Misplaced Pages

User talk:TransporterMan: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:29, 12 February 2015 editKathydi1977 (talk | contribs)26 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:44, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 23) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{semi-retired|date=September, 2023|I may not see talk page messages left here or elsewhere for a long time. Please email me if you need to get my attention.}}
First Moxy contends Keith's book was plaigairzed.
{{User:MiszaBot/config

Now you claim it is a soap box because it is self published. Why are you claiming this is a "soapbox' issue. It is irrelevant. it is the man's history and he is endeavouring to correct the record.

This matter is being referred to Keith's lawyer for further handling.

Regards,

Kathy



{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 14 |counter = 23
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 22: Line 11:
<!-- <div style="position:fixed; top:200px">{{tmbox <!-- <div style="position:fixed; top:200px">{{tmbox
| image = ] | image = ]
| text = '''Travel Notice:<br>]''' is currently, or is about to be, traveling in ] from '''Wednesday 3 September 2014''' through '''Wednesday 24 September 2014''' and may not be able to respond immediately, or perhaps at all, to queries during that time or perhaps for a day or two before and after. | text = '''Travel Notice:<br>]''' is currently, or is about to be, traveling in ] from '''May 5, 2016''' through '''June 20, 2016''' and may not be able to respond immediately to queries during that time or perhaps for a day or two before and after.
| style= border-style:double; border-color:#020717; border-width:thick;}}</div> --> | style= border-style:double; border-color:#020717; border-width:thick;}}</div> -->

<!-- <div style="position:fixed; top:200px">{{tmbox <!-- <div style="position:fixed; top:200px">{{tmbox
| image = ] | image = ]
| text = '''Offline Notice:<br>]''' is currently, or is about to be, offline in ] from '''Thursday 20 November 2014 at about 23:00 UTC''' through '''Wednesday 26 November 2014''' and may not be able to respond immediately, or perhaps at all, to queries during that time or perhaps for a day or two before and after. | text = '''Offline Notice:<br>]''' is currently, or is about to be, offline in ] from '''Tuesday 17 March 2015 at about 21:00 UTC''' through '''Thursday 26 March 2015''' and may not be able to respond immediately, or perhaps at all, to queries during that time or perhaps for a day or two before and after.
| style= border-style:double; border-color:#020717; border-width:thick;}}</div> | style= border-style:double; border-color:#020717; border-width:thick;}}</div> -->

<div align="center"> -->
<div align="center">
{|style="margin:auto; width:; text-align:left; border:1px solid #000080; background-color:powderblue; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; margin:0;" {|style="margin:auto; width:; text-align:left; border:1px solid #000080; background-color:powderblue; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; margin:0;"
<hr /> |<hr />
{| STYLE = background:transparent;text-align:left; {| STYLE = background:transparent;text-align:left;
|- |-
{{!}}{{!}} ] {{!}}{{!}} ]
|<!--NEW CELL--> |<!--NEW CELL-->
*'''If I left you a message:''' please answer on '''''your''''' talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response *'''If I left you a message:''' please answer on '''''your''''' talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, '''''unless''''' it is marked with "<small>(Not watching)</small>", in which case it's just an informational posting and I am not watching your page and you will need to contact me here on this page if you want to discuss the message
*'''If you leave me a message:''' I will answer on '''''this''''' talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered. *'''If you leave me a message:''' I will answer on '''''this''''' talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.
''This will ensure that conversations remain together!'' ''This will ensure that conversations remain together!''
*<SPAN CLASS="plainlinks">''''''</SPAN> *<span class="plainlinks">''''''</span>
|} |}
|} |}
Line 64: Line 55:
] ]
}} }}
== Requesting inputs ==


* Requesting inputs @ ]
== Alevism ==
* This request has been made to you since you seem to have been interested in updating policies @ Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Legal vide


] (]) 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
You have closed the dispute resolution discussion on Alevism. The Alevism talk page discussion itself is not productive since the other editor(s?) doesn't use sources as a basis for editing. How many times do you advise I get reverted for the same bold edit before you would think it no longer "premature" to get resolution? On the Misplaced Pages Tea House I was advised that I ''should'' use dispute resolution for the Alevism page, but you have blocked this. ] (]) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


== The Third Option Request ==
In addition you say the talk for this issue is "old". Does this mean that if the other user continues to refuse to engage in further talk on the talk page, the matter can never be taken to dispute resolution? ] (]) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


I am personally glad that the request was reverted. I am not at all surprised to hear that it didn't comply with the instructions at the Third Opinion page as you put it, and had a discussion which involved more than two editors. In many ways, the issue really stemmed from edits on the Bob Morley page, where there continues to be an ongoing discussion. I'm not aware of a discussion on ] currently, though, just ones on ] and ]. ] (]) 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:I'm sorry but all forums here, such as the Teahouse, do not have a firm grip on the rules of the various dispute resolution forums. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make ], or consider filing a ] to bring additional editors into the discussion. Regards, ] (]) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


:Whoops. The discussion is at ], not ] and I've appended a note to that effect to my earlier notice. Thanks, ] (]) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I probably do not have the time I expect is required to go through the failure-to-discuss procedure or other dispute resolution. Since you have now seen the page, its history, and its talk page, I am hoping perhaps you are in a good position to give your own opinion on the various edits. ] (]) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


== Intervention in Dispute resolution ==
== Hi. ==


Hello Sir, kindly intervene in my dispute with user Ekdalian. The link of the DR page is https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. It is related to Baidya article. Thankyou. ] (]) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a new section that request for unreliable and questionable sources on ]. Other admins can't help anymore. ] (]) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


:I've responded there. — ] (]) 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC) :Your request for dispute resolution should be made at ] after carefully reading and following the instructions there. Requests cannot be made from https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. I do not take private requests for dispute resolution. Regards, ] (]) 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


== DRN needs assistance == == In memory ==
{{User QAIbox
| title = ]
| image = Bittersweet, Mohegan Lake.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ]
}}
]: in memoriam ] who said (]): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" -- ] (]) 16:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
You are receiving this message because you have ] as a volunteer at the ].


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
We have a ] there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, ''please'' take one or more of these cases.
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, ''please'' remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
Best regards, ] 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
<!-- Message sent by User:TransporterMan@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:TransporterMan/Sandbox/12&oldid=641588248 -->


</div>
== Rejection of request for mediation ==
</div>

<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 -->
Do you have any suggestions as to how I might proceed with this given the legal threats? If a mediator is unavailable, how do I navigate this? ]<sup>]</sup> 12:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

:Since you're ], I'd suggest reporting the legal threat (as well as the other editor's confession that his is, or is very close to being, a ]) to ], but be sure to point out that he — kinda/sorta — apologized for the threat at ], though he didn't quite withdraw it, which is what's usually required with legal threats. Once you've dealt with the conduct issues you can probably then deal with the content issues on a straightforward basis on the article talk page and go to ] as needed. In short, let other admins sort out the conduct, then deal with the content. Regards, ] (]) 14:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

== Help with DRN process ==

Hi, can you help with a few general questions about the Dispute Resolution process? I've been invited to take part as one of the disputants ] but since this is my first "dispute" I'm not sure of the etiquette. I've read the big panel at the top of the DRN Misplaced Pages page, and tried to search around about the issue, but I can't find answers to my specific questions. They are:

# I think a few other editors need to be invited to participate. Is it OK for me to do that, and if so how? I myself was invited via a message appearing on my Talk page, so I guess that's the mechanism. But is it OK for me (as opposed to the person initiating the DR/N) to do that, and if so, how?
# Assuming it is OK to invite those other editors, does the invitation process automatically update the required sections on the DR/N page, or do I have to do that manually (i.e. in addition to inviting them)?
# How then do I participate in the discussion? There's a ] already added with my name, and with some text implying I'm supposed to add stuff there ("''Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters ... etc''"). Do I simply add text to that, or is there anything else I should be aware of?


== Arbitration case request ==
thanks! ] (]) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


You have been mentioned in a request for arbitration by ] - possibly they consider you involved in some way, possibly they just asked you for advice as someone uninvolved (it's not immediately clear to me). Please see ]. ] (]) 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:# It is perfectly acceptable for you to add additional parties. Indeed, since the purpose of DRN is to bring all editors involved in a dispute into mediation with a view towards achieving consensus, not much can be effectively done without them. Generally only editors who have been involved in the talk page discussion are included, but that's your call. Be sure to notify the editors who you add. You can add <nowiki>{{subst:drn-notice|Battle of the Somme}} — ~~~~</nowiki> to the bottom of their user talk page to do that (edit the entire talk page and add that at the bottom of the existing text of the page without a title, it will create a title and new section for itself) or write a customized note.
:# No, you must manually create their response sections in addition to notifying them.
:# Yes, just make an opening statement in that section.
::{{Ping|Keith-264}} Just making you aware of this conversation.
::Regards, ] (]) 14:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks, I mentioned Thomask0 because the other people seemed secondary but if he'd rather have them along I don't mind. I thought Buckshot's suggestion was a quick way out of a dead end too. (Have I overestimated Thomask0's experience as a Wikieditor?)] (]) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks ] .] (]) 03:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


== Rio Grande 223 case request declined ==
== I Give Up ==


The ] has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/they) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA:
http://wikibias.blogspot.com


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA:
I have a number of recommendations for Misplaced Pages, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource:
First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too).
Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative.
Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset.
Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation.
Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Misplaced Pages is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Misplaced Pages must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Misplaced Pages needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Misplaced Pages administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.


Hello,
Please forward ... if anyone at Wiki gives a darn.


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
Misplaced Pages Editor: Tolinjr--] (]) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
: I have copied your posting to ], which is the closest thing we have to an open forum about general Misplaced Pages issues. Regards, ] (]) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
== Changing volunteer at ] ==


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
TransporterMan, would you please review the volunteer's comments on the Battlestar Galactica request at DRN? I'm not at all comfortable this is a volunteer who is sufficiently experienced to handle a mediation, much less one as potentially volatile as this one could be if Twobells returns to the kind of behavior exhibited before his current block. The volunteer clearly does not understand the issue at hand, appears clueless regarding the handling of TV infoboxes, appears to have made no effort to read the discussion on the talk page, and doesn't seem to be aware enough to sign his posts. Moreover, he appears to think he can simply issue mandates, not act as a mediator. I have no confidence in him/her, and he/she should not be allowed to handle the case. --] (]) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
:The volunteer has withdrawn and a replacement requested. Regards, ] (]) 14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


]
== ] ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
Please take a look at the moderated discussion of Meghan Trainor and offer your comments at ]. ] (]) 14:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
:Done. Best regards, ] (]) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello,
== Dispute resolution over page WP:European-American Rights Organization ==


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
On 7:27 January 15, I initiated a Dispute Resolution process on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (I THINK. I'm very new at this). Little more than a day later, my access to editing was maliciously blocked by someone who was aware of my Dispute, and he (she?) should now be a party to this dispute, and his actions should be included in it. But I cannot find any indication of this process on the DRN now. And, due to the fact that I am very much an amateur here, I don't know how to track this down. Further, I want at this point to escalate the complaint to a FORMAL process, not merely INFORMAL, in part due to my having been blocked. ] (]) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Take the survey ''''''.
:The filing was closed (by me) as a conduct dispute rather than a content dispute. The record is ]. DRN doesn't handle conduct disputes, speak to an ] or go to ] or ] for that. In light of your formal vs. informal comments, above, I think that's probably where you'll want to go. Regards, ] (]) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
::Sorry, but NO. It was NOT a "conduct dispute". It was (falsely) claimed to be dispute over the asserted violation of the 3RR. That assertion was made, and was a diversion, apparently to conceal the actual dispute: Over a POV issue. Precisely as I pointed out in my original complaint. At this point, I could ask that this matter be re-raised as an informal dispute, but I wonder if I am being subjected to the same kind of cabal-type behavior complained of by editor Tolinjr in his comment titled "I give up" on your Talk page. While I haven't checked the dates, it seems likely this matter was closed without getting my comments about whether this matter was actually a "conduct dispute" or a "content dispute". Keep in mind that I was (maliciously) blocked from ALL editing, INCLUDING from my own Talk page, for a total of about four (4) days. Naturally, I am not optimistic about the WP Dispute Resolution process, after this abuse. ] (]) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


]
::I have added content to the section "My Complaint to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard" in the Talk:European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization article. The essence of the misrepresentation, his claim that I had violated 3RR, is that user Dougweller himself quoted the 3RR to say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." However, as I just pointed out to him, what I did was "a series of consecutive edits". In other words, Dougweller "adjusted" his interpretation of the rule to fabricate a false objection, and in turn used that false objection to obscure the fact that the original dispute was over CONTENT, not conduct. ] (]) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
:::Your "Dispute overview" was mainly about the conduct of the other editors and your "How do you think we can help" was ''only'' about conduct: "Read the material; decide that those other editors were variously ''misbehaving. Apply the appropriate sanctions.''" (Emphasis added.) Dougweller's comments had nothing to do with the closing. Feel free to refile, but if you do so, do not talk about the other editors' motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about ''them'' or their actions, as all of that involves conduct, not content, and only discuss the content matters in dispute. (Bear in mind that NPOV in an ''article'' is a content matter, but the POV of ''editors'' is a conduct matter.) There ''is'' a place to discuss conduct — an ] or ] or ] — but DRN isn't it. This isn't about cabal, it's about following the forum's rules. Also bear in mind that all that can be done in Misplaced Pages ''content'' dispute resolution is to do some form of ] which involves trying to ''help the parties'' come to ], a form of facilitated negotiation, not making binding rulings about content. Regards, ] (]) 22:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744489 -->


== DRN Assistance ==
::::You seem to be unaware that I'm new at this (editing WP) and quite new at putting forward a complaint. (Read my edit history.) My original basis for objection was that people were reverting my edits (intending to remove POV; or as you call it, NPOV; or at least balance it) for no stated reason, they were not using the talk board to discuss their reverts, and that their reverts were intended to protect POV in the article, and making false assertions (such as the false claim I'd violated the 3RR). Moreover, you have ignored my objection that I was maliciously blocked, in an attempt to keep me from employing the informal dispute resolution system. I reasonably expected that the Dispute Resolution system I was initiating would get to these matters. It never did. And no, you didn't help. I think it's obvious that an informal dispute resolution won't work: I must initiate a FORMAL dispute resolution. For the record, I will ask: How do I do that? You can still decide to help. ] (]) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello, im trying to use the resolution system, specifically for the ] article.
:::::There are no formal ''content'' dispute resolution processes at Misplaced Pages. (Going to ] is sometimes called "formal mediation," but that's just a nickname to contrast it to DRN, 3O, and RFC.) There is no board or committee or other group who can make binding and final decisions about article content, that's only done through the ] process. The closest we come to that is, arguably, ] which merely invites other editors into the discussion in a neutral kind of way, but even then the discussion has to achieve consensus through discussion, not through intervention of some authority. On the other hand, the processes I've already mentioned — an ] or ] or ] — are the informal ''conduct'' processes. The formal conduct process is ], but you need to know that ArbCom will not handle content disputes and will ordinarily only handle conduct disputes which have first been taken to AN or ANI. If you want to complain about the conduct of an administrator, AN or ANI is the spot, with AN being slightly more proper than ANI. If by "formal" you mean taking the whole thing to some supervisor or board that has the power to consider it and take action, that doesn't exist. Misplaced Pages is "owned" by the ] — they own the software and servers on which we run — but they will not intervene in matters such as you're concerned about: they leave it up to us inmates to run this asylum (because that's what the entire ] concept is about). (If some of that does not address what you mean by "formal dispute resolution" I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean.) I'll be going offline just after hitting "Save" on this message and will not be back on until about 14:00 UTC tomorrow. Regards, ] (]) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


It feels like too petty of a dispute to justify opening an RFC but the talk page has failrd, and its just broken down into people not responding and making accusations of misconduct over nonsense on all sides.
::::::Maybe you will appreciate that to me, a newbie at this, what you just wrote is as clear as mud. It focused mostly on what can't be done, rather than what can be done! The false assertion that I somehow violated the 3RR seemed (in hindsight, since I was obstructed from accessing the system) to lead to the dismissal of my complaint has left a bad taste in my mouth. There _IS_, indeed, a content dispute. And I am unaware that any of the editors against which my complaint was directed has done anything more than (in one case) divert attention with that false claim of a violation of 3RR. So therefore, as far as I am concerned they have already conceded the matter. That leaves you to read the history of my edits, and the fact that with few and very brief exceptions, they weren't discussed by others on the Talk page of WP:EURO. What they did wrong was to improperly revert my proper edits with their improper reverts. That may ALSO amount to a conduct violation, but it is definitely a CONTENT violation. ] (]) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


The crux of the issue is about the presentation of the language in the intro to the article, and the distinction between ] and arbitrary categories.
:::::::I don't doubt that there was an underlying content dispute, but what you ''brought'' to DRN, wrote up, and requested relief about was the conduct dispute dispute part. As I said, above: "Feel free to refile, but if you do so, do not talk about the other editors' motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about ''them'' or their actions, as all of that involves conduct, not content, and only discuss the content matters in dispute." — ] (]) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Specifically, the current language presents the article subject as an objective, coherent, extant, natural category, but constructs it by specifying members rather than criteria.
== DRN Ikeda issue ==


The talk page details at length the problems with this logically, why it creates a form of lie by structure, and how regardless of the source, of the structure of the material is presented in a way that presents subjective external frameworks as natural facts, thats not NPOV and its out of the scope of any experts authority to disregard the rules of logic.
Thanks for reminding to include the notice. I do not use the DRN very often and it slipped my attention that I have to infrom the person involved myself - I thought naming the counterpart would do that automatically. --] (]) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Hope I did it correctly maybe you could check?--] (]) 17:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Woukd you be willing to review the discussion and help me with setting up the appropriate request for dispute resolution.
:Looks good to me. Regards, ] (]) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


No edits have yet occured, as, i elected to seek consesnsus before making a change ] (]) 11:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
==General officers==
Thanks for the compliment. No offence taken. Cheers. -- ] (]) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:44, 22 December 2024

SEMI-RETIRED

I may not see talk page messages left here or elsewhere for a long time. Please email me if you need to get my attention. This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of September, 2023.


User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, unless it is marked with "(Not watching)", in which case it's just an informational posting and I am not watching your page and you will need to contact me here on this page if you want to discuss the message
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.

This will ensure that conversations remain together!


Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Requesting inputs

Bookku (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Third Option Request

I am personally glad that the request was reverted. I am not at all surprised to hear that it didn't comply with the instructions at the Third Opinion page as you put it, and had a discussion which involved more than two editors. In many ways, the issue really stemmed from edits on the Bob Morley page, where there continues to be an ongoing discussion. I'm not aware of a discussion on WP:RSN currently, though, just ones on Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech. Historyday01 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. The discussion is at WP:BLPN, not WP:RSN and I've appended a note to that effect to my earlier notice. Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Intervention in Dispute resolution

Hello Sir, kindly intervene in my dispute with user Ekdalian. The link of the DR page is https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. It is related to Baidya article. Thankyou. Anirban Kolkata (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your request for dispute resolution should be made at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard after carefully reading and following the instructions there. Requests cannot be made from https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. I do not take private requests for dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In memory

November songs
my story today

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

You have been mentioned in a request for arbitration by DTParker1000 - possibly they consider you involved in some way, possibly they just asked you for advice as someone uninvolved (it's not immediately clear to me). Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio Grande 223. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Rio Grande 223 case request declined

The Rio Grande 223 case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

DRN Assistance

Hello, im trying to use the resolution system, specifically for the Manosphere article.

It feels like too petty of a dispute to justify opening an RFC but the talk page has failrd, and its just broken down into people not responding and making accusations of misconduct over nonsense on all sides.

The crux of the issue is about the presentation of the language in the intro to the article, and the distinction between Natural (category theory) and arbitrary categories.

Specifically, the current language presents the article subject as an objective, coherent, extant, natural category, but constructs it by specifying members rather than criteria.

The talk page details at length the problems with this logically, why it creates a form of lie by structure, and how regardless of the source, of the structure of the material is presented in a way that presents subjective external frameworks as natural facts, thats not NPOV and its out of the scope of any experts authority to disregard the rules of logic.

Woukd you be willing to review the discussion and help me with setting up the appropriate request for dispute resolution.

No edits have yet occured, as, i elected to seek consesnsus before making a change Azeranth (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)