User talk:Hopiakuta/Archive 4
There is a piece of software that automatically,...
edit- Well, happy early birthday, then. Do you know that there is a Wikiproject dedicated to making Wikipedia more accessible to all? It is called Wikiproject Accessibility. If you have suggestions on ways that we can improve Wikipedia, you can leave a note on the project talk page (the pages aren't too long, so you should be able to use it) or on my talk page if you so desire. There is a piece of software that automatically begins archiving your page when it reaches a certain size. If you'd like, you can tell me what size you want and I will add it here for you. All the best, --l'aqùatique talk 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "If wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta could move to something similar to wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/wikieditor:DonFphrnqTaub_Persina, then, conceivably, that could remind people that they're writing about either a person, or, even, a human-being, if I qualify, rather than, merely, a screenname." -- I have moved it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina in accordance with your request. -- "I think that you can, as well, see that I like to tinker-experiment, in order to see if I could convince a program to move to my preference." -- I do understand this. Well, if you would like to try to set up archiving yourself, there is some information at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. It unfortunately can't be set to keep your page a byte limit right now, but I'll ask the person who made it if that can be added as a feature. —Random832 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have posted bugzilla:12341 requesting a feature to warn you if your browser accidentally cuts off the end of the page. —Random832 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on looking in the history log, it appears the byte limit that affects your browser is about 31KB. When a page is larger than this, you should already be able to see a warning that for example "This page is 66 kilobytes long." or whatever number - if it is more than 31 kilobytes you should go back and edit a section or propose your edit on the discussion page. For the foreign characters; I believe it is already set up to work around that when you are using Microsoft Explorer, but the user agent string is needed to set that up for iCab.—Random832 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Openserving
edit
An editor has nominated Openserving, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openserving and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:British Airways Flight 38, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, don't remove other's comments. You allege libel. There does not appear to be any. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You have denied me a response to an accusation.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how. You removed what appear to be legitimate talk page comments. I have restored them. I have not prevented you from responding to anything. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been denied the right to advocate article content.
I have been denied the right to respond to what someone has said about where I derive data. That's either libel or slander.
I have been denied an explanation of why the networks would embargo a story f/ a day.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Then my comments should be included.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My comments should be included.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your accusation of libel against me
editI am distressed to discover that you believe my comments at Talk:British Airways Flight 38 are libellous against you.
I would be grateful if you could communicate to me the part of the statement that I made that was either false, or that constitutes defamation of your character.
I am upset that you could not contact me directly with your concerns, and angry that you have seen fit to make comments both in the edit summary and on your own user pages that my comments were libellous without alerting me directly.
Please do not edit my comments to make it look like I said something that I didn't.
-- Roleplayer (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Then, restore my deleted comments that it would no longer appear that I did not respond to your accusation. Yes, roleplayer, roleplay, is perfect, the most honest advertizing of someone who would write an accusation, then delete the response.
Anyhow, to have the wiktionary:audacity to force me to only respond here, is to further hide & disguise my response.
Absolutely, restore my response, or you coconspirators are continuing, perpetuating, wiktionary:libel &/or wiktionary:slander.
wiktionary:Hitherto, there have been many wiktionary: libelous accusations; about my data sources, chronology mathematics, would be amongst the smallest. However, with the many accusations, I need to stop it somehow.
Earlier you wiktionary:rectal repositories had had me as brain-damage, & excessively European.
Now, too American. Possibly, I'm both; likely, neither. Too European, then too American.
You have, as well, hidden my plea to more fully describe the wing[s'] condition.
How much fraud before something is libel?
Yes, restore my comments, now, today.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, don't remove other's comments.
- Actually, don't remove others' comments.
- Please do not edit my comments to make it look like I [had] said something that I didn't.
- Do as I say, not as I do.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
.
It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin…we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The lot of you have hypocrisy, as well as a complete psychoblock, of an incapablity of reading, comprehending, wiktionary:dissent.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I personally did not remove your comments from the talk page, your response will be copied to my own talk page alongside all other discussions I get involved in and the following comment...
- roleplay, is perfect, the most honest advertizing of someone who would write an accusation, then delete the response.
- ...constitutes defamation of my character because you're pointing the finger at me for everything that you're upset about, and I haven't done a thing against you other than to suggest that your sources are incorrect. If you hadn't thrown around random accusations at me I might have been tempted to help fight your corner for you. As it is you have just lost all good faith that I give all users on here until proven otherwise, and I don't ever wish to hear from you again. Goodbye. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot comprehend why there is such a huge effort to libel me regarding what would, generally, be such tiny issues:
- which television network I had seen the crash on;
- chronology & mathematics;
- the wing description.
What do you achieve from this? I cannot figure.
Specifically, role did make false accusations; flie has been one of the persons deleting my responses to those accusations.
- You've said "Forgive me if I have got this wrong,..."
- What does a dictator need forgiveness for?
- You're not a dictator?
- Then, include my comments, where they belong.
- "...help fight your corner,...." What does that mean?
- If I had not complained, you would have withdrawn your accusations? How would you know? Are you a god? I am ignostic, agnostic, wiktionary:ignostic, wiktionary: agnostic.
I only added the word libel when you had deleted my comment:
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that I have reported you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for the accusations that you have against me. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Hopiakuta for my report. I will also alert the other user mentioned above. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I had attempted to get a response on their "noticeboard". But, you, they'll respond to.
Restore my comments.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I owe you an apology. I don't know how my edit you have a diff for above resulted in the removal of your post. I'm positive I used the section edit to add my comment about the autothrottle, which should not have affected your post. I need to look into my actions further to see which other actions I did (if any) were improper. However, I wasn't intending to deprive you of posting legitimate talk page actions. I am very busy (in real life) tonight, but I will try to do this shortly. If you don't hear back from me by this time tomorrow, please leave me a note on my talk page. Again, I apologise to you. I will leave further posts here. Regards, -- Flyguy649 talk 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's happened to me before (where I make a change and it wipes out an earlier diff), and I've seen it occasionally elsewhere. I'm assuming it's some kind of system bug. Orderinchaos 11:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I very rarely order-in kaos, as so much arrives on its own.
- I do suspect that regardless of whether these incidents are accidental due to the typist's misperception of the previous person's message, or due to being sleepy, misclicking, or due to software-malfunction, hardware-malfunction, or any combination of these & other factors,..... There can be, should be, must be created, several security measures to reduce it.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay,
& whoa,...
First, please note how that message ends:
- Further, my constant plea is to have more description of the wings in the article. That is my objective, really. If we disagree about the time, well, okay. Really, more wing. That, I am not competent to write. Please.
That is, sincerely, a major objective. Others include the insults about me that had preceeded it.
Second, apology? Generally, the messages that I receive on this website are not even polite. So, Thank You. Please consider all of my insults about you in limbo, not active. I am not, in consideration of that recent message, wanting to cause you any problem in your physical environment; therefore, meditate f/ a week, if necessary, prior to figuring this out.
Third, this has recurred many times over. F/ nearly two years, I have advocated this website improving disability-access; this problem is only one of thousands [of features] that should be improved.
In that sense the specific dispute that I have about this message is almost like a quark in a molecule of h2o in the Pacific.
Although I am very concerned about this message, I am more concerned about its content, & objectives. I am much more concerned about averting recurrence of this scenario. What might be done about that?
Fourth, I do have some guesses as to what might have occurred, in light of your assertion of the accidental nature hereof.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement and response by User:Flyguy649
editThis is a summary of our interactions early on January 20 in UTC time (it was late on January 19 where I am). At 2:15, you added your comment that disappeared when I added mine at 2:17. I used the section edit to add my comment. I don't know why your comments disappeared, but they did. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that when I started to write my comment, it was before you posted yours... regardless, I believe it's a system bug that I and others have seen before. At 2:23 I made a minor change to my previous comment and commented on another section at 2:34. You then added back the comment that I had deleted at 2:35 with the edit summary of "libel". At 2:36, I clarified my comment made at 2:34 and went off, edited some other articles and did some adminstrative tasks for the next 45 minutes or so. In the meantime, you added a duplicate copy of your previous post at 3:25. User:BillCJ felt your comments were not appropriate for the talk page and removed your duplicate and (re-inserted) original comments at 3:53 and 3:57. At 4:25 you removed talk page comments from User:Roleplayer and User:Daytona2, with the edit summary of "removing libel". I have Talk:British Airways Flight 38 on my watchlist, saw your edit summary, and looked at what you removed. I did not see any libel in what you removed, so I restored it at 4:29 with an edit summary of "Restore comments. There is no apparent libel". You reverted me at 4:31 with an edit summary of "I am denied a response.". I then reverted you at 4:32 using the Administrator's rollback tool, and left a warning on your talk page [1] [2], and added a more specific comment at 4:34. I made some further edits at other pages, and noticed that you had responded to my comment on your talk page. I replied almost immediately (within 2 minutes). You replied, but I did not check back on your talk page before going to bed.
So what happened? It seems that when your original post got removed by my post at 2:17 was the trigger for this. Again, that was not intentional on my part and I am sorry that happened. Unfortunately that seems to be a bug in the system. I guess BillCJ removed your comments after you reposted them as he felt they were not directly related to the improvement of the article, which is what article Talk pages are supposed to be for (although how much this is enforced can vary). Obviously this irked you. I'm still not sure why you removed the comments by Roleplayer and Daytona, but my warning to you was strictly on that basis... I felt that they were legitimate talk page comments that did not warrant removal. In retrospect, I believe you were trying to get a response to your post. I would urge you not to remove other's comments with a summary of "libel" unless they really are. I still don't see any libel in them.
I also have to say that I was completely unaware that my post removed your comment until User:Random832 left this comment on my talk page almost three days after the original incident. So I guess a large part of this stems from a misunderstanding. I regret that this happened. I ask that you please unlink my user name to a series of words that together can be construed as a personal attack. I tend to have a thick skin, but others don't.
I have to run to work now, but I would like to address some of your other points above later. And I agree that Wikipedia could serve people with disabilities better. You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility and Wikipedia:Accessibility if you have not already done so. Regards, -- Flyguy649 talk 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do interpret that as "apology" that is not entirely, not quite; though, maybe, nearly.
You have put extensive effort into it however, which might indicate some sincerity, even if I feel further insulted.
So, as another problem w/ this website, you might just not comprehend many features of what I have been saying about the website's features.
Or, maybe you like having me typewrite f/ several hours extra, as I've already proclaimed that it's excruciating.
This may not be accurate; but, very little of what you, many of you, say about me is anywhere close to accurate: I feel as if I, me, am fighting from w/in my disabilities, on the largest website, aside from searchengines, against several thousand members of an oligarch plutocrat overclass, with the wealth to purchase a new machine, w/ the best programming, every time a new television commercial flashes.
Again, that may not be accurate; but, that is how it seems.
Through nearly two years, I've fought through many misperceptions. Several of you have insisted on "brain damaged". One aqua has insisted that I'm too European, something that it had found on another website about France, Italy.
Now, role has insisted that I'm too American, despite what I've written about bbcamerica, & that I do not comprehend a clock, nor a calendar.
You've deleted my response to those attacks; you've deleted my plea for more description of the wings. Your deletion converted role's attacks into libel. Minor, virtually insignificant libel; but, libel nonetheless.
&, with all of the other libel that you, all of you, have attacked me with, for two years, how else might I stop it?
As long as you insist that you were correct all along, that obviates all apology:
- I would urge you not to remove other's {others'} comments with a summary of "libel" unless they really are. I still don't see any libel in them.
That sentence means that you assert the right to label, including libel. That is not apology.
First you have me too European, then too American, both as insults,..... libel.
If someone offers an apology, then virtually completely contradicts it, well, what is that?
When I had heard Peter_Burkill's name, I had input his name, immediately, on this website. That brought me to that page. I had recalled another crash long ago. I'd, eventually, confirmed the name, through some searches, Alfred_Haynes. I wanted to assert a connection there, & honor them.
You can clearly see when I'd learned of Eric_Moody, John_Coward. Each of those names are rather ironic, considering who they are, in reality.
Why does what I've said of the wings offend you such that you cannot even acknowledge that I've said it many, many times over?
Well, I know, factually, that I've read several messages, pining f/ a way, to trick me off, force me off, otherwise get rid of,.....
Well, one specific method to reduce the time that I have to scribe on this website would also be positive: if I could figure how to start one, or more, of my own. It is obvious that many of you do not prefer positive modi operandi. But, however, maybe one of you, @ least one, is truly positive, & sufficiently knowledgeable.
If any of you are positive, yet approximately as ignorant as I am, I would accept, welcome, your assistance anyhow.
I do hope to improve this disambiguation:
- Solar_Sailor
- SolarSailor
- Solar_Sailor_Holdings_Ltd
- Solar_Sailor_Holdings_
- solar_wing
- Tron:_Solar_Sailer
- solarsailor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.255.85 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- < http://solarsailor.com/media_downloads.htm >;
- < http://solarsailor.com >;
- < http://solarsailor.com/images/header.jpg >.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not alter another user's signature
editPlease do not alter or change in any way another user's signature, as you did here [3] and here [4]. Changing a user's signature on a talk page, especially to bad-faith terms such as "liar", is absolutely unacceptable. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
But, "absolutely acceptable" to delete the "brain-damage" messages?
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You should realize that on Wikipedia things get deleted very often. This does not mean that there is any malice behind the deletion.
- This applies to talk pages as well.
- Sometimes a comment on a talk page seems inappropriate to some editor. Sometimes a comment simply seems to make no sense. In these cases the editors, quite often, simply delete these comments.
- This does not mean that they necessarily disagree with the comments, or that they are acting in bad faith. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a lot of users, not everyone who comes by is going to know what you mean by "the 'brain-damage' messages" - can you explain what you are referring to? —Random832 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Block for incivility, threats, etc., to prevent further damage
edit
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering that I had not even participated in any particularly aggressive self-defense against persecution in more than a week, this does seem rather silly, a further insult, torture. You have proven this website fraudulent once again.