattern. Including you, the answer is once. Your vote on Rockets red glare was the giveaway - there's no way that band or its labels are notable enough and you probably even know it. Anyway, go ahead and watch for other Afd's I initiate and blindly vote against regardless of evidence or policy. I really don't care (I don't even care if the Afd's are voted down - if people want to flood Wikipedia with useless articles, fine by me). Just don't exepect me to be quiet about what i think you're doing. You can vote any way you want and I can present any evidence I want to discredit you - and you've given me plenty. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- By pattern, you are again referring to the fact that I have voted twice against you and once with you? Get over it. If I happen across another AfD I disagree with, I'll still vote against it, even if you created it. That's what voting is about - it will not always be unanimous in your favor. 71.16.30.178 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll give you that - after I happened to stumble on the coincidental edit pattern of this user ID. Still creeps me out. Wknight94 15:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have three user ID's, I have 1, dryguy. I have access to the net through several computers, which is quite normal, I understand, and each of these has a different IP address. When I am too lazy to log in (usually), that means my work shows up under the IP address of the computer I logged in on. I have been completely up front about this fact; it is the first thing I said in this thread. 71.16.30.178 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- See above. Voting only on Afd's somehow related to me and using different user IDs to do it. And lurking around with three different user IDs in general. Creepy. That's my POV. Wknight94 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- On your user page, you have created a list of people that you are "keeping a close eye on" and you have put my name on that list. And you say you aren't being creepy? All I have done is respond to posts you made to me or about me. How is that creepy? dryguy 15:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Eduard Einstein, Rockets Red Glare and what else? Tinkerbell (dog)? That one you started yourself after debating on Eduard Einstein and after I suggested it. Are there missing facts now? Another user ID? And no, I will not be following your posts even though you're apparently following mine. I don't even want to do the math on the probability of you hitting three Afd's since you started in 2004 - and they are all related to me in some way. Just FYI, I have all my major edits on my watch list so I'll be tracking those closely now. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I have voted on three, and looked over many others that I did not vote on. If you are going to follow me around tracking my every post, at least get the facts straight. 71.16.30.178 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of the zillions of Afd's, I've started about five. You've voted on two and they both happen to be mine. And you're using three different IDs to do it. But I'm the one that's creepy? Wknight94 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Now you are really getting creepy. Buzz off. I'll vote on AfD's as I see fit. I didn't vote against you on Tinkerbell. 71.16.30.178 14:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Your request
editI acknowledge your request and respectfully decline. It is not a personal attack, it is simply stating a fact that you won't stop harrassing me and have now been using Wikipedia exclusively for purposes related to me for two solid days now. I am allowed to say that you are making me feel very uneasy - a fact that it no more less true now than when I originally put the words on my user page. Please refrain from using Wikipedia to make me feel uncomfortable. I would appreciate not hearing from you anymore regarding this or any other matter. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I will not contact Wknight94 if that is his desire - I'm posting this response on my talk page for others to read - he doesn't have to come here if he doesn't want to read it. That goes for all my postings on Wikipedia - they are for the public to read - he is free to ignore them whereever they are posted. I have never attempted to make any contact with him outside of public forums on Wikipedia in which he was a participant. I am beginning the mediation process to have Wknight94's comments about me on his user page removed. I have done nothing to harass him. The posts I have made in the last two days are almost exclusively in response to his posts, primarily in the above thread. He also has an unusually large number of posts relating to me in the last two days. I have never, and will never use Wikipedia with the intent to make anyone uncomfortable. dryguy 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The offending post is gone, for which Wknight94 has my thanks. I will withdraw my mediation request. dryguy 03:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have reinstated my request for mediation after a much stronger personal attack was placed in Wknight94/Private. dryguy 12:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh!!! Now that was just a test! You really are out to get me! How the hell did you even find that page?! There are zero links to that page! No one would even know it was there except that you're following me all over the place and you created the first link to it! What is your obsession with me, sir?! You are clearly keeping tabs on me that are so close as to be very disconcerting and I'll likely be starting my own request for mediation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wknight, despite asking me not to contact him again, is back. He is now accusing me of reading pages he has posted on a public website. Guilty as charged. When his user page disappeared, I wondered what happened and looked at his contribution history, only to see Wknight94/Private appear. Given the history with his main user page, I put Wknight94/Private on my watch list, and sure enough, he came back later and added a very personal attack. He says he is going to request his own mediation. For what? To prevent me from reading Wikipedia? dryguy 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- To prevent you from purposely seeking me out. How can it even be a personal attack if there are zero links to it in the system. A tree falls in the woods... No one would even see the text on that page unless they were consistently watching my contributions as you are. Given that your main source of productivity on this system is now watching me (you seem to average about 1 or 2 edits per day), this is becoming quite disturbing. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I find the above comment to be interesting, coming from someone who posts a list of people he is watching on his user page. dryguy 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- For suspicious behavior. My mediation request explains that I'll leave you off my main user page if I can get some assurance that it's safe to re-instate it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I find the above comment to be interesting, coming from someone who posts a list of people he is watching on his user page. dryguy 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- To prevent you from purposely seeking me out. How can it even be a personal attack if there are zero links to it in the system. A tree falls in the woods... No one would even see the text on that page unless they were consistently watching my contributions as you are. Given that your main source of productivity on this system is now watching me (you seem to average about 1 or 2 edits per day), this is becoming quite disturbing. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wknight, despite asking me not to contact him again, is back. He is now accusing me of reading pages he has posted on a public website. Guilty as charged. When his user page disappeared, I wondered what happened and looked at his contribution history, only to see Wknight94/Private appear. Given the history with his main user page, I put Wknight94/Private on my watch list, and sure enough, he came back later and added a very personal attack. He says he is going to request his own mediation. For what? To prevent me from reading Wikipedia? dryguy 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh!!! Now that was just a test! You really are out to get me! How the hell did you even find that page?! There are zero links to that page! No one would even know it was there except that you're following me all over the place and you created the first link to it! What is your obsession with me, sir?! You are clearly keeping tabs on me that are so close as to be very disconcerting and I'll likely be starting my own request for mediation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have reinstated my request for mediation after a much stronger personal attack was placed in Wknight94/Private. dryguy 12:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal case
editHello there Dryguy: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator of the Mediation Cabal; I'll be handling this request for you from now on. I have merged the following two cases, 2006-01-14 refusal to remove personal attack from Wknight94 user page (the request you made) and 2006-01-16 Cyberstalking by Dryguy (a similar request made by Wknight94, on the same issue from the other side).
I merged the two cases because they appear to deal with the same conflict issue and would be best handled as one case rather than being duplicated across the two separate requests. Both of your requests are as you made them, but are placed on one page and will be dealt with as one mediation issue. The merged page is at:
You may wish to bookmark this page in your browser, and add it to your watchlist, for ease of access. Mediation activity will take place on that page, although any mediators involved will make periodical status notifications on your talk page.
I have not yet looked into the issues of this case, as it will take me some time to perform the investigation. I should be able to publish my initial analysis and suggestions on how to proceed within the next 24-48 hours. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)