User talk:HarryAlffa

Thank You

Dear Harry, Thank you so much for editing the typo in Mills Observatory page. Much appreciated. --Cyril Thomas 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pneumatics

Just saw your edit on the pneumatics page, and it reminded me of something I ran across. My father works in an oil refinery, and up until fairly recently all the instrumentation was pneumatic. He is aware of accidents happening where the instrumentation was running on nitrogen, and this resulted in the death of the control room operators when a leak occurred. Pneumatic controllers even have a dedicated exhaust port for times when you're not running air. --Paul Anderson (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

re WP:WQA

I have closed the section relating to you as "stale"; there being no movement for a few days, and was previously moribund for several more. Other than gently pushing you in the direction of "comment upon the content and not the contributor", I would also suggest that it may be useful to bear in mind the dictum that people who disagree with you are not of inferior intellect, but may only have drawn different conclusions based upon differing interpretations, analysis, and standards. While in pure science it may be argued that something may be true or not true, the same cannot be said of encyclopedia writing nor human interaction. There is a vast difference between clever and wise; and your essay "May contain nuts" is possibly as clever as it is perhaps unwise. It may behove you to consider that the desire to be appreciated for cleverness may get in the way of being appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) ps. Please do wipe this (as is your right, as it is everyone on their talkpage) if you do not like it, by reading it it has served its purpose.

I do in fact like it and will keep it! With no admission of liability, I liked "the desire to be appreciated for cleverness may get in the way of being appreciated" bit. I enjoy those kind of recursive pithy statements.

There is indeed a vast difference between cleverness and wisdom. Cleverness may be measured, and as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so wisdom is judged by individuals on many criteria based upon differing interpretations, analysis, and standards - me being clever again? But you did say perhaps unwise. My essay "May contain nuts" was written with a desire to be funny, while making a point, I could have made the point without being funny. If it was also clever, well, humour often relies on an intelligent analysis - I don't think there are many stupid & successful comedians.

I completely agree that equally inteligent people can arive at diametrically opposing views based on the same evidence. I didn't base my conclusions of others intellects on their conclusions, but on the faulty, unintelligent analysis they displayed. Pointing this out was perhaps unwise! But patience isn't a hard-wearing substance. As I said before, I don't suffer fools gladly. -HarryAlffa (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are again the subject of a section on an Admin noticeboard; you may wish to comment there.

I nearly always place a proviso before a statement, if I have gained any wisdom it is to know that I am not clever enough to make definitive statements without the consequences of being in error being brought unerringly back to me. I would also comment that while aspects of cleverness can be measured, a facility in one or more faculties does not mean that that person is intrinsically "clever" in all aspects - the famous absent minded professor/mad scientist/computer geek analogies being common reference points. Conversely, the inability to articulate how someone has drawn a conclusion does not necessarily mean the conclusion is therefore wrong (it does mean it is difficult to recreate the parameters to test it, though); "If it looks right, then it is right" is generally a valid truism (I prefer it to "Beauty is truth, and truth is beauty", since I am not sure I can trust either concept to remain constant). Lastly, while it is your personal response to do it gladly or not suffering fools is an armour that allows for the participation of a great many contributors to this project. It is a defining quality of "community". LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may deconstruct your first sentence plus a little spin; what goes around comes around. I always say that I don't mind making an arse of myself, because one, it happens so rarely, and two, I always learn something from it. :)

I should have emphasised when I said "Cleverness may be measured". I agree we cannot be clever in all aspects ie. no one is perfect! No one has shown an inability (except Ckatz) to show how they reached a conclusion, at least until lately when a cabal seems to be operating. It's just the analytical skills they have shown have been poor or very poor. The equaly valid axiom to be derived from "If it looks right, then it is right", is "If it looks stupid, then it is stupid", and we could flock some ducks together as well!. We both understand that beauty & truth are in the eye of the beholder.

As I indicated earlier, the armour against fools is patience, and quite thick plating withstood many foolish criticisms from outside, and filtered from the inside my responses to be neutral and conciliatory. Even if patience was a hard-wearing substance, it simply wore to thin to perform it's semipermeable job of proof against fools, and filter to my responses - "She canny take it Cap'n! The shields are down to 0.1%!". My next defence against getting mad is to get funny - "May contain nuts" -HarryAlffa (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "if it looks stupid, then it is stupid" is not a truism. Aesthetically, nobody can call the hippopotamus "right" but it is superbly appropriate for its environment - and the appropriate environment is exactly the situation I am referring to here. Perhaps an appropriate response to the degrading of the shields is not to transfer energy from life support (since that would be "quite illogical") would be not to find yourself in a position of raising shields in the first place; Picard rather than Kirk - the characters had a different understanding of the phrase "Engage". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I said equaly valid of "if it looks stupid, then it is stupid". I can't resist saying that a hippopotamus would look stupid trying to edit wikipedia, and you could respond by saying it would not be clever to poke it with a big stick! I feel you are shifting armour a bit? Patience to suffer fools, but not being in the position of raising shields in that context is to simply not be here. But I don't think yopu mean that, you are now talking about defending myself against wiki alerts etc? I did in fact poke the big hippo with a stick?

Nice one on Picard & Kirk :) -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I have been trying to infer that because an etiquette alert goes stale is not grounds to disregard the concerns expressed. There is a mediation suggested below, and I would think it wise to agree to participate in order to determine whether it will be of benefit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to say that I have my suspicions about your IQ. I suspect it to be rather high. Ha! I wish I could remember in which TV show I heard that joke! I have only had the opportunity to use it once (in a likewise positive manner, in the mid 1980's now that I think of it) and it's a real pleasure to have an intelligent interchange. It really does contrast for me how tiresome it was becoming explaining the obvious to the ... the other Wikipedians.

Anyway, yes of course it would be wise to follow some mediation, but ...

The tale of the Wise King springs to mind, as I remember it; the Wise King leaves the kingdom for a time and on his return he finds everyone has become mad. But they all think that it is he that is mad, and call him the Mad King. The Wise King discovers it is a poisoned well which has turned everyone mad. He goes to the well and drinks, and becomes mad. The populace rejoice crying "The Mad King is cured, the Wise King has returned".

I was thinking today that in Wikipedia two cretins could overrule Einstein, or Richard Dawkins, I mean purely in terms of expressive, concise prose. Yes, you reply, that's the point of wikipedia, or it's the rough with the smooth. OK, that's the way it is, but is this a good thing?

It makes me wonder about the quality of other articles on subjects I know nothing about. How many intelligent, valuable editors have been over-written by two or three morons acting as a pack, and then decided to piss off from Wikipedia altogether?

I wonder if in wikietiquette it should be possible to complain about someone being stupid? It would save a lot of time if someone got a message saying, "A complaint has been made that you appear to be operating at an unacceptably low intellectual standard". -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Stupidity, fortunately, is apparent to anyone who is less stupid (although it would take diplomacy beyond my imagination to impress that concept on someone who declares they "have no problem" with demonstatably stupid prose/action, given the rather obvious circumstances). Usually it is best countered by the availability of good references, but problems do occur when two people make the common error of believing two heads are better than one - without realising that simply agreeing something is right does not make it so. It is for this reason, and many more, that WP has had to put in place avenues of dispute resolution that takes the argument away from the interested parties and utilises concepts such as good faith, respect, civility and the reliance upon reliable references to determine outcomes. Intelligence, as opposed to cleverness which is often more transparently obvious than apparent, is much less easily discerned. Often it resolves to a value judgement, and shouldn't be trusted but constantly (but civilly) tested.
Re the Good/Mad King, I am reminded of a passage from I, Claudius when the clearly insane Caligula has a moment of lucidity and asks, in all apparent honest concern, whether he is regarded as mad; "M-m-mad?", stammers Claudius, "You s-s-s-set the very st-st-standard for s-s-sanity in the E-e-e-empire!" There lies the difference between the Good King and the Mad Emperor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) ps. 144 (but that was a decade ago)

I was once paid a great compliment by a friend; we were a bit hung-over, out for a walk, and he was telling us about the various flora we passed, I felt I had to contribute something, so when he mentioned the yew tree I dragged up a great deal of information I had gained from a TV program some years before. He was so impressed he said I ought to be a member of MENSA. I immediately disagreed with him, I didn't think that I had displayed any great problem solving intelligence, simple recall isn't the same, you can be the most intelligent being in the world, but if someone asks you, "f you're so clever, what colour is it?" you're stumped! Ah, he said, but high intelligence often goes together with good recall. I was forced to agree!

Good references provide good information. Intelligence is required to synthesise information into knowledge, and then convey this knowledge in writing. Stupidity in analysing (in the talk page) the information from references is of course not countered by those references. I very much doubt that dispute resolution would say; "You two guys are being a bit thick, listen to this other guy - he isn't"! I'm sure there are policies which say that it's just not allowed to say that sort of thing to someone, or it would certainly go against the spirit of policies - but this is what I am questioning. Some pages are protected so that only established editors can edit them, this wasn't always the case. Maybe some pages should be protected from stupid people, no matter how well intentioned they are. Which is what I was getting at by the suggested message of, "A complaint has been made that you appear to be operating at an unacceptably low intellectual standard". Less, and fewer, stupid people editing science articles could only be a good thing! Would you rather Caligula or Claudius set WP? Or, avoiding dictatorship, the stupid or the intelligent? But then democracy gets in the way! The highly intelligent will always be outnumbered! -HarryAlffa (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

solarisation

Hi there, I was tweaking the solar system article and saw your contribs there, and like them. Thanks for making the effort to improve the article. As for your nuts essay, you should start a collection... +sj + 22:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I thank you. Unlooked for praise is always pleasant! I will have a new improved recipe for nuts ... sometime, maybe! I shall make an attempt at a Terminology section! HarryAlffa (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Template val discussion

Hi,

Though I appreciate your input, I'd like to ask you to refrain from speaking on my behalf ("SkyLined has chosen to use his skill-set to create the Val template", "SkyLined will more than likely change the template"). I am more than capable of saying what I've done and what I plan to do myself.

Also, in this particular instance, you're not really adding anything to the discussion either, just repeating what I already said. That tends to happen a lot in discussions and it makes for long boring reads - the kind that people will ignore. This is one of the reasons why we see these style questions a lot - nobody bothers to read the discussion we've had before and just starts a new one.

I hope this remark did not offend you; that is not my intention: I do appreciate your input. Just please be mindful not to speak on other people's behalf without their consent :)

    — SkyLined (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I remember rightly the other contributor(s?) just didn't seem to get what you were saying, so I recast the points you made in the hope they would sink in. The first quote you use is not me speaking on your behalf. It cannot be contentious to describe something which has occurred. As to my guessing of what you might do, this was hardly a promise - and was pretty much what you had implied when you said;

We should come up with a solution to this:→ ONLY if the style of val does not follow the MOS, should val be updated. (Changes to the way an editor uses val should be avoided: only the output style should be changed. Additional uses can be added when they do not interfere with existing ones.

No offence taken. Sleep well :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You might want to think twice before the next time you want to imply another editor is a Nazi. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Any intelligent or honest analysis would see that was not the implication. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm stupid and dishonest? Good to know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The first step to solving a problem is to recognise it. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look again I used an OR not an AND. You can contribute a third option if you like; too quick to judge perhaps; insufficient attention to context? I was rather hoping you would say one of those straight off. Instead of taking offence you could have looked again at the straw man deconstruction this actually was.

The Nazis where all for uniformity, but dressing our 60,000 active editors in Nazi uniforms just to make you happy is just not on.

HarryAlffa (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I Detest Dishonesty

Is that a bad thing?

The straw man is a form of dishonesty. I hate it, and protest when ever it is employed, unless it is knowingly used to illustrate an absurd position - although it may be more a misremembering of another's position than a deliberate fallacy. But in my recent interactions on talk pages it has been used in a dishonest fashion, and I have said so. Should we all let straw men be destroyed by their builders without comment? Would you call it uncivil to protest at a straw man argument? To point out the disreputable use? If so I am guilty of it, and will continue to re-offend in this manner without apology.

To have one's position dishonestly and deceitfully misrepresented is not good to see when everyone is supposed to be operating in good faith. I don't like this, I find it offensive, and when it happens I say so. Is that being uncivil? Then I declare my culpability in that as well, and the charge sheet will grow with further such offences in the future.

On the 7th May 2009, I asked a question about self-links. There was a great quantity of text generated with good information and good discussion. I think the first sign of tetchyness came about two weeks later;

I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself, however, I do not think this is enough to change MOS. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Where Ruslik was carrying over invective from the Solar System FA review. The first hint of criticism of me was;

You've argued very cogently up to this point - though I continue to disagree with you, we'll see how the RFC goes - so don't get tendentious now. Rd232 talk 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we get to the RfC on the 21st of May 2009.

I didn't comment on any user, only their opinions, unlike these;

• "What you say is your opinion, what I say is the objective truth." Constructive? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Judging from your rhetoric, you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless—an attitude that's not really compatible with a wiki. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• plonk. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Suggest silence --Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ... endorse the statement of Kotniski. Ruslik (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• If you insist on demonstrating your compulsion for pissing into the wind, I shall stand clear. -- Tcncv (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet it is I who is being accused?

There was absolutely no justification for these personal attacks - but I didn't ask for admin intervention. I got on with it. JamesBWatson's and Laser Brain's misrepresentations I find particularly offensive - no text of mine will be found to justify such mischaracterisation. Tcncv's comment I thought was rather enjoyable, but I'm judging by the standards being applied to me.

WP:Consensus

Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

All of my arguments are based on a system of good reasons. I believe in this policy. I quote this frequently, I employed it a number of times at WP:Link talk page, but have never had anyone offer any system of good reasons in a counter argument, except perhaps one.

Read my Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence contribution to that talk page, which surely cannot be described as anything but comprehensive and polite.

11 days later Hans Adler then replied to this and misrepresented me in an unacceptable way, he actually lied, "As to your assertions that one needs to have a background in certain web technologies to be worthy of discussing with you", I made no such assertion, nor anything like it. I hate dishonesty, straw men and misrepresentation. I pointed out the disreputable use. I see no apology in the future, but if he wants to make one. His previous contribution was plonk to me at 18:09, 26 May 2009. So a gap of a few weeks, then he drops in with a straw man attack on me, not the arguments, and a misrepresentation of my polite and comprehensive evaluation.

Thanks for finally ending this silly thread.--Hans Adler (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet it is I who is being accused?

In WP:Link talk I count 5 times when I claimed misrepresentation by another, or their use of a straw man - check it out.

• I restore the RfC, Kotniski removes it again.
• I complain in ANI about them both, bit of a mix up on my part about who had removed it prematurely some weeks earlier (Kotniski).
• Ruslik outright lies in the Hans Adler ANI;

  The only editor whose behavior is disruptive here is you, HarryAlffa. During the RFC you constantly tried to let down all other participants by claiming that everybody who disgrees with you is incompetent... Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kotniski ANI Kotniski makes a personal attack

  I believe it disrupts Wikipedia to allow this sort of self-indulgent attention-seeking.

  with no comment from an admin.
• In the same ANI, Hans Adler dishonestly describes my proposal and my contributions, no comment from an Admin.
• SheffieldSteel quotes two bullet point contribs to back up claims of incivility, one which actually contains the personal attack on me from JamesBWatson, and the other a knowingly-poor joke, obviously not ill-intentioned, by me.

Ckatz then joins in. All my interactions with him have been contaminated by his misrepresentations. I give a link to some of his obvious dishonesty - YellowMonkey blocks me. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was being lynched in an ANI, enter stage-left, Sheriff YellowMonkey, who ties my hands and feet. This defies natural justice, I am being prevented from defending myself. In an RfC I called, here was a personal attack on me by Hans Adler, which no one has commented on, to which I replied, Hans' reply to this was to remove the RfC! I complained in ANI. A feeding frenzy started, with me defending myself. Then, because I'm defending myself, YellowMonkey blocks me, citing battlegrounding! How can one reply to a personal attack in an RfC, that had been quiet for 11 days, be battlegrounding? How can you battleground by countering accusations in an ANI? Astonishingly illogical! What's wrong with the primate?
Many users have lost patience with me, and I am beginning to loose patience with them. It seems my biggest crime is not to shut up, by asking for good reasons for stuff - and getting only FUD instead.
See above also.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Also, you are blocked for violating WP:NOT#BATTLE, so it's a bad idea to make an unblock request that does so as well.  Sandstein  18:32, 17 June 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

How can I be battlegrounding by defending myself in an ANI, or answering a personal attack on me in an RfC which had been quiet for 11 days? The ANI was used by two users in particular as an excuse to attack me, carrying invective from the recent Solar System FA review. This was battlegrounding on their part, I had to answer them to defend myself. I did not carry personal attacks to the ANI, I was answering them. Therefore this is an unjustified block. A block without warning.

Decline reason:

"They started it" is a not a defense to battlegrounding (rather it tends to be an admission). Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 18 June 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.

Daniel, that is an unbelievable description of my answering personal attacks. My defence was not "they started it", but that I did not battleground. Please tell me with whom YOU think I was battlegrounding, from when, and in what manner. Some diffs would be helpful. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa seeks an explanation

YellowMonkey, you blocked me. I ask again. Could you provide a narrative of your thought process, and a time line? Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing YellowMonkey HarryAlffa (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons

— WP:Concensus

I can only "edit against consensus" if I am actually against consensus. The Trans-Neptunian object talk page RfC[1] shows that, by reason of WP:Concensus Policy, I had consensus. Therefore the block is invalid. The line I have quoted is to prevent a "stupid consensus". Which is what YellowMonkey is now enforcing. By WP:Concensus definition it is not a consensus unless it has reason(s).
It is also highly suspicious that YellowMonkey, who was incivil to me when I asked him politely for some narrative on his passing of the Solar System at the recent FAR[2], (he blocked me above, and I'm still waiting on an answer) suddenly shows up and blocks me again - was he prodded in this direction? If so in what manner? With what emotional loading? You may notice on the ANI page that this block was his only contribution, he didn't just happen along, he sought out and targeted me.
On the ANI[3] there are the many diffs I supplied which show Ckatz, Ruslik & Serindipodus obviously tag-team reverting, with absolutely no participation in the talk page, no discussion on that? Then, finally some participation on the talk page - Ruslik "playing dumb" on the RfC. Then there is the time between my last edit and the block. It must be obvious to anyone that I had left the article and was awaiting some sensible admin input. Not YellowMonkey to be "recruited" (I suspect).
This is Ruslik's second bite at this cherry[4] where you can see his one outright lie and his other propaganda.
Wikipedia has a nettle to grasp, which it must do soon - how do you deal with those lacking the necessary intelligence to be useful? Ruslik is obviously not gifted with great intellect, as demonstrated by his bemusement at the RfC in a couple of places - and by other corking contributions I won't list here. Sorendipodus isn't the sharpest tool in the box either, look at the current Solar System lead - it has a prime piece of idiocy written their by Sorendipodus, and this was copy edited by Ckatz[5], and endorsed by Ruslik and others, and FA passed by YellowMonkey. It takes but a trifling of knowledge and a minimal number of neurons to detect the idiocy contained there, all of the above lack one of these two things. Not a personal attack, a brutally honest assessment - an inescapable conclusion from these facts. I was jaw-droppingly amazed at this lead, and have been waiting for someone from Wikiproject Solar System to correct it, I think my face may be starting to turn blue!
Hands up everyone reading this who has created an article whose subject is absolutely central to modern life and the Information Technology Age we are revolting(!) in. No? Just me then? If there's someone standing a long way off, you'll need to speak up. I don't hear anyone, apologies if I missed you, so here - Structured document.
So you want to block a highly intelligent, creative, insightful, imaginative, perceptive, witty and articulate guy like me at the behest of the Ckatz Cabal, and their pet (I suspect) YellowMonkey?
Ah, but you're being disruptive, I hear you say (you're standing closer now). Well, you could look at it that way, or you could say that it is the less intelligent (evidently) editors who are being disruptive. If this was a one v one situation or a many v many, then you would have to have some intelligent assessment to analyse the dispute. The prejudiced Yellowmonkey counted heads and engaged his prejudice, counted heads, reviewed his prejudice, and blocked.
Imagine this was a many v many dispute, and engage as much Intelligent Assessment as you would in that case to this.
I think, (obviously) that you must conclude consensus, as defined by Policy, is with me, and that it must follow YellowMonkey was wrong in his block.
I'm asking you to not perform a shallow analysis, as "UncleG" did in his "allusion", if he'd bothered to read further he would have seen that my sentiments about Google echoed his. Perhaps you could tell him that such sanctimonious contributions aren't helpful most places, and certainly not in ANI.
And I just noticed the last dig by Ruslik - a trivial point, which was actually a lie, I only mention it to show his ethical standards.

One last note on the lack of intelligence, from a couple of months back in discussion with a couple of MediaWiki developers;

• HarryAlffa: It was good to get intelligent, analytical discussion - unlike Wikipedia in most of my experience! Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion here...
• Developer: You identify the reason I'm not going to contribute in the same breath as you ask me to do so, I'm afraid.

Decline reason:

Frankly, it seems to me that the RFC centers around your claim that we should mention "trans-Neptune object" in addition to "trans-Neptunian", which is countered by the claims of several other users that hardly anyone ever uses "trans-Neptune object". You counter by pointing out a very small number of examples of its use. I don't see anyone "playing dumb" here; just because you think you have a winning argument doesn't mean that opinion trumps everyone else's. And your repeated incivility including in this unblock request indicates to me that the discussion will not be going anywhere productive if you are unblocked early. You have got to stop calling other editors stupid: all it does is make you look immature, which really doesn't help your credibility. Mangojuice^talk 21:04, 31 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No one's playing dumb? Really? It is not obvious that it is a logical fallacy to use a comparative count analysis to determine significance? If it was 0.3% of 1.234×10¹³ you would have to say that's a lot of use, and if it was 0.3% of 100 then you still couldn't discount it because of the low sample count. How many times did I have to repeat that on the talk page & RfC, and now here as well? And you say no one is playing dumb? Really? If they're not playing dumb, then they're not playing.
I have not called other editors stupid, I have arranged it so they demonstrated their lack of intellect, or offered evidence of it. Big difference. And if it's true that they are stupid ... well that's not my fault. And do you want me to lie about it?
For the good of Wikipedia's aim of creating a high quality encyclopaedia, it is everyone's duty to weed out, as you say, the stupid. How could it not be? It is doubtful that a group of average intelligence editors can give rise to an encyclopaedia much above mediocre, how much worse must it be with, to use your word, stupid editors?
Yes, others have claimed, but that's all they're doing. I have not claimed, I have offered evidence and given reasons, and come to conclusions, the other editors simply nay-say without reason. Yes there are few scientific uses, and Ruslik claimed the term was "unscientific" as if that ended it - but we are not writing a scientific text-book, and there are scientific uses - that is not disputed - but Ruslik then claimed[6] all the science using the term (including NASA, and a book from 2008 available from Amazon[7] by Richard W. Schmude Jr.[8] with this[9] cited in the Saturn article) were insignificant, which I rebutted[10], without reply.
So, against the use: "unscientific" - dismissed with evidence; "science evidence insignificant" - dismissed by examination; "must be a spelling/grammatical error" - dismissed by dint of publishing processes; "scientists use it at conferences" - dismissed by examining that statement; "amateur astronomers use it" - dismissed by the fact that amatuer astronomers use it; astrophysicists use it - dismissed by the fact that they are astrophysicists; "it's very old" - dismissed by the fact that it's been in use since Pluto was discovered means that it has staying power; "pointing out a very small number of examples of its use" - dismissed by 'scientists use it at conferences', how many hundreds were at these conferences?
The author Richard W. Schmude Jr. surely has the target audience for his book included in the target audience for Wikipedia. The publisher of the book is Springer Science+Business Media. So a third party source from a reliable publishing house, an active researcher as author, and we are going to say "we know better, that term shouldn't be used", really?
WP:Consensus demands that you dismiss the number of editors on either side of an argument, and evaluate the reasoning, with regard to Policy and your own native wit.
I don't think I have a winning argument. I have the only reasoned argument. So by WP:Concensus, "we work on a system of good reasons", by WP:Name "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists", and because it was criticised on talk page as widespread colloquial use, it must be the consensus that the alternative name is included.
YellowMonkey's block of me must be lifted as against Policy.
The other editors must be warned that their non-participation in the talk page & RfC while reverting the article is unacceptable, and further warned that they are operating against consensus as defined by WP:Consensus.

It seems from the logs, that blocking me was YellowMonkey's first action on Wikipedia that day. I wonder if the first thing he does is check his email. Hmm, sounds probable, check email, go to Wikipedia - block HarryAlffa. Causal chain there?
Of course it may be that you are frightened by YellowMonkey and the political power he talks about here[11]. Does he consider me on of the nobodies? Does he consider you one of the nobodies?

Decline reason:

You were blocked for disruptive editing, in that you were reverting edits at Trans-Neptunian object without consensus to do so. None of the material in your unblock request indicates that such consensus did in fact exist, nor do you show that the edit in question had a pressing reason to go against consensus (as, for example, with material in a Biography of a Living Person). So, I am forced to decline your unblock request. Please see also my comments below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 1 September 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.

Your unblock request shows very clearly that you are unclear about how Wikipedia functions. I am unclear on how you could be so familiar with our Consensus Policy and still advocate discounting the opinions of "stupid editors" or editors of "average intelligence". Quite frankly, you don't get to do that. Your voice is one of many, and while you may or may not have good points, you cannot get your way by disregarding other editors. I am strongly inclined to block you for a longer period of time, because I'm not convinced that you understand how problematic your editing has become. You will need to read and review our civility policy before any administrator considers an unblock, and that may be unlikely in any event. Please calm down and attempt to work within policy - or, alternatively, you may be happier editing elsewhere. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Pasting the same comment to four different related noticeboards is not cool. In addition, stating that someone is "unable to listen to reason" can be construed as a personal attack -- especially when it's repeated all over the place. Pick a forum and stick with it, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at further discussion ignored

File:GauzeGray 50PercentTransparent.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:GauzeGray 50PercentTransparent.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 12:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of lying

This would really be a nice time to at least pretend to assume good faith. Continued accusations of lying could result in a block for either personal attacks or disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re; Checkuser

It's not Akraj; as for who it may be, if anyone, I'm not sure, as I don't have the time nor the mental capacity to check just now. As Jehochman pointed out, however, we try to avoid linking specific IP addresses to accounts anyway for privacy reasons. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks

This is a personal attack. You've been warned repeatedly about making them. I suggest you strike it or you could earn yourseslf another block. Auntie E. 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HarryAlffa. You have new messages at John's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFAR request blank

I had to blank your statement at the RFAR you filed as it came to some 10000 words. It should be limited to 500 but even with generous leeway, this is way over the top. Please rewrite your request statement. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And after further consideration and advice by an Arb, I've removed it entirely. If you wish to refile correctly I can give you some guidance, but I'd strongly suggest that you use other methods of dispute resolution first as without doing this your request is likely to be denied. If you need sources for these, see WP:DR - please however only use of these at a time. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Jimbo Wales

I have already reverted one edit to remove your very lengthy post to Jimbo's talkpage. May I suggest that you collapse the content, so that it doesn't put off readers - and Jimbo - by its massiveness? While I am sure that you feel that you can evidence all your particular claims, I would also suggest that you review the content (I realise you have already reviewed it many times before committing it) to ensure that your language is as civil and neutral as possible. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, I am going to collapse it since you seem to be offline. Please do not edit war to make it visible - if you want to discuss how you want it then please drop me a line. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that Jimbo is a "court of appeal", but your huge post on his talk page is not necessary. A reasonably short statement with a link to the page with the parties, statements, evidence, etc., is sufficient. There is no reason to add so much bulk to Jimbo's talk page, and I ask you to remove it. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)

I've come to regard Wikipedia as the most corrupt society I've been involved in. No intended slight on LessHeard (who I have a high regard for) or Finell (who I've never met) - but if you do nothing else look at this[12] swept under the carpet with threats and closed with a propaganda attack. And this "Follow up" immediately below it on the same page[13]. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the above, and admit to being a little concerned over the attitude of Ckatz and Ruslik0 - in that I do not see any attempt at dispute resolution, or an acknowledgement that the disputed content had some verification. I also do not see any in your part either (and I am familiar with your viewpoint as regards truth and verifiability, which isn't as optimum as might be) and nor do I see the sources specifically supporting the entire content you were attempting to include, but the part about particle acceleration - which it was claimed as unsupported - does appear as well as some other material. The proper method was to have started a discussion with a view to incorporating that of the original and the new content as was supported. Per WP:BRD it might be argued that it was for you to initiate a discussion, but it may also be argued that removing the content without reference was also improper. As I see it, there is a case that content was being removed inappropriately and not discussed - thus precipitating an edit war, and that the other parties response was to concentrate on the editors character rather than the disputed content.

The question is, what do you want to do Harry? Do you wish to take the contested edits into dispute resolution, do you wish to start a RfC on the two editors, both, or do you wish to withdraw from editing the subject/Wikipedia. I can help, but only within the Wikipedia remit. This means that I would require from you conduct and attitude that is respectful, neutral, and acknowledging that you might not get all or much of what you desire. If you think it worthwhile to pursue this option, let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aurora article was the culmination of wikistalking by Ruslik, Ckatz, Serendipodous & YellowMonkey. The first two only involved in that article, so the remit of the content of the article is really quite irrelevant at this point. If you look at the "massive edit" you will see the evidence of wikihounding across multiple namespaces and Wikiprojects. So any idea of proper procedure on article content has been killed off by these four. In other words your description of edit-war, which may be well supported by narrow evidence, in the big picture it is a pursuit of an editor by these, rather than the pursuit of improving the project.

The outright lies and deception by Ruslik & Ckatz in the ANI I raised has a direct bearing on my concern of the corrupt nature of Wikipedian society, one part being that lies & deception by admins are ignored & when a non-admin says "look at this - it's lies and deception - and here are the diffs to evidence it" - as I did - the non-admin - me - is accused of personal attacks or not assuming good faith. As the "IP24" said, "It's just that I too have endured baseless accusation by Ckatz.". This user is now User:24dot

The ANI was properly raised and justified by it's own content, but it was also a "toe in the water" before I raised the ArbCom request (see above on this page). It was a test of the corruption of Wikipedian admins - I half expected a cover-up and perhaps even another block from YellowMonkey, but the silence from other admins disappointed, and the cover-up by another was extremely disappointing. However, in a triumph of hope over experience, I do hope that my current view of endemic corruption and dishonesty of Wikipedians will be overturned.

Ruslik & Ckatz got defensive in the ANI, and their instinct was to immediately lie and deceive. Nothing was said of this. Such dishonesty from the Ckatz Cabal is what I've come to expect. I believe it would be irresponsible of the Project to allow them continued "access to the tools"

I think this extract will help some;

Ruslik & Ckatz on Aurora

(Extract from wikihounding evidence, this is about the twelfth page in the hounding-series, from April 2009. They often turn up within the hour of my edits, and to pages they have never edited before to hound me)

On 27 August, 2009 I corrected the auroral mechanisms section[14] with an edit summary of, “Correct confusion and contradiction. Copy-edit”, within 15 minutes Ruslik had reverted me[15], claiming in his edit summary, “You removed so much information that I ought to revert”. This brought the total number of edits he made to the article in it's entire history to 2, both reversions. He again shows an inherent inability to analyse or even comprehend the material.

I was in the process of putting together references for my contribution, but I gave up, because frankly, what the fuck was the point? Instead I was confident, or at least hopeful, that with the involvement of the Wikiproject Physics, someone would spot this and undo Ruslik. My faith was misplaced.

On 3rd October I tried again with pretty much the same edit[16], within eight hours Ckatz had reverted[17] with an edit summary, “restore more encyclopedic text”. Unbelievable! I in turn undid him[18] with an edit summary of, “Restore corrections. No wikihounding please.”. About 15 minutes later Ruslik undid me[19].

On 6^th October I undid Ruslik[20] with an edit summary, “Please. No group Wikihounding.”. Then made a minor change[21] with regard to his previous edit summary. Within 35 minutes Ruslik undid me[22], with an edit summary of, “You should learn classical electrodynamics before you make such changes”.

On 10^th October I undid Ruslik[23], then made a series of four edits adding references and one copy-edit. [24] [25] [26] [27] The next day Ruslik reverted me[28] with an edit summary of, “I do not agree with removal of information”.

The next day another user reverted Ruslik[29] with an edit summary of “don't remove cited mateial”. Ckatz then reverted[30] with an edit summary of, “It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.”.

It is clear that Ckatz and Ruslik are determined to hound me, and will lie and deceive in their edit summaries in a vain attempt to justify the hounding.

(end of extract)

I think this should cause anyone more than a little concern.

Remember that this is one of a long series of examples - in other words I've quoted myself out of context. I think a reasonable conclusion is that both Ckatz & Ruslik are liars. Sorry if you think that is a personal attack - I think it is an accurate description. People seem to forget (judging by the policy quotes thrown around) that part of policy is common sense - if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as you see it, you feel there is little point in attempting dispute resolution because the revert war on Aurora is an example of continuing following of your edits by a group of admins/editors, whose actions are designed to frustrate your attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia - and whose response to attempts to discuss these concerns are to concentrate comment upon your character rather than detailing any specific problem with the edit? Is that correct? Would you, if you wished to spend the effort, be able to evidence this behavior occurring over a length of time and across a breadth of articles? I am suggesting that if there is the likelihood of being able to produce such evidence that you might consider opening a Wikipedia:Request for comment/User conduct (providing there is also evidence that other people have also complained about similar issues). In any event, are you able and willing to provide examples of the alleged wikihounding other than the Aurora episode? If there is a reasonable indication that the admins are using their flags, or threatening to do so, in order to demotivate another editor from contributing to an area of the encyclopedia then I feel I should make civil enquiries as to why this would appear so. Let me know if you feel able to supply this information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed able to provide the evidence. I have it sitting here. I posted it Jimbo's page.

I'm puzzled as to the importance of other people making the same complaint. I must also supply evidence of this - if it is occurring? A group can wikihound one person, but not more than one? Am I missing something obvious here? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A Request for comment/User conduct requires two different people to make the same type of complaint for it to proceed. This ensures that there appears to be a valid concern regarding repeated behaviour rather than one person make a premature or frivolous complaint - and it also allows people to make mistakes now and then without getting overly censured for it. However, since it appears that you are taking the ArbCom route then the matter is moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GlassCobra 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A dishonest thing happened to me on the way to ArbCom. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Politeness Police

Wikipedia:Politeness Police, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Politeness Police and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Politeness Police during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 20:54, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your questions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Ruslik0/Questions for the candidate

Your recent additions to the aforementioned questionnaire are out of line. I suggest revising your queries to make them more civil. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Without discussing the extreme impoliteness of your tone in the questions, they are not in line with the general format of candidate questions. I suggest you either discuss these issues personally with Ruslik0, or on the candidacy discussion page. Please try to approach him with civility. All the best, ~ Riana ⁂ 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent defense of your questions [31] in ANI indicates that you still feel the questions were reasonable. They were not. They violated WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Arbcom elections are not a free-fire zone for insults or attacks on candidates. Please consider this a final warning, that any further abusive behavior in this manner will result in a block on your account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Harry, can I suggest that you keep your RfAr concerns and questions to candidates separate? General questions regarding potential problems with comprehension and neutrality, with examples, should be politely made - the idea is to demonstrate to other readers of potential concerns with respect to the candidate. As for the RfAr, this is where you can address serious concerns in respect of the other parties actions but again it will only be read if it is done in a civil manner. Being heard is the only way to have your concerns evaluated, so you are going to have to do what it takes to be heard - which is to appear civil in your commentary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You, and others, are correct, I should not have "poisoned the well" as someone put it. I was so outraged at the prospect of Ruslik even thinking of applying for ArbCom that my desire to stop that sort of damage to the project outweighed all other concerns. I am still astonished that no friend of his has had a quiet word in his ear and told him not to stand. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Two remaining points;

• His English skills are questionable on his candidacy page, and how about this talk page[32] (part of the Wikihounding be Ckatz & Ruslik);

"non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian" is not a good language.

— Ruslik

• Ruslik was confused be this question[33]

I have seen examples of poor usage of English from you frequently on Wikipedia, as can be seen from some of your answers on this page. You do not think that this lack of skill greatly hampers all communication by you?

— HarryAlffa

You will have to explain to me exactly how this violates each of the policies quoted at me here.

Given that you were confused by the use of transitive property in this talk page[34], you do not think that you simply lack the intellectual ability to handle any case that would come to ArbCom, as it is certain that they will be more complex than that simple question?

— HarryAlffa

Again, given the truth of his confusion, this is a valid question. Please explain to me exactly why this violates each of the policies quoted at me here. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert. Can you please explain to me why that question (I have refactored it) violates WP:AGF? HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your original question, as written, also included:

Given that I am raising an ArbCom case against you, chiefly for Wikihounding[35], you do not think that such behaviour is incompatible with adminship, never mind ArbCom membership?

— HarryAlffa

You there presume that your not-yet-filed Arbcom case has been decided, in your favor, supporting your opinion that he's hounding you. That you are creating such a case does not create any such presumption of outcome. There has been no independent admin or community support for such a finding of hounding. You may believe so and file that case, but you are not entitled by that opinion to presume that those people are convicted already. This violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

The "lack the intellectual ability" comment violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Fundamentally - we expect all contributors to treat all other contributors as human beings and with respect. Your first unrefactored questions clearly did not do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected, complete nonsense. Your statement is so silly that I can't begin to tell you how wrong it is. You said, "You there presume that your not-yet-filed Arbcom case has been decided". I assure you that this was not the case - I would consider that to be a stupid assumption. I am not a stupid person. I would therefore ask that you assume good faith on my part, and withdraw everything on this page based on your mind-reading trick.

You quote out of context and misrepresent when you describe part of my questioning as the "lack the intellectual ability comment"

By the perverted interpretation of standards you are trying to apply to me, your accusation of me not treating others as human beings is a personal attack. If it wasn't so silly I would spend time thinking more on it, which may lead to concluding that it is a straight up personal attack.

Here's a few points for you to think on.

WP:Civil, WP:AGF & WP:NPA are all policies written in mind for the writing of encyclopaedic articles.

Then let's consider the ArbCom an article. What then is this articles content?

Hmm, let's see … the ArbCom is an article, so what is the ArbCom made of? Why, members. So that means the content of the committee is it's members. So an election is a decision on the content of this article.

So.

Members are editors, so content is editors, so in order to write this article we must discuss the content.

We must discuss the editor who is to become part of the content.

You don't like that?

WP:Civil, WP:AGF & WP:NPA are all policies written in mind for the writing of encyclopaedic articles.

But ArbCom is not an article. It is an election to decide which persons are to be members of that important committee.

We must discuss the editors who are to become members of the committee.

We cannot question articles about their content, nor can we ask the content questions, but we can ask the proposed contents of the ArbCom questions.

Is a certain level of intellectual ability pertinent to ArbCom membership? If you do not think so, how many of the present ArbCom do you consider stupid? Would a low intellect on ArbCom help or hinder? If there is evidence (a diff) of intellectual failings, does the candidate realise this failing? Can he explain it as something other than an intellectual failing? The questions were politely put. They were challenging, and they were meant to be, and anyone in the community (which includes me) has the right to ask candidates challenging questions on their past performance. There was no name calling, all questions were relevant to a quality of the candidate pertinent to his ability to perform on ArbCom. They were not deferential. Which may be the actual cause of the consternation you and others displayed.

Your threats of blocks I regard as an attempt to bully. Do not try to bully me.

Finally I would contrast the participation of admin's in this[36] ANI with the marshalling of forces which you participated in[37], and then came here. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Harry, I suggest you find other areas of the 'pedia to work on for a while where those you're frustrated with aren't involved. There are many collegial and collaborative editors here (and others who aren't, sometimes because they've been bitten one too many time). My personal opinion on the language and communication issues you're raising is that they seem a bit petty. If you feel that the content dispute underlying the disagreement is valid, and don't desire a break (despite my kind suggestion), then try getting outside opinions with neutrally worded requests at the third opinion noticeboard wp:3o, the wp:content noticeboard, or on the project discussion page. At the present time you seem to be very frustrated and antagonistic, and trying to get a pound of flesh isn't usually conducive to collegial collaboration on encyclopedia building. You might also consider taking a break from Wikipedia all together, or at least finding other article projects and collaborations to work on until the dust has settled. This project should be at least somewhat enjoyable. And don't let Hans bug you. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notifying on ANI

Hi, HarryAlffa! This is a kind note gently reminding you that when you start threads of other editors on WP:ANI you must remember to notify them. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just keep it in mind if there is a next time. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 18:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, HarryAlffa. I noticed that you created another thread on WP:ANI but you again forgot to notify the user. Again- don't worry as it's been taken care of. However I think you need to really try to keep this in mind. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I really don't know how I could have forgotten this, well except that I've been wikihounded for so long that I expect my every edit to be reverted! No kidding actually. All joking aside, this definitely makes sense to me. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF

I would like to offer any help I have with your AGF suggestions. Is there any way I can be of assistance?--Adam in MO Talk 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, rewrite it as I suggested. I have an ArbCom case to prepare, so don't have the time to do this. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)