User talk:Reinis/Archive 1

Archive 1

==This was great, "audacious fuckwit". •Jim62sch• 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

July, 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Creation science, you will be blocked from editing. Orangemarlin 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get your panties in a wad, I was just following WP:ARCHIVE. –Fatalis 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Panties in a wad? What childish language is that??? You're just trying to hide good discussion about a lot of POV issues. Now it will all be repeated over and over and over again. Editors will come in and fight battles that were resolved, eliminate consensus that was constructed over time, and whatever else that happens in these type of articles. Have you ever thought about discussing it? Didn't think so. Just took it upon yourself to mess it up. Great. It was vandalism. Orangemarlin 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Mr. Panty obsessed--someone reverted your vandalism. Oh well. Orangemarlin 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they just moved parts back in, as I had suggested. Please familiarize yourself with the policy and stop being a dick. –Fatalis 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First panties? Now my penis? Wow, you're an unusual person. Orangemarlin 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave that conclusion to others who happen to read this. –Fatalis 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved

The following is moved from Orangemarlin's talk page, since he has a slight bent to delete whole discussions.

Fatalis

I noticed you warned User:Fatalis. Please note that his edits were not vandalism, and that he was merely archiving the page (which was becoming quite significant in size). Perhaps he should have checked if there were any ongoing discussions, but please remember to assume good faith in future. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about you assume good faith with me. There are very critical reasons why I think it was bad idea, the first of which, two days from now, a bunch of trolls/POV warriors/anonymous twits will come it and make all kinds of changes. And we won't be able to point them to discussion, because it's gone. So, if you spent two seconds to provide some good faith to an editor who's been creating articles, fighting these POV types for months, and looked over my extensive edits on a wide variety of articles, you'd think, "wait a minute, this guy has a point." It was vandalism. And as I said below, thanks for the lecture. Orangemarlin 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

When you were writing this, it was already fixed, and the page is 3 times smaller as a result. It was almost a third of a megabyte before. By the way, I'm very mu<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ch from the same camp as you, so I don't understand why do you need to be so hostile. –Fatalis 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good spinning there Mr. panty and penis obsessed. You deleted the whole damn thing. Several editors caught on to your behavior and fixed your vandalism. So don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. Orangemarlin 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. Can't you wrap your head around the concept of "moving"? –Fatalis 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please don't accuse others of edits that are obviously not vandalism. According to Wikipedia's official policy "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". Also "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Evil Monkey - Hello 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, plain and simple. A POV warrior removed tons of discussion, some of which needs to be referred to keep the POV crap away. How about your providing me with good faith that I think the deletion was a very bad idea. Thanks for the lecture buddy. Orangemarlin 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:VANDAL ("any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."), I'm afraid you're wrong. The user asked on the IRC channel #wikipedia about how to archive a talk page as this was now sitting at 280 kB. When he found out, he went ahead and did. Whether or not you agree with the edit, that one caveat means that you were incorrect. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I didn't know that the IRC channel was an appropriate way to discuss Wikipedia. Let me revert all my edits over the past few months, because I don't engage in discussions there. Now I know that the Talk pages are completely useless, and shouldn't be used for much. Thanks for the update.Orangemarlin 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate he didn't just cut and paste some some old expired threads into a new archive page, but moved the whole damn thing (ongoing discussions included), wiping out the history in the process. ornis 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page does not mean anything gets "wiped", it's just changing the location. –Fatalis 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the history does get wiped (or rather moved over to the new location). It's generally not a good idea to archive pages this way, since it obscures the entire history. Who's going to know that they have to go to Archive 12 to find the history? Silly rabbit 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind next time, but it still doesn't make it vandalism. –Fatalis 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was. I stand by the accusation. If you were attempting what you claim you were, you would have left a message for on the discussion, and you would have selectively archived. Doesn't matter now, you are on everyone's list now. And your rude comments to me on your Talk page, that will make you a hero I'm sure. Orangemarlin 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, since there are probably at least some people who understand the policies. You're also under a faulty impression that I'm a "POV warrior". And I think I've said quite little to you, considering the circumstances. Someone else might have said much stronger words, having had an unstable dolt lashing out on them. –Fatalis 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is something highly suspicious about the actions recently at the Creation Science talk page. No discussion beforehand, no obvious reason to hide the history and recent discussion, just a mess created by an editor none of us was familiar with before. Hmm...--Filll 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave the obvious reason in the summary: 280 KiB. It was slow to load. I didn't discuss it because of WP:BOLD. I suppose you suspect Banno too, who did the same thing, also not asking for your permission, just with preserving the history at the same location. Or ornis, who pruned your warring with Octoplus. Two experienced editors agreed that this was not vandalism, and that you should follow WP:AGF, which is an official policy. I think I also said that anything relevant should be restored. Please lay off with any more unthinking accusations or tag-team tearing at me. –Fatalis 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am assuming GF, but it is still suspicious. And the discussions with Octoplus did reveal some interesting patterns which we might pursue. I never said it was vandalism. And I might ask you to AGF, before you get aggrieved and throw your weight around. I would have been pretty embarassed to go to an article I had never been on, and just slash and burn without any discussion as you did. But it does tell me something about you, in any case...--Filll 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you keep dishing it out, you should be prepared to take some. You are using the talk pages as a venue to bully creationist muppets. You're not following WP:DFTT, as was pointed out to you by someone else earlier. Now you're trying to denigrate a new editor, which is against WP:BITE. Yes, I admit making a mistake by following the wrong procedure in WP:ARCHIVE, but it wasn't breaking the rules, and much less warranting such a reaction. It was a good-spirited attempt to fix something. Now have a good day, I won't respond here anymore. –Fatalis 13:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, although calling it an article fits your rhetorical purposes, it was a talk page. –Fatalis 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking again, please please try to take a deep breath and just get on with productive work. What will be the point of having a huge fight? Nothing, as far as I can see. Just let it drop, for everyone's sake. Thanks.--Filll 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Give me a few minutes to finish the restore, and I will set up the archive as well... Banno 11:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for doing this. –Fatalis 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:Orangemarlin may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.Orangemarlin 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and familiarize yourself with WP:V, especially what is not considered vandalism, and stop issuing inconsequential warnings. –Fatalis 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd quote the verbiage from Jim at the top of this page to describe you, but since I know your type, it would just cause me grief. You reverted my archiving on my Talk Page, which is VANDALISM. You should be thankful that I'm nice, because I'd really do something about it. Oh by the way audacious ****wit, I know what is vandalism, because I can read. You apparently think there are no consequences to your behavior of continued vandalism. Just because a couple of busybodies came to my talk page and attempted to lecture me that you aren't a vandal, doesn't mean anything. You are a vandal. Period. Orangemarlin 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch was quoting me, not calling me that. What you were supposedly archiving was an active discussion, that also happened to be unfavorable to you. You put it in the archive for "vandalism". When you gave me the first warning, you had assumed the least charitable explanation, and then kept provoking me. It was pointed out by a third party that you are incorrect, and you just dismissed it out of hand. Now you're saying that you've done nothing wrong, and are continuing to harass me by insulting and smearing me. [1] [2] I believe I should bring this to ArbCom. –Fatalis 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You really want to cause trouble for yourself and others? Good heavens. What is the problem? Can you not just apologize, and just let things drop? If you continue down this path, believe me it will not be an instance of us just letting you say whatever you want and ride roughshod over those of us who edit these articles and nurture and protect them, for months on end. The insults, the contempt, the mess that was made of the talk page, the lack of consensus, the arrogance; none of these look very good. Even reverting OM's talk page when he was trying to let this drop tells me you want to turn this into a huge issue. Please reconsider. Thanks for your kind attention.--Filll 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe you owe me an apology, and you are misrepresenting what happened. I am seriously grieved. –Fatalis 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I owe YOU an apology? For what? Did I call you a dick? a ****wad? Tell you not to get your panties in a bunch? Did I call you stupid? Insult you? I do not recall any of these. So what did I supposedly do? Ok, so you tried to fix a talk page and messed it up badly. I am not sure why, if it was confusion or incompetence or arrogance or whatever, but ok, so you did it. And it is semi-corrected now. I dont want to rake you over the coals. I dont want to bring this to the attention of regulatory and disciplinary authorities. I want us all just to learn from this botch up and move on. So just let it drop. I do not think I have anything to apologize for. I guess you feel you do not either. Well....I see...Have a nice day.--Filll 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant you and Orangemarlin. It has been explained several times that I did not break any policy, save for not being civil, but that was after he attacked me. –Fatalis 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? Yeah right. Maybe an ANI. You need to chill and apologize for your actions. Then stand by your apology. Orangemarlin 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's an editor besides you or your buddy that would agree to that. –Fatalis 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that what this is about? You want to have a beauty contest here? A popularity contest? Please, try to take a break and just move on to productive enterprises rather than this nonsense.--Filll 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, just justice, because he can't acknowledge that he was wrong from the start and keeps insulting me. –Fatalis 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm ending this right now. How about we delete crap on both of our talk pages, and call it even? No further insinuations from either side. I'm willing to do that and move on to editing. Orangemarlin 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, how very magnanimous of you, especially considering who it was who brought it this far. –Fatalis 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fill

You added this response to the quote that wasn't in the original:

I will grant you that it should have been archived. However, if you do not know how to archive, get some help please. Apologize like an honest, GF editor when you foul up. However, it is a bit much to imagine that you were merely clumsy or ill-informed, since you are an experienced editor, and appear to be just aggressively archiving everything including the history and current discussion for some bizarre reason. Who archives ALL current discussions on a public talk page of an article with no prior consensus? No one is upset at Banno I am sure. Banno was merely trying to help undo the mess. Ornis archived Octoplus after we had some discussion of it, and his efforts were widely applauded by several. This discussion was probably deleted in the mess after you "tidied up" the talk page, or maybe some of that was on a related talk page. We talk about userfying usually, and then someone does it. However, since we all get to know each other after months and months and know who to trust and who not to trust on these extremely controversial pages, it is not uncommon for someone who has gained the community's trust to go ahead and repeat an action that has been carried out dozens of times previously once a troll has been identified. Ornis is someone who has contributed and whose judgement is trusted. As has been done countless previous times on this family of pages, he went ahead with our standard treatment of trolls. So what? I promise you that not a single one of the regulars objected to this. And many if not all applauded. This is a far cry from a "stranger", an "outsider" that we do not know, on an article that attracts trolls and sockpuppets and vandals regularly, just showing up to cause havoc with no consensus. Big big difference. Try to ponder this before you escalate this situation. Just let it drop and don't make this situation worse, ok? Thank you very much for your kind attention.--Filll 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake, and I did not violate any policies. Even if I had violated any, the reaction from Orangemarlin was extremely inadequate and offensive. It does not seem he made any effort to understand the situation. Your attitude was not charitable at any point either. You both are trying put all the blame on me, when it's me who should receive an apology. You wasted my time and nerves too in what otherwise would have been a perfectly innocent situation. It was also Orangemarlin who added the second undeserved warning after all seemed to have been set, and you yourself who attacked me again in the article talk page, choosing the most unjust interpretation of a comment. You kept escalating it, but now that I've had enough, you're blaming me for it having come so far? –Fatalis 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A newbie and guidance

Unfortunately, your archiving of the talk page, which I'm sure was done with the best of intentions, has quickly escalated into a very regrettable confrontation. Since you have pointed to WP:BITE it seems that you feel as a newcomer you're unfamiliar with policies and guidance, and I must admit that I'm still learning. It's worth getting to grips with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes – as it says at the top, "Try to avoid arguments. When this is not possible, try talking privately to those involved, or take a deep breath and sleep on it." Demanding apologies is not a good way to behave. I appreciate that you felt you'd followed Help:Archiving a talk page, though I'm puzzled about how you missed the statement near the top that "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page. It is also helpful to label your archives with dates and briefly summarize their main discussions. The most common, beneficial method is the cut and paste procedure.", and the Move procedure which you used asks you to Copy discussions that are still active back to the original talk page, and notes that it makes it difficult to search for past edits to the talk page by a certain user. Please read instructions carefully and seek consensus on the talk page before making such drastic edits. I know that you feel that your edit history shows that you've made very little edits until recently, though frankly it looks to me as though you've made a good many edits every month since November 2006, but I hope that as you gain more experience you'll try to back away from disputes, and will apologise gracefully when you make an error in following guidance, as happens to all of us at times. Thanks, ... dave souza, talk 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science

I have asked for comment on this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I'm letting you know as a courtesy. Banno 11:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatalis, you need to realise one thing: while I have noted that your archiving was done incorrectly, the current RfC on Banno has nothing to do with that issue. You appear to have been acting in good faith, but Banno was not in issuing the block on ornis. It really is that simple. Why you are taking it personally is not clear to me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)