User talk:Dyslexic agnostic/Archive02

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 12 January 2006 to 19 July 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Dyslexic agnostic/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Dyslexic agnostic 19:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The questions that just has to be asked

I'm sorry but I have to ask this "Do you really lie awake all night wondering if there is a dog?". Oh I'm sorry, that was the Dyslexic insomniac agnostic.

Comic book covers

Hi. Right now you are rendering copyright-infringing images in your userspace. In order to discuss unfree images, you can insert a colon after the two opening square brackets (like this Image:Copyrighted image.jpg) to point to an image without rendering it. According to Wikipedia's fair use policy, copyright-infringing images that we claim fair use on cannot be used in userspace. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you, which is why I went to the bother of explaining the colon thing above. That's what I do when someone renders an image in my userspace that they want to discuss but shouldn't be rendered there. Thanks for taking care of it, and happy editing. Jkelly 19:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagemove vandalism

Hello. Don't commit pagemove vandalism. Thank you. -- Curps 05:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is, try to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or if you feel it's serious enough you could take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. At the moment unfortunately I'm not able to investigate, too many other time commitments at the moment, sorry. -- Curps 05:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Metaseries

I'm too tired for a substantive rewrite of the section you added to metaseries, but I'd like to point out Age of Apocalypse (1994, I mentioned this when I drew your attention to the term on Talk:Maxiseries) and the (unfinished) Jack Kirby's Fourth World (early 1970s) as non-recent metaseries.

You also appear to be conflating Fictional crossover and metaseries. Given the reality-shift buisness and the fact that the tie-ins generally have their own plots unrelated to the core plot other than taking place in the HoM fictional universe, I'd probably give you HoM as a metaseries, even though it's a crossover too; but the whole Countdown/Infinite Crisis event is a straight crossover, even if it includes minis specifically created for the crossover. - SoM 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring other users

Hi; if you find particular people are getting you down, just ignore them and go and do something else completely unrelated. If they start following you around then it's a clear personal attack / wikistalking and can be dealt with by others. Come and join the fact checking at a much slower and more peaceful pace, for example. Or press the random button until you find something interesting, or ... there's lots of other stuff. Mozzerati 15:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Page mergers

When you merge information from one article to another, you should indicate which article the information has been merged from so as to keep intact the edit history, which is important as it forms part of the licence under which Wikipedia is written. For more information please see Wikipedia:Merge. I also note you have archived the poll I created and which was still garnering opinion, and you have moved, well I'm not sure what on earth the page was called by now. Please do not move the page again, as previous moves have meant that the edit gistory is so badly magled I am no longer sure what pages need merging back together. Moving a page is a very bold move and since we are still attempting to build consensus on the best way forward, I would appreciate it if you could leave all pages related to the concepts limited series, minseries and maxiseries where they currently stand. Steve block talk 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I always move talk pages with the article. Some of the page moves by T-Man he did by creating new pages and shifting the contents. I won't be making further moves, as we have only two pages now, "limited series (comics)" and "list of limited series". Dyslexic agnostic 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we also have List of limited maxiseries, the page history of which belongs to either of the two pages you mentioned before, List of l maxiseries and List of maxiseries. I am also unclear as to why we need limited series (comics) when limnited series] redirects to it. Policy states that in such instances the limited series (comics) should be moved to Limited series, although that is something no-one should attempt until I work out which pages should have what history. Can you remember what information you merged into Limited series (comics), and where it came from, and if so, could you paste a messgae on the talk page of Limited series (comics) explaining that. Can you please also explain to me why you have archived the straw poll? Steve block talk 19:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Limited series links

Aye, thanks for the help, much appreciated. Although keep in mind WP:ES, it's always wise to have something in there, even if you just CTRL-V a cut and paste statement like fixing limited series link. But thanks, it was appreciated. Steve block talk 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

Hey, DA, don't leave. I won't get sappy or anything, but I appreciate your edits and I think your a good part of the wikipedia community. If you need a break, by all means take one. Just come back when your done. --Gillespee 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't spend all that time looking up T-man's and your first appearances at certain articles to prove you weren't wikistalking just so you could quit. Hope to see you soon.

• Seconded :) You're a good contributor rst20xx 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Alan Moore has been selected as the comics collab of the month. Please stop by and see what you can contribute! ike9898 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis page and talk

I like the columns for dead, missing, returned. They help. The information fit into columns much better than I'd imagined they would.

I also appreciate the thought in restoring the Organization section. I guess I should explain, though: I'd replaced the Organization section with Organization Revisited to defuse a potential squabble. I don't even understand the strange boldfaced remark someone posted (at the end of Organization) stressing that people shouldn't contribute if they aren't willing to be edited mercilessly, but (and maybe this was an overreaction as the person to whom they said it) I felt it brought a negative tone to the talk page and couldn't potentially create an utterly unnecessary squabble. Also, on a practical note, I think every concern under Organization has now been expressed elsewhere on the page, so I felt it best to remove the Organization section which I started and replace it with Organization Revisited.Wryspy 08:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

advocacy

are you free for some advocacy help? --CyclePat 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Well... This might be a feisty case to start with. I need some help. I need to know if I'm off the wall in the debate that is currently happening at motorized bicycle. Otherwise I need your support. I am having issues with WP:CITE and some possible WP:POV, as well as WP:V toward the content. For the last two days we (user:JzG) and I, have been arguing to the point where the article has been locked. User:JzG seems to have gathered some support from some of his fellow administrators. User:JzG is a new administrator and may have abuse his power. I think that there are problems in the article which I elaborated on my to do list. (meanful, User:JzG changed the title to something like futile list. We obviously aren't getting along. And (On one side they have a strong belief that I am pushing some agenda of mine (my company deals with motorized bicycle, but 90% of the time I'm actually at University, but that entire subject shouldn't matter) He has even removed a video that I added. I've been trying to solve this problem and think of a way to solve it but he just keeps shooting me down with stupid WP:NPA and comments like "where were you when the article first started." I need someone to help me out with my at least prove that their is a dispute. (They seem to fail to even recognize that their is a dispute) Anyway... I have an icky situation of NPOV and the article is lacking in citations. Perhaps a third opinion (or a call for a third opinion may be appropriate here... perhaps you may suggest that!) I also need someone to support my ideas. Do you think you might be able to clarify a couple of my questions with the little information I gave? --CyclePat 04:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so what do you advocate for in the real world? I'm trying to advocate electric bicycle when I have the time and I just went to a meeting tonight at the http://www.evco.ca and got some good information that may be added to the article but unfortunatelly because of the current dispute it won't happen tonight.--CyclePat 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I have dreamth and worked so much in law and advocating my provincial government (Ontario, Canada) for the use of electric bicycle on road. Actually the new information that I want to put in is in regards to the new bill that was passed, thanks in part to our organization and everyone that sent letters, and questions... and petitions. I can definitely empathise in the work you. (depending what field of course you work in!) I will take your advice though on creating the userfied version.

However, of course I would have to remain neutral, and it would be in the section of electric bicycle laws so I think I'll be okay for that. No matter the case. Perhaps later on I will be able to pursuade you to advocate for me when the issues are cooled down a little and when get to the near the root of the problem... whatever that may be. Thank you. --CyclePat 05:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I think if anyone is inclined to ask Woohookitty, Katefan0 or me we will be able to identify the root of the problem quite readily :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

While I can totally understand why you're incredibly frustrated with T-man (a feeling I know all too well) I wouldn't worry too much about his evidence (and I use that term loosely.) I'm certainly no expert on arbitration (or anything else on Wikipedia apparently), but it looks to me like he's simply digging his own grave with his crazy, non-organized, poorly written evidence. He still hasn't posted a statement and the way his evidence section rambles on with personal attack after personal attack against you seems to be to your benefit (in the long run.) I don't think you have much to worry about, sure, you violate NPA and CIVIL a couple of times. I think we've clearly proved that you're not guilty of wikistalking, he's the one following you around.

Just look at his diatribe on the Bane mistake. To me, he comes across as mildly unstable for being so worked up a single content mistake you made. It wasn't vandalism, it wasn't a revert, you were actually trying to decipher his text and pull the good stuff out. Thought it's a pain to read, I think the more he goes on, the more he hurts his own case.

Did you ever hear back from anyone about how long arbitration takes? The lack of any evidence to the contrary makes me wonder if anyone has even looked at it yet (but again, I know nothing of the upper echelons of Wikipedia.) Just let him keep tripping over himself and things will all work out.--Gillespee 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and his evidence is long on comments, short on actual evidence. Just ignore him, it's possible he's trying to get you worked up so you screw up again.--Gillespee 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, he's approaching 100 edits on the evidence page after changing everything there over and over. I'm guessing that's not normal behavior, it creates the impression he's trying to hide something.--Gillespee 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from engaging T-Man directly

Please refrain from engaging T-Man directly. If you have something you wish to say to him, please ask myself to convey that message. It is best if you allow the arbitration process to work it's way through. Your contact with him seems to goad him somewhat, and whilst I appreciate that may not be your intention, it would be better for the temperature of all involved if you refrained from having undue contact with him. Steve block talk 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Further to that, refrain from commenting in any way upon T-Man, notably [1], "believe me, your edits are pure poetry compared to User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow, who stalks me and attacks me. Dyslexic agnostic 05:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)". This is a breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and borders on breaching WP:NPA. I would direct you to refrain from commenting in any shape or form on user T-Man. If you have any specific claims to make regarding User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow, I suggest you make them at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence, citing the appropriate evidence. Steve block talk 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do apologize. It's just that due the way you have acted (the overall, I'm not being specific) when you talk like if you haven't done anything wrong and like if I could trust you (several times you've done that and then betray me by erasing completely my edits instead of improving them) after all your betrayings, your last comments were like waving red at a bull. You didn't ofended me directly, but asking for more faith in you got me really mad. I can't forget you always do stuf like this which I call your cynism, since you are the one interested in what I do every single moments, read everything I write, edit everything I edit minutes after I finish like trying to buy cred by telling to others I'm the one that does to you what you do for me. There is no way to fix this in a short time. Your last worst to me were ok, but coming from the persona who has been so mean to me and on top of that tells every one I'm the "stalker"... was not realistic to expect a peaceful response. I actually would have been less offended if you'd have used actual insults. I can't stop hating you all of a sudden, you have ofended me way to much. You know I can handle insults, but your ofenses go farer than that. On purpose of not you make me doubt my skills and mock my knoledge in front of everyone. And I'm not cool blooded enough to pay you with the same coin, I show outburts and agressive responses when you lie, play inocent, or edit me in an ofensive way. Besides, you have to remember, this is a comunity, wikipedia is not minimalist, readers are not minimalist. Your prefernces should apply mostly on your own contribs or be very careful. If you see a failure in other editors work limit yourself to fix those specific details and not whole thing a paragraph is not wrong because a sentence or word is wrong (Hasty generalization), a paragraph is not wrong because the editos has done wrong in the past(argumentum ad personam).

Rowe and Wesley have proven it's not that hard to "fix" my "errors" (it could also be "improving" my "successes"), from my understanding they focused exclusively on the exact errors... And yet they don't erase even those they fix it. For example a paragraph is ok, let go; then a line in a paragraph is wrong, don't erase the paragraph, not even the line, fix the line. Of couse if you think it is too much info, remember somebody, a person is behing those words, ask for concensus firt or develope/move that info into a section or article. Details go in details pages. It's valid to repeat some words of that other article, the style for doing so should be this Wikipedia:Summary style. If you only earse, you give the impression that wikipedia is not vovering the info. If you wan't to be "a manimalist" you have to study the concept firt. Play a guitar once and liking it doesnt make people call you guitar player. Minimalism is more with less. The catch is that everything must be there. Disaperaing stuff and make people wonder if that exist is just plane deleting. And is a signt that your minimalism is failing. A minimalit house does not lack of garage, a smallnes doesn't make a sculture minimalist, gothic punk does not express little. Minimalism is about enphasizing not only reducing and not showing info. If you take the wheels out of your car doesn't make the car minimalist but rather his driver an idiot.

Don't act with your gut and remember you are becomig a comic fan others might ave become fans years ago. You are begining with infinite crisis and going backwards and fowards from this point, which is the best time to start, but remember some of us started the process not with IC, but with Crisis on Infinite Earths. I'm starting to watch the Sopranos, I'd probably aport something of some value on the three episodes I watched like 3 times each... but I won't go erasing the contributions of the ones who watched most of the whole thing. Even if my English is better, common sense would tell me that if I edit episodes I haven't seen, I could write facts wrong which is worst than a gramar mistake wich I could point to more experienced fans to fix in the first place.

Anyways don't practice that on my edits, ask others to edit me instead of doing it directly, as I'd do if I'd reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally have to make a contribution on something you wrote. The only thing we could work toguether is in dividing or plannig how are we going to avoid see each other. Even if at some point I believe I'm acting in good faith towards something "wrong" you edited before, logic and common sense tell people or yourself are probabbly not going to think so. The same goes for you. I suggest you take the most "hype phenomenona". Although you don't have the knoledge background, living in Canada alouds being most up dated than me. I'd rather go where old timmers experteece could do better. For eceptions we could a. ask somebody else to edit or b. wait time before acting and don't be drastic with the changes. If you think I'm repeating unnesesarely, please use the Wikipedia:Summary style criteria, which is the basis of minimalism(real minimalism). As well as for any other good editing style.

Hoping we can see less and less of each other every day.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries

I appreciated your level headed approach, in contrast with some I have seen. Hopefully on the Multiverse page, we can get concensus not just on the issue of whom to include, which admittedly is minor, but also to add some more substantial entries under the categories of the various Earths. As in, geographical anomalies (Earth-Two's Quebec being its own country, for instance) and so forth. Anyways, much success on your case, and all with regain a measure of peace. Netkinetic

I have no idea.

I wrote that little page when 3 admins had chose to take the case. (You don't need a majority for ArbCom to accept, only 4 members). I took a pass over that page 5 or 6 times, trying to get rid any errors. I still can't believe I didn't see that. Honestly, I'm not sure why my mind slipped. =P--Toffile 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NO

I can anwer an innocent question

This is different than the original Justice League cartoon which seems to have taken place over several years, with a substantial gap in time between seasons 1 and 2 for the show, "Starcrossed" (Justice League series finale) and "Initiation".

I don't agree with that. You seem to be on to something right. Look for sources and go for it. Almost all that happened in the DCAU, seems to be in realtime since "on Leather Wings". It'd make sense to me to say that Batman joined the League 10 years after that. "initiation" aired some months after "Starcrossed" it'd also make sense to say that those were the same month that Took Bruce Wayne to built the new satelite. The only ecepcion to the rule is that TNBA's "Holiday Knights" was aired like a year after "the Wold's Finnest" which was suppused to happen a year after.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

LOTDK

Done and done!--Gillespee 04:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New messages prank

Hehe, glad you liked it.--Shanel 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A nonexistent article

haha...sorry about that, I felt inspired after taking the test. Nice message. InTheFlesh? 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Redirecting That

Hey thanks for redirecting that page. I posted the link and gave credits to you. Can't thank you enough. I guess since I'm tired right now, I wasn't thinking clearly. List of Heckler & Koch products Lkegley9 06:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit at John Byrne

Re: your removal of sourced quotes from John Byrne. I'm not going to edit war with you, but I consider your removal to be POV. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. The whole point is that criticism should be made through sourced quotes, not through editorial voice. "By sticking to concrete and factual information, we can avoid the need to name any opinion at all. However, note that even an article with no obvious opinion statements can still be biased, for example in its choice of which information to present." Now I can see that there might be an issue with the choice of opinion selected; but I think you have to agree that I've balanced both positive and negative comments. I can provide many more quoted sources of people calling Byrne a liar; can you source anyone notable who contradicts that? What's your issue here? At the moment you leave the article with weasel words, namely "His comments and statements have gained Byrne a reputation as a controversial figure." There's no source to back this up. The quotes provided were to show that Byrne is widely respected as a creator, yet some question his opinions, and others find him disagreeable. Are you alleging that is not the case? If you are, can you thus show that the quoted sources are out of context? If not, you are pushing point of view. Steve block talk 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fair play, I over-reacted somewhat; it was late and I was tired. Apologies. I'll source a quote for "controversial" instead. Yeah, the section is troublesome, I'm trying to get some sort of deal on the talk page; your help there would be appreciated. Steve block talk 13:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well

So I was reading the whole Theodore7 story from what he posted and got deleted on Jimbo Whale's page and I clicked on your name because it was like mine. I saw the fake you have new messages and then a Theodore7 message on your front page. DyslexicEditor 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

T-man

I appreicate your efforts to make peace with him. Next time though, if he doesn't personally attack you, don't take the bait.--Shanel 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Shanel has already blocked T-Man. I'd echo what he says above. Just keep up the good work you're already doing. Steve block talk 09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know only his current one-month block is in place. NSLE _(T+C) 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one to approach. All I did was give him the 1-month block. You'll need an Arbitrator. NSLE _(T+C) 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

John Byrne

HI, I'd really appreciate your thoughts at Talk:John Byrne. There's a new user who appears to want to add the following text to the article: Subjects which have caused strong reactions include comments about Christopher Reeve, Grant Morrisson, Mark Waid, current comics creators&readers, Marvel Comics management, terrorism, hispanic women, racial semantics or Wikipedia., supported by 31 links. Steve block talk 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on your user page...

Your "new messages" prank was... well, I want to be more bitter, but it was pretty darn good.

But just for that, you just lost the Game. - dharmabum 10:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I saw your comments to the arbitrators by chance. Having conducted an arbitration myself recently, I can tell you that WP:Arb makes it wuite clear that anyone who involves themselves in a Request for Arbitration by editing it is a party to the arbitration, and their actions may be subject to sanction.

This is intended to deter and punish the sort of editor who starts arbitration proceedings as a form of harassment; but if T-man asked for arbitration, he did so at his own risk. (Are you prepared to convince Arbcom he didn't know what he was doing?)

I know nothing about T-man, and am not an arbitrator, so I cannot say whether his block would be fair. Septentrionalis 03:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Sorry to have not responded to your first message, I certainly saw it. I've seen the recent mentorship proposals, and am right now raising the issue with other arbitrators by email. I now think a shorter ban and mentorship might be a better option. Expect to see an alternate proposal soon. Dmcdevit·t 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic case closed

A final decision has been made in this case and it has been closed. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Superman

Hey,check out what i made!At Superman Conintues Madin10

Need of assistance

Hello, I am having a really terrible with another wikipedian over this article: Chandragupta Maurya

The problems I am having in summary are: He has added paragraphs and paragraphs of a very alternate + speculative theories with a whole list of references that I am never going to be able to check but I am very suspicious of their authenticity. I made a nice detailed post on why I regarded it to be PoV and invited him to discuss it. He never responded. So I threw in a POV tag. He responded in history by taking out the pov check and saying via summary of edit message "If you think it is POV then it is your job to fix it." So, after few days of that, I went ahead and made the changes that I thought were appropriate. He simply logged back next day and reverted everything and added even more. His username is Satbir Singh. This is really stressing me out and half of me wants to just give in and forget about it.

Are you interested in helping me resolve this dispute? Or can you suggest anyone that can? (Blacksun 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

Eyewitness

Check this out: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/7534/Agents_Try_To_Remove_911_Eyewitness_From_Wikipedia

Advocacy needed

Dotblue 06:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (I am new to wikipedia) Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Bernstein A user ILike2BeAnonymous removed a comment for the article above. I thought that the comment was fair, and put it back. Before I did it I actually tried to explain (in discussion) why I think that the commnet is good. The user ILike2BeAnonymous just removed the comment again (saying it was crap). I am not sure what to do at this point.

Thanks

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time

The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of Redstone

I finally got around to cleaning up Redstone_(comics). take a look, and if you're good with it, drop the cleanup tag. thanks ThuranX 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist

As a Wikipedian that also identifies as an Objectvist, I would like to invte you to contribute to the objectivst wiki which is just getting off the ground. Crazynas 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

T-man

I have given him only one warning. I have explained to him that name calling is unacceptable, and I have asked him to apologize to you. Should he personally attack you again, he will be blocked. I also asked him to stay away from editing Animated Series Batman for awhile. --Shanel ^§ 19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Sorry for dragging you into this sock puppet mess.--Gillespee 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you and reblocked T-man for edit warring on List of Justice League episodes. This is not a 3RR block, but rather a disruption and incivility block (your edit summaries don't help much). If I feel forced to block you again, I'll also ban you from the page, per your probation. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why do I get blocked for trying to stop this editor from his disruption and actions against consensus? I should get a medal, not a block!!! Why does everyone continue to let T-man ruin everything he touches? Please explain this! Dyslexic agnostic 07:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, yes, my edit summaries were not civil, and for that I apologize to both Titoxd and T-Man. But my point stands: what is to be done? Once unblocked he will just carry on editing against all consensus. Dyslexic agnostic 07:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, don't revert them yourself. The whole point of this problem is that he feels he is being stalked by you—if someone else did the reverting, he would see that his edits truly don't have any sort of actual consensus behind them. You're just giving him ammunition for your argument. Taunting him, like you did on his talk page, doesn't help either. It takes two to edit war. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it takes two to edit war. I will refrain from taunting, but I will not stand for what I view to be wiki destruction by T-Man. I DO see your point, though, that rather than correct the edits myself and be (erroneously) viewed by T-Man as his "stalker", I will notify you or his mentor. I see from his talk page comments that he is taking a little wiki-holiday... hope the break gives him time to think about his actions lately. Sorry for the disruptions, and thanks for the "cooloff" period. Dyslexic agnostic 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my talk page, i think t-man is calming down now, me and his mentors User:Titoxd and of course User:Shanel will continue to help him on wikipedia, and i know your not a crazed lunatic ;) regards Benon 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, just the other day I was saying to myself, "Self, you know that Dyslexic lawyer from Canada? He's pretty much a crazed lunatic." Go figure.--Gillespee 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Source tag on Arrowsmith article

Hi sorry to bother you but it appears you added the source tag to the Arrowsmith (comics) article some months ago. I looked it up today on Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006 and its archives and could find no mention of it being used as a source. Is the tag in error or am I missing something? Hueysheridan 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Practical Joke

The thing at the top of your userpage totally got me. Pwned. Additionally, I am surprised that you have neither the Dyslexic nor Agnostic userboxes --DevastatorIIC 09:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For Those Monitoring me...

Steve Block and others... just how long are you going to allow T-Man to continue to obsess over me and malign me on his talk page? I am frustrated by the constant attacks against me, mainly for editing his typos and errors and trying to be his friend. This surely cannot be acceptable behaviour. - Dyslexic agnostic 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, try stopping to be his friend. Just leave him alone entirely. I doubt anyone bases their entire opinion of you by looking at his talk page and blindly believing it, but it annoys him when you contact him. That said, he doesn't own articles, so attacking you for correcting typos will most likely get him a block. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Supremeverse

If you go to the Marvel.com website and look along the side you'll see that the Supremeverse is the actual name of that universe. While I appreciate the plausible need to merge the two articles, "Supremeverse" is not fancruft. --Newt ΨΦ 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

T-man

Please stop reverting his work, or I'll have to ban you from the pages you're reverting. Where is the so-called consensus that you mention? If the consensus is indeed real, then someone will step up to pick up what you were doing. You trying to monitor everything he does is not productive. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that you are reverting those changes, which inflames the situation further. That is what needs to stop. Someone else will undo them if necessary. That said, I've banned him from JLU for disruption for two weeks. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you may want to check your edit summary [2] versus the policy WP:NLT and reconsider your position. Legal threats open you up to administrative action, which includes blocking. Please reconsider. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't blank his talk page and replace it with a crossnamespace redirect to Defamation either. If he's comitting something that is actually that, you should inform an administrator of exactly what is defamation because its a personal attack, which isn't allowed on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 07:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

I consider this edit to be a personal attack. Regardless of any problems between you and T-Man, you are to avoid making personal attacks, as per the arbitration committee ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Steve block Talk 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ban from comics-related articles

I am advising you that you are banned from editing comics-related articles for a period of two weeks, running until 05:35 17 July (UTC). This is being issued under your arbitration probation . I strongly advise you to avoid any and all contact with User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow on the wikipedia. If he reverts an edit you make or seeks discussion, I would advise you to ignore him and not revert any of his edits. If you are right, someone else will revert it for you. If T-Man bothers you I would also advise you to avoid personal attacks and legal threats and to discuss the issue with either myself or User:Titoxd. I will be noting this ban at your arbitration page and WP:AN/I. Steve block Talk 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

t-man

I'm afraid I have done the most I possibly can in this case, the next port of call is to talk to one of his mentors, the most active is User:Titoxd, he is a very fair wikipedian, if you feel that you cant achieve satisfaction through this the next thing to do is probably reach for Requests for comment, however please be aware you will need to find two other wikipedians to certify this, (I'm afraid I will be unable to, as I'm too involved) . I'm sorry I can't be of further help but please note my talk page is always open as is my e-mail. Benon 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Transport in Kochi

Hello. A couple of weeks back, you had tagged this article for merging into Kochi. It was created as a result of dressing up the Kochi article in summary style. I have added more info into the transport page now. The Kochi article is planning to go to FAC soon, and this merger issue may come up when the template is seen. As this is my first FAC, I'm a bit apprehensive. Do you still think it should be merged? Looking forward to your reply. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well? Can I remove it?-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment of T-Man

I'm looking at yur recent contributions and believe that you are harrassing T-Man. If you persist in this I will have to enforce the terms of your parole. Harrassment is not tolerated. [3], [4], [5] and [6], for example. Steve block Talk 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually a mentor of T-Man's, I'm simply putting the best interests of Wikipedia first, as an admin should do. You write that you "spend all my time correcting his mistakes and errors, and preventing his excesses and frankly inane attemtps to create pointless cartoon wikis about TV shoes for 5-year olds, and no one does anything to support me." Perhaps this is part of the problem. You shouldn't feel like you have to correct all his mistakes, and it is your constant correcting of every edit of T-Man's that leads me to warn you that your behaviour is akin to harrassment. In certain instances you have reverted edits which should not be blindly reverted. In other insktances you have made legal threats, which are in direct contravention to policy. Rather than decry to me the actions of T-Man, I suggest you conlsider your own actions and whether they are fully in keeping with the guidances on assuming good faith, and also that they are for the benefit of Wikipedia. You may have to accept that you are too close to this case. I have asked you on other occasions to have little contact with T-Man and allow this situation to work itself out, but you have ignored such pleas, so I have no option but to remind you of the terms of your parole. I appreciate that since you have been banned from comics related articles your edits have settled down, but I hope you also agree that the edits and summaries before that ban were antagonistic. Please read the guidance Josiah sggested on staying cool when the editing gets hot, this may help you in some way. Steve block Talk 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of this? He wants you to leave him alone, please respect his wishes. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

DA -- I understand your frustration about the content of T-man's talk page. I'd be pretty upset if I were the target of it myself. But I think that continued attempts to reason with him there only exasperate the problem. You've seen that his reaction to past attempts to contact him about it have only enraged him more, so it might be best just to keep an eye on what he's writing about you, but keep quiet on his talk page itself -- even if your concerns are legitimate. Continuing to post there only makes him think you're continuing to 'harass' him and serves to prevent the issue from moving on. ~CS 09:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ban from editing User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Please be advised you are now banned from editing User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow or any page in T-Man's user space for six months from this timestamp. If you violate this ban, per your parole you will be blocked. If you have any issues with content within T-Man's user space, or you wish to communicate with T-Man, please do so through another party, either myself, one of T-Man's moderators or another user. I will address any content in T-Man's user space which constitutes a personal attack on you. I regret that the situation has come to this, but I cannot see any other way out. Steve block Talk 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: if you have concerns with T-Man's editing that requires admin intervention, please do not hesitate to raise the issue at the admin noticeboard. Steve block Talk

Belated response re:T-man

Hey, DA. Sorry for the late response — I've been incredibly busy (I'm in a production of Macbeth that just opened, and my computer has been down to boot). I understand that events have moved on since the comment you left on my talk page on the 4th, but I wanted to let you know that I understand your frustration — and T-man's too, for that matter. I really think this situation is fundamentally one of mutual misunderstandings: in his own way, T-man is trying to add what he believes to be useful information, and you are trying to clean up after him. However, your respective actions have the effect of infuriating each other, and I don't know how to stop that other than by telling you to try to ignore each other. I know it's frustrating when T-man seems to be obsessively cataloguing your every move and characterizing them unfavorably on his talk page, but it's his talk page space and he can say what he wants there. (In other spaces, you obviously have the right to challenge his perspective, but with the exception of official warnings, Wikipedia generally allows people to do what they like with their own user and user talk pages.)

I recognize that T-man is often not easy to work with: he tends to have an idiosyncratic interpretation of guidelines and policies, and to stick to his own interpretation with considerable tenacity. And since his view of you as his "stalker" is such an idée fixe, I think that it's unlikely that you will be successful in helping him to understand when his behavior is crossing the line. However, that's not your job. If you feel frustrated by T-man's behavior, it's OK to ask for a wider perspective from other Wikipedians, but demanding a ban isn't the best way to do that. Just try to remain cool and stay away from him as much as you can. He should do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, I appeciate the kind words, and I will be staying away from the guy for a while. Unlike Steve Block, who just berates me despite knowing full well the hurdles of dealing with the wise (?) scarecrow, you demonstrate some real understanding. Thanks. -- Dyslexic agnostic 06:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, D.A. — but I should note that even if Steve seems unsympathetic, that doesn't mean that he's wrong about harassment. Just because you're provoked doesn't mean you have the right to hit back. It's like in elementary school, when you get in trouble for fighting — it doesn't matter who started it, the admins will finish it. I know it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way it has to be if we're to maintain civility here. So if T-man annoys you in future, try to turn the other cheek. It's not easy, but then few important things are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the kind words re: the Scottish play. Among other roles, I'm playing the Porter — always fun to make jokes about drunkenness, impotence and pissing and pass it off as culture! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. I ought to let you know about a new and important Wikipedia policy, in case you missed the relevant discussions. I'm not saying that you were going to violate it, just that it should be kept in mind. Peace out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Request

Dear Dyslexic agnostic,

I am requesting your help as an advocate in a dispute with users regarding the article University of California, Riverside.

I posted the following on the Advocate Request page:

University of California, Riverside and user:Amerique I am in a dispute with USER:Amerique over the content of the University of California, Riverside article and am requesting advocacy. Amerique has, in my opinion, has forced his/her POV on editors of the article. When a particular editor respectfully disagreed with Amerique's arguments, he/she filed a RFA against him that was ultimately rejected by 4 arbitors. More recently, Amerique's language has become increasingly more hostile as he/she is attempting to assemble a team editors bent on pushing a biased POV for the University of California, Riverside article (see user:AmeriqueTALK). I feel that an advocate will help me (and others whom are agree with me) work these issues out in a civil manner.

Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on this and if you would be able to help. Thank you.

Best. Insert-Belltower 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

I consider this edit to be a personal attack and as such have blocked you for 48 hours per your probation. You need to refrain from referring to people as boors or ignorant, and especially people with whom you are in dispute with. Note that per your probation the maximum block available to admins is now one year. Steve block Talk 11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 05:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

T-man

All that's being asked of you is to leave him alone. He already has enough eyes watching him, and his disruption caused him to get banned from the articles he frequents; there is no need for you to take any action on your part, no matter how egregious you believe T-man's edits are (to be frank, when you do take action, it incenses him, making matters worse). Titoxd^(?!?) 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your reason for taking this issue to Esperanza talk? --Terrancommander 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. See top of page.