• User talk:Avidor/archive

Hey. Putting old conflicts aside, and noting that I know I've been a pompous ass toward you (also noting I think you've been the same to me), I'd be very interested in constructively discussing PRT with an opponent. You're obviously a very adement opponent, and I'd like to hear what you think in a more calm context than a wikipedia talk page. Perhaps you'll convince me of something. What do you say? Fresheneesz 06:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine ignore my friendly request. This simply proves to me that you don't care about transportation, you just care about your agenda. I'm not going around saying light rail is a scam, or that heavy rail is a scam, or busses or anything. However all those things lose money, and produce some sort of drain on our economy. This is your argument for what a PRT system would do - the same thing that current systems do. I'm disappointed that you're such an unkind person. Fresheneesz 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing comic! Two things though: I think you misspelled assassinate and sisyphean, and the Seigenthaler thing was about both John and Robert Kennedy (and it didn't say that he did kill them, just that he was suspected of it, and that nothing was ever proven.) --maru (talk) contribs 23:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this comic is what you think of Wikipedia, then why do you waste your time here? pstudier 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Avidor. Please note that I've removed the GFDL license tag. It cannot be both public domain and licensed. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WikedpediaRKB.jpg . Are you a Wikipedia critic?

He is now. The comic made it onto wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html

--Fasten 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		The great Roadkill Bill in Wikipedia comic. It gave me some good laughs and described the fallout of the controversey in a nutshell. Hbdragon88 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, Ken, that somebody put a {{Notable Wikipedian}} on Talk:Roadkill Bill . You are not notable, you comic strip is, so I subst'ed it and reworded and took out the assocaited category. -- 75.24.105.157 05:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Avidor! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a direct conflict of interest in edits to here entry. All edits should be reviewed for neutrality.

Nobody likes a sore winner. You got what you wanted in Minnesota, now please take the trouble to read WP:LIVING and see how very very careful you have to be about biographies of living individuals. A bit of light-hearted banter over PRT is one thing, wading into the personalities quite another. Rep. Olson qualifies for inclusion under WP:BIO, I am undecided on Zimmerman, I don't thin k Anderson is notable per our guidelines and you really are giving the guy a hard time just for doing what he does. So what if he designs PRT systems? That's not a crime.

So, please take more care, or you will be at risk of being run out of town. This is the friendly warning, OK? Guy (Help!) 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The moving finger writes and having writ moves on."Avidor 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a forum. You have stated that you are against PRT and apparently against Mark Olson. That is fine; but it is conflict of interest if you promote your interests in a POV way. Please see the Olson discussion and reach consensus on including the deleted sentence on Zimmerman. — ERcheck (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I came across this article as a result of your report on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Please see the response. — ERcheck (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a point of view, but I have no conflict of interest. I don't belong to an organization, nor would I make any profit from my edits. It would be the same if I edited an article on Intelligent Design or any proponent of ID. If you are so concerned about COI, you ought to take a look at who edited Mark Douglas Olson today, a "resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute".... Avidor 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See WP:COI — A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.. You don't have to belong to an organization or make a profit from your edits. You clearly are against PRT and thus, if you use Wikipedia to promote your views, you have a COI. — ERcheck (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, when you report others, your actions/edits are also reviewed. — ERcheck (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Being against something isn't COI... otherwise only people who condoned torture could edit a page on torture. If you have a problem with my edits, please take it up with an administrator.Avidor 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avidor, as I mentioned above, I came across the Olson article when reading the Conflict of Interest report that you made. I am an administrator; please read the response to your report. Having interest in a topic is not necessarily a problem, it is when your interest conflict with those of Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link?Avidor 03:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bona fide case of COI... Bill James is editing the personal rapid transit article and he's the head of the J-POD PRT company[1]Avidor 04:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA.[2] Durova^Charge! 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on WP:AN, I have unblocked this user. --Richard 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard beat me to the unblock, but I'd like to add that it might be a good idea in the future not to dredge up diffs from over a year ago as evidence in a dispute... just a though.--Isotope23 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also it's a good idea to bury the hatchet and forget old grudges. A repetition of the personal attack of calling another editor a troll might earn you another block which won't be lifted so quickly. --Richard 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old grudges? This is from today-[3]This guy follows me everywhere on the internet and even has a blog about me-[4] The guy even attacks me on his Wikipedia user page-[5] Atren is a troll and if you want to block me for stating that, go ahead... it's the truth. That's what Wikipedia gets for allowing anonymous people to "edit" articles. The Seattle PI forum banned ATren for ranting about me... Wikipedia should too.Avidor 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow Avidor - I follow PRT discussions, and I debunk that which I know to be blatantly false about PRT. It just happens that just about every misleading statement on PRT seems to come from him, which is not surprising given that his name is practically synonomous with the anti-PRT movement. My blog is simply an aggregation of posts debunking Ken's anti-PRT campaign. He insists on making it personal, but the only thing "personal" is that he doesn't like when I contradict him with hard facts. ATren 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]