User talk:Gene Poole/archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, Gene Poole, nice name! Would you take a look at the Ambient music article, where I added a section on isolationist ambient? Maybe you have something to add. Thanks! heidimo 20:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please do not revert an article more than three times within 24 hours. It is advisable to talk differences out, request for page protection, or seek mediation/arbitration instead of reverting. You have already done so on Decimal calendar. If you continue to revert, a Quickpoll may be started and you may be blocked for 24 hours. The relevant policies and guidelines are at Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy, Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version, Wikipedia:Mediation. Thanks, Dori | Talk 02:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

If people continue to vandalise articles without responding to repeated requests not to do so, or who repeatedly fail to provide documented evidence to support their assertions, or who deliberately revert articles on the basis of specious, subjective reasoning, then I will continue to restore them to a factual, NPOV state. You would be better served directing your warnings at those whose actions necessitate my response. Gene_Poole

Sir, if you disagree with a policy please discuss it at the relevant talk page. Otherwise, you should at least attempt to comply with the policy, rather than simply ignore it because you believe that your engaging in actions prohibited by policies is justifiable. Policies exist to be followed and implemented. If you are truly concerned with the integrity of the article, please, request mediation, which is a better way to effect this and one which is permissible under current policies, unlike the application of frequent reversions, which is likely to get you censured and/or banned temporarily, regardless of the POV or factual accuracy of the edits involved. (Only simple vandalism, such as the blanking of a page with nonsense, is likely to be excluded in this regard). Thank you for your concern in this matter. - Fennec 05:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are the people removing the content Gene is repeatedly restoring being warned about these repetitive reverts? Because the content was present in the original article on 17 Jan 2003. People keep removing it repeatedly, reverting the change that originally added it. Are they being warned about not following Wikipedia policies? Jdavidb 18:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am fully compliant with Wikipedia policies. In the case in question you will note that page protection was repeatedly requested - but nothing was done about it. Gene_Poole

Hello, you and I have something in common. We are both on Wik's list.

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_28

Dmn 00:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'd noticed. It's always gratifing to know that you've succeeded in enraging a crackpot/troll/content perverter - using nothing more than facts and consistent, rational reasoning - to the point where they view you as a threat worthy of hysterical co-ordinated ad hominem attacks. Still, I can't help feeling a little pity for someone so obviously thoroughly screwed up. It can't be easy having to live with that level of festering anger chewing away at your insides. --Gene_poole 01:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I kindly ask you consider not editing Empire of Atlantium (or any Atlantium related article) because Wikipedia generally frowns upon using primary sources. Please also consider removing your anti-Wik message from your user page, and please assume good faith with Wik and all other users. --"DICK" CHENEY 05:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your comments, and would point out merely that almost all of the edits I've applied to this article over the past several months (aside from reversions necessary to protect the work of other contributors from targeted vandalism) relate to formatting or improved paragraph layout and/or sentence structure - and not to the content itself. I will be happy to remove my warning concerning Wik when I see evidence of a change in this user's attitude towards Wikipedia's community standards. One hopes this will occur sooner rather than later. --Gene_poole 06:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello on your user page you asked "I welcome the views of others on how it might best be combatted."

Well I did better than just tell you my views. I managed along with Danny to persuade Wik to remove the list. So your warning about it on your userpage is therefore no longer necessary. I am asking you to remove it please.

theresa knott 22:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you :-) theresa knott 07:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that you violated the three revert guideline on Talk:Empire of Atlantium, and Wik stopped at the proscribed three edits. Also, it is against Wikipedia policy to remove the comments of other users as you did with Racomedia's comments [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], and as Wik removed your comments. Please contact the user whose comments you find offensive and ask them to remove the comment instead of doing it yourself. If they refuse, please follow the Dispute resolution process. As always, you can leave a message on my talk page and I would be more than happy to answer any questions. --"DICK" CHENEY 13:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent removal [6] of Racomedia's comment at Talk:Empire of Atlantium. I very strongly suggest that you refrain from removing other user's comments and referring to other users as "crackpots" or this issue will be taken to the next level. --"DICK" CHENEY 12:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest you actually read the rubbish posted by by the user whose comments I am deleting. They consist of (a) a dubious personal observation used as a lead-in to (b) a link to an article on horse racing. The user who posted these comments is correctly referred to as a "crackpot" because they have spammed my personal email address with volumes of semi-coherent personal abuse on 2 separate occasions, and self-published similar borderline defamatory material on a public internet page. You might also wish to note that the user in question has made a grand total of 2 edits since September 2003 - including the abovementioned one. In light of this I take exception to your threats.--Gene_poole 01:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

We do not remove comments from talk pages. Danny 01:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well we ought to review our policy.--Gene_poole 01:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

At this point we are reviewing your conduct. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gene Poole. --"DICK" CHENEY 01:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

See above comment concerning threats.--Gene_poole 02:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey, what exactly happened with Wik? His page says he left on May 21st. Do you know anything? Jdavidb 21:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He/she was banned for a week for abusing community standards, and as a result decided to go for complete martyrdom by making the absence a permanently self-enforced one. Unsurprisingly, nobody seems overly concerned by this.--Gene_poole 02:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I share the same amount of concern. :) I was just curious. Did a bit of reading, and I was quite impressed by Jimbo's stance. I'm one of those optimists who wants to honestly feel that anyone can be rehabilitated in an online community, and Jim seems to share the ideal while still holding to the right level of realism for the community. So, life goes on. :) Jdavidb 14:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm a natural optimist too - but I also recognise that some people choose to have an irredeemably toxic attitude toward others - and in such cases I can spare them little pity when the inevitable chickens come home to roost.--Gene_poole 00:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After some consideration, especially after the nice note you left after our shouting match, I've decided to return. I'm limiting my VfD exposure, especially where micronations are concerned! I wish you luck on your future discussions. - Lucky 6.9 06:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I inserted a section about smearing Vegemite on your face to keep the Dropbears from attacking you. This was part of my understanding of the myth as I was told this when I was a teenager and heard it later as I got older. In your edit of this article you decided to omit this. Is your understanding of the Dropbear myth different to mine? One Salient Oversight 03:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've never heard of Vegemite in the context of drop bear mythology, and the reference sounded as though it had been invented by the original article author. In editing the article I tried to reduce it to the most common, generally-accepted elements. Perhaps you could re-insert the Vegemite component, noting it as a localised embellishment of the basic drop bear myth.--Gene_poole 09:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an addition, Gene, I invite you to share some facts with us. In particular, you alledge that there is evidence widely available in the public domain, but all requests for links are ignored. Please supply links supporting your assertion that there is evidence that Empire of Atlantium is worth noting on the list of micronations, or please stop asserting that there is public domain evidence supporting your assertion. Samboy 06:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

George: It is obvious that we are both wasting time in meaningless personal attacks against each other. My issue with you is this: You are trying to conceal your identity when arguing about the relevence of Empire of Atlantium and the relevence non-relevence of other micronations. You also engage in intimidation and personal insults whenever anyone questions the validity of your empire. I can make a case that you are abusive, and already have evidence (which you have already read yourself) of engaging in multiple edit wars.

I feel that mediation is the appropriate step at this point. Bascially, what we will do is email each other through a third party, who will be a mediator for our dispute. There are things I need to say to you that are completely inappropriate to talk about in a public forum; I also do not want you to email me personally, but only through a mediator. This way, both of us can have some kind of consensus and will not have to bug the editors with arbitration.

If you look at the requests for arbitration page, personal disputes between two people are unilaterally rejected. You won't get arbitration for this; but mediation is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances.

I hope we can work something out via mediation. Samboy 22:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, I have deleted all of the discussions we have had on my talk page, and will delete anything you post on any of my user or talk pages. This is a formal request to take it to mediation instead of to my talk page; we need a third party at this point. Samboy 01:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, it only seemed fair that an article that survived two VfD's inside a ridiculously short time should stay. I'm convinced that the article wasn't nominated for a lack of notability, and the obvious attempt at some sort of personal attack was enough for me to weigh in, at least with an opinion. It's certainly far better than a lot of what passes for articles around here. Interesting how the article by your biggest detractor is getting its tail kicked in, eh? I may weigh in soon on "general principles" as was previously pointed out. Stay in touch. - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please note that you're only allowed three reverts to one article in a 24 hour period. RickK 05:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I moved this page from [Poole/samboy] to your user space, as it seems to have been created with the full URL as an article in the main article namespace.

--Ianb 00:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's now at User:Gene Poole/samboy, and the original (in the main namespace) has been deleted. Angela. 01:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the assistance/relocation - I'm a sub-page creation newbie. --Gene_poole 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm considering listing this user on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges for that disgraceful delete without consensus. Would you be interested in supporting this? Dmn / Դմն 12:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad you liked the Red Pyramid photo. Bent Pyramid? No, except for one which is just a very hazy outline against the horizon. On the wish-list for the next trip, though. Inside the Red Pyramid? Erm... nothing outstandingly wonderful that doesn't have idiotically grinning family members on it. I do have two that are views pointing up at the ceiling inside the chamber (very impressive staggered roof, if you've seen it), I don't know how suitable they'd be for an article... want to take a look? I could upload a couple of thumbnails, followed by full-sizers if you feel they can be made to fit in the article. Just don't get too excited before you've seen them. –Hajor 05:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duly uploaded: Image:Egypt.Dashur.RedPyramid.02.jpg & Image:Egypt.Dashur.RedPyramid.03.jpg. I decided to save myself the hassle of resizing, so these are standard 640*480s. Let me know if you want to use them; otherwise I'll list them on ifd in a day or 2. –Hajor 06:07, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pic 02 duly incorporated. It looks somewhat unbalanced, but I'm afraid it's getting late here. And wow! Inside that thing with no electricity! The air extraction system wasn't working either, I imagine? –Hajor 06:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I was there, there was definitely a noisy old generator near the door connected to a very long pipe leading down to the burial chamber -- although, now thinking about it, I think it was blowing in rather than sucking out. Glorious smell of diesel.

If you haven't seen it already, you might be interested in Cholula, the pyramid that the Mexicans claim is bigger (yeah, ok, strictu sensu...) than the Egyptian ones. I've just uploaded a couple of pics of that one, too. Giza it ain't. –Hajor 01:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very impressive set of photos that Canadian gent has got. Sure -- drop him a line, explain the project to him, butter him up. (Somewhere in the [[Wikipedia:... namespace, there's a form letter, a permission letter, that you could perhaps use a starting point.) Maybe he could be talked into releasing some of his photos under the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses -- perhaps even public domain? ("For use on wikipedia only" photos do exist, but they're sort of discouraged, depending on who sees you do it.) Say you'd provide a link back to his website from the Image details page -- if he's interested in driving traffic to his site (I see he also sells his pics as prints), he might just nibble at the bait. He doesn't appear to have any sort of copyright notice on his page, so (with a little luck) he's not that uptight about spreading his pics around. –Hajor 01:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great news on the Canadian photos! Now, incorporating photos into articles: the page you need to be consulting is Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Couple of quick hints:

• This business with < div > commands is really only useful if you want to "stack" two pics on top of each other. Otherwise, its largely obsolete: the modern image markup commands introduced earlier this year -- [ [ image | thumb | right | caption ] ] -- are more than adequate (and very flexible, and a whole lot easier) for single photos aligned alongside text.
• The command for breaking a section after a pic and its corresponding text is < br style="clear:both;" >.

Did the photographer not indicate any language (copyright status, contact info) he wanted included on the Image: pages? –Hajor 04:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pyramids (Egyptian) looks great in Internet Explorer, but in my Opera the text and pics are shonw superimposed (when the pic is to the left). I suspect this is because of the < div > boxes. Can I take a crack at eliminating them? –Hajor 05:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, there. Re an appropriate tag for the pyramid texts. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags is the page you want. It depends whether the photographer granted Wikipedia an exclusive right to use them, or whether he okayed their use by people who take and reuse our material in other places (third party use). If the former, then you want Template:Copyrighted; if the latter, then perhaps Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided or Template:CopyrightedFreeUse. (It's easier for the project if you can get external photographers to agree to licence their stuff under the GFDL, but explaining that arcane tract of legalese to some bloke you cold-called over the internet ain't my idea of fun, either.) Cheers, –Hajor 13:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about Pyramids: The Next Generation down in Nubia: something I know even less about (odd half-hours on the History Channel notwithstanding), but I certainly take a look. (I see you don't appear to have minded my shifting all the photos to the right on Egyptian pyramids -- I'm afraid it was making me a little dizzy.) –Hajor 13:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Gene Poole,

I see you have got a fledgling Egyptian project going on with Hajor - go to it! One potential problem - I noticed at some point that you mentioned your Canadian friend might still be reserving some rights over the new pyramid photos. I've just asked for confirmation on the Village Pump, but Jimbo recently made an announcement to ban/discourage all images which were effectively neither Public Domain/GFDL or Fair Use. See Jimbo's email and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ.

Of course, this might not be a problem once you have decided what the correct licences are, if you can persuade him to use GFDL (which still requires attribution to the original author). -- Solipsist 17:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Howdy again. Concerning the copyright business on the photographs on Egyptian pyramids, the copyright owner basically said "no problemo" when I asked to use them; he didn't place any conditions on our use of the images, but asked nicely if we'd include links to his site. He did not specifically state any objection to their use by other third parties, and obviously the images themselves are already in the public domain. Would you read that as a "fair use" scenario? --Gene_poole 02:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I doubt it is fair use. That's more 'its copyright, but there are good reasons why we should ignore it'. This case sounds more like a GFDL license - can we assume that your friend is happy for anyone else downstream to also use the images as long as they still credit him? If so then you are probably good for a GFDL license, although ideally you should get his explicit agreement. Then you credit your friend by putting their name on each Image page, along with a link to their web site and a {{GFDL}} tag and you are done. -- Solipsist 15:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

À propos project, User:JCarriker just yesterday set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, in case you didn't know and/or are interested. –Hajor

Uh, dashes... holy wars between devotees of various forms of dash fetishism (I include myself, but I don't think you're involved). You started off the pyramids article using simple hyphens - like that. I changed 'em to the slightly longer en dashes, which display more pleasantly, but still reflect the original writers basic aesthetic sense – thus. Then this other guy comes along and changes them to the even longer em dashes, but joined up to the words instead of spaced—like that—claiming that my shorter spaced dashes were typographically incorrect (I don't believe they are, but rather just a different way of punctuating the same thing). However, instead of reverting to my short en dashes, I offered the compromise proposal of spaced em dashes — like that — which has in the past been known to placate both the advocates of the longer dash orthodoxy and the acolytes of the reformed church of the spaced dash. Dash fetishism. One of those very petty issues that people can get very cross about. I gather you are blissfully unaware of its existence. Luck you. Check out the usage guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) (if I haven't sent you to sleep already). –Hajor 00:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop. I don't know what to do. I think I could move it to Atlantium instead. This seems a more appropriate place anyway: the latvia article is at Latvia not Republic of Latvia. Does this sound good? Dmn / Դմն 00:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't work. I've place notes on Atlantium and Empire of Atlantium and reported the vandalism on Vandalism in progress. Dmn / Դմն 00:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not the same guy, sorry :). In fact I have no idea who this "Chaim" is. --Shibboleth 02:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz has requested mediation with you over reversions of Sealand. It would be appreciated if you could reply as to whether or not you accept, over at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Ambi 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Following your rejection of mediation Gzornenplatz has now requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. You may make a response on that page. Fred Bauder 14:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Are you personally involved with the whole Empire of Atlantium scam? GeneralPatton 21:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well it is a scam since its absolute and utter nonsense most likely designed to draw attention to its humble creator. By adding articles like that and forcing it be featured on the main page you’re really hurting Wiki, making it into a laughing stock. The fact that you’re personally involved with the whole joke also makes your extensive edits to that article seem done in pretty bad taste. GeneralPatton 01:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment:

• "Absolute and utter nonsense" - this assertion is not sustained by documented 3rd party reference sources.
• "most likely to draw attention to its humble creator" - this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
• "forcing it to be featured on the main page" - this statement is a complete fantasy.
• "your extensive edits to that article seem done in pretty bad taste" - most of my very small number of "changes" to the article have related to formatting. several have related to spelling/factual inaccuracies. How is this is "bad taste" is anyone's guess.--Gene_poole 01:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well done on the ANZAC page. I take your suggestion that Hoff work inside is the only male nude in a war memorial as a challange, though I have looked at a lot and NONE come to mind. Carptrash 23:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Juuust in case you missed it:

With regards to vandalism, the surest option is to ask a developer to run a sock-check on the users in question. This is best accomplished on the IRC chat, but you could drop a note on a talk page as well. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね)

• Oh, the fun we're having here. Just got your note, and if anyone can polish that article, you can. I seem to be at odds as well with one of the two users you mentioned. I'm working to block a problem user, and the user that's hindering you is not only reverting my motions to delete the problem entries, he's doing little else beyond wikifying them. If you haven't already, please take a look at User talk:B-Movie Bandit to see what I mean. It's just too weird. Meantime, I'd be glad to keep an eye on the Atlantium article. Once it's cleaned up, I'll change my vote without hesitation. As I pointed out, it's a fascinating subject. Hang tough and stay in touch. - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Oops...I meant "Sealand." Sorry. Off to sneak a peek at what you've done. - Lucky 6.9 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz does stalk people, clearly. I don't know what happened between you two so I'm reluctant to comment on that. But he's battling me on a couple of articles right now. VV 00:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Getting someone banned is almost impossible. I've had to deal with far worse users than Gz who were and in many cases still are being tolerated. You're welcome to try, but in my experience he is simply editing aggressively and stalking other users' edits, neither of which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. (And even if it were, nothing would be done anyway.) There is a request for mediation pending involving him and me, FWIW. VV 01:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The case involving you has now been opened; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 04:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have enough stress, I don't need to get into THAT quagmire. RickK 23:29, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I am writing about the article Floating island. You originally wrote "many hundreds of hectares". Since 100 hectares = 1 km², I simplified it into "many square kilometres". You then changed this to "many hectares". Was your original description of the area 100 times too big? Just curious. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It is possible that 'hundreds of metres across?' may be more readily understood by the average Wikipedia reader including those in the UK and US. Just a thought. Regards Bobblewik  (talk) 07:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mostly because it's your site. You'll notice I put it back as well. Snowspinner 06:34, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I notice your argument "embassy territory *is* sovereign territory. there is no legal distinction" for including the Knights of Malta's building in Rome as a sovereign enclave. While the question of whether the Knights of Malta is considered a sovereign nation is a tricky one, your argument would seem to say that every country, by dint of having embassies or High Commissions present within it, would have as many enclaves as the number of embassies. I haven't removed your point from the article but we may need to include the distinction in the article. --Roisterer 00:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have created a request for comment, regarding User:Gzornenplatz's behavior, that you may be interested in. ugen64 02:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)