| Revision as of 20:57, 24 July 2006 editAzmoc (talk | contribs)184 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:19, 27 July 2014 edit undo76.174.137.246 (talk) rv experiment ... | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;" | |||
| |align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#80737C; background-color:<!--#99CC99--><!--#FFCCFF--><!--#e1d1ff;--><!--#CC99FF;-->#dda0dd; color:#000000;"|<center>'''Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.'''</center> <center>— ''Robert Frost''</center> | |||
| |- | |||
| |valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color:<!--#CCFFCC--><!--#FFFFCC;--><!--beige--><!--#FFDAB9--><!--#CADABA;--><!--#e1f6ff;--><!--#e6e3af;--> <!--#e6e9ff;--><!--#e1d1ff;--><!--#ddcef2;-->#faf5ff; color:#000000;"|__NOTOC__ | |||
| {| align="center"} | |||
| {| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" | |||
| |- | |||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Blocking policy changes== | |||
| Quite frankly, it isn't fair for someone to be blocked under dubious grounds and then have to wait out the block for hours or days while the issue has to be hashed out with the blocking admin, no matter how wrong or emotionally involved they may be. The current draft retains the strong guidance against block wars - but crucially, it does not give the blocking admin what amounts to a right of veto against any later unblocking of the user. This fits in with the role of dispute resolution as an operation based on consensus, and getting a second opinion, rather than concentrating power in the hands of a single admin. | |||
| I see no such consensus on the talk page at the moment - all I see is a policy change that you proposed along these lines that was accepted by a margin of about 3-2. This is not enough to bind the entire project on a fairly fundamental issue. ] 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry - I've not had a chance to check Misplaced Pages today, and there's been so much discussion on that page that I'm not sure where you're referring to. It would help considerably if it was made clear that the admin doesn't have a veto over whether a block should be lifted, but I would still like to see a) it made clear that an unblocking admin does ''not'' have to consult (as opposed to notify) the blocking admin if the latter is not around at the time, and b) that any consensus required to unblock a user be somewhat proportionate to the consensus there was to block the user in the first place. ] 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey there == | |||
| Back again. Hope all is well with you and yours. ] 10:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome to the Project! == | |||
| Was wondering when we'd see you ] :-) I first encountered your work on the ] article, and have been looking forward to future collaborations (after I make more progress on the mad rush over ], though I'm writing my articles in English first!) ''-- Cheers, ] 15:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| == your opinion == | |||
| I'd appreciate your opinion in the Discussion of the article "Dissident Voice". Thank you. ] 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Slim, I was kinda wondering why you removed the paragraph about the stupid "Jew and Me" article. I figure there probably shouldn't be an article at all about ], but if there is going to be one then we should at least provide some indication of just how strange the newsletter's publications really are.- ] | ] 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I guess it does actually look kinda strange in the article, I won't restore it.- ] | ] 01:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Help == | |||
| Hi Slim, you're the only admin I've really had any dealings with and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I've been watching the ] page for some time and an anonymous user keeps changing almost every mention of the word Jew to "Hebrew Israelite" (there are a few exceptions where he changes it to "foreign Jew" etc). Trying to remove the word Jew from an article about Jews seems like pretty obvious vandalism to me. I posted something at ] but looking at that page it can take days to hear anything and then it's usually a one sentence reply. At the moment I'm reverting occassionally and trying to leave other users to do some reverting too and I'm steering clear of breaking the three reverts rule but I'm worried I'm engaging in an editing war and that the editing might not be a clear enough case of vandalism for me to continue. Do you think it's acceptable for me to keep reverting or should I leave it? Any advice would be really good. Thank you.--] 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's fantastic! Thanks for your help.--] 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk archives == | |||
| <s>Hey, I'm trying to find a discussion I think we had a little while back. I noticed in the history that you archive your talk page, but I can't find where the archives are (I can't find a link). Could you help me? ] 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :I looked through my own contributions and I can't find it, so it must have not been in your usertalk (maybe it was somewhere else). Sorry 'bout that. ] 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Slim. In case you are inclined to help out, that article (which you assisted on the past) is in serious edit war mode again, this time between a 'stable' version (the one that survived the recent AfD), and 2 wildly varying ones. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ] 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth: There are on the evidence a grand total of three parties, including Crum375, who have eyes on this entry, and who have been discussing it at enormous, if not preposterous, length. There had earlier been an agreement, suggested by Crum375, that any substantive changes be agreed on in talk rather than anyone laying hands on the entry directly. Over time, however, that consensus wore thin. At this point only Crum375 maintains the position that any substantive change be discussed and agreed first in discussion rather than anyone, in fact, be allowed to edit the entry. I do not doubt your intention, your judgement, or your good will, but I find it problematic that, when Crum375 fails to have the only two other participants agree with his preferred method he asks in an admin to revert to his preferred form. Ought one to take it that Crum375 is the effective sole guardian of this entry and is to prescribe his preferred procedures to all other participants, and, if they fail to agree to bring in an admin who will then simply revert to his preferred form? Frankly, I fail to see how this reflects well upon WP process. Perhaps in my simplemindedness some subtle wisdom of the process eludes me. Best. ] 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello SV, Re Crum375's first comments here above, they are not completely accurate. First, the edit war mode is in fact now between one version that is '''now roughly agreed on''' by me and Arcsincostan (who were, though, previously at odds - the "two wildly varying ones"), and the one Crum375 alone wants to remain up instead. Second the ''stable version'' referred to was made by some unilateral changes readily admitted by Crum375 (no critisicm intended). The fact that it is contended by both Arcsincostan and me demonstrates that it is anything but stable. So I do not understand your reversions. Last, please note that the version roughly agreed on by Arcsincostan and me, is strictly WP OK - crum375 does not challenge it on (substantiated) WP grounds; he was concerned about liability issues but I think they are OK, and I have in the meanwhile asked Xoloz to comment as well - so it is being checked not ignored. Returning to the agreed article by the previously warring parties, all I have done is quote word for word from the reliable neutral source that we ALL agree on: this led to quick rough agreement between Arcsincostan and me after long discussion and debate. I dont see what the problem is. The conflict seems to be resolved. Now the situation is that the previous volunteer mediator is arguing with the two parties that formerly disagreed. If the mediator would now step out, so to speak, there would be no conflict. The entry again, I stress is WP OK, BUT I am very happy for Crum375 et al to improve it as we go along - as I have stated many times, not just keep reverting it. Of course, I also welcome Crum375 to stay involved and keep improving; but again all these reversions are unnecessary. We also seem to have reached a trusting friendly discussion generally otherwise. Your comments please.--] 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. Just to let you know we are still waiting for your comments re the above. Thanks.--] 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A new userbox you might like == | |||
| Hi Slim, | |||
| I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = ) | |||
| Cheers, | |||
| <span style="border: 1px solid">]''']'''</span> 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:Netsnipe/User_Bureaucratic_Fuck}} | |||
| <br clear=both /> | |||
| == High-Handed Editing == | |||
| Here's what you wrote to me: | |||
| :I have to tell you that if you keep on posting that material, you're likely to be blocked from editing. If you want to add it somewhere, you must find an appropriate article for it (e.g. Holocaust denial), and then it must be written properly and fully sourced to a reliable publication. It can't simply be your own opinion. Please review our content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It's my right to have an opinion, or to suggest someone else's opinion on a discussion page. I'm posting it on discussion pages to invite response, not deletion. You seem a very imperious and unbending kind of administrator. Do you endorse censorship as a WP policy? You must, because you are censoring my discussion entries. | |||
| ] 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for responding a second time, found it on my talk page. Perhaps you are not so imperious after all ;-) I'll watch it with the name calling against other editors from now on, though mainly I was getting a little tired of people deleting my stuff from the discussion pages without comment. Sorry if my addition to the discussion is offensive to you -- well, that's free speech after all. It isn't hate speech. ] 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I've added a section dealing with his virulent (even for the day) anti-Semitism. If you have any additional info, please feel free to add. ] ] ] 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Some folks are trying to chip away at it, too... Why people rush to defend this monster is beyond my ken. ] ] ] 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've done about all I can on this. Rjensen continues to whitewash. ] ] ] 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'm just interested as to why such a heavy-handed (IMHO) editing job was done on this article. Much relevant info was removed (and in some cases restored by me). Why? | |||
| ] ] | |||
| == Stolen talk page == | |||
| Hi, Slim. I hope you don't mind that I shamelessly ]. Not being a huge fan of dogs, I used a frog instead. At the ] a few years ago, we had just put our cakes in the oven one day, when one of the chefs told us in a very mysterious way that we were all to come upstairs and to bring our cameras. Another Chef (the one with the most prestigious qualifications in the entire school) was making some animals (a frog and a rabbit) out of marzipan. I'd love to be able to say that I made this myself, but it wasn't even part of the course. Str1977 hasn't been over enthusiastic — he thinks it's too human for his liking! Cheers. ] ] 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Luther and Antisemitism == | |||
| Hi Slim, please consider please consider coming back ] to summarize Luther and Antisemitism in the Martin Luther article. --] 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My mistake == | |||
| I apologize, I did not see that the PETA criticisms were hidden in among the rewritten text. While I have not edited the page before, I do follow it closely and was dismayed to see all the criticisms gone. ] 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Jews == | |||
| Heya... how would you feel if "the new anti-semitism" was nominated for F.A.? I notice you are a major contributor to the article. I, on the other hand, have contributed nothing, I just stumbled upon it and it looked good. - ] 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps you could do me a small favour then and let me know who is a "regular" on the article so I can contact them. - ] 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dershowitz == | |||
| You don't seriously think that an section about Dershowitz vs. Finkelstein should mostly be devoted to discussing Chomsky, do you? | |||
| I'm also amused that, given your views on OR, you think it's legit to say Dershowitz is "making the sentence appear to advance a line of reasoning that it in fact holds up for ridicule." | |||
| You're obviously too bright to honestly think the Chomsky stuff is a good edit, so I can only conclude that you're WikiStalking me again. ] 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : SV, you ask about the first time you Wikistalked me. It was on the WWI page, when you reverted my edits about Keynes' views on German war guilt. At the time, I pointed out to you that this appeared to be Wikistalking. I suspect that was your first an last edit on the WWI page (other than minor edits, perhaps). | |||
| : You also accuse me of Wikistalking you because, after an absence from Misplaced Pages, I posted some comments on the WP:NOR talk page. Since the comments were on an issue I've long been following and debating, your accusation is absurd. Perhaps you've forgotten that the example of OR being discussed there was originally cribbed from my edits? ] 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Animal Testing == | |||
| Hi again, SlimVirgin. I just wanted to leave you a personal note to apologise for the palavar on the animal testing talkpage. I made the mistake of just assuming an editor knew how to source material correctly and, worse, waded in to back them up without checking first that they were actually providing what they said they were. What makes it more galling is that it was obviously my own bias to blame (assuming from their job that they knew what was acceptable). I most certainly wouldn't have afforded an anti-POV editor the same assumption. Anyway, its a lesson learned for me and something i'll be extra careful of repeating in future. ''']<font color="black">e</font>]''' 07:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Name dropping== | |||
| Hope you don't mind, but when discussing a rather contentious issue with an admin who was I was reminded of your earlier instruction on NOR and took the liberty of (sorry about the capitalisation). The incivility and lack of assuming good faith has concerned me to the point of raising ], but thought you might be interested in the NPOV undue weight issues and in the creative approach to research which . Thanks again for those earlier lessons! ..], ] 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for coming in on the ] issue. As you'll have seen, ] had already laid down the law. Embarrassingly, you promptly and rightly slapped down my over-conciliatory attempt at adding brief coverage of the alleged controversy to the intro: another much needed lesson! In future I'll try harder. ..], ] 10:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Joel Brand== | |||
| Congratulations on getting FA status! Why no star on the article page? (It doesn't show up on my browser, anyway.) ] 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] comments by ] == | |||
| What is the reason you are reverting the comments added by ]? —]→] • 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lyndon Larouche == | |||
| A Larouche sympathizer has been adding dubious information to the page. I've already used up my three reverts (in retrospect, I probably should have waited a bit longer before the last one). You may wish to intervene. ] 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == More on the arbitration workshop == | |||
| You might want to check the latest on our ] - Fred Bauder appears to want to make an example of all four of the parties with lengthy bans for all of us (without any precedent, as I've pointed out). I'm sure you'll agree this is inappropriate. I've added a fair amount of comments and some new proposals; in particular, you might want to take a look at ]. It does appear that we all broke the rules but only in the process of attempting to uphold other rules. I'd be interested to know what you think. -- ] 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the kind words. :-) I feel I ought to correct you on one thing, though. You said that "wheel warring requires the multiple use of admin powers" - actually, it doesn't. ] found that any action "undoing an administrative action by another administrator", ''even if it doesn't use admin powers'', counts as wheel warring. It's bit ironic that although Jayjg voted for this principle, he's now being nominated for a ban on the basis of it (as are the rest of us, of course). -- ] 00:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A Medcab case == | |||
| Hi, there. It seems Francis Schonken has filed an informal mediation request at the ] concerning your reversion of his addition to ]. I'm not sure of the circumstances myself, but it may be helpful to clear things up to the user to explain why you reverted the edits on the case page, if possible. On a side note, I think a source of the confusion might be your use of the default reversion edit summary, making him think you were accusing him of vandalism, perhaps. Thanks. :) <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, woops, I forgot to link the case page! Silly me. ]. There we go. :D <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi there SlimVirgin, I've taken the case that Cowman was talking about. Please let e know if you would not like to participate in this mediation process. Right now it looks straight forward enough to just be on your's and Francis Schonken talk page. However, if you feel that ] would be a better place to discuss this, we'll talk there. However, it seems that there shouldn't be too many problems with this. Thanks for your time. Yours, ]]] <sup>]</sup> 11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi again. After looking at all of the evidence given to me, I think that there are two main problems. | |||
| :::#That your edit summery for removing his comments wasn't clear enough, and (as cowman's said above) your use of the default revision summery made it look like you thought he was committing vandalism. This was obviously just a misunderstanding and a brake down in communication, but I think it would help you you explained why you removed his edits. | |||
| :::#After you removed his edits, Francis responded in, what might be considered, a rash way, by leaving you an offical looking warning for a misunderstanding. Then you responded rashly by telling him not to post on this page. Again, this was a simple communication brake down, and one that can be easily fixed. | |||
| :::As I suggested, I think a simple explination would sort this whole mess out. ]]] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - <small>PS, I'm just letting you know that all discussions can be found ]. </small> | |||
| ::::I quite undertand, Slim. I'll try talking to Francis, and see if I can work something out with him. Good luck in the future!! ]]] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Zeq == | |||
| You are conflating two different agreements. See , the agreement I am referring to preceded the one about the RFA and was agreed to as an alternative to banning Zeq for the article he opened about me. ] 12:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In any case, in the agreement you referred to, Zeq agreed not to be a party to the RFA in exchange for my agreeing to mediation - the fact that mediation did not occur does not free Zeq of his obligations. But again, that agreement is not the one I referred to. ] 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| He's been free to participate as a third party, as you recall he had previously tried to make himself an involved party. In any case, if he has any specific allegations against me as per our prior agreement he can take them to JDoorjam.] 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Then what was the point of my agreeing to mediation in exchange for Zeq withdrawing from the Arbitration since, if mediation had proceeded there would have been no arbitration? There was only ever going to be one process, we didn't know which one. The only point to my agreeing to the deal you brokered was that if there was no mediation Zeq would not be part of the RFA. By your argument there was nothing to be gained by my agreeing to your deal.12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your interpretation lets Zeq have it both ways since it nullifies his obligations. If there was a mediation he'd participate (and the chances of mediation increased with my agreeing to it) whilst if there was arbitration he'd still be able to participate despite his agreement. The only way he'd not have to participate is if both processes occured simultaneously but clearly that was never an option since the ArbComm would have bowed out had mediation proceeded. ] 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Just wanted to tnank you for reverting my talk page :) --] 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Had there been mediation, Zeq would not have taken part in the arbcom case, but there ''was'' no mediation," | |||
| ==Zeq and wikilawyering=== | |||
| Had there been mediation there ''would have been no'' arbcomm case. That was the whole point! Forget wikilawyering, tell me straight up are you honestly saying now that you were thinking there would be both mediation and an ArbComm case? Come on, you were quite feverishly working to have the RFA shelved in favour of mediation and you asked Arbitrators to delay taking on the case in hopes there would be mediation. Now you're giving me this doubletalk that Zeq's agreement to not participate in the RFA was only in effect if there was no RFA (because the only way to prevent the RFA was through mediation). You're trying to have it both ways. And no, that's not "wikilawyering", if anything is it's your double argument. ] 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, exactly. I wanted mediation instead of arbitration. And Zeq agreed not to push for arbitration if you would agree to the mediation and help to get the other dissenter on board, so then we'd have only mediation. But you didn't. You hesitated, then agreed at the very last minute, and AFAIK did nothing to ease the process along, so the whole mediation effort was for nothing. You didn't even reply to my last e-mails to you. Therefore, all bets were off. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your last email to me consisted of one sentence "Thank you!" after I signed on to mediation. Sorry but if you're trying to blame me for there being no mediation you're barking up the wrong tree. I lived up to my end of the bargain only after Zeq agreed to withdraw from the RFA and , as you said, after he agreed "to stop posting about you", he's gone back on his word. ] 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Yes, exactly. I wanted mediation instead of arbitration." | |||
| Exactly, so Zeq withdrawing from the RFA only if there was mediation instead of arbitration is a null position. There would have been no reason for me to agree to that if that was all there was since it would have been pointless to have Zeq agree not to participate in an RFA only if there wasn't going to be one. The only point of that agreement was to have Zeq agree to withdraw regardless of whether or not the ArbComm picked up the case, not conditional on them ''not'' hearing the case as you are now arguing. ] 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandal help == | |||
| Gidday. I'm Ace. I notice you're an administrator. That's hot. Ahem. Thing is...I have a problem. Well, rather, Misplaced Pages has a problem. ] ( ] | ] ). I know I probably should have come to...someone...with this sooner, but here's the short vaersion: Guy's gone vandal. I think there was a respect, albeit GIPU Wikipedian working with that name at some point, but...well, as his talk page will clearly show, he's making more harmful edits than productive. I was wondering if maybe you could block him, if you deem it necessary, I mean. ] 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:BLP in practise == | |||
| Hi, I saw your work in ] and I was hoping you could help me with something. An editor has added in ] that Gibson also worked with allegedly lesbian actress ]. After I removed it, he added it again, this time with a source (albeit not a great one IMO) concerning the 'allegedly lesbian' part. see ]. Even if it's sourced good, would that be fitting on the Mel Gibson article or only on the Jodie Foster article. Since it is 'allegedly' my guess only on the Jodie Foster article. (when sourced) Note that almost nothing is sourced on the Jodie Foster article and I am not a regular editor or expert on either articles. ] ] 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I saw you removed it and asked for a better source. Thanks. But still, if a source is found, would it be fitting to discuss her 'alleged' homosexuality in quite an unrelated article? If it would be an article like ], I am so glad that that is a red link :), I could understand it, but it doesn't seem necessary to discuss it here. Ps, I also saw you're quite busy so no hurry here. ] ] 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == POV check tag == | |||
| Hi Slim, | |||
| I know your hands are somewhat full at the moment, but I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at ] as well as the Talk (specifically the section dealing on the tag) and let me know whether the tag is indeed justified or not, and what mistake/s I might have made in approaching the issue. Many thanks, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Email== | |||
| I have your email and am taking it into consideration and will forward it and my reply to the arbcom-l list, but my email program is not working and I have not been able to send mail out for about 24 hours. ] 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == POV edits at ALF (again) == | |||
| ] is changing direct action to terrorism on the ALF page. I don't feel like starting an edit war by reverting again, so I'm asking for your assistance. Thanks. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nevermind, they reverted their edit. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| Someone vandalized ] so that a swastika appeard on your user page. I have reverted and blocked. ] 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Compliance with Wiki policy instructions on placement of source template on Luther page == | |||
| Should CTS comply with Wiki policy instructions in the placement of the template re. the source on the ] page? Are editors free to deviate from Wiki policy instructions on a case-by-case basis? What's your input as a Wiki admin? Thanks. | |||
| == Your latest troll == | |||
| Hi. Is ] the same person as the one that has been vandalising your talkspace over the last few days? The account seems to have been around for a while, but the editing at ] is much the same as the editing here has been. ] 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nice job on Animal Testing== | |||
| Even though I disagree with you about religion, as the owner of a dog and cat I'm glad for the work your doing on Animal Testing. -- The Louisville Vandal | |||
| == Respectful Request for Retraction and Apology for Error == | |||
| SV, I respectfully request that you address yourself to the fact that you began a thread accusing individuals of plagiarism which turned out not to be true. No doubt you simply failed to check the page history, for if you had I'm sure you would not have levelled this accusation, knowing how committed you are to ] and ]. A simple mistake on your part, no doubt, but unfortunately an error that you have not acknowledged, or corrected. Since admins are supposed to be role models of Wiki standards of behavior, I'm suprised you have not done that yet. No doubt you are very busy in many other things on Misplaced Pages, but levelling an accusation of Plagiarism is of such a serious and grave nature that the one levelling the charge inappropriately would be held libel in any court of law for such an accusation should it be proven to be untrue, which in this case it has. The accusation of plagiarism is a very serious one and it is unfortunate that it was made in the first place, and even more unfortunate that it has not been corrected after the individuals making this charge were shown their error. I respectfully suggest that this be done as an way of maintaining ], ] and to prevent anyone from thinking we have here a violation of ]. Thank you very much.] 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Slim, please respond to this post. Thanks.] 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Slim, again, please respond to this post. Thank you. ] 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Who- Err. Whatever she's doing, I'll bet you dollars to donots its not on Misplaced Pages. ] 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question re:Blu Aardvark (again)== | |||
| Saw this on AN/I. ] Looking at the sanctions in the arb case, I do not see a provision for extending the ban for this type of continued disruption. Does an automatic extention occur with every ban or does it need to be spelled out in the sanctions? ] ] 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Tony S. answered my question and reset the ban for one year from today for attempting to evade the ban. ] ] 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I suggested a different wording for ]. I'd like to hear your thoughts. ] 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, I think things are getting a little hot in the workshop, and I'll be in there soon to try to restore some kind of order. Meanwhile Homey came to me uncertain about why you made | |||
| edit, which looks to me like a rollback. If it was just because you felt it was grossly inappropriate, okay, but could I ask you to bring stuff like that to me? It would not be good to have edit wars on the arbitration case. I'm persuading Homey and Zeq to come to me with their problems which is why I'm here discussing it with you now. If you in turn could tell me, as a clerk, what is wrong with the page, I'll try to help you all to produce a useful workshop without rubbing one another up the wrong way too much. --] 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == You will wish to be aware of ... == | |||
| ] ] 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I intended to reply at AN/I, but I thought, in view of my tendency toward verbosity and the less-than-specific nature of Blue's query, I might do well instead to reply on Blue's and Slim's talk pages: | |||
| ::I think Slim's reversions of the ''peer review'' formulation to have been correct, but I certainly agree that she might have been more decorous in her edit summaries and her message on Blue's talk page, where she ostensibly failed to ], or at least was gratuitously provocative (the presumption that Blue's views apropos of animal rights informed his editing need not to be made and certainly focuses on a contributor rather than on content). No one is immune from the impulse to respond cursorily toward that which one thinks to be other than an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, but, to my mind, it is far from clear that Blue was acting in view of other than encyclopedic motivations. I have difficulty believing, though, that any new editor would be so disturbed by Slim's comments (several of which appear to have been altogether jocular, in furtherance of the collegial and civil spirit on the maintenance of which the project depends) as to leave the project, and I'd be inclined to believe that anyone so irked would be unlikely to be able to contribute to the project. | |||
| :FWIW, you recently earned a mention on my ], not in some vituperative sense but rather in the context of those the propoundings of whom as regards ] one would do well to consider (notwithstanding, of course, that our views with respect to BLP and the like are diametrically opposite). :) ] 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you help? == | |||
| Hi, I have a problem which encompasses a question on policy. As you'll see here, , {{user|Hunter91}} feels that I'm incorrect in some of my advice to him and my actions in an AfD. He's removed votes from an AfD, claiming that they were by sockpuppets and he left no comment on the AfD discussion . He also changed my nomination, leaving no comment. The users he has labelled as sockpuppets have no warnings for sockpuppetry on their talk pages. From what I can see, the user has a history of removing comments which conflict with his beliefs on the article talk page ] . I feel that this user is distrupting wikipedia (to an extent), and am trying to get in contact with an admin, like yourself, to see if you can/will do anything about it. The response I'm hoping for is a kind word to Hunter91 and a revert of his edits to the afd page (]). Thanks ] 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Guy Montag == | |||
| Apologies for the late response; I thought I'd have internet access on my trip. My decision may have been in error; I looked at a few rather drastic edits Guy made, which changed much of the article at once, suggesting to me a significant swing of bias in the article. Combined with the rather bold renaming of the article without any consensus, and the barnstar award (which I may have over-reacted to, but it was a rather foolish joke in my opinion), I banned him from the article. As I said, any admin could overrule me, and ] did so, so I'm rescinding the ban. ] (]) 04:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, as someone who has been involved with ] before on the defensive side, I'd like your input on a recent ban, see ] and ]. I'm wondering if I've done the right thing and perhaps I've been a little hasty. I'd appreciate your input. Regards, - ] ] 01:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your response, the material in question was around 3 paragraphs. If it had been a single sentence I would have probably just deleted it and moved on. But I think 3 paragraphs calls for more stringent checking. Nevertheless, Guy has informed me he will be requesting permission to use the material, so hopefully this will clear up on its own. - ] ] 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, I'm sure I saw more than two. One starting "On the nearby Sharafa ridge, the Haganah's" (which is in the article, but not in that diff — I'll have to check this), another starting "Shortly before the battle of Deir Yassin, there was additional", another "An armoured vehicle carrying Lehi fighters was also attacked" and "On Sunday, 4 April, commander Shaltiel received an urgent message from the intelligence officer of the Haganah's Etzioni division:" (although this one appears to have been already in). Anyway, thanks for the look-over, you are probably right he should be cautioned about this, but I'm about to hit the sack. I'll look in on the situation tommorow. Thanks again for your time, - ] ] 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll do that now. - ] ] 11:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| You wrote . the display of the stats is probably slightly misleading. It said for Juan Cole "16 ] (1+15t) 9%". The 16 edits is actually the sum of the "(1+15t)" which means 1 edit to the article contents and 15 edits to the talk page of that article. I have another analysis which is more meaningful coming. --] 04:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I completely agree. Tomorrow I am going to have it generate for each user, the list of overlap other users have with them by article -- both weighted by number of edits and simply by number of articles. There are two other overlap measure that may be more representative but it is harder to explain right now -- one has to do with bidirectional article edit weighting, the other has to do with temporal distance between related edits. I would also like to do an analysis of whether one individual leads and the other follows -- this will give good numbers as to whether one is being stalked (if the experience is unpleasant) or whether one is being backed-up (if one approves of the help.) Eventually, I would like to make this a service available to anyone on the web. --] 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Preview use -- it is true that eventually one has to get into the contents of the actual edits. I am only parsing the contributions HTML pages thus I don't yet have the contents of the edits -- but if I can get a good data source for that it would be tremendously helpful. One could then identify who is rewriting who and who is getting into revert wars with who. I would also like to parse the contents of votes on the AfD pages -- thus develop voting correlations between users. --] 04:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The overlap numbers will be percentages. The edit weighted overlap measure is calculated by taking ( the number of edits person A has made to articles edited by person B ) and dividing by ( the total number of edits made by person A ). The article weighted overlap measure is calculated by ( taking the number of articles edited by person A that have also been edited by person B ) divided by ( the total number of articles edited by person A ). These two measures are still not that great though -- thus there is another called the bidirectional edit weighting measure -- which is closer to a true correlation since it weights the result both by the number of edits to an article by person A and by person B. --] 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've takening 1st, 2nd and 3rd year university statistics for psychologists as part of my degree -- I am familiar with the principles involved and the pitfalls. --] 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You said "Some parts of your analysis, for example, show that I edit with Homeontherange a lot, whereas in reality, I hardly ever encounter him in proportion to my overall edits." I referred to above the need to incorporate "temporal distance between related edits" in some of the measures -- "temporal distance" is just a fancy way of saying "time between" edits. The various measures will be indicative of different things -- close temporal distance may be more representative of an edit war/conflict which is most likely what you are refering to when you say you don't "encounter" him all that often. --] 05:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == not "a typical animal rights campaigner" == | |||
| Regarding this edit, would you mind explaining what value that citation is? Why are the "some" that the authors of that quote refer to, and what is "a typical animal campaigner"? I have explained my objections on the ]; an experienced editor with > 30000 edits should knopw better than assert article ownership and be able to explain her reasoning. Thanks. ] 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| But I think it's time for another wikibreak for me. I'd like to say I'm beyong caring, the sad truth is I'm not, and I don't have the emotional resources in my life to spend them on the likes of you know who. --] 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Israel == | |||
| We seem to have been singled out by Oiboy77 on ]. Any advice on how to deal with this without getting myself into trouble? The guy is a convicted vandal and is completely relentless in trying to insert anti-Israel material into the article. Am I correct in removing his unjustified tewfewopinions tag? Thanks. ] 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sadly I know a lot more about Israel than Butterflies! ] 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == If You've Got a Sec in re Yoshiaki Omura Entry . . . == | |||
| Another entrant and/or meat puppet would appear to have entered the scene, entered extensive OR, attempted to revert to maintain the entry in that form, and is referring to someone by name in the History/comments section presumably as some form of real world attack. ] 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There were also earlier personal attacks, though not by name, probably by this same person or possibly a meat puppet earlier in the Discussion section where there were accusations that one of the editors of the article was guilty of extortion or attempted extortion or something of that sort. I would think that this might merit looking at as stepping over a legal line in attempting to harass/legally intimidate an editor or editors. ] 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Joel Brand == | |||
| It was a very interesting and well-written article, so of course I found myself needing to support it (even though I don't usually take part in the featured article discussions). And, according to the edit history, I should thank ''you'' for working so hard on it. It taught me something about World War II and the Holocaust that I might've never known. I'm glad to see it featured! :) ] 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deir Yassin ArbCom case == | |||
| I have filed a ArbCom case against Guy Montag for the violation of his probation, see ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == References at Gill Langley == | |||
| Regarding the edits at Gill Langley, what BlueValor has been doing looks like clueless newbie-ism combined with a lack of use the preview button. ], anyone? | |||
| == Olive branch == | |||
| I nominated the article for AfD, as I was entitled to, and the Community, as they are entitled to, took a 'no concensus decision'. Let us move on from that. I can see that what I have done in removing the link in question may construed as vandalism, but it was an honest attempt to make the article better. Statements such as 'If it continues, I will report you for it' are not helpful to the Project. I look forward to working with you in the future to improve this and other articles. As always I will continue to treat you with respect and will expect you to reciprocate. BlueValour 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == maybe of interest == | |||
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/liberalprogressive-anti_b_24666.html | |||
| == IronDuke == | |||
| I have replied to you on my talk page. -- ] 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Be happy to stand up from that chair!== | |||
| {| class="messagebox" | |||
| | valign="top" | ] | |||
| | '''Dear Wikipedian,'''<br>you have acheived a considerable number of edits on wikipedia. This can mean, that you devote a large proportion of your free time to improving the articles on this free ]. I would like to remind you, however, that Misplaced Pages is not the ''best thing that happened to mankind since 2000'', it is just a mere internet project, and there are lots of other things you can do, if you want to serve the community you live in. There might be opportunities in your local ], that would allow you to ] your time and efforts to help the ], ], or otherwise ] ]. There are also organisations, that would use your time and work to help people in areas of world, where people have never actually seen a ] in their entire life, and don't know what ] or ] is. Such organisations target ], ], or the lack of proper ] in those areas. Please, try to reconsider, if you ''donate'' your time and efforts to the community that needs them the most. | |||
| |} | |||
| ] 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||