User talk:216.165.158.7

Welcome!

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Here are some other hints and tips:

• I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
• When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Thanks for merging the Steven Avery stuff, and good job, too! -- Dhartung | Talk 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping

There may be a clear consensus to merge but not to simply redirect, and that consensus is not necessarily as clear as you want it to seem. However, I am not going to get into a edit/reverting war with you and let it be. Have a nice a nice day, Poeloq 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd given it more than a couple of seconds before you reverted and bothered to read the talk page you'd see that it was infact merged and not simply redirected... not that that should really make a difference, but even there your complaint has no merit. Please don't be so quick on the reverts, assume good faith, and take the time to look into what you are doing before doing it and things will go much smoother. And have a nice a nice day yourself. 216.165.158.7 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was "merged" one place and redirected another, and the basic content point that "photoshopping" is a common slang word for photo manipulation was purged from a bunch of articles. That's not what the consensus suggested at all, if there was any consensus. Why not post a proposal and see if it gets any agreement? You have been consistent far off from the center of opinion of these articles, and just keep pushing your way, so we are justified in pushing back. Dicklyon 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles that the name of that page made sense to a redirect for (and which people very clearly named in the consensus-making discussion) have nothing to do with what the content of that page had (which was basically a "look, we iz Photoshopping contest eLEET dooooooods"). The changes as done were exactly in accordance with what the consensus wanted, you and the losers in the consensus are simply refusing to accept the fact that you've lost and continue your edit warring and harrassment. It will not fly. 216.165.158.7 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the consensus was? And if there's a consensus, why are there losers? Dicklyon 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, both of you stop it now and head over to Talk:Photoshopping. The poll seems to establish that a merge is reasonable, but we haven't settled where yet. If each of you can head over and discuss, under the new heading that I created, to where we should move this article, we can reach a consensus and the bickering about immature redirects and mutual reversions can stop with everyone more or less happy. 216.165.158.7, since you claim to want the best for the encyclopedia, I suggest that you try to be more than reasonable with the annoying other users and wait until they're satisfied with consensus to redirect the article wherever it is decided that we do - it'll be reverted until then. Dicklyon, since I know you want to reach a consensus, I'm sure you'll see that we can go with suggestions and find a logical place to which to move everything - don't feed the trolls. (216.165.158.7, you're not a troll, I'm just giving advice that happens to use the word.) Nihiltres 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, did that. I'm not opposed to redirecting to photo editing as I said before, but I oppose replacing the article by a redirect before the content has been put someplace. So I merged the part that Mr.7 didn't merge to photoshop contest. So I guess we're good now, if you are. Dicklyon 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We found a place to redirect it, AND the infor WAS put someplace, as already described. It WAS merged and parts that were repetitive (and spammy links) were removed. Dickylon here was just being difficult because he didn;t get his way. 216.165.158.7 05:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop aggressively edit warring on Photomontage and Photo editing. Discuss your edits on the talk page, not by making aggressive comments in edit summaries. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I blocked you for a month. I didn't see the warning from Tony before doing so. It is pretty clear that you have real problems collaborating with people here and since previous blocks did not deter you I decided yo put you on a pretty long block. Revert warring isn't on. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is just rich... We had consensus, I did what the consensus said, some people violating the the freaking policies blind reverted them and gave reasons for the revert that were invalid (claiming it wasn't merged yet when it had been or that there hadn;t been consensus), and I changed it back full within the 3RR rules, and now we have more admins blocking for simply no reason whatsoever except for continuing on with the false blocks from before. You people are just completely ridiculous. I hope you then banned the editors (including the admins!) who were revert warring to go AGAINST policies and the clear consensus too, or else you have showed clear disregard for the stated reasons for the block and are just pulling whatever nonsense out of of thin air you can come up with.

Blocked for a month, and for "POV-pushing" is what you put... that's just a lie, as nothing involved is POV pushing at all. People who are ACTUAL POV pushers and spammers and etc. don't get blocked that long. This place is really a joke. 216.165.158.7 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that you've gone with the consensus. It doesn't look that way to others. It long ago became difficult to assume good faith, as you continued to use abusive edit summaries rather than civil discussion. Dicklyon 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and you're the main person clearly ignoring what others say is a clear consensus to try to win in an argument you already lostand revert back to the way you wanted it all along, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Neologisms (not to mention WP:ENC. The fact that you are still able to edit my talk page means that you have not been blocked at all, let alone the same month I was blocked for for "POV Pushing" (or listed as "revert warring" here). That means the admin has specifically taken a side in the dispute and allows you to edit war and lie anout your reasons to your heart's content without any sort of action against you at all while I get blocked on a whim for a longer period than most people get after a full on Request for Arbitration that has to have evidence and arguments and a vote of the arbitration committee. That's clearly a huge violation of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 216.165.158.7 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Point noted; I am not blocked. The fact that you would compare my behavior to yours shows what a reality-warp you live in. Dicklyon 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reality warp? I got banned for so-called "edit warring" -- it's impossible to edit war unless there's someone else there undoing the changes and edit warring back. In this case the number one person doing that was you. If I was blocked for it, you should be as well (and far longer, as yours were against consensus and against several clear policies)... but apparently the person doing the blocking was incompetent and trusted someone else's summary of the situation that was false (I looked up the report at ANI, it made several false claims, and that's what I was blocked for - you'll note that most of the block was already lifted, and if people here had any sense the rest of it would be as well).216.165.158.7 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Block changed to one week

I have changed the block to one week, in consideration of the fact that the ANI report was in error: your previous block by Durova was for one week, not two, thus not a very good basis for a one-month block. You have e-mailed me, but not responded to my reply; I urge you to do so, if you've received it, as I'd like to discuss further with you.
Meanwhile, I have to agree with the POV-pushing charge. You may be in the right in reverting some edits as biased, but your own are biased, too. It looks to me like you consistently ignore the arguments of those who revert you in turn, even when they're carefully made. Please look for instance at the edit summaries at Home of the Underdogs by 70.94.32.98 and 198.177.95.129: "Reverting edits - unencyclopedic remarks, misplaced opinions and unnecessary/redundant information." "Reverting changes. Some additions belong in Abandonware and some are unencyclopedic and don't cite sources." "Information in the wrong article, unencyclopedic language, lack of sources." I know this is probably not what you want to hear right now, but those are good edit summaries. They're not just more civil but more informative than yours. I wish you hadn't simply reverted those reverts, but considered their arguments: there are misplaced opinions and unencyclopedic remarks in your edits that you're reinstating. You're an experienced editor, I think you know that this is in fact unencyclopedic: "Note that abandonware is not a legal concept" , "It also asserts (though there have been plenty of reports that this is not true from its actions) that it is careful about copyright concerns". OK, there are genuine disagreements about genuine concerns among the editors of this article, but my impression is that you have gradually become so angry that you won't even accept valid criticism, nor rephrase anything whatsoever. How hard would it have been to remove phrasing like "note that" or "of course", and do you really disagree that it's inappropriate in an encyclopedia? Please show more concern for this kind of article quality when you return. I consider you a valuable editor who works at keeping the wiki clean of spam, nonsense, and the POV claims of pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists (some examples here [1][2][3][4][5] ("sollog is not a kabbalah personality", lol) [6][7][8][9][10][11]), and I hate to see this kind of unproductive anger making your editing less valuable. At any rate, it's out of my hands; if you go on as you have been doing, you will surely be blocked quickly for a month or more when you return. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for reducing the block, but it's absolutely nonsense to say that I was engaged in any POV pushing whatsoever. Stating that abandonware is against the law is not POV pushing. Stating that it's immoral and evil would be POV pushing. That it's illegal is simply a fact, and the people trying to hide that are the ones doing the POV pushing. When I see valid criticism, I accept it. There certainly wasn't any going on there. I'm sorry that you believe the way you do, but I have a background in journalism and know how to phrase things to avoid bias. The people who claimed they thought my version was POV-pushing changed it to versions that were way worse by any rational measure. If they think that version could be improved, go ahead and improve it, but to simply undo it and replace it with wording that tries to claim taht some software is out of copyright (simply impossible by dates involved) or that there is some dispute if abandonware is illegal (there is no dispute among anyone with even a slight legal background, just software pirates pretending there's a difference) is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

Ylou made this claim:

there are misplaced opinions and unencyclopedic remarks in your edits that you're reinstating. You're an experienced editor, I think you know that this is in fact unencyclopedic: "Note that abandonware is not a legal concept"

As an experienced editor I know for a fact that that IS an encyclopedic statement. There is absolutely no legal standing for abandonware. There is no law mentioning, no court cases or decisions, or anything of any sort of legal standing -- just some software pirates who wanted a clever name to rationalize away their copyright violations. If you or anyone else would like to refute that and say that abandonware IS a legal concept, please provide any sort of verifiable, encyclopedic level source (per the policy, meaning a source that would be expected to know anything about the law and not just some hacker site) which would support that statement. Furthermore I didn't even originally put that there, I just restored it after a POV-pusher removed it. And so forth and so on.

I don't make stuff up, and I know my policies here. If you think that was unencyclopedic I can only imagine you do so because the POV-pushing version of the article confused you in some way. In fact I only even went to that article because the false information that was there was discussed on The Straight Dope messageboard and people were gleefully downloading software illegally thinking it was fine because of the blatantly pro-adandonware bias on that article. Some other member of the boards told them it was wrong, they all agreed it was reckless for the article to give the false conclusion. Someone showed up to try to correct it, but a pro-piracy POV-pusher immediately reverted that, so I came in thinking I knew the system better and could get it fixed. Apparently not, as a sysop was dead set on demanding that instruction on the talk page of that article specifically telling people how to pirate software remain there (he, by the way, was the one on ANI to report me under the false claim that I was POV-pushing and had already been blocked two weeks... seems to me he needs a good blocking for violating the law and harassing someone who was trying to avoid getting Wikipedia involved in instructing people how to break the law on a talk page) and other admins are having problems with understanding how the WP:NPOV and WP:V policies apply there.

These are pretty basic concepts and core to the policies of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV and WP:V are absolute and pretty simple in cases like this. The fact that articles here are taking some term made up and used by software pirates and pretending it's a legal term that justifies what they do is hugely POV-pushing, not to mention highly inaccurate and of questionable legality. That needs to be fixed, and there are some active people there trying to stop it from being fixed because they want people to think they aren't breaking the law. That needs to be fixed. We should do it ourselves before someone sues Wikipedia and makes us, or before some one in the news media catches wind of it. And I don't apologize at all for trying to fix it. And to think the thanks I get for that is to have people harass me and ban me.

216.165.158.7 05:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)