Misplaced Pages

User talk:Feezo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:14, 24 July 2011 editFeezo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators13,813 edits →Removing the POV tag: re← Previous edit Revision as of 06:48, 24 July 2011 edit undoBobthefish2 (talk | contribs)2,027 edits →Removing the POV tag: replyNext edit →
Line 142: Line 142:


:By the way, I don't consider the mediation as a failure&mdash;rather, it succeeded in bringing to light the fact that this is an intractable dispute, with parties on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. Again, thank you for your patience, and let me know if I can do anything further to help. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">] <font size="-2">] | ])</font></span> 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC) :By the way, I don't consider the mediation as a failure&mdash;rather, it succeeded in bringing to light the fact that this is an intractable dispute, with parties on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. Again, thank you for your patience, and let me know if I can do anything further to help. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">] <font size="-2">] | ])</font></span> 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
::Feezo, you don't think I am courteous? :'( --] (]) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:48, 24 July 2011

Welcome to my talk page.
  • Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
  • Please sign and date your entry by adding "~~~~" at the end.
  • Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Start a new topic.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7

If you are here to ask me to perform an administrative task, please see User:Feezo/admin for guidelines.

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Senkaku Islands

I put the tag back because it's been a few days since you said the closure of mediation is pending; feel free to remove it when the mediation case closes. - Penwhale | 02:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands/Code#Update

It might be a little too late for my input here, so I'm wondering if I should take the time to answer your questions. Thanks. – AJL 07:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect to have any further involvement with the case, although you're welcome to send in your answers if you wish. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, would you rather I send them to the Committee? – AJL 08:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you could do that—I came up with the questions on my own, but as the committee as a whole is currently deciding what to do, any perspective provided by participants should be welcome. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 12:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


ind_knight 16 july 20011

hi freezo

The semi-protection on the article (Digvijay_Singh_(politician)) is not justifiable because lot of contradictory information on large number of web references is available related to this article.1 where person himself states that that he was better hindu means he has converted now which contradicts the present content in the article. but semi-protection has been applied this on unrefined article and friezing to that stage where it seems that it will be not good for wikipedia to be source of nuetral information. kindly remove it grant permission to edit the page.

--Ind knight (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can contact the admin who protected the article at User talk:RegentsPark. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion would this page meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? I don't want to sound advertisE or SpammE

Akiban Technologies Preview

Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!

Akiban (Ah-kee-buhn) Technologies was founded in 2009 with the mission of delivering a database solution to allow high performance and scalability. The product, which is not yet in the market, allows companies to maintain existing relational databases, but restructures the storage of the data for scale. The company touts this approach as breaking “through the SQL scalability barrier”. The initial unreleased product appears to support MySQL, and we infer plans to support other relational databases in the future. Akiban has a MIT cadre of DBMS developers like Jack Orenstein, who was an Object Design founder, Ori Herrnstadt from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mike McMahon who was a founder of Oberon and Blue Agarve Software and Peter Beaman who used to work for Intersystems. Akiban Server

Operational databases with normalized schemas suffer from performance and scalability problems as schemas become complex. Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process, to handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. These problems are not inherent in the amount of data however, but rather in the SQL joins required to construct objects from that data. Typical workarounds for these challenges include de-normalization, materialized views, and alternative database solutions. Rather than compromising the integrity and benefits of a relational model through denormalization, the database technology will make SQL run better. References

^ Luca, Andrei. "Akiban « High Tech in the Hub." High Tech in the Hub. 25 Sept. 2010. Web. 05 July 2011. <http://www.hightechinthehub.com/tag/akiban/>. ^ "Akiban | DBMS 2 : Database Management System Services." DBMS 2 : Database Management and Analytic Technologies in a Changing World. Monash Research, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 05 July 2011. <http://www.dbms2.com/category/products-and-vendors/akiban/>. ^ André B. Bondi, 'Characteristics of scalability and their impact on performance', Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2000, ISBN 1-58113-195-X, pages 195 - 203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NO.Denormalization (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a self-declared sockpuppet of AkibanTech and has been indefinitely blocked. -- Atama頭 18:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

In fact ( contact ) 07:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File mover

Hi, There is more discussion in here, and also in the main page. Regards, In fact ( contact ) 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows Phone 7

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows Phone 7. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

SI Mediation

Feezo, will you be providing any sort of closing statement--a summary, an indication of what the committee was discussing, a recommendation as to whether you (individually or collectively) believe further DR (i.e., arbitration) should be requested, etc.? Both of the closes indicate that we should check the talk page for more info, but there isn't any there, at least not that I'm seeing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

AGK has indicated on the case talk page that he will post a full statement once consensus is reached. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm not looking at the right place, the only recent message from AGK is this one from 16 July, which says that the committee has finished discussion, and you (Feezo) would be taking action; it doesn't say anything about the committee or AGK making a comment. The 24 June comment says that, but I assumed that was superseded by the 16 July statement. I can ask AGK on xyr talk if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've asked him on the list if he plans on making a statement. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo. Would you mind removing the dispute tag from the SI page? You added it at the end of May "as part of formal mediation". Now that the mediation is over, I would appreciate it if you could take it off. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; I've taken care of it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Feezo, the dispute has not been solved although the mediation is over, and the current title has failed to be proved a NPOV one during mediation. I have not seen more conclusion as well as justifications except the closure itself for this mediation. Some confusions, sorry. --Lvhis (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. The Senkaku Islands case is now closed. As I am no longer your mediator, I have no special authority over the article in question. Please follow the standard procedure for controversial changes. Thanks. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute protection

I've taken quite a bit of liberty in unprotecting this page, and actually returning it to its predispute version. At first, this may look like an administrator pushing his will on an article, but I assure you it's nothing of the sort. I have been watching this dispute for too long and I'm trying to keep things sane. I'm posting here because technically I probably shouldn't have undone your protection without your permission. Please read my post on the talk page however which explains all of my actions. If you still have an issue, feel free to resopnd and I will happily work it out to return it to whatever state you'd set up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the message—I don't have an issue with your taking on this challenge, and even unprotecting the page (although you should probably address the parallel dispute at Senkaku Islands). Protecting the dispute page was meant as a gentle reminder that edit warring is Not Allowed—and that administrators are standing by if the situation escalates. I agree it does "look" bad to WP:PREFER a particular version, which was why I froze the page in exactly the state I found it. I'm not sure it's wise to get dragged into whether or not the article "should" be tagged. It's an internal filing issue that should never have been allowed to become an object of this much contention (per Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles).
However, it's clear that the situation is not going to go away, and if you're willing to take this to Arbcom, I think it would be better to do quickly, rather than letting the situation continue to simmer. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll add my few cents here. Regarding Senkaku Islands, ArbCom might not be able to do much (since they don't ever take content disputes, which I personally feel ArbCom may classify this under). As there hasn't been disruptive editing due to the full-protection status, there may be nothing actionable (except at me for restoring the tag). As for Senkaku Islands dispute, I can't say much without looking at detailed history. - Penwhale | 02:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been dealing with the later article for months, although the dispute has gone on for years. IMHO there has definitely been some disruptive editing, including individuals willing to edit war, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and most deliciously a healthy case of WP:MPOV. Just to clarify, I'm not pushing whether or not there should be an NPOV-title tag or not; I was just returning the article to its most recent state.
As for ArbCom, wasn't their initial job to take on content disputes? Seriously, what the heck? Too bad they just had their elections; had I known this, I would have gone on a campaign to get a new batch of Arbs in that would be willing to take on the matters which they should be taking on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They normally don't have remedies that direct which way they want the content to go. For disputes, they act on whether people have violated AGF, been editing disruptively, and what not. So they will rule on the actions of people that have been violating en-wp rules, but I'm uncertain as to whether they will actually say "which article name should be used". Basically, if both sides are agreeing to disagree on certain subjects, without violating rules, ArbCom normally will not take the case and prefer to defer to the community for input. - Penwhale | 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag

Haha, well, Magog's taken over this one, so feel free to see him for updates :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I've taken it over with an unholy vengeance. On another note, should I spontaneously disappear (e.g., should I find a full-time job, should I have a conscience attack about too much time on WP, etc.), feel free to take it right back over. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo, although a message of yours on 04:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) has been remvoed, I saw it at the time you just input here. I was and am astonished and very upset that you list me alongside with Tenmei together negatively. Why? For what? Is it fair? Could you clarify this for me? I respect and support you the mediator during the mediation for all the time. I did not do anything out of the topic there. I criticized my debating colleague Bob when he had conflict with you. I made several tries to pursuade Bob to pay an appology to you when you asked such, although failed. I followed your instruction and worked with STSC, et al to draft the conduct code for the mediation. Particularly when Qwyrxian ‎ raised some questions, I revised the draft to make it clearly stating the authority of the mediator, you, with my full respect and trust on you. I never attacked you as some participants from other side did. I always communicated with you in very proper way when I have questions and confusions, including when you announced the mediation was over and suggested or instructed me to follow a standard procedure, and I followed it. If you think I owe thanks for you as you inserted the POV-title tag to grant my request at the beginning of the mediation, I paid my thanks to you already. That tag was in line with wp policies and guidelines and it should have been there when such dispute was ongoing. Please don't think doing that was just for pleasing me as so think some editor from other side. The mediation unfortunately was ended with failure. The failed mediation has a lot of lessens that every participants and the mediator should figure out and learn. I would say as the mediator you may need think this more and learn more from such failure. Sorry I input so much. Please clarify that for me. Otherwise, it would be very unfair to me. --Lvhis (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Lvhis—sorry to have tarred you with the same brush. You're right, you've approached the debate in a generally very civil manner. When I listed you as a "problem", it was exclusively for edit warring at Senkaku Islands dispute, and was not intended to reflect on you in any other way. This is one of the quirks of Misplaced Pages—edit warring is almost never acceptable, even when you're "in the right" (I remain neutral on the issues, including whether the pages should be tagged). Again, I'm sorry for associating you with editors like Bob; you've been pretty courteous throughout the debate, which I'd like to thank you for.
By the way, I don't consider the mediation as a failure—rather, it succeeded in bringing to light the fact that this is an intractable dispute, with parties on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. Again, thank you for your patience, and let me know if I can do anything further to help. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Feezo, you don't think I am courteous? :'( --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)