User talk:Ocolon

Willkommen

Welcome!

Hello, Ocolon, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Hi, Ocolon. I saw that you wrote an article about Frobenius matrices, so I thought I'd stop by to say hello.

Here's a page that you might want to check from time to time. Members of the math project on the English Wikipedia get together there to discuss topics of current interest. I'm sure you'll like these guys. They're good to know.

Have a great day! DavidCBryant 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the warm welcome - and for your numerous contributions to wikipedia of course! Ocolon 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mathematics

Hello again, Ocolon!

I saw your response to JRSpriggs over on the project's talk page. Just so you'll know, JRSpriggs sort of rubbed me the wrong way when I first started editing Wikipedia about 3 or 4 months ago. But he's really a very nice guy, who has helped me out by making good solid suggestions every once in a while.

Overall I think the group of mathematicians on the forum are very cordial and polite almost all the time. And some of the "rules", like WP:AGF, end up being more of an impediment than a help. I'm always willing to assume good faith – as long as that looks like a reasonable assumption. But I don't think there's any reason to make a bad assumption, once I have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. Some of the nastier editors on Wikipedia accuse me of violating the "rule" AGF. I just tell them, "No, I did make an assumption in your favor. You just proved to me that it was a bad assumption."

I'm not sure if you noticed it, but Linas was trying to keep the whole discussion light-hearted, by making a little joke about there only being three formulas in all of mathematics. I thought that was funny! DavidCBryant 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I laughed about that. :-)

I just thought the word dumb might be inappropriate. I don't want people to be afraid of being politically incorrect when rejecting bad ideas. I don't want people to be afraid of being called dumb when making suggestions either. However, I get KSmrq's point on the difference between calling someone dumb and calling something dumb that someone said.

Thank you for leaving a message here again! It's very kind of you to introduce me like that. I see that mathematicians at Wikipedia are nice people. I won't have a negative impression because of such a direct — but honest — statement as JRSpriggs's one. Ocolon 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnu, I like goats box

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I would never guess that is a Wildebeast as the image of the Gnu looks alot like a goat, mainly due to its color. I will keep that image as a goat for now until I can come up with a public domain picture of a cute goat. I might actually create a new box with it saying I like Gnu's. Sawblade05 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bot

All i want to know is how damn hard is it to make one of these boxbots?!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, no problem. :-) I explained my deletion of your request at your talk page — Ocolon 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked?

all i did was request a bot like it said! I wanted a bot but i get this! I dont understand what you expect from me! I did what i was told to! so what?--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not blocked. → Your talk page

well thanks for the invitation

Thank you very much for the invitation to wikipedia.

You're welcome! — Ocolon 12:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I really liked your userpage design, so I decided to copy it. Hope you don't mind. :-( Khoikhoi 07:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. Thanks for telling me though, thank you for the compliment. :-) — Ocolon 09:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics CotW

Hey Ocolon, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocobot

I'm currently writing a wikipedia bot which finds dead external links, like Ocobot (which is where I got the idea from). I just wanted to check that it would be ok for me to use the same output format as you, since I think it's good. I haven't seen any Ocobot source, and I'm not aiming to clone your bot - I'm just interested in writing my own bot with similar functionality. Is this alright? PeteMarsh 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link bot

Seeing as how your bot was some of the inspiration for my spider I invite you to check it out. It doesn't do the link history of Ocobot, nor a something other things. Any comments, suggestions, or criticisms is welcomed. Cheers, Dispenser 09:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ocolon!

I noticed that you wanted to help get WP:WPEL off the ground. I am also interested in doing this. Also, as you requested, I've spiced up the project banner a bit and added a comments bar for commenting on why exactly the template is on that page, along with an auto-updating task list where tasks can be added in a uniform format to add clarity and ease of use. If you need any help with any other templates or getting the project page a little more interesting, just tell me on my talk page or here (I'll watch this page anyway). Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also created a new navigational infobox for the project here. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot

I would like to clone your bot, as you don't seem to run it, or have time to run it, so if you could e-mail me everything I need to clone it, and how to implement it, that would be great. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops...

I accidentally messed up your template User:Ocolon/Better_World trying to create my own template... Soz... Nurasko^{Talk page}22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a bot on Notepad

How do i make a bot with Notepad?CanadianWagon (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help with my global account

Hello, I'm a local bureaucrat in the Spanish Wikipedia. To request the usurp of your account you can put a request here (instructions) You also should make an edit here confirming that you are asking the usurpation. Cheers, -- Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 18:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

I confirm that I ask to usurp the Spanish Wikipedia account Ocolon. – Ocolon (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ocolon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ocolon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ocolon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Legality of bestiality by country or territory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Delderd (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make a fool of yourself, Delderd. You are involved in this yourself. I have returned the article to the pre-dispute state until the dispute is settled, as has SharabSalam before me, which you reverted. You are both reverting corrections of the article and reverting returning the article to a pre-dispute state. Please stop abusing references to Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and also this warning. – Ocolon (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ~~~~ Delderd (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop using inappropriate references to Wikipedia policies and warnings. I have not attacked you. – Ocolon (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”don’t make a fool of yourself” sounds pretty insulting to me. Delderd (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely not meant as an insult. I would be sorry, if it hurt you. – Ocolon (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:, I won't appeal this block. What I would love though would be if you could point a way out of this misery. Please note that this edit war has occurred after the issue had been discussed for almost two months on the talk page and I refrained from going into an edit war during all that time when my edits were reverted. During that time I took the issue to WP:DRN, which was quickly closed, then re-opened, then ended after a period of no activity when the moderator disappeared, was re-opened again by another volunteer to at least prepare a WP:RfC. The RfC brought hardly any new input and ended without consensus. Since no consensus was found, someone else returned the article to the pre-dispute state. But the other party in this dispute did not accept this either. And that's when we went into an edit war. What do now?

All of this has caused great disappointment about Wikipedia in me after more than a decade of constructive contributions, mostly at German Wikipedia with dozens of articles I started or contributed to, but also at English Wikipedia, Commons and many other sister projects. I am not disappointed by your block now. I am disappointed that Wikipedia couldn't find a way to resolve this issue civily in two months although I contacted dispute resoltion mechanisms. I am disappointed that two people who are either only or mostly here at Wikipedia to push this one incorrect position about German law into Wikipedia succeed with it. I don't know why they fight over German law; they have obviously no connection to Germany and don't speak the language to understand all the relevant sources I provided. But that's not the problem. The real problem is that they get through with it! This has shattered my faith in Wikipedia, because if that happens here despite me trying for month to keep Wikipedia verifiably correct (or even just not wrong: I actually proposed to mark the situation as disputed in the article as a sad compromise at DRN), then that means that it can happen anywhere in Wikipedia. I've always known that anyone can edit wrong information into Wikipedia, but I thought that the community would not let them get through with it. I've met many people over the years who told me that Wikipedia is not trustworthy and I've always defended Wikipedia, but now I see that they were probably right.

Honestly, all of this has killed my motivation for further contributions to Wikipedia already. This has been an enormous waste of time and energy that I could have invested into constructive work on other platforms that are less susceptible to be used for spreading false information. And I will do so in the future. Wikipedia as a project is a thing of the past for me, personally, now. But I am still motivated to bring this one issue to a good end, because I really dislike to leave things unfinished. So please, show the way to handle this months-long dispute efficiently and effectively.

Otherwise I will continue correcting this one article even if that means going into an edit war again. I've tried everything else I know for, literally, months. If you've got to perma-ban me, then do so. That would make leaving Wikipedia after all these years easier at least. – Ocolon (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When all else fails, there's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hint, NinjaRobotPirate. I opened a discussion there. – Ocolon (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]