Revision as of 23:59, 15 May 2008

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

The Holding Pen

Is empty!

Current

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted; thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversions...

Howdy... I see your doing alot of reversions on that article. Please consider discussing before reinserting text, when I removed it, I put OR in the edit summary. So I had "justified it". I've made some notes on the talk page. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can discuss it there. But your attempt at asymmetry irritated me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. What do you mean when you say asymmetry... I'm thinking mathematics, but I don't know the connotation. I want to know :). Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant "Please discuss reinsertion here before inclusion..." people are always trying to suggest that the default should be their version, forgetting symmetry. However, you included an OTRS ref in an edit comment, but I'm not familiar with that, and it was a redlink. Was that really the ref you meant? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand better. When a ticket number is the only reason for an action, certain additional steps for dispute resolution apply that time.. I meant to do it, and after I did it, after some conversation with other agents, I realized the method was not needed after asking the ticket to be reviewed by others. So I reverted my edit, but I think you got to it seconds before I did. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hobbes

Don't accuse me of vandalism, I'll edit that page if I please. I've given you more than enough reasons, and you refuse to agree to disagree. So I'll keep changing it, for life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned an anon about making unmarked reverts. If that was you, please learn to sign in, and please learn how to sign your posts. Promising to revert for life is unwise William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For life (Jackdelyelis (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind my volunteering you

Hi. I hope you don't mind me putting words in your mouth at User talk:Grazen#Your concerns about the William Connolley article -- a challenge.

Somewhat related, I added material about your National Post coverage and your blog response. If you have problems with this material, please leave a comment at Talk:William Connolley#Note about Solomons Column. Although I doubt it was his intent, Mr. Solomon's article just deletion-proofed this article. --A. B. 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern & ehlp. However, I've stopped watching that article. I no longer have any opinions about my notability - its better that way. As for Solomon, that article was quite amusing; see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/05/who_am_i.php William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wikipedia harrassment

I don't know if you've noticed, but have a look at this. Looks pretty blatant that Inclusionist is the author. Rather petty if you ask me. He's spamming it on different talk pages. John Smith's (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Petty indeed, and all a bit weird. *I* undeleted it... and I'm sure there was another copy kicking around wiki somewhere. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Sure, I've had my say. I won't add anything else. John Smith's (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shock, other people are commenting on Giovanni's proposals and they're not being told it's between Giovanni and the Arb-Committee! John Smith's (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed OR Page-Protection requested

For Singapore Airlines (SIA) as there seems to be an edit warring going on between a couple of editors over the same issue which is currently under mediation. I really hate to get into a 3RR situation later if I were to revert the page again. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that shouting DO NOT REVERT THIS PAGE whilst reverting the page isn't the way to go. Perhaps you could explain here why the deleted material doesn't belong; I didn't find a good explanation on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hello William, sorry to trouble you like this but this dispute has been going on for quite some time now. IMO, the part of parent company info can be omitted since the facts are quite straight forwardly clear that Temasek Holdings is just the majority shareholder of SIA and that SIA has its own board of directors and other associated thingies. Btw, I worked for SIA so it's crystal clear to me who my bosses really are and I find this whole dispute thing amusing yet flabberghasted by the amount of dirt it has managed to attract. Here are the old archive of this ongoing dispute:

1. Talk:Singapore_Airlines/Archive_1#Ownership_Structure, &
2. Talk:Singapore_Airlines/Archive_2#The_companies.

Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that makes some kind of sense. I'll go and look William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I apologise for the shouting there because I had wanted to add a new cite but was disrupted by this constant edit warring there hence I blew my top. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullying spotted

William, I bring to your attention two individuals who are engaged in the edit warring against another user in the page of Singapore Airlines. These two individuals both issued the same notice but differ in only one minute apart. Read: User_talk:Huaiwei#3RR_-_May_2008 & User_talk:Huaiwei#3RR Warning. At that time, I had wanted to add a new cite and possibly make a few minor edits when I found that I was hindered from making such a change as the page was being see-sawed in a revert and re-revert kind of situation. And that was when I decided to ask you for help in arbitration. Again, I apologise for my rashness in shouting as it was really frustrating to be caught in the middle of it all, the edit warring that is. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why its bullying. H was indeed edit warring, though hadn't broken 3RR. Meanwhile, SA now appears quite stable, and people seem to be in agreement on the talk page, so... all is well? Shouting: OK William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of comments from Singapore Airlines

Please note that with this edit which you made you have deleted comments which I have made. I have reverted the deletion, and have added back in your comments at the bottom. In regards to be my comments being considered confrontational, I regret that you think this way, but confrontational it is not, and considering that this issue has been ongoing now for over 12 months, and only now is it really receiving input from the wider community, it is somewhat disheartening. Not to mention that this request for mediation does not look like it will even go ahead. --Россавиа 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being confrontational, and warn you again to be cautious there and avoid disruption. I think your revert was a mistake; posting the same material in bold twice is simply pointless. I hope you have read my comment that you replaced, and trust that you will reply to it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni block

I am not happy with your block of Giovanni33. In fact, I was tempted to reverse it, but of course, it's no emergency so I'll express my concerns to you before considering anything like that. In my opinion, an administrator should never block someone with whom they are edit warring, and this block was just that, and the edit war was on the very page of the arbitration you two are engaged in together for issues just like this. Is there any reason you could not have simply brought the possible parole violation you saw to the uninvolved admins at WP:ANI and avoided the impropriety of blocking someone for reverting you? I'm hoping that you'll see the sense in my concerns and unblock him yourself without fuss while you ask for an uninvolved admin's opinion at ANI instead. If he gets reblocked, that's fine, but surely you can see why this kind of action is a problem. Dmcdevit·t 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)