User talk:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake/Archive 2

Warning: This talk page is in fake time. To converse with this creature in the dimension of non-fake-time, please contact either CakeProphet or SevenInchBread, on the IRC freenode channel #wikipedia-medcab

Welcome to my delicious talk page, please make yourself at home and be sure to have a steamy cup of brewed mental juices.

Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe. -- Neil Gaiman, The Sandman|

Stasis beans
1 2 3

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning."

☼

Mediation

In order to save space, and make my talk page a little bit less ugly to look at, I've moved this discussion to its corresponding mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

Epistemology Mediation

I read your comment on Talk:List_of_publications_in_philosophy#mediation and wasn't sure if you were withdrawing as mediatior or not. I would like to suggest a compromise something like this - The links be put back pending changes in the criteria for inclusion being changed. If a new policy is put in place for inclusion then the article would need to meet what ever new standards are set. SteveWolfer 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

You have a very unique method of dealing with mediation. Out of curiosity, how does making each party write their own version of the article eliminate POV? I don't see how trying to merge multiple articles written by one person will make the article better... isn't Wikipedia all about everyone editing and creating the final article? I just don't understand, so an explaination would be helpful. Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo.plrd"

It allows me to see where the dispute is.Geo. 23:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-14 mediation with Wiarthurhu

Could you remind User:Wiarthurhu that we've both agreed to stop editing the content in question and have been repeatedly asked by CQJ to stop editing any related content? He has been spreading the content in dispute to other pages, most lately Lightweight Fighter --Mmx1 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to say that my intervention would solve something, but really I have just as much authority as you to tell someone to not do something. I've heard a lot about Wiarthurhu... and I predict he'll be somewhere in ArbCom very soon. If you still need my help, feel free to give me a ring. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Since I am impressed by your skills in our last encounter I would like to ask you if you are interested in mediating again, since the editor and I seem to continue our personal disagreements. If not, that is OK. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. -The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you step in please. Zero is massively reverting all my edits and refuses to engage in civil discussion (see cabal page for details). I explained my edits, he deletes them, i.e. edit wars, and then offers some ridiculous and cerainly insufficient explanation for his actions. If this isn't a violation of WP:POINT (interestingly he filed a RFC claiming I violate this, it takes two to tango), WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and Don't be a dick I do not know what is. All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me. As his edit warring over everything I do makes contributing impossible I will leave Wikipedia unless you are able to find some solution to what I see as stalking and aggressive POV pushing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to respond after reading this.

You contend I break AP:AGF - "disruptive troll that is stalking me"
You contend I break WP:POINT - Yet provide no evidence, not even when asked to on the cabal page.
You contend I break WP:CIVIL - Yet, you have stated I am acting "like a dick"

I have asked you to provide proof of things you add, you seem to find it offensive when asked to do this for some reason. I ask you to state your claims about Bali and you give 3 unique versions on why you removed it. I ask you to prove Zarqawi PSYOP program is linked to Information Operations Roadmap and you refuse to, instead you just readd the part. I add a quote to explain the "Home Audience" mentioning in the article, a quote that follows the mentioning of "home audience" and you remove it. I am not even sure why it was removed as its relevant and explains the diagram that was reported on. I add the backstaory of Zarqawi and you remove that without stating why either, possibly because its in contention with the next paragraph from an editorial stating Zarqawi was a nobody. However the source I was using was not an editorial and a little more reliable, Washington Post over a non newspaper, and supported by the Zarqawi article itself. So again before you go claiming the world is after you. Can you please provide some proof the Information Operations Roadmap is linked to the Zarqawi PSYOP program? Can you please stop adding redundant sentences to the article, or giving a summary then giving the entire quote as well. Currently as the article stood in your version after reverting all of my edits without stating why, it was composed of 30% quotes. It was actually slightly higher then that. There was a program section that spoke about Information Operations Roadmap, which you have failed to link, instead of being about the actual Zarqawi program. The truth is there isnt enough content there for an article, creating a section of quotes about it, primarily from editorials at that, is not a suitable way to create a full article. Again next time address edits individually and do not just do a wholesale revert because you have a personal problem with an editor. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you fail to respond to the arguments I presented (typical troll behaviour) and you never do in any discussion, I will not continue your monologue. If The prophet has questions regarding my edits[[]] I will answer him. Of cours, on the cabal page and not here. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments, you just keep ranting that I am after you ... Let me address each sentence individually so you can stop stating I do not address your issues.

Zero is massively reverting all my edits and refuses to engage in civil discussion (see cabal page for details)

Since the current discussion is based on Zarqawi PSYOP program, let examine. I made the following edits

[1] removed information clearinghouse source. Bias source, as per VP:RS bias sources should not be used as sole sources for information
[2] Please do not remove factual information, your editorial is more suspect then the Washington Post
[3]
[4] readded quote that explains the "Home Audience" its directly in the source, please be careful of selective quoting

Note this edit is actually jsut adding a space, I noticed I forgot an edit summary on the prior edit, so I created a line break and added the summary for the last one.

[5] Program - removed portion already in header, its redundant

NoteIts stated almost word for word in the header.

[6] removed Agencee France quote as its about an unrelated program as well as Rumsfeld document, against I ask you to supply a source stating this PSYOP is part of that roadmap, thank you.'
[7] removed quote as its already mentioned in header in same detail, actually more clearer since it explains home audience, be careful of selective quoting

Note Contained a selective quote from Washington Post without the trailing information of specifying the program did not target civilians etc.

[8] removed program section, its covered in header. sources were not about this program and quote is covered in header
[9] Removed WOT as again its more directly linked to Iraq War, removed Smith Mundt Act, again please prove this program violates this act, no OR please
[10] rm Roadmap, please provide a source stating these two events are linked

In the end Nescio just reverted everything stating rv revert that was done in several edits, please every thing you censor is relevant and sourced, you may have another POV, but Wikipedia is not about redacting out information that is uncomfortable

Again this user is attempting to battle a POV, however as I have told them, I dont edit via my POV because its actually contrary to my own beliefs, the issue here is facts. Their wholesale reversion did not prove any of the items that were brought into question. I am still waiting for an explanation on how the information roadmap is linked, via a verifiable and reliable source.

I explained my edits, he deletes them, i.e. edit wars, and then offers some ridiculous and cerainly insufficient explanation for his actions.

The summaries I provided show why things are being removed; redundant quotes, the entire article being made up of 30% quotes. Partisan sites being used as sole sources, something frowned upon and told to avoid. Linking of two seperate items without proof of their connection. Instead of challenging an edit or even stating why, he just reverts all of them with a blanket excuse, even removing things I added to the article, such as the quote explaining the home audience quote and the backstory on Zarqawi, not sure why that was removed again.

If this isn't a violation of WP:POINT (interestingly he filed a RFC claiming I violate this, it takes two to tango), WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and Don't be a dick I do not know what is.

I have asked this user on the cabal page to show some proof of WP:POINT violations, oddly enough the RfC against them has 3 certifying users and one supporting, they have yet to defend themself or counter the claims of that RfC. As for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF they are not presenting any proof, to the contrary this user has stated to me that I was acting like a dick and accuses me above of stalking and harassing them when asking them for sources or proof, that is a violation of WP:AGF.

All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me.

Not sure if you want explanation as their isnt much there then your own violation of WP:CIVIL.

As his edit warring over everything I do makes contributing impossible I will leave Wikipedia unless you are able to find some solution to what I see as stalking and aggressive POV pushing.

What POV am I pushing? I havent presented a point in anything. Removing statements only supported by a single partisan site is not pushing a POV. Telling you that you should prove a link between two events is not pushing a POV, filling out your selective quoting of "home audience" is not pushing POV. Giving the Zarqawi backstory that shows he was more then a nobody before the Iraq War is not pushing a POV. If anything your editorial of a source is pushing a POV, stating something completly in contention with the truth and the other articles on Wikipedia. I have sourced the information, and instead of proving it wrong or even denying its truth, you just removed it.

Have I adressed your concerns now? If not please restate them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvoweling Etc.

Greetings! Unpleasantries have broken out again on the same two articles as before. Any suggestions? Karen 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Power Support Thanks!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u\|t) 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Don't forget, that's a ...uh, pretty flower-power flower of, um, goodness. So make sure you keep it handy. c.c;; ~Kylu (u|t) 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it into the chaos of my userpage. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?

Could you please, please look into Zero's massive deletion of my edits and his bullying me into accepting his changes while he refuses to discuss how his changes are warranted?! If this isn;t disruptive behaviour I do not know what is. Clearly he is unwilling to justify his edits and then by edit warring into 3RR forces the article in his version. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry about my inactivity. I was gone for a few days, but now I'm back. Er... well...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
(this is me thinking)

This conflict has ascended far beyond the discussion of any article... and I honestly can't sort through any of the carnage it has created.

Ok, so you two obviously have some problems. I can see how Nescio feels that Zero is being a bully, and then I can see how Zero feels Nescio is being "whiney", or whatever. So... here's my idea. Since this thing is starting to get very personal, I suggest that everyone just continue to assume good faith, forget all the bad stuff, and move on. It may sound like denial of the truth, but I think if everybody just cooled off and forgot about it... then the personal conflicts can seep out, and the wounds can begin to close. If you don't like my idea, feel free to tell me why. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]