User talk:The7thdr

The Day After Roswell

Hi. Could you explain your reasoning here? Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

POV axe to grind

The first big hint that someone has a massive POV axe to grind is when they start trying to harass users who disagree with their edits by making highly questionable threats and/or AN/I reports. It is a big red flag for me. My suggestion is you focus on the talk page of the article rather than dropping threats on user talk pages. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat - I have tried to discuss with you and you have ignored me. Before reporting a third edit I am obliged to inform you of such. I like to think it is good manners.In response, my experience of POV is when an editor repeatedly makes reverts without discussion and on occasion without a comment in the edit box. I am surprised that this has happens with some one who claims to have started their own WIKI based on "rationality. The7thdr (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I am not sure of your experience in this area so want to alert you to 3RR. At 4RR you could and probably would be be blocked.(olive (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fable 2

First off, as far as WP:V is concerned web sites are considered as good enough for popular culture as long as they aren't "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

Second, the posts were not from the forum, but news. 1up is considered a reliable independant news site with peer overview, unless you have some information I don't have on this particular site.Jinnai (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to flag up, you're up to WP:3RR on Fable 2. --Ged UK (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, however several of those were clear vandalism, ie deleting entire page content.Jinnai (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to User:The7thdr. --Ged UK (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Followup on your reply.

Perhaps it might need a bit rephrasing, but I hardly see a game permenatly freezing as an intended game design. That was my point. I didn't comment on other stuff. If you look at their site, the number of articles they have like that numbers into 3 (at the time i posted that). All of those dealt with serious issues like corruptions, freezes, etc. Stuff that isn't "limited number of saves", but stuff that is a defiantly a bug.

About what is reliable, the general industry consensus is that any article 1up does considered legit, except for (p)review articles which they tend to favor big names even if the title is bad. Reports like those are different however and considered at the same level you'd consider an article from Wired.Jinnai (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it does need to be worded carefully. However 1up reported the freezes and game-breaking bugs in a news article, they did not report anything about hacking. That shows first, that the hacking item should probably be treated with a grain of salt at this time and second, 1up clearly has some kind of peer review to not post every single thing they have. The news articles also didn't appear immediately after the incidents were first reported, but a couple days later.

The number of players being affected, probably should not be mentioned beyond "being reported" because a lot of users may be experiencing these troubles and not reporting it or almost everyone who is, is reporting it. We can't know which it is just by looking at articles or forum posts.Jinnai (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bad wording on my part. My point was 1up is considered a trusted site by the industry for reliable news, much like Wall Street Journal is for business news, with the once exception I mentioned before. That is considered good enough for WP:V for popular culture sources since academic material is rarely available.Jinnai (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in here

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Article:_Transcendental_Meditation.2C_Users_TimidGuy_and_Littleolive_oil Fladrif (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow down

It's great to be eager, but I suggest that you slow down a bit and take more time in discussing your edits on the talk page and in seeking consensus. Editors who are followers won't feel they need to be as involved if editors who are critics aren't just dumping stuff into the article. Wikipedia is a long term project and we don't have to get it right immediaely.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Religions are sensitive topics, so comments like this can lead to tension.[1] Please try to be more considerate of the beliefs of other people.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

If someone removes material citing WP:BLP, please do not restore it. I will if necessary suspend your editing rights to enforce the policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Availablity for Mediation on TM article

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. (olive (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

File copyright problem with File:LakeMeditationB.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:LakeMeditationB.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Humor

Jokes that one person think are funny may not appear so funny to someone else. Particularly where spiritual beliefs are concerned. I advise avoiding humor, lest it be misinterpreted.[2]   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note on outing

Just a friendly note 7th: None of the users presently working on the TM pages indicate as far as I can see on their user pages that they are faculty at MUM. If you have other information that they are, you in disclosing that information are outing them. Outing on Wikipedia is serious breach and can result in very long blocks. I would mention also that any personal information about my employment not on my user page is in some case outdated, but if disclosed is also outing as some recent ArbCom cases indicate. I have had to protect certain kinds of information due to ridiculous anonymous phone calls ... a clear sign that those on Wikipedia are not necessarily nice people, and that someone has too much time on their hands. (olive (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

7th ... I recently watched an editor banned indefinitely precipitated when he mistakenly revealed information on an editor contained in an archive, and in a situation he thought to be appropriate. You have indeed accused those on the TM page of being MUM people. My note was not a threat, but a friendly warning. An admin coming onto the TM page may caution you about this. David Orme Johnson does not advise me, a lowly Wikipedia editor.. as I said.(olive (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify:

Thanks for you comment on my Talk Page, 7th. I appreciate you taking the time to leave a message. What I was trying to do was to use your experience as a peer-reviewer to try to arbitrate this discussion on Otis. I though that if we could approach the study in a even rational way, we may be able to resolve this impasse. And you have not offended me in any way. I enjoy the cut-and-thrust of the debate. However, i do not like the "personal" attacks that are sometimes employed. I feel it is OK to savage the content of the comments, but not the authors. See you back in the fray on the TM discussion page! --BwB (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

True to Your Word?

"Spiritual/religious/esoteric profiteering: I have a deep dislike and mistrust of any organization that in anyway "profits" or "charges" for spiritual or religious "secrets" or services of any kind and consider it possibly the most shameful of all religious activities". Perhaps you put this POV aside when editing? It does not influence you in any way when deciding what text, references, quotes, etc. should go in any article? --BwB (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Point

Hey 7th, Recently you correctly informed BWB that he shouldn't use bold and caps as part of his text on the talk page. So I am also taking a moment to remind you as well. Recently you put the following in the summary box on one of your edits

• "Do NOT, I repeat DO NOT remove reference materila form this article without discussion"

OK, nuff said. I look forward to having many caps-free discussions with you in the future, my friend. :-) Namaste, Kbob--Kbob (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The7thdr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hate to be rude, but if one reads the comments below, not only does it appear that the block was unjustified but neither editor has either reserched what happened or are clear as to why I am blocked! I would appreciate an independent review

Decline reason:

You got it. Block sustained. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi 7th, is this a user name of yours? I'm not sure. If yes, please see the message I posted on that user page about careless comments about other editors. And if that user account is unrelated to you I apologize in advance for my error. Cheers!--Kbob (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

The7thdr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

80.7.181.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)". The reason given for Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)'s block is: "Personal attacks or

• Blocking administrator: Rlevse (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: No and I've blocked your main account for the remaining time left on your sock's blocks. Here's what I see: using a second account to engage in a dispute that your first account was already active in, using the second account to avoid being caught in the 3RR, confusing and skewing discussions by using both accounts to comment and finally using the second account to attack other editors. Not sure why you thought that behavior was at all appropriate, its not. — Shell ^babelfish 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

admitted socking of blocked account and being this account, therefore, recommend unblock be denied as The7thdr appears to have created a bad hand account (Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)). In fact, I recommend indef'd the sock and blocking this main account too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as abusive socking under the presnet definition since he was upfront about it being an alternate account. (Though if he used on to avoid 3RR that's clearly unacceptable.) However I don't see what benefit the other account brings. I endorse the block, as this user has been edit warring. However I do not think there should be an indefinite block. Hopefully a few days off will help this editor relax and take a fresh approach to the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that The7thdr never denied the connection was the only reason I didn't make the block any longer than the original block for personal attacks. The sock has been indef'd though - using a second account, even if you don't deny it when asked, to influence discussion, edit war and generally engage in the same dispute twice isn't really a legitimate use of a second account. Also, when one's second account is blocked, moving back to the first and evading the block on your IP doesn't really help the case. His comments on your talk page concern me since they seem to indicate a lack of respect for community norms (i.e. he can get around the block, if this doesn't go away he'll quit etc.) It also seems that he doesn't understand why calling people stupid is considered a personal attack and that really starts to worry me. Maybe The7thdr could chime in here? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the comments? Shell ^babelfish 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've now had to block another sock used to evade: User:Meyouandhim. The7thdr, you need to stop this immediately or you'll likely end up banned from Wikipedia over what should be just a short block. Please reconsider the way you are handling things and discuss the issues here. Shell ^babelfish 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if one agrees to the "alt ego" argument, the account was still edit warring, threatening people, and personal attacks. Furthermore, the TM page is not the place to ID an "alt account", if one even buys that argument here. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the new sock tried to get me to unblock: User_talk:Rlevse#Banning_Lotus_Blossom_.28ak_the_7th.29 — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have returned from work and have to say i find this entire fiasco unbleivable. have any of you actually read the TM page? have you identified the number of editors "edit waring and reversing material on there, A number of questions need to be asked:

1 You claim that Lb is a "Sockpuppet" yet you are aware that such an "alt" is created to hide ones identity. As a quick survey of the page makes clear - LB was generated as a reply to gender specific assumptions while addressing me - something i see you are repeating Rleve. Perhaps you might want to read the article on "gender neutral witting?

2 You claim I made 3 reverts yet I only count one. indeed, once again it is the editor form the TM org - who doesn't even have the decency to loggin - who i think you will find made 3 reverts.

3 You claim edit wars yet it was clear form my comments that this was an attempt to make a "bold" edit to bring the article out of a stalemate is had been in for months. Can I point out the statement I made that I would not the only contest any revert but for people to give it a little time while things settled down (see Tm talkpage). Can i add that the only revert I made was to an unknown user who had been highly disruptive editing the article for 24 hours - see history.

4 The final fact seemed to be that I used MED-R guidelines to remove none complaint studies from the article while the editors "calmed down" and came to some sort of neutral npov edit.

I have put up with a lot of harassment for my religious views - or should that be my atheism - I hope this is not a continuation there of? The7thdr (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) The7thdr (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know your gender or religious views, so that argument is total hogwash and shows your lack of AGF and tendency towards personal attacks. You got blocked, or rather your sock, by me for edit warring (I did not say 3RR), threats, and personal attacks. Thanks for proving my point. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You should know my gender, if you do not it means that you have blocked me without even understanding the reason for Lbs existence - which was clearly stated repeatedly on the TM talk page and all editors were aware of it. :) And my religious views are on my profile page - clearly. They are there, because I have been spending to much time on the TM page, but I do want people to know what my - and we all have them - POV is so that any edits or contributions i make should be seen in that light.

No where above have I made a "personal" attack on you, I asked a question and it was a genuine one. Perhaps you are being slightly over sensitive. But then we all do have our moments - I know I do :).

On LBs block its says - among other things - Blocked for 3RR

You see rleve, this is my problem, it is clear that you do not know the full story and this is what has perhaps caused my confusion. I do admit however, as I explained to another editor on the TM after "I" putt back a "pro" Tm article we had earlier removed - that the page was so "heavy" with text, it is perhaps difficult to come into it and see clearly what is happening. Perhaps we have both misunderstood each others actions. It certainly seems I have misunderstood yours :). Namaste

edit: Actually, it says in the block above in this section that I was blocked for 3RR. I really am confused releve, I really am :-)

• Now its my turn to ask if you even read what I wrote. I explained in my decline why I was not removing the auto-block and how your use of this account to evade the block on LotusBlossom lead to me digging deeper and finding more problems. You then proceeded to bring out another sockpuppet account and continue to evade your block. This is now a serious concern.

  I understand that you're frustrated with the TM article and feel that there is some poor behavior going on there. The correct course of action is to get some help through dispute resolution or administrators (if blocking/banning is needed). You did violate 3RR only you had to use both accounts to do it - you do not get 3 reverts for each account and in fact, should never, ever have used both accounts for this dispute. You may also be blocked for edit warring even if you don't go over 3 reverts - edit warring is never a productive way to handle a dispute. Also indicated in the block message was this personal attack where you insulted someone's intelligence and reading skills - I'm sure you know that personal attacks are not accepted on Wikipedia, right?

  So what this boils down to: You used a second account improperly. You edit warred. You made personal attacks. After being blocked, you evaded the block using other accounts. What happened at the TM article and who's right or wrong there has nothing to do with your block; your own behavior is what got things here. Shell ^babelfish 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell: I apologize: The 3RR was I see done by me. I did the first as the7th because I was on a different computer and I had forgot LB's login password!! It was not attempt to circumnavigate the 3RR but an error - obviously everyone was aware that it was "me". Still so many reverts is of course un-acceptable. And yes, I do so now what you mean about the languge - very wrong of me. I did indeed get somewhat aggravated and should had turned to mediation of course. I will not, as I have said, start another account till after the ban. However, i would appreciate if you would change the ban on LB to make it the smae as this one. It seems that only by using a more "famine" name that I might stop the gender bias. If this is not possible, then I will start a new account and leave a message with you as an admin to inform me that it is indeed me. It seemed that perviously doing so on the page was not acceptabe and coaused confusion. I will of course be more restrained in my language in future.

Enough

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)