User talk:Timmy12

S outhern forest-products and forestry: developments and prospects has been deleted. See Wikipedia:No original research. NawlinWiki 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

merge to Bioremediation

Hi,

please consider merging your article Bioremediation. into Bioremediation. Kpjas 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Say what?

To quote your edit on triphenylphosphine "DEAD) converts an alcohol and a carboxylic acid to an ester in carbon respiration." Vandalism or ridiculous or am I missing something?--Smokefoot 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Saw your note. I just couldnt figure out why anyone would insert a comment about respiration into an article on an organic reagent. It would be unfortunate if you ceased contributing just because of me, because you appear to have a lot to contribute. I am no administrator or anything official, just another person focused on inserting content for the common good. I also am still learning how to interact.--Smokefoot 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You again?

Hello, Mattisse! -999 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your unconstructive role on Athanasian Creed

Dude, if you have have any dispute about anything specific in that article, please question it SPECIFICALLY at an appropriate specific location, instead of adding a generic unspecific blanket "unsourced" template to an article which in fact is moderately well-sourced (certainly more so than hundreds of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia), or mechanically adding a "citation needed" marker to every single fricken section (including to the rubric of the text from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer!!!). AnonMoos 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unconstructive

It is very rude to shout like that, AnonMoos! However, I agreed that Timmy is being a bit of a pest and hope he can get a life elsewhere, soon.

Vernon White 07:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If he just adds unspecific templates to the whole article (or indiscriminately to every single section thereof) -- when those who probably know a lot more about the Athanasian Creed than he does seem to be moderately well satisfied with the current state of the article -- then he's not using the templates in a way that can reasonably be expected to result in useful improvement of the article. And if he can't tell the rubric of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer apart from the actual article text, then maybe he shouldn't be trying to edit the article in the first place... AnonMoos 11:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too that Timmy12 "is being a bit of a pest" and I too "hope he can get a life elsewhere, soon". His normal (or abnormal) modus operandi is to insert citation requests throughout an article, usually when they are quite unnecessary or, more childishly still, when they are already satisfied (cf the reference to the work of J.N.D. Kelly, for example)! He has similarly vandalised the article on Billy May, for example requesting a citation for the simple, factual statement that May was signed to Capitol Records. His actions are just puerile. (Sorry, Timmy, I suppose I need a citation for that) For the record, Wikipedia's own guidelines are that "Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes." Shouldn't need spelling out, really. I guess that Timmy's rather bitter and twisted comments on his User Page give the game away. Or does his user name indicate his age? Gervius

However, Timmy's interventions led me to improve Davies Gilbert and learn about Creeds from AnonMoos. Perhaps he/she will dialogue with us about his reasons for trying to wind us up (need for disambiguation of this term!).

Vernon White 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Timmy12 repeating his mistakes

Some of the responses to your actions are "unfriendly" in tone because you consistently persist in your inadvisable actions, regardless of what advice or help people try to give you. Instead of constantly repeating your same old mistakes again and again, and ranting away on your User page, why not discuss and try to explain your actions here on this page (your User talk page)??? That would be much more constructive... AnonMoos 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the "Sock Puppet" accusation below and also [User:Wikid77]]'s comments. I feel that Timmy77 or whoever he/she is, may be responding to the adverse way in which WP initiates newbies. It's something of a wind up, to use a British slang expression. In my own case, I had spent a lot of time and energy drafting articles and checking sources and then was suddenly accused of being a multiple vandal. This was because I was using a public library internet terminal and some naughty boys on other terminals had been vandalising WP articles and blackened the name of the library service's ISP.

My original Username is now, effectively a "sock puppet" as I was advised to get a different ISP and Username. Eventually my old Username was unblocked but I had already transferred my contributions list to the new Username. The whole process was deeply unpleasant and co-incided with as complicated long-distance house move and job change. Can WP moderate this painful process or will it always be run by uptight thugs who speak gobbledygook? This is a question that Timmy12 and Wikid77 pose. I hope that the induction process can be smoothed and a discipline learnt in easy steps by all newcomers.

Perhaps the best advice is to take a break from editing and do something that is as far away as possible from the Republic of Wikipedia. I'm digging a big hole in the ground. I would particularly like to thank Timmy77 and AnonMoos for reminding me that there are better things to do thank responding pettishly to aggravation. . . BEST WISHES Vernon White 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I can't force Timmie to do anything, but if Timmie wants to get along, he should work towards cooperating to produce better articles (rather than making a point, or leaving his mark, or whatever it is that's motivating him now). AnonMoos 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometime in the early hours, Timmy12 put a "cleanup" template on my User subpage headed "Draft". He/sh clearly has more spare time than me! Back to digging my hole.--- Vernon White 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cole Porter refs

Hello, Timmy12. I agree with your user page: "Very unfriendly place around here" (amen). I saw your citation recommendations for the article "Cole Porter" and have begun adding references. I have noticed there are some Wiki gangs of cohorts forming cliques ("Cliquipedia"): they got me on the 3-revert rule ("Wikipedia:3RR") and disabled my user-id for 24 hours. I recommend the following tactics (which you might already know):

• avoid popular topics: articles where contributions get reverted or twisted by clever edits;
• make changes slowly: when rewriting an entire article, spread changes over 2 weeks or so;
• beware cliques: if attacked by multiple cohorts, leave the article or try just a small edit;
• find a niche: look for good topics that aren't popular targets of edit mania.

I have had many hours of "23" changes erased by flat revert, and also I have had an entire 10-page article deleted (within 9 days) by a collusion of "5 Delete votes" so I sympathize with your user-page comments. Perhaps the Wiki management will change some day to better encourage decent behavior; meanwhile, they haven't deleted all the useful information: feeding Wiki articles to ad-companies is too beneficial to remove all good information from the Wiki world. -Wikid77 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello, Mattisse. Looks like I'll have to open another sockpuppetry case when I have time. Ciao. —Hanuman Das 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

I deleted your message intentionally. Do not restore it again. Goodbye, Mattisse. I may not be able to prove it this time, but your "repeatedly" gives you away. I can only repeatedly have accused you of sockpuppetry if you really are a sockpuppet. Doh! —Hanuman Das 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the actual giveaway terms were "constant" and "obsessive". I've only accused you once. How is that "constant" or "obsessive", hmmm? —Hanuman Das 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment by Timmy12

I have asked Timmy12 to stop posting to my talk page. I have stopped posting to his, but since that time he has repeatly posted uncivil messages, at current count, seven times. Please intervene. —Hanuman Das 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• But you only stopped posting today. Give him a little time, maybe. In the meantime, you can delete uncivil comments if you like. I'd bet he'll give up real soon. Herostratus 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You wonder that I am irritated at Hanuman Das? And that makes a complaint to you? He has put the following on my user page (which is still there and I will probably get blocked or something if I remove it):

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Mattisse. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. See block log Notes for the suspect Notes for the accuser

And the following on my talk page:

--Sockpuppetry case--

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hanuman Das 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then he makes an administrative complaint you you about me because I get a little upset? What is going on? He has singled me out for some reason to harass. Why? I have never done anything to him and don't know why he has it in for me. I would like to complain about him and his behavior.

This Wikipedia is a rough place and not very nice to people who don't know all the ropes. Yes, I am beginning to feel hostile and not very friendly. No one has been friendly towards me here since day one. Timmy12 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Am I allowed to remove any of this abuse from my pages, or will this result in further accussations from Hanuman Das and attempts to get me discipled or banned? Timmy12 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. again. He also put this on my talk page some days ago so you see his harassment of me is ongoing:

-- Sockpuppetry --

Hello, Mattisse. Looks like I'll have to open another sockpuppetry case when I have time. Ciao. —Hanuman Das 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please get him to lay off me and stop calling me names. Timmy12 12:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.S. And this from my talk page earlier:

-- You again? --

Hello, Mattisse! -999 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why I don't read my talk page. Everything is unfriendly and/or doesn't make sense. Calling someone Mattisse is a slur at Wikipedia I can see that.

Please get these people to lay off. Take a look at my talk page. I can't even read it. Are Hanuman Das and Hanuman Das sockpuppets? Timmy12 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would advise all parties to cool it, and make no more sockpuppet accusations until there is available Checkuser evidence. In exchange, Timmy12, I'd recommend leaving no messages on Hanuman Das' page. The best solution to this dispute is for all parties to disengage. Captainktainer * Talk 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd); note that at least one univolved editor does not see a sockpuppet relationship. Please do not accuse people of being a sockpuppet unless you have substantial and credible evidence, prefereably in the form of a CheckUser. Guy 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I re-read the comments and you are quite right, I was not clear enough. My intention was to suggest in the strongest possible terms to those others posting here that one needs decent evidence to support allegations of sockpuppetry. In this case CheckUser shows that there is almost certainly no sockpuppetry.

By way of excuse, one of our recurrent problems right now is blocked users coming back with new accounts and resuming the behaviour for which they were blocked. This tends to erode our [{WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] and make us (the admins) trigger happy. Mistakes do happen. They are only mistakes, honest errors made by ordinary folks trying to keep the project from being damaged by those with abusive intent, so let me apologise on behalf of the admin community but at the same time ask your understanding. As one of the highest ranked websites in the world we are now probably the top target for trolls, vandals, spammers, scammers and all other forms of lowlife. Guy 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing references

Please stop removing references to rosencomet.com. It is not a personal website, but a website of the organization that the articles are about. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they weren't. Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone. You are engaging in harassment. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not simply price lists. They are lists of performers who performed at each event, and serve as documentation of the performance. Removing references is not proper Wikipedia behavior. I assume you will be back tomorrow adding "fact" tags. Your behavior disgusts me. Phew! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

yawn... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference links

I saw your comments on JzG's talk page. You don't seem to understand that those numbered links in the article are citations. They are citations for that artist or speaker being present at that festival. They are there because some other editor insisted (by using a {{fact}} tag) that the claimed appearance needed to be documented. That site is the official website of the festival, and documents the appearance. The "prices" are historical, nothing is being sold on that site, there is nothing wrong with using it as a reference. It is wrong to remove a citation from a statement of fact in an article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Contrary to your assumptions, I am female.

Also, please stop putting your entire lengthy comment into the comment heading. It is annoying and as you can see clutters up the other person's talk page unneccesarily

Thanks! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lack of respect

If you are not going to respect my wishes and post respectfully on my talk page, then please don't post on my talk page at all. Rather, discuss your "issues" on the talk pages of the articles involved. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your tagging spree

Unless you are going to constructively participate in discussion about the article and how to improve it on the talk page of the article. Thanks! :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Morning Glory Zell

Is listed on the page cited. Please try to be more constructive. Looking through your edit history, you don't appear to have added one word to a single article. All your edits are tagging, and to articles where you don't seem to be famliar with the person, field, or their importance in it. In other words, your extreme ignorance and anti-pagan attitude is obvious. Please go edit articles about which you are not so prejudicially biased. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart

FYI, Morning Glory has been a major figure in the NeoPagan community for many years. She definitely qualifies as sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, along with her husband, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart and such luminaries as Isaac Bonewits, Ian Corrigan, Starhawk and Margot Adler, to name just a few. Septegram 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy question (to technical pump)

A third party just wrote me: Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone. Can this third party enforce this, especially given that the person in question, Rosencomet, has edited hundreds of articles, perhaps more? Any articles involving certain themes are being considered his, even if he did not originate them.

If this is not the right forum to ask this question, please point me in the right direction. Thanks! Timmy12 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, as you guessed, the wrong forum for this question. Try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). --cesarb 03:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions above. I tried them but none are appropriate for my problem which is becoming more critical. I need actual help and protection. I need access to a source that can give me some real information. A pattern of harassment is being repeated toward me that started a few weeks after I got an account at Wikipedia a month or so ago. That resulted in me being accused of being a sockpuppet. The charge was ruled false but it was a horrible ordeal for me. The same people have started again. Can you direct me to a source, place, or person before something bad happens. Timmy12 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't let "Timmy" fool you, take a look at "his" contributions. He didn't try your suggestions at all. Also, talk a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse, especially the note about posting on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for help, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) for why Timmy perceives this as happening "again". —Hanuman Das 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please would you get an email address immediately

Please provide an email address as soon as you can. I must contact you in a safe place. I see what has been happening to you re Hanuman Das, 999 (Talk), and others. This is not a safe place to communicate, and you will be taken advantage of if you speak honestly here. If you get an email address I can explain to you what is going on. I urge you to do so. Please. Mattisse(talk) 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also, Ekajati (yakity-yak). Please, provide email. Mattisse(talk) 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page

You and Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page, particularly here. Not sure what's going on, but I saw your name mentioned and thought I should alert you.

Septegram 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This was left on Ekajati's talk page by Septegram

I wondered how long that was going to take.

I'm not taking sides in whatever's developing here, but if something is brewing that relates to Hanuman Das and Ekajati, I thought all parties should know. If nothing is brewing, of course, there's no reason for anyone (including me) to be concerned.

Septegram 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How am I "keeping you in the dark?" I simply thought that since their names were being invoked on your talk page, they might want to know about it. Chill.

Septegram 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your newly created page.

I've moved the page you recently created (Comments from User:JzG's page/My Personal File into your user space at User:Timmy12/Comments from User:JzG's page/My Personal File. Pages like that should be there, not in the article namespace.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit comments vs. talk page

Please do not attempt to carry on discussions in edit comments. That is not what they are for. If you have something to say to other editors, use the article's talk page. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

It is the editor who has the problem with the article who is expected to start the discussion. Drive-by tagging without discussion is considered rude, and since the other editors can't read your mind, will simply be reverted. Most of your tags have been inappropriate. If you took the time to discuss and/or try to improve the article yourself, you would get more respect. So far, you seem only to be interested in tagging articles. Now why would a brand-new user want to do that, and where would they have learned how? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

That's because the link you provide is about a completely different issue. Please read talk page guidelines. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I noticed that the first few articles you created were all copyright violations from the same academic journal:

• John Donald Black
• Soil and water management program coordination
• Tobacco harvesting

Please do not plagiarize other peoples work and try to pass it off as your own. Article which violate copyright will have to be deleted. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then...

If you can't write articles, and can't be bothered to take the time to improve them, but simply want to tag them in a misguided effort to force other editors to do the work while you bask in your righteousness for tagging them... well then... maybe you should take up blogging instead. :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me second Ekajati

In the case of the article on Joseph Byrd you marked, and Ekajati fortnately reverted, there are tons of sources cited at the bottom which you have obviously never read. In this case, I have known the work of the artist for more than 35 years and am in regular contact with him. He is extremely pleased with the accuracy of the content on this page, which I have fully apprised him of, and have verified directly with him, in addition to other sources cited. This article in fact corrects a widely published mistake about the artist's work. Get a life and do something useful. Tvccs 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated originally, there are sources galore at the bottom of the article you apparently have no interest in reading. As far as "friends" go, I have no desire to get into the silly whatever wars you and your "pals" are engaged in, and I'm not a "friend" of either side - your reputation proceeds you, etc. etc. And tags are removed from articles all the time if they are inappropriate, or if an article in fact meets whatever the criteria might be, and it's not vandalism. 99.9% of the articles in Wikipedia are not footnoted at an ideal encyclopedic level, nice as that might be. It doesn't mean, at least in this case, there's a POV involved. As I said earlier, get a life. Tvccs 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I had zero contact with Ekajati prior to her removal of your inappropriate tag on the Joseph Byrd page, nor do I have any intention of taking whatever side, beyond that of reason and sanity. My comments are my own and reflect an opinion that persons, especially those that don't contribute original articles themselves, should stay away from editing and concentrate on improving actual constructive skills. Said belief applies to anyone on Wikipedia. The mere fact that I seconded Ekajati's thoughts on contributing to articles rather than harassing authors with unneeded tags, especially when you won't bother reading the external link materials, or the already present citations, when they are readily available, and instead claim POV and other unsubstantiated garbage. I see almost no original articles you have actually done, other than the fact you have been repeatedly cited for simply copying material from other web sites as your own, and that several others have been removing it. You yourself say you rarely write and have trouble at it, and I suggest you improve your skills that way rather than chopping away at the work of others. Your comments about a chain through the nose, etc., concerning a person I have never had contact with before your mistaken tagging efforts, for which you have aggravated many other people as well based on your user history, reflect a complete paranoia and lack of reality that suggests you should find healthier things to do with your life. Tvccs 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the link you suggested concerning sourcing - here's what it says, from an administrator, which you apparently either do not understand or choose to ignore:

The article in question cited 7 sources, all listed in Robert Johnson#References. The problem here is not that sources were not cited. They were. A citation, giving the author, publisher, title, and date of a book, is a full citation. It provides the conventional information necessary for a reader to locate the source, which is what citations are for. The problem that you are addressing is not lack of citations, but, rather, which part of the content is supported by which cited source.

In the absence of ... Harvard-style notations in the body of the text, there are no explicit links between content and citation. That doesn't mean that the article is unsourced, however. It merely means that the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article isn't being spoon-fed to the reader. In many cases, the article can be improved, by linking sources to specific article sections, or to specific paragraphs, using ... or Harvard-style notations. But, conversely, note that there are cases where sources can encompass wide swathes of, or even the whole, article, and the link between citation and content really is best left at the level of the article as a whole.

Our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy merely requires that sources be cited, somehow. The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion. The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case. For more information see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Uncle G 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article you tagged had sources galore as well as numerous tags already within the article. Your application of footnotes and citations was misguided, mistaken and misinformed. See above. Tvccs 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And as I was adding these comments, you were reverting a page that had multiple additional citations to it...THAT is vandalism, and you are being reported. Pathetic. Tvccs 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I think you actually care, but your revert on Joseph Byrd was immediately changed back by an admin, who stated the references and citations used met Wikipedia guidelines. I have nothing to do with the entire Rosencomet mess you have involved yourself in, nor do I want to be. You need to, especially as a new user, learn to contribute positively to articles rather than simply posting annoying tags and vandalizing the work of others, as you clearly did in the last revision to Joseph Byrd. Please get a life and learn how to contribute rather than harass. Tvccs 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)