User talk:Tarl N./Archive 1

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you when I get done with the editing! It will be great if you traduced back the article to Spanish! Merry Xmas Paliano (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The introduction you made is very good and clear. I have left the editing of the article for a few days, as I have been a bit busy. I hope to retake it soon in order to add more information about the succession in the title, the dissolution of the estate, etc.. and to create the articles about the marquises and the dukes of Monteleone. Thanks for your help --Paliano (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarlneustaedter,

How is it that I have 11 other external links to my Google Maps on Wikipedia, yet you removed the Cortés one? You say that the information is already in the article. Where is there an existing map on this page that links each location in the map to a page in Cortés' published book "The Despatches of Hernando Cortés: the conqueror of Mexico"? Thus, my original Google Map is a tertiary reference which does report content published elsewhere. It links to a Google Book. My map allows you to zoom in on the actual locations, complete with Wikipedia links, and Wiki photos for each location. You state that neither Google maps nor I can guarantee this content stays the same. Well, that can be said for all Wikipedia content. Everything on Wiki is editable by anyone no matter how much of an authority they are. Also, my map, based on Cortés actual dispatches, points out an error in the map on the page. Thus, my map is more accurate than the one you approved. In addition, does the map on the page define a difference between Cortés Mayan allies and the Aztecs he conquers? My map does. See a similar link on Wiki page " Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire" that contains a map more accurate than the map on the you remove my map. Thus, your opinion is only your opinion. Also, my blog is unique, it contains few if any comments. All the information provided is linked to an online source such as Wikipedia or an actual book written by the explorer himself.Thus, the reader can form their own opinions from the explorer themselves.Pragmaticstatistic (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do turn me over to the administrators. It is time to determine the difference between when the UNESCO World Heritage Committee puts up Google Maps of its projects on Wikipedia vs. an individual doing the same thing. UNESCO's interest in Wikipedia is no different than mine. Every map I have put up is either supported with links to a Wikipedia page (your own free access material) or an online book by the explorer with free access from Google Books because the book is over 100 years old. Thus, all the information within these Google maps is authenticated by a reliable source. As such, they make as valid a source of reference as does UNESCO.

The information my maps provide enhances the information provided by Wiki. How does the Cortés map you approve of provide terrain information, vegetation density, population density, or ancient trade routes data in regard to the route Cortés took? It is a very different picture when you factor in these items. In my Alexander the Great Google Map, you can see why Alexander's army followed the ancient trade routes around the great desert in Iran and Afghanistan rather than crossing it. You cannot see that in the maps on Wikipedia even though some of the geographical maps include it. Google Maps do it far more effectively. So, why is wrong with me observing what maps are on Wikipedia and improving them with a Google Map of it to enhance the visitor's experience. My blog is nothing but these type of maps. If Wiki can point to other web sites, it can point to the original Google Maps that are embedded in my blog. The links I put on Wiki do not point to my site. Admitedly, some maps include a link to my blog, but what is wrong with the visitor knowing who created the Google Map on Google's server? If UNESCO can be acknowledge as the creator of its Google Map on Wikipedia, so can I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmaticstatistic (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Martín Cortés, 2nd Marquis of the Valley of Oaxaca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of San Quentin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Also went back and fixed the article in Spanish which had the pointer to a disambiguation page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	The best reference is a paper C. J. Burrows et al. Apj 452:680 1995. Figure 2 shows the limb brightening taking no account of the superradiance. The superradiance has the well known property to leave only an orthogonal set of the the strongest modes (light beams) . jmo JMO (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the photo with the silhouette is not a "photoshop" than *why* are there copies of the exact same photo down to the numerical negative markings WITHOUT the silhouette? To me it seems common sense. One is real, one has been manipulated for effect. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 

Hi Tarlneustaedter. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Hello.

I have edited your user page for improved formatting and better readability. See my edit here. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tarlneustaedter, thanks for the message after reversing my edit. In retrospect I completely agree that the edit would have been better suited to a 'Recent News' section - which there isn't, so I guess it is not relevant for this article. I shall keep WP:Recent in mind in future. Thanks Horation12 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightenment. I thought the edits I was making were but correcting errors. You have led me to consider developing my first article, which will be 'Beachmaster', see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Roberts RJCan 20:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

just because one refernce refers to her as a missitress, doesn't make that statment correct.

i've seen relieble sources suggest that she was a sexual abuse victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossovershipper (talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded on Talk:La Malinche. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the organized crime reference (#3) in the infobox: http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2013/02/27/886439 "Los delitos: 1. Violación a la Ley Federal Contra la Delincuencia Organizada

BBC article in English: Mexico union head Gordillo charged with organised crime. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Tarl, I have a request for semi-protection pending at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice he also tried to edit Saturn V and got reverted just as fast there. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Success, if only for a week.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tarlneustaedter; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to let you know that I suppressed some edits you made to the above page. While I understand where you're coming from there, I think you went over the edge just a little on posting RL names. I know you're invoking WP:COI there, but you can probably do that in a better way than you did there. Just FYI, as complaints were made by a third-party - Alison ^❤ 23:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I went over the line and realized it when it was pointed out. Thanks for cleaning this up. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my removing the 'added rooms' phrase was a bridge too far. Thank you for that change. There was no grammar error in my edit but rather a content error in that the phrase "there was no alternative to Helium" should be "there was no other alternative to Helium" (emphasis added). The 'economy of production' phrase should not be a part of the section. Neonorange (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 

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

I would like to know why you reverted this edit by an IP? Best, jona^{talk to me} 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Not notable. Individual murders, caused press coverage at the time because of celebrity, but had no lasting impact. By now, the only meaning to those events is that some of us remember the news coverage - twenty years later, neither Selena's nor Jon Benet's murder caused any significant changes. They were minor events which got publicity at the time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you are either from the USA or a non-Anglophone, meaning that I have all the right in the world as a speaker of the Queen´s English to differentiate between US and proper English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipthesecond (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English before changing any spellings from one variant to another. What it comes down to is that in any given article, if spellings are in either U.S. or British variants, leave them alone. Changing them just gets into edit wars about which is "right", the current policy is that any given article should be consistent with one of the spelling forms. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I read in the article that V838 Mon has a B type companion in the second paragraph, last 3 words.Crazy17wer (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you were trying to do. The format you used made me wonder what you meant - see better examples under Sirius and Algol for how that should be formatted. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In Britain we do distinguish between US English and our English. As a secondary school teacher the exam board, thankfully, rejects US spellings, i.e. if a pupils writes incorrectly the word centre as "centER". It is important to signal to readers of Wikipedia that on the US amends our spellings as the Commonwealth countries spell as we do.

(above unsigned from Philipthesecond (talk • contribs)

Allow me to repeat. Please read WP:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Whether the English variant is "correct" or the American variant is "correct" isn't the issue. The issue is that there are large numbers of people each who fervently believe they know the one true English, and don't agree with each other. Wikipedia has established a policy on how to deal with the issue, please follow the Wikipedia policy, not what your secondary school teach taught you. Please do *NOT* go changing articles to change spellings from one variant to another, that simply leads to edit wars.

And by the way, please sign your name with the quadruple tilde when you edit talk pages. Thank you, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Typical American prescribing how we, the English, should use our language! Cheeky sod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipthesecond (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I understand why I was not authorized to make them myself. Could you also correct the reference cited at the end of the revised text? It directs the reader to a source that does not in fact discuss Cortés's education. You might instead direct the reader to the article that I mentioned, and that should also be added to the bibliography: David A. Boruchoff, “Hernán Cortés,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008), 2: 146a-49a. Available online at http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hernan_Cortes.aspx. Thanks, Onlythefactsmaam (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

O.k. - I'll fix up the citation with further details later on today. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was referring to note #4 about Cortés's familiarity with legal codes. This is also in the article by Boruchoff and not in the article indicated in the footnote.Onlythefactsmaam (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 

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

When you talk about eliptical orbit, it is with payload released from the cable. This is your case, and you may be right that your 66% (2/3) orbital analysis holds water. I am talking about a different case, when payload stays attached to the cable. Under this scenario no eliptical orbit is possible and the only orbit attained is at geosynchronous level, i.e. 24 hour period, when paylad gets there. If you remove payload at that level it will stay in orbit, if you change its speed it will enter into an eliptical orbit, deorbit or break free of gravity, depending on delta v, however, while it is still attached to the cable, the only way it can move is up or down the cable thransfering horizontal momentum to and from the Earth through the cable. I am assuming any cable deformation in the horizontal direction will rebound, so ultimately it will return in its stable vertical position. Under this scenario, the payload at the geosynchronous orbit will remain in an unstable vertical equilibrium, and if pushed up or down gently will start accelerating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please curb your enthusiasm in deleting my section. Your efforts are not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tarl, Thanks for your efforts controlling IP68's wayward editing. I support. I had predicted quiescence for him. I guess I was wrong. (Oh, and I added the section break too. I hope that was okay.) Skyway (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 

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

Thank you for catching my neglecting to finish altering Castiglione and leaving a sentence in mid-air. Felt first version needed a clarification, which I found in Peter Burke, but got distracted and forgot to put it in. Have fixed it now.Mballen (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am the key developer / entrepeneur behind the initiative Film Colony. Many people are confusing it with another much more recent push by GIFF. I appreciate the mention, and I would like to clarify the facts that the Film COlony is still in the works but under a different name, and integrated into a much bigger project (Los Senderos).

Thanks. Francesca FisherFrancesca Fisher (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia policies on what information may be used for references. In particular, see WP:OR. Placing advertising references to your own job is almost certainly original research in that definition. If there is material in the article which is mistaken, please cite a reference from a reliable source (please read that page for detailed description on what makes a source reliable) and correct it. But do not place pointers to advertising sites claiming them as references. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the easiest way to win the game is to let the other guy think he has won. He is now making a change that does not do any harm, ignore it and let him go away. Andrew Swallow (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have even bothered reading what i have wrote....Again, the material is relevant and accurate. Please refrain from the deleting what you don't understand....Just because you are not there when the tree falls down in a forest it still makes a sound for the rest of us.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not undo anything on my talk page that I have edited on purpose. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I undid was on *MY* talk page, where you removed an edit you did not make. On your talk page, the only thing I did was rap you on the knuckles over the types of edits you made. I did *NOT* undo any edits you made to your own page. While you're screwing around with talk pages, at least have the decency to not blame others for the etiquette violations you make. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If I have deleted something from your page which isn't mine, it was by accident, I appologize, I only meant to to delete my own comments....there is no need to be so defensive, however, you can always undo it....just keep those undos to your own stuff, and do not delete other people's comments or contributions....and let freedom of speech trump....cheers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a note for you here. Thanks for your help.--Wyn.junior (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You are acting like an asshole again. Why have you deleted section on space elevator? "Haven't we been through this before?"...What is that supposed to mean?...Lighten up and let others speak up their mind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk)

We've repeatedly undone your uncited edits, you've been blocked, the page has repeatedly been protected. You've been warned to not edit articles if you don't have a source for them - your own fertile imagination and original research are not sufficient, you must report what others have written. Wikipedia is not an exercise in creative writing, it is a tertiary reference - all it's supposed to do is point to reliable sources and summarize them. Please do not spend your time making random additions to articles, unless you have something you are bringing in from a reliable source. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Should i bring reference every time I use english language? This is so lame...I don't think you actually bother to read my contribution, you simply apply a blanked dismissal on everything I say....your attitude has been noted....FYI you are NOT in a position to render judgement on the relevance of anybody's contribution unless you have read and understood it, otherwise you are acting like an asshole and prick...have a good day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk)

You don't seem to be reading my message. I don't CARE what the content of your edits is. If it's uncited, it gets reverted. I AM in a position to render judgement on your edits, we have a policy against original research.

As an aside, in the past, you have amply demonstrated significant deficits of understanding of orbital physics and a willingness to make faulty edits. If you make an edit, I'm going to check for a citation, ensure that your citation is both reliable and that it actually says what you added. If it doesn't, I'm going to revert your changes.

Oh, and please sign your comments on talk pages (quadruple tilde, ~~~~, which Wikipedia translates into a signature for you), I'm getting tired of having to add comments saying you forgot to add your own. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You have touched just about on anything except the issue: i have made a small contribution to the climber's section, which you have deleted without even reading....there is no reference to be given ...what reference should be cited with the use of english language....????...and by the way, if you have deleted something by mistake, you need to learn how to say "oops...sorry" and move on...I think you have been taking this "job" of yours as and asshole-editor-in chief way too seriously....FYI wikipedia is not your private editing project, it is for everybody...cheers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk)

You don't seem to be reading my comments. I DID read your contribution. It didn't have a reference, as far as I could tell, you made it up. Whether it made sense or not, or was accurate or not, wasn't relevant - it didn't point to a reliable source. It got reverted. And you still aren't signing your comments. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, you want to see "references"....let it be your excuse...however I will say that your pigheaded insistance on "references" is going nowhere with me....I wonder why you would continue, since it clearly does not facilitate meaningful and productive discussion of the subject matter, and I also hope you take my advise on easing of editorial zeal somewhat, and instead trying to get a life outside wikipedia, you might start with updating your online resume.......or you can remain an asshole-in-chief...it's up to you....cheers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk)

I am so very sorry you have to keep looking for another excuse to shut me up .... such a waste of your precious editorial time....until next time, cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So, your move Mr. editor-in-chief...still trying to shut me up?...we don't want to break any RULES, do we??? (FYI in german language it is called ORDNUNG...that's a good reference for anal retentive, like yourself)...until next time, cheer up.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In this cycle, 68's edits have been constructive, more articulate, and more evidently good-faith. He's been a little over-concerned about getting that one particular paragraph "just so", but that's not justification for the biting reverts and the venom. Nothing he's done this time justifies an attitude or ad hominem reversions.

As far as references go, if the material has redeeming usefulness, refs can wait a few days or more (IMHO) while a search for "proof of verifiability" is made. The "citation needed" tag (or the PhaseII reference) is always available if a citation-zealous editor just can't handle the stress. "It doesn't have a citation" isn't a great single reason for such immediate reversions (with such prejudice). It should have other problems too like dubiousity, or unnotability, etc. to support immediate reversion. Snotty remarks in a revert edit summary should be avoided too. In fact, there's a policy about that (WP:CIVIL).

68, the multiple wordsmithing refinements are distracting and of marginal benefit I think. We're still "on edge" about what you might be up to and we're still keeping a close eye on your edits (for good reason). It is taxing.

Skyway (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

My concern is his absolute refusal to abide by Wikipedia policies, and (as you suggest) a childish attitude that his edits are good and nothing about them can be wrong. I have requested page protection on Space elevator because of his demonstrated tendency to use proxies when he has been banned. Incidentally, you should see all the warnings he has deleted from his talk page (not just from me). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The attitude I was referring to was your attitude. You've been uncivil in your edit summaries, contributing vastly to the testosterone fight going on between the two of you. I completely disagree with protections, in this cycle the main problem has been uncivil overreactions to legitimate good faith edits. This cycle's pattern by IP68 is not the same as before. The past is the past, let it be. Evaluate edits on merit. Even if a wordsmithing edit makes it worse, it's often a good idea to let it lie, or to make corrections instead of reversions (and be nice in the edit summary). Fast reversions have a slap-in-the-face message in them. It's best to avoid them or at least be very apologetic in their edit summaries.

Everybody is allowed complete control over their own talk page, by the way. The "warnings" posted there were, in a large measure, uncivil admonishments by you. If someone had spoken to me like that on my page, I would delete them too. You can even delete these messages if you want. Skyway (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So far I have heard at least one voice of reason, and it is not yours, Tarl.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Now now, 68.228.67.228, let's be nice. Skyway (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no "now"...there is, however, recent past or immediate future...in the past Tarl has acted as a jerk, his prejudicial statements and actions against me speek for themself, and by the way he has broken the RULES in defense of which he seems to be motivated to act so zealously...in the future at the very minimum he needs acknowledge the wrong and to appologise....i predic he wont, but who am to say, I am just an IP...cheers :)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I would disagree that I've been abusive in my edit summaries. Short, yes - It's a summary after all. And the discussion was well-worn, we had many times discussed the need for references, resulting in IP bans (which he circumvented by using proxies) and page protection, with which he would resume his habits within hours of the protections expiring. My four edits for the recent 68.228.67.228 edit war on Space Elevator:

• [1] Uncited. Haven't we been down this road before?
• [2] WP:OVERLINK and bad grammar. Please stop wasting our time.
• [3] Do not edit war, I have started an item on your talk page.
• [4] I have requested page protection. This edit violates WP:OVERLINK and has grammar errors.

The first of those comments is less civil that it should have been - but I've gotten really sick of this editor's antics. I preserve his comments on my talk page in several sections above as living testimony, they speak for themselves. The second comment "Please stop wasting our time" was in response to repeated reversions of other editors attempts to correct him. It was entirely called for. The third was an attempt to divert the discussion to his talk page, which he deleted immediately. The fourth was a simple statement of fact.

Reversions made by 68.228.67.228 (not all of them to me) in that timeframe included:

• [5] There is nothing wrong with grammar...you are wasting your own time
• [6] streamlined coriolis again...grammar is fine...learn some english and keep looking for another excuse
• [7] one more pass...you need to dig harder...keep it up

Skyway read the above and concluded the only reason he went off the rails was because I was being abusive. I disagree. Problems I see have to be fixed with 68.228.67.228:

• The editor must acknowledge that Wikipedia policies apply to his edits.
• The editor must at least read the policies which are pointed out to him. Hopefully start applying them, too.
• The editor must cease edit-warring. WP:BRD, after reversions, discuss on talk pages. Don't re-revert with schoolboy "I dare you" type comments.
• The editor must not engage in sock-puppetry. That includes using proxies to evade administrator blocks, which were the original reason to semi-protect the page.
• The editor must not make edits unless he has something meaningful to contribute. Just fiddling with wording (particularly when he makes it worse) wastes everyone's time. He must include references, particularly since he's demonstrated willingness make harmful edits including false statements.

As for the general issue of fast reversion... Bad news doesn't improve with age. Leaving bad edits in place to fester doesn't help anyone. We aren't talking typos that the editor will immediately correct, we're talking edits which he seemed happy to leave in place. My first reversion took place 79 minutes after he applied it. Long enough for him to have noticed any problems he would have corrected - granted, I have a quick trigger with him due to his past behaviour. After that he went several rounds with DVdm, then I reverted a problem edit of his 31 minutes after he'd made it. Again, more than long enough to have noticed a problem if he was going to notice it. It took him 4 minutes to start edit warring. After I attempted to divert to his talk page, he re-reverted. Then McSly undid his edits, and commented on his talk page. All of which he deleted. So I requested page protection. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarl, how can you stand this "job" is beyond me...all the work you have to do to keep me out, and then having to explain youself, and what if you had made a mistake afterall, and prejudiced me (oh my god...litigation is coming...they even have poor Tarl's adress in NH so he can be properly served) ???....So pathetic, do you really enjoy it? Wouldn't it be easier to just appologise??...You know, people are not born assholes, that's what they become sometimes, it is a choice...so please choose wisely next time.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk)

IP68, you are wrong. After being told numerous times for the last months that you need to provide sources when you add text to the article, you apparently don't understand that really simple rule or still think that it doesn't apply to you. You are obviously mistaken either way. Reverting unsourced text (as well as text change adding gramatical errors) is perfectly fine and within policies. In light of your last comment, I would also strongly advise you to read the policy on legal threats as those are not treated lightly here.--McSly (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear McSly: Thank you for your comments. With all due respect, I think it is you and Tarl who are wrong. Here is why:

1. Judging the latest contribution on previous statements, edits, etc, is called PREJUDICE, so if you claim to have none towards me, let's get this argument off the table....In fact, one's particular statements, contributions, and comments should be judged on merit only. My contribution has merit. If you think otherwise, please kindly provide proof.

2. The lack of references cited is not in dispute (as you can see from my statements above, the lack of references is selfadmitted, the problem is, however, that crafty wordsmithing in itself cuts into realm of English language only, not the realm of references, and therefore requires none. To use the lack of references in this context, as an argument in support of reversal of my edits, is absurd, it simply defies logic and common sense.

3. Any allegations of bad grammar are equally baseless and not supported by evidence. If you have any such evidence to the contrary, please kindly provide it here.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tarlneustaedter:

Thank you bringing the unconstructive edits and vandalism arising from the IP address 216.115.8.34 to my attention. That address is associated with the computer system here at St. Mary's School in Medford, Oregon, USA.

Our students are prohibited from editing Wikpedia while here at school. Even constructive edits are taking time away from homework, and vandalism is something we take seriously and find very embarrassing.

Please feel free to take any steps you want to block this IP from editing, including permanent banning. It will improve this wonderful asset, and it will keep our naughty students from abusing it!

Sincerely yours, Hal Wing Hal Wing (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, it seems to have been a one-shot event. Nothing further should be needed at this time. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why have you undone my edits in the climber's section? You site bad grammar and lack of references: first of all no references are to be given since no new information has been provided, I have simply rephrased and streamlined old text to enhance clarity...secondly, what issue with grammar are you refering to? Please be specific...Unless you show specific examples of my "bad grammar", I have to conclude that you have not been reading my contribution and have acted cting with prejudice towards me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You used bad grammar: "On ascend". You used bad spelling: "literaly". Since there wasn't a reference you cited to verify what you meant to say, I simply removed the edit. Please do not simply fiddle with articles, you have a pattern of making mistakes. Please make changes only if you have something meaningful to add - which means something published somewhere else, which is relevant to the article. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:ONEDAY. I think the most relevant comment for you from all of those policies is the following statement: If you cannot cite reliable sources, please write about your invention somewhere else. You could use your own web site, or one of the many social networking sites. Alternatively, you can try one of the many wikis on Wikia, which often have more flexible rules than Wikipedia on what content can be included.. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lecturing me and using lack of references as an excuse to undo my edits. You have been acting with prejudice towards me, and it has been noted....If I streamline text for clarity, without adding new information, there is no reference to be given, so please stop it....such a lame excuse...have a good day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not prejudice. It's six months experience of your misbehaviour. These include:

• • Adding factual errors
  • Failing to proof-read what you write
  • Refusing to accept errors when they are pointed out to you
  • Edit warring - which has gotten you blocked
  • Defeating blocks by using sock puppets (in your case, by using proxies), which has several times resulted in the entire page having to be protected for longer and longer periods.
  • Refusing to abide by Wikipedia policies, even when they are pointed out to you. Have you even read any of the policies (links which start with "WP:") which we've pointed you to?

These are all completely unacceptable behaviour. Just yesterday, you have already re-indulged in three of these behaviours. By now, I have a hair trigger on any edit you make. Your edits often make things worse. I'm not going to guess at what you wanted to do and fix your mistakes, I see bad edits by you, I revert them. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Judging a new edit by a 6 month "record" is called prejudice...congratulations, you have just admitted to it....in case you have trouble reading my comments, I repeat: every edit should first be READ, and only then judged, and on its own MERIT only...have a good day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to use a dictionary, you have a mistaken understanding of prejudice. That said, I do read every edit and judge them on their merits. Your edits are fairly uniformly low quality. You bring nothing to the table (after six months, you have yet to cite an external reference) you don't proof-read what you write, and you are belligerent, offensive and you misbehave when you're called on it.

If you want your edits to be respected, you have to generate respect. Among other things, you have to start behaving according to the rules of Wikipedia. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to use a dictionary, you have a mistaken understanding of prejudice. That said, you do not read every edit and you do not judge them on their merits. My case proofs that point beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want your undoes to be respected, you have to generate respect. Among other things, you have to start behaving according to the rules of Wikipedia. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia: "Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion BEFORE becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm bothering to answer. I guess for the record. Where you misunderstand "prejudice" is that you are assuming I'm finding fault with your edits because it's you. No, I'm finding fault with your edits because they are sloppy, often make things worse, and never bring any value to the article. What is different about my handling of your edits is that when you make mistakes, I no longer bother to complain to you. Other editors will get a talk page entry from me pointing out their errors, in your case, my long experience with you shows that is futile. So you just get reverted.

If you want to not get reverted, make edits which provide useful value, make sure you proofread your edits, and for God's sake, pay attention to the rules of the road on Wikipedia. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem understanding the concept of prejudice, maybe it is time for you to get out of business of undoing other people's edits. Again, please read the definition of prejudice: it is rendering judgement BEFORE the facts are out....You have been consistently undoing my edits, without reading them, siting the lack of references as an excuse, where references would absolutely not be needed by any stretch of imagination, such as rewriting or rephrasing of old text. I have sited several examples of you acting that way in the past...I understand that you need some excuse to justify your reverts, and you have come up with that one, which proofs your prejudice against me...In fact, you have admitted it yourself: as soon as you see my edit you act with a "hair trigger" response because of your preconceived opinion of me (6 month "record"), and not on the merit of that particular edit, so this is personal and this is prejudice....your last undo speeks for itself, go ahead an reread your own comments.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys,
I saw the recent edit cycle on Space Elevator.
I liked getting rid of "designed to occur". I was bugging me, but I didn't want to step on the toes of and possibly rile up the guy who had added it in. I thought it was a minor enough flaw that I could wait a week or two to change it. Good catch, 68. Yes, it does occur there at GEO whether it's designed to or not! :-).
So, on the merit of the other wording changes, I thought that they did degrade. They added some indirect unencyclopedic weaselly phraseology like "is known as", etc. Also, the modern "literally" colloquialism made for an enthusiastic, but informal unsuited tone. By the way 68, the changes you made on May 14th (around 16:50) had been deemed good by the fact that no one said anything! So you can take some heart in that. Strange how it is that good edits are rewarded with only lack of punishment :-).
So Tarl, I think the edit summaries you made along with the otherwise-good reversions would even get Mother Theresa's back up. While I think you were right about the merits of the wordsmithing, if you had been nicer in their edit comments, that could have helped things.
Skyway (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're not talking Mother Teresa here. This character is the Wikipedia equivalent of repeat drunken driver who refuses to admit he ever did anything wrong. I think what you are trying to tell me is the equivalent of WP:BITE, but the thing to remember is that this is no newbie. After six months, hundreds of edits and bazillions of pointed comments (not just from me), he's had reason to learn the ropes. But it seems all his learning has been ways to evade policies - like using proxies as sock puppets to evade blocks (by the way, it's one of the few ways I know that an editor can get banned for life, no matter how many accounts he creates).

As to the general tone of my comments, six months of dealing with offensive behaviour has left me somewhat less than charmed by this character. My comments were not designed to be offensive, they were designed to be short and to the point: Spelling, grammar and no references. Please do not just make edits for no reason. This editor regards requiring references as "an excuse", and seems to be incapable of recognizing spelling or grammar problems (or using the preview button). In short, he's not doing what Wikipedia needs. I've given up on trying to encourage him, I simply try to limit his damage. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get get, do you?...why are you playing dumb as if you don't understand what the problem is? what references are you talking about????...have you actually bothered to read the edit????.....If you have, you would have not been siting references as an issue, because no new information has been added....yes, "references" for you is an excuse, just as bad spelling and grammar, the way I see you are absolutely prejudiced against me, because you are prejudging my edits not on their merit but on past "record", as you have been for the last 6 months, you revert everything I post and site bogus excuses...I don't think your attitude is inline with Wikipedia rules...please change it....have a good day.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tarlneustaedter. In December 2011 you participated at the discussion which resulted with moving the Academi article to its current title. There is a ongoing RfC which is related to that move. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)