User talk:Cecropia/Archive 13

Blocking war

I invite you to comment on my actions (see [1] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

GWB military service controversy

Hi Cecropia,

I'm the guy who made the last "contribution" to the article. During the pre-election time, I heard of some reasoning that Bush may fall in to the deserter category because of the 30 day period... and I thought the article missed this point. Could you explain to me how the things really are - why Resident Bush is an absentee without official leave and not a deserter... From the moral grounds it is not understandable that Bush hasn't been tried or at least sent to Vietnam for not fulfilling his National Guard duties. Why?

Bush could have told the National Guard officials that he wanted to fulfill his duty in a honest manner instead of just not appearing at the physicals or the drills; and if I'd have been a military attorney in the Vietnam war time, I couldn't have recognized a bit of good will. Are the laws there to be observed, or are they there to make a mockery of them? It's sad that today National Guard members have to die in Iraq while Bush tricked himself out of service.

Regards, David/de:Benutzer:Keimzelle

Looxix

Oooops, my husband came back home to early, and I was interrupted in my attempts to clean it all. Did not have time to put a message. No worry Cecropia, Looxix is no admin. I removed adminship from meta at the same time I was making it up (Looxix is belgian and with access to db, no worry, but he actually quit us recently). I was trying to figure out the oddity made by Ed Poor (a security hole which was quickly fixed during the following night). Ed, though not developer anymore, was able, as a bureaucrat, to give him sysop, bureaucrat AND developer power DIRECTLY on en and to desysop people directly on en. Which should just be impossible. So, I made attempts of giving myself developer rights (from meta, on en) and promote people to try to see how this could just happen.

Much apology for the confusion. I meant to put a comment on the admin talk page, and was stopped by husband coming back home, then just FORGOT and was out of town for 2 days. Do not worry anyway, Looxix is not sysop at all.

Thanks

Anthere

Vaoverland

Ah, power at last. Seriously, the pat on the back this represents means more to me. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. I recently did a small piece on Abram S. Hewitt which should cross paths with your interests, if I recall them correctly. BTW, did you notice the green box on my talk page (to put new messages at bottom automatically). I have found this feature helps a lot, and I'll make one for you gratis if you care for one. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia at a crossroads

Just wanted to express my very strong agreement with your note. 172 could've done a better job following the rules, for sure. But the community must do a must better job proactively defending good work from POV-pushing by users, including some well-entrenched ones, who are more interested in slow-motion trench warfare than building an encyclopedia. Lacking that, dedicated users like 172, who have poured heart and soul into this project, will continue to be driven over the edge -- by violating policy or leaving the project altogether.

I nearly quit Wikipedia myself after winding up involved in protracted disputes with three separate problem users bent on inserting their POV and/or generally wrecking havoc on libertarian-related articles. Sure, all of them wound up being given long-term bans, but it sapped literally hundreds of hours of time on the part of myself and other editors that should've gone into improving articles.

If 172's talk page is any sign, there's more than a few of us who have these kinds of concerns. I don't know how much time I'd have to contribute to it at the moment, but I'd love to find a way to put our heads together to come up with solutions.

RadicalSubversiv E 03:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I'm not willing in any way to let the social experiment aspects of Wikipedia overtake the goal of a high quality encyclopedia. I'm not very interested in anarchic social experiments, except as secondary to our mission here. Now, this doesn't mean that I am going to start cracking down on every little thing I don't approve of, of course. The community is of crucial importance. But the community -- the real community -- needs to feel confident that I'm saying that quality work is what we're all about, and we don't need to worry about being taken over by trolls. --Jimbo Wales 18:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Jimbo might have mistaken your point, Cecropia, which I fully endorse. It's not the trolls that are the problem -- they're simply a minor irritation that can mostly be ignored (always the best method). The problem is that a majority POV can become entrenched, and the power bloc that supports it can harass and punish users that do not share it. This can make editors who are, let's say, volatile, become more extreme than they would otherwise be, because they don't feel they are listened to. Some feel that a cabal of powerful users prevent minority viewpoints from being expressed. Where users feel those viewpoints are essentially correct, this enrages them. They feel unheard.

If "consensus" doesn't mean that all are heard, what does it mean? If NPOV doesn't mean that all views are included, what does it mean? Too many take it to mean "neutral" in the sense of "orthodox", so that a belief is current that our pages should express commonly held, Western and generally liberal views. In disputes, users who don't share these views are often accused of being "POV pushers" while those who hold them are considered "neutral". The lack of understanding that your own biases are not neutral is very harmful!

It's tiresome to see so much childish bickering. "You broke the rules... you attacked me... you reverted three times in ten minutes..." You have to remind yourself that these are adults and the plan is that we all try to work together to make an encyclopaedia, by thrashing out our differences with mutual respect, not by wielding an ever larger bunch of policies -- many entirely unconnected with the business of making an encyclopaedia and many severely abused -- enforced by a quasi elite who are, more and more, seeking to expand their powers and enforce their views (peculiarly, as the community grows, and consensus becomes more difficult to attain with the diversity of voices in it, the elite becomes ever more convinced that its views are supported and correct -- perhaps they didn't notice that, what was it, 8% voted for Lir to be an arbitrator!).Dr Zen 01:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Some feel that a cabal of powerful users prevent minority viewpoints from being expressed". Amen to that! Please see how Rex071404 was harassed and hounded into virtual silence. And this, even though he did add some interesting ** AND VALID ** content to the Wiki. 216.153.214.94 06:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NYC Subway timeline

I've been working on a confirmed timeline at User:SPUI/NYC Subway timeline, by looking up dates in the New York Times archive. Feel free to add anything else for me to find (with approximate dates); this includes BMT lines being converted from surface lines. --SPUI (talk) 18:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And the reason I started making the list: commons:New York City Subway timeline. --SPUI (talk) 03:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia Lite

I'm taking a semi-hiatus, as desribed on my User Page. At a minimum, I will continue to monitor RfA for promotions and this talk page. Cheers to all! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Laughed out loud

As someone who studied early modern religious history (and normally finds it hilarious), I thought you'd appreciate knowing that I laughed loudly and several times at your recent mailing list post. Of course, as I'm not Snowspinner, I suppose it's easier to laugh. I recognize your concern about witch-hunts without entirely sharing them -- Zen and Wheeler, I admit, fall into that delightful category of the difficult yet unsanctionable editor. They're tough as nails to work with, but not arbitable, in my estimation. Anyhow, you'll be missed on your semi-hiatus (though I thank you tremendously for keeping your RFA responsibilities -- what would we do without you?), and I figured you'd like knowing that I'm still chuckling. ...Distaff Gender....all those CAPS.....ah, the early moderns. Take care, Jwrosenzweig 01:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RFA

Moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Tony_Sidaway_RFA where everyone who may be interested to read and comment can do so. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

how-to guide

Thanks for this. I'm plodding through it slowly but surely right now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations

Thank you for promoting me. It's so strange to see the new links and such after spending so much time on Wikipedia. I've begun to read through the policies; it will be a while before I am ready to try using any of these new abilities. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Weight training unblock

While I respect your decision to unblock Blair P. Houghton, I fear that you have emboldened a problem user who has so far refused to work with others. I am concerned it will be more difficult to work harmoniously on this article in future, not less.

I know that you have looked over the edits in question, but I don't know if you have seen my attempts to discuss Blair's edits at Talk:Weight_training#Article_summary, and my attempts to reach a compromise. By simplifying the text, Blair removed important facts e.g. the progressive overload principle. In my initial revert, I kept the majority of his changes [2], but reverted only the removal of these facts, and one change that the other editors had already unanimously rejected.

I am more than happy to hash out his issues in talk. If you wish to help resolve the situation, then please do protect the page—at whatever version you choose—and I will again attempt to discuss these issues with Blair.

Yes, I numbered my edits. That was because I didn't want to fall foul of the 3RR, or be accused of doing so. Please note that the other editor who reverted Blair—Taxman—is an admin who could easily have blocked Blair himself, but chose not to do so. His behaviour has been beyond reproach.

Thank you for your time. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

George, thanks for your note, and I apologize for the implication that your numbering may not have been in good faith but, you see, the problem I'm attacking is a trend in Wikipedia toward resolving article problems by sanctioning users. We have gone in a very short stretch from 3RR being a general sentiment to being a blockable offense; it is inherently flawed for reason I have stated. A block accomplishes little in a non-vandal user except to diminish his/her potential to be a valuable contributor.

True. I was wondering at that myself: just what is the purpose of a 24 hr block in a case like this? But on the other hand the 3RR is there, and there's a page that asks you to report any violations of it...

Forgive me, but I have never been in these kinds of conflicts before, so I don't really know what happens or what the options are. Weight training was a very dusty backwater until Sfahey and myself managed to make it a FA. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blair is a fairly new user. I have admonished him as to Wikietiquette and we will see how this all works out, and we have many means of straightening this out that have worked elsewhere before this becomes an RfC or ArbCom. In the past these methods have had some good results. As to protecting the article, things seem pretty calm now. If the need for protecting presents itself, you and/or other editors on Weight Training can contact me or, if I'm not available, another admin. If it does become necessarty, I may have some suggestions for going forward. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. Thank you for your response. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Different article, same problem user. As you can see his Wikiquette has not improved. Thank you for your message. I left the response on my talk page, but I suppose I will repeat it here. Protection may work on low traffic articles such as the EPOC one, but for more popular articles it unfairly punishes the other users instead of the one causing the problem. In this case, please do protect the article, as Blair has said he will revert anything that does not agree with him. Then he will actually have to try to substantiate his position instead of just reverting to it. The rest of us are willing to compromise and accept new evidence. He does not appear to be. - Taxman 13:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Colors for pre-Chrystie services

Do you happen to know what colors were used for the Q, QT and T services? These only existed pre-Chrystie. --SPUI (talk) 18:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That's what I had come to realize, but it's nice to have confirmation (to be sure they weren't colored on rollsigns or something). I've added all the old colors to New York City Subway line, route and station nomenclature as well as a few other changes. --SPUI (talk) 21:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question - the IRT started using the numbers publicly in 1948, but they used the Astoria Line until 1949 - was it ever publicly signed as 8? I'm assuming the Third Avenue Line was only assigned 8 in 1967, and the Dyre Avenue Line was never 8 publicly? --SPUI (talk) 21:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

"For example, if a service was designated 10, a short-line of the service might have a diagonal stroke through the number. This informed boarding riders that the car would not travel all the way to its usual destination."

Wow. I have been wondering for a long time why the E Line of the MBTA Green Line has a slash through the E (for instance [3]). Now I know. Wow. --SPUI (talk) 00:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carl G. Fisher

This article is up for FA, not getting much support, although no negatives. Could you take a look and vote if you feel justified? Thanks, Mark In Richmond. Vaoverland 04:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

thanks. BTW, would you like a box like I have on my user page to lead your new ,messasges to the bottom. I know how do do one for you, its easy, and its sure helps the messages stay organized. Just look at mine at User Talk:Vaoverland and let me know. If not, no sweat. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 05:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

testing new box

It looks like it is working as intended. Please let me know if this meets with your approval. Mark Vaoverland 05:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, Cecropia. It's a nice feeling to be promoted! I hope if you spot me doing anything I ought not to, or not doing something I ought to, you'll let me know. Best, SlimVirgin 01:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Second opinion, please

If you do not mind, would you please weigh in with an outside second opinion regarding the revert war taking place at Bellevue West High School? In all fairness, please be aware that there are several RfC and RfAs in my name. Your commentary would be much appreciated in this particular matter. --GRider\^talk 20:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New subway map

Image:NYC subway map.png --SPUI (talk) 03:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing I realized I forgot is skip-stop info. I also forgot to mention the exceptions to the 1-5 coding (the services that start/end in the middle of the evening).

I had thought about adding line names (to the schematics at right); I may still do that.

I'm thinking about making the circles smaller in Lower Manhattan to reduce clutter.

commons:NYC subway map 50% and commons:NYC subway map 33% are smaller legible versions.

It's meant to be a map of current service, so I'm only including interdivision track connections that are used.

Thanks for the comments. --SPUI (talk) 06:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Didn't realize the BMT used numbers on the sides of trains

[4] --SPUI (talk) 22:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is strange - the KK used NASSAU ST even after Chrystie opened - [5]. I guess technically it did use a bit of the Nassau Street line, but not the part under Nassau Street; 6TH AVE would make more sense. --SPUI (talk) 22:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Something that might interest you

crossposted, with apologies

A self-appointed clique calling itself the Wikipedia:Office of Investigations has empowered itself to decide who is a "problem user" who needs to be "dealt with", primarily through arbitration. Do you support this move, or are you worried about vendettas and bullying? Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:NYC subway map.png is updated

The division schematics are now much clearer. I'm always open to comments of course. --SPUI (talk) 16:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I decided to go with mostly html-generated rollsigns, so the style will be uniform with ones we don't have nice images of. It would be nice to have a photo of even a new rollsign for illustration in the nomenclature article - you don't happen to be in NYC and have a camera? --SPUI (talk) 10:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Broadway (Brooklyn) Line service changes

If you have the inclination and knowledge, can you look over Template:Broadway Brooklyn changes? --SPUI (talk) 04:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess in some ways it (Chambers/HT) makes sense, and in other ways it seems a bit strange. --SPUI (talk) 18:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange that with the AA ending there, it didn't end at HT. Though I guess there may have been issues with the amount of trains ending there, and certainly there were no capacity problems on the Chambers Street part. --SPUI (talk) 21:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protection of Weight training

I don't see that it's right to protect this article now. There is no ongoing edit war and no prospect of one cropping up--the article hasn't even been edited in over a week, and the same goes for the talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My concern is this: you've stopped everybody editing the article because you have been asked to do so by some people who haven't even touched the article or its talk page in the past eight days. If some other user comes along and wants to edit, he'll be unable to do so, and that seems wrong to me in the absence of any other activity at all on the article or its talk page, let alone any kind of edit war.

Since it's obvious that the proposed discussion of differences is not happening, I don't see how protecting the article will have any positive effect at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is my same objection with using page protection instead of blocking for revert warring. But I'm willing to try most anything in order to have a more productive conversation. That did not happen to be the article I was referring to, sorry for the confusion and putting my request in the other section. I was responding Jim's points on the Admin notice board. The article the edit war is happening on is Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. I am willing to try this as an option because Blair is refusing to substantiate his position and instead blusters about me lying and vandalizing. I reallize my reverts weren't terribly helpful either, but at least mine are backed up by references. Blair has refused numerous requests to provide a reference backing his POV, and instead ignores any part of a discussion that does not go his way. Well he does have one source, it just doesn't claim the link he thinks it does. - Taxman 17:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

That is false. I made a point-by-point accounting in the talk page of the rationale for the differences I made in the paragraph you added. I pointed you to several sources (though you've proven in the past that you don't read what others reference) to show that the difference in your edit and mine is that mine is the one that's supported. You're just a liar, in this case to cover up your trolling vandalism. Blair P. Houghton 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it, the talk page is. In any case, I have not only read your source, I've checked the study it's data is from, and several others. They don't support your point. Substantiate your claims on the talk page, in laborious detail if needed, or stop claiming I am the problem. - Taxman 20:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Have you thought of inviting Blair to mediate? This can be a good way for both sides of this kind of dispute--who are clearly arguing in good faith but have not necessarily been well behaved--to resolve their personal differences and establish better lines of communication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption

There's nothing to discuss. The facts were correct as of my last edit. Taxman's specious edits and irrational arguments are disruptive to the community. I recommend he be blocked and then banned. Blair P. Houghton 19:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this punk for weeks. By blindly acquiescing to his request to lock the page you've become another tool of his vandalism. He's mocking the system and contributing to the lack of credibility of the Wikipedia. Blair P. Houghton 19:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and unprotect that page. I couldn't care less if it's got the truth in it any more, nor could I care less if Taxman continues to vandalize the Wikipedia and waste editors' time with his idiocy. Blair P. Houghton 22:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, for anyone reading this, please check the article's talk page. I am very comfortable leaving that as a track record of evidence of where the problem lies. - Taxman 17:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The problem lies in your inability to admit that your questions were answered and in your insistence on pretending to be the victim. You exhibited that on Weight Training and then again on the EPOC page. If you wish to continue posting misinformation to an encyclopedia because you're antisocial, I'm not going to stop you. Eventually you will learn how foolish you are, and then the world will agree with you. Blair P. Houghton 03:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)