User talk:CarthCarsen
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, CarthCarsen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Good removal
[edit]Thanks for this one. It's sometimes difficult to notice the introduction of inappropriate material on a page receiving as many edits as this one. Ryan Vesey 14:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm delighted that you approve. Thank you! CarthCarsen (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your comment under where I had stated, " ... they do not resemble an SPA." It indicates that you may have interpreted that as countering an assertion that you could be a "Sock Puppet Account". While the acronym fits, no one made any such aspersion against you and to have done so would be over the top. The implications were that you may have been a "Single-Purpose Account", which your introduction of yourself, and your editing history clearly refute. I just want you to be clear that no one has suggested that you are a sock of some other account. Cheers, --My76Strat (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the whole Swartz case sometime, perhaps in the context of watching the page on the case grow. I'm always for a full exploration of the facts; and though I may seem to be anti-activism or anti-Swartz in the context of the brouhaha over that page section on JSTOR, I am actually not against him or his causes at all. CarthCarsen (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Swartz
[edit]Hey, you seem to be the main critic of the JSTOR section neutrality. I appreciate that you're going against the popular momentum at the article, not always a fun thing to do. Anyway, would you check to see the recent changes and if you think they're sufficient remove the NPOV tag? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind, other folks are adding back the Hayes and Demand Progress quotes, so I suspect you'd still find it biased. Will have to play this out at the talk page. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 03:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hello CarthCarsen. Your edits at Aaron Swartz appear to be a conventional WP:3RR violation. Normally, you would be blocked. There may still be time for you to respond at the noticeboard and agree to take a break from editing the article. If you do so, the closing admin may take that into account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- The one starting and continuing the (days-long) edit war is Bonusballs. CarthCarsen (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:CarthCarsen reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your actions are stupid in the extreme. Go fuck yourself. CarthCarsen (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Carth, the nice thing about wikipedia is that there's no hurry. You're a good editor and you make good points, in the Swartz case, although we disagree. But your zeal is outstripping your judgment and your manner is overwhelming your meaning. It doesn't feel this way right now, but please view the block as curative, rather than punitive. The article will be there when the 31 hours pass, and the place to fix things, thereafter is the talk page.
If Swartz were still alive, BLP would come into play and admins wouldn't be enforcing the WP:3RR rule so strictly. But, sadly, he's not. So they are.
- You can't get around the failure of the analogy, as you perceive it by noting that the speaker failed to point out the weakness of his analogy. You need to find someone other than Carth Carson affirmatively pointing it out. Pointing it out yourself, even by noting what the speaker failed to say won't ever work. The speaker also didn't say "Klingons are cooler than Romulans" nor "The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick." You can't use that failure to point out that the speaker is a clear ignoramus, as evidenced by his failure to understand holy Star Trek canon, nor that he's clearly a horrible writer because he can't type tounge-twisters." <--- "Ah say, Ah say, Ah say.... that's a joke, son.
- Please take a breather and come back refreshed. Don't give those who disagree with you an easy way to paint you as a WP:TRUTH-seeker. It's a sure way to be cheaply and thoughtlessly dismissed.
- I've been where you are. It's easy to lose the forests for the trees. The article will exist for as long as electrons do. It can be improved over days, weeks, months or years.
- Best regards,
- David in DC (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- My intention in this post was to attempt to smooth the waters. I failed. Instead, I rubbed salt in an open wound with a tone you've indicated that you found smug. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)