Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:44, 20 January 2007

User talk:Wizardry Dragon/Header

A little random

This is probably a little weird, but I stumbled upon your page and saw your Jehanne d'Arc picture. I'm a Joan of Arc fangirl, which isn't very common, so I was delighted to find such an image. You have won my respect. :D --SpecialKRJ 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Right on! :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about the Project

Hi I was wondering if you can pls explain about the project of neutrality I mean the purpose and what kind of work you already achieved and who you mentain the neutrality of an Artical ? a reply will be highly appreciated regards.. phippi46 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace

First of all, I like your user/talk page. Now, about Iron Man, the citation in question is the director's own blog for the film (and has been repeatedly confirmed as such). As you can see from the article, he said, "The internet is full of faulty info. I wanted to have at least one place where the facts would be correct." This is not a citation of some random fanboy who is sharing some anonymous scoop news. I understand your concern about using Myspace, but this is an exception to the rule. Myspace has become an outlet in several ways when it comes to film, with sponsored film blogs popping up. I've presented the situation at the talk page for WP:RS to see how others would see it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• If there is information in the blog, the studio ought to have an official source (from the studio page). Link to the direct source, not the myspace. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Studios do not always detail the process of production. Very few, if any, film articles use information from studio pages because quite simply, there isn't much. Blogs are generally not accepted as reliable sources because the authenticity of the information is called into question. However, this is the director himself reporting on the blog; there's no authenticity issue at hand, thus, the citation is acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please read this in our reliable sources guidelines. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world." The individual is identified as the director himself; I don't think that the information he provides about the film could really be called into question. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is a top-level http://myspace.com/xxxx link that is the main page, as opposed to the blog.myspace.com - I would accept that as a compromise. Blogs, especially as primary sources, simply fail as a reliable source. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you understand. The reason why most blogs don't qualify as reliable sources is that the information cannot be verified due to the amateur authorship of bloggers. Under self-published sources at WP:RS, blogs written by people in their area of expertise are accepted. Jon Favreau is a film director and has been credited as such, so he is able to address his area of expertise, in this case the film Iron Man. Just because something is labeled a "blog" doesn't mean it should be discarded immediately, and I'm concerned that you may have removed authentic citations in your blog.myspace.com deletion process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Articles should rely on verifiable, third party sources. Primary sources are allowable in some very rare circumstances, when they do not constitute original research, but this iis not such a case. In the future, please ensure the links you add are from reliable, third party sources, in accordance with the verifiability policy. I understand that you are frustrated by the removal of your link - however, if the claims made in the blog have merit, they should be easily cross-referenced with third-party sources, and you should use those instead, so that Misplaced Pages's integrity is stronger. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed the official (myspace) page for the Little Tokyo Anime Festival for Nisei Week. Do not remove myspace pages blindly, some people use them because they don't want to create dedicated websites. falsedef 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• If the only official page you have to offer is a Myspace page, it probably doesn't meet notability guidelines. There are plenty of free hosts that you can get your site hosted on, if you do not have money. Please peruse them. I believe Google has such a service. By the way, I did not revert a "top level" myspace.com page, I reverted a blog.myspace.com page. You may still link to the main page - just, the blog is not an appropriate external link. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my page. I don't need your advice on how to obtain a webpage, nor do the owners of the page in question. Why does it matter if it's on a blogspace or otherwise, how does that gain any more reliability than secondary domain names? That section is not the article itself, and does not need to meet notability guidelines (it does not use namespace) -- it's a subfair that's part of a larger fair which does meet notability. I don't care what hosting they're using and neither should you. falsedef 06:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to give you a heads-up regarding Myspace blogs. Since someone at your RfA brought up how Raul654 added blogs\.myspace\.com to the spam blacklist (a typo which has been corrected since) as requested by Jimbo, I contacted Raul on his talk page. I don't know if this was the basis of your AWB process, as you did not mention it to any of us. In talking to Raul, he recommended that links to valid Myspace blogs be added to the spam whitelist by admins, which overrides the blacklist. I've contacted an admin to assist with the two blog links that I've been disputing. While this seems like a tedious process (and I don't know if I want to rattle the cages of the head honcho), I thought I'd let you know about the whitelist possibility so you can inform any future dissenters what they can do to re-add Myspace blogs validly if you plan to continue the AWB process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is correct. The only reason I was AWB-removing the links is because meta blacklisted sites should not be on Misplaced Pages. Any links which do have a consensus to be a valid link should be whitelisted and readded. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

-- Selmo 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the nomination statement, as to why I'd think you'd make a good admin. Thanks, -- Selmo 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Good Faith Warning

Hello! I added the wa rning agf1 because you have refused my request for discussing the reference removal you made to the Darren Hayes article. As I've noted in its discussion page, the page is official and should be allowed for use per the external links policy (it is "an authority"). Since you continue to remove the reference without discussing the specifics of your reasoning, I can only assume that you are assuming bad faith on my part. If this is not the case, I apologize and will rescind my accusation...I just want an explanation so that we, and the other editors of the page, can be on the same page. I'm sure your much more experienced than I am at this, hence why I'd like your explanation. If I've caused you undue stress or wasted much of you time, I apologize, I just want a clear and precise explanation. SERSeanCrane 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand both the intentions of the templated warnings and the Assume good faith policy then. Assume good faith means that I make no negative representations about the editors I interact with unless they prove themselves to be disruptive. I have made no representations of your edits, one way or another, and therefore there is no infraction of AGF. The link that was removed it self-referential and biased. Generally speaking, it is bad to refer on primary sources for information as they tend to be biased. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The point that the link is supporting is "Darren Hayes frequently uses MySpace to communicate with his fans." To me, this seems like a great source for supporting this point. Now if the issue is the point itself, it should've been removed along with the reference...is that the issue? SERSeanCrane 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • To be frank, the claim is relevant - how? I don't think it's very relevant or encyclopedic, and as well, a blog is not a reliable souce - as I explained, primary sources are generally regarded as unreliable because of bias, and also because of the propensity in some primary sources to qualifiy as original research. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "The original motivation for the NOR policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas." This is not a personal theory, merely a statement of fact as observed in the primary source. Given the blog is "official" there is no bias - hence "official." Political blogs with an agenda against right wing conservatives is most likely biased. A blog of thoughts by the artist in question is not. SERSeanCrane 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • No, the intent of these policies is to enforce a very simple tenet: Misplaced Pages is NOT a soapbox, and it is NOT an advertising venue. "Official" primary sources are likely to be extremely biased - after all, the artist or person has a lot to gain from a positive promotion and a lot to lose from a negative impression. As such, these sources are usually quite biased. While the neutral point of view policy does not explictly apply to external links, the reliable source policy sets a certain expectation in terms of the content of a link. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Hey Wizardry Dragon, hope you don't mind my post :P. As I was pointed here, let me note here as well as on my page, we are not a place for marketing. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB use

Please stop setting up your AWB to blindly remove all blogs and myspace links, these need to be judged independently of their merit, and not just blindly deleted based upon the url. Many of these sites are very official and as such have no reason to be deleted. thanks --T-rex 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• blog.myspace.com is in no way a reliable source, and as such, I have removed several blog.myspace.com links. If you really feel they are reliable, I suggest you discuss the matter

at WP:RS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I am asking you not to make blanket statements like you just did above. To assume that everything at that url is an unreliable source is nonsence. Reliable resources are determined based upon content and authorship, not the url. Please at least look at the site before deleting useful references from articles, thanks --T-rex 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • But they are - blogs are not reliable sources, and often constitute original research. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • A blog by either an expert on the subject or the subject of the article is a reliable source, as it isn't my blog I fail to see how WP:OR would apply here. --T-rex 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter whether you are the author or not. If it can be cross-referenced, use reliable secondary sources. If it cannot, it should not be included in the encyclopedia per the No Original Research policy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter is correct blog.myspace should not be used see WP:EL and WP:RS blogs should not be linked to and rarely pass RS. Myspace is very rarely a good source and myspace blogs are even worse. removing them is a good thing. Cheers Betacommand 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:RS says that blogs are generally not accepted as reliable sources because of amateur authorship and false authority. However, when the authority is established, as with notable figures using MySpace blogs to share information with a fan base, these sources definitely qualify as reliable. This isn't a random user's Myspace blog being cited to back a statement that so-and-so is the best thing since sliced bread -- I would clearly support removal of such citation. However, Myspace blogs are differentiated in usage where you just can't say, "Oh, it's a blog? And on Myspace? Get rid of it." There are exceptions to the rule. "Cheers." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:IAR is not a very compelling reason to accept an argumentation. If there are exceptions you should have a clearly outlined position. If the claim is reputable and can be cross-referenced, please use the secondary sources. Otherwise, it should not be included in the article. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I was referring to your rule, not the policies'. The content in the policies have already been pointed out to address that blogs and Myspace can be accepted if they meet certain criteria. You seem to be ignoring that altogether. I'm not suggesting that Myspace blog entries should replace print records and such. However, if a director reports encyclopedia-worthy production information on his blog for the film, can't this be cited? The director is the authority when it comes to the film, and I don't see why a case like that should be dismissed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • See http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 11...if a blog is written by a recognized authority, such as the subject in question, it is not a violation of WP:EL.SERSeanCrane 06:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Talk pages are places to address issues and gather consensus. Repeating the same point over is unhelpful, and I would ask you to refrain from doing. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Let me explain this. This was a link referencing the release date of an album. The myspace blog that was referenced was written by the writter and lead songer of the album, announcing the aforementined release date. Sure there are other sites that have this date listed, but there really is no reason not to reference the origional announcment from what is comparativlly a very official source instead. I agree that referenceing random blogs isn't a good idea, but if the author can be identified as a reliable source who cares what the url is, these are much more equivelent to a press release then a blog. think about it --T-rex 06:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Then reference the other reliable sources. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• "I dont want to" is not a very compelling reason not to use the secondary sources. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ok per RS via WP:V

  Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources

  that should cover it. get third party source if you can, Betacommand 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You've stated myspace constitutes a primary source. From WP:RS - Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. If the blog is official, how is it not reliable? And when you remove the references, are you actually checking the points the reference supports of blindly removing them? SERSeanCrane 06:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A person posting on themselves, or a group posting about themselves constitutes a primary source. At this point you're just wikilawyering and disrupting my page to prove your point. Please refrain from doing so, or I may remove your comments. If you have something to add to the discussion, then add it, but please ask yourself "am I adding to Misplaced Pages in a positive way by hitting save?" I don't think repeating yourself on my talk page is very constructive. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I apologize, this was not my intent. I am simply refuting what you've presented with a logical explanation. If you'd like to cease conversation about the topic, let me know SERSeanCrane 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• The Verifiability policy on Misplaced Pages is one of our core tenents. Most importantly, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. We are not a news source, for that you should try . If you are reporting about an event that has occured in the past, a primary soruce is neither desirable or appropriate. For news events, you should be citing a reliable news source such as the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, etc. Using a primary source as a citation for an event in Misplaced Pages weakens the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. You are essentially relying on a person that their account of something that they participated in is correct. I do not understand how you cannot understand how the bias in such an event would be present. Plase tell me if clarification is needed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Crazy" lyrics

I reverted your AWB edit to Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song), because the MySpace blog link you removed led to the lyrics of the song published on the band's official MySpace page, and that is perfectly in line with WP:EL. While the lyrics might be available on many other websites, this is probably the only place where they are made available by the copyright's holder (and thus the only one to not match Restrictions on linking #1). And the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria on linking to MySpace or blogs doesn't apply here since it's an official page. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy King Day

• Talk 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"The greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members, ... a heart of grace and a soul generated by love." - Coretta Scott King (attributed)

Assume good faith?

I don't understand your comment in User_talk:Ilena. Where was I not assuming good faith? --Ronz 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Calling a user disruptive seems to be assuming bad faith in her edits. Please realise that she already feels persecuted to some degree and you only really provide fuel for that fire by accusing of her anything. Give her some space and we can see if she can be guided to contribute positively. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I used "disruptive" rather than point out the specific behavioral policies she was violating. Still, point taken. --Ronz 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates

As part of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have recently taken your case with regards to the Darren Hayes article. This case was brought to the AMA's attention by SERSeanCrane and it concerns you and Eagle 101. I have a minor request, please post all comments concerning this dispute on the case page, found here, I believe that given how isolated your case is now it will make everyone's life easier if we keep it in one place. I will ask SERSeanCrane to post his accusations under the Discussion section, and then I would like you and Eagle 101 to each briefly respond once. This will give me enought time to read up on the case. I look foward to working with you to solve this dispute, and just so you know, I am always availible from 11p.m. US Eastern time to 4 or 5 a.m. --Daniel()Folsom |_C| 09:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Just to let you know, User:The Rambling Man (formerly known as Budgiekiller) gained oppose !votes in his recent RfA just for responding to oppose !votes!!! Sad, but true. The advice gleaned there was to do so on the RfA talk page or on the talk pages of individuals. It also seems that his supporters doing the same was labelled "belligerent", so beware that too. Ridiculous, IMHO... anyone supporting or opposing should be prepared to reconsider their opinion if it's based on flawed understanding, but some people think it unpleasant. --Dweller 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have closed your RfA early - it was a close-run discussion. I appreciate your sentiments for closing, the spirit of the Wiki is why were are all here to offer our services, after all. I'm glad that you can see the oppose reasons in such a positive light. I don't think that you will have major problems the next time you decide to run when you have dealt with those issues. I have also closed out the discussion in the correct manner, as requested. Regards and happy editing, (aeropagitica) 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, as an opposer your willingness to withdraw to prevent 'harassment' (I don't think yours was rising to that level, but I've got a pretty thick skin) speaks well in favor of your chances in the future. Please feel free to drop me a line if you do run again, and good luck with everything. -- nae'blis 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you changed you mind. Sorry it worked out that way for you. If you want any other advice feel free to ask. David D. (Talk) 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

summaries

I thought that I always had a summary. If it's a short article and the db tag comes up in the summary box, I normally leave it at that. For longer articles, where the summary box is blank, I usually add text clarifying why I am deleting using autocomplete. This tends to be on the lines of "advertisement" or "article about a person, group.... that does not assert notability." For copyright violation, I copy the URL from the tag . jimfbleak 10:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The automatically generated summaries shouldnt really be used, in my opinion, they're just a saftey valve if you do forget to add one. You should try to summate why the article is being deleted. If the article comes up in DRV, with no summary, it tends not to look good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

It's become obvious that your comments in closing your RFA were directed at me. I'm stunned and hurt that you would think I had any intention or desire to "harrass" oppose votes. I wrote what I wrote because I feel strongly that if this is something that could benefit you (as you stated), it's the least the community can do. I'm very sorry you closed your RFA in what I feel was an unreasonable length of time to give people an opportunity to weigh in thoroughly.

Personally, I don't understand why you would want it, and I said so. I feel betrayed and grossly misunderstood. You could have at least given me the chance to explain myself (there are several ways to contact me, all of them you know about). For the record, the power went out for three hours in my town and I was unavailable for the rest of the day, but still.

Furthermore I got the message loud and clear that you think I'm some sort of uncontrollable "loose cannon" that can't be trusted. That hurts me more than anything. I maybe be passionate about what I believe, but in my opinion I uphold my responsibility to the community and to the people I associate with. I wish you had simply responded to me if you felt my comments were inappropriate. I may be a bit of a drama queen, but this is more drama than even I can stomach. NinaOdell | Talk 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Actually, it was Heligoland's long tirade about spam and how no one understood the problem, and how everyone was opposing me on flimsy ground. Such deriding remarks go against my values, and I would not be a party to it. There was other stuff going on too, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I suck, don't I

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people don't read or even click on carefully placed links. Another one of my pet peeves is when people don't read banners. Please don't do anything you might regret in the future, as I have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaOdell (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Link on Trans-Siberian railway entry

I disagree with your removal of my link to an account of my experience on the Trans-Siberian railway, especially as two other similar accounts were not removed. If you read the list of links that should not be added you will see that it says they should not be added unless they were "the subject of the article", which my link clearly was. My link was relevent and has been enjoyed by readers. Can you remove it from whatever "blacklist" you have placed it on please. My sole aim is to provide an enjoyable & informative read to people researching a trip. There was no element of self promotion intended, to describe it as a "spam link" is somewhat unfair. Keithmall 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The link did not add to the encyclopedia article, and was not from a reliable, verifiable source, and as such was removed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it didn't add to the article is why it was placed as an external link and not part of an article. The heading of Travel Tales was already there and is a perfect description of the link that was added, that was why I added it. A link to a similar article was left untouched, just because I am not a professional travel writer does not make my experiences any less relevent or valid than those of someone who is. Your interpretation of what is a valid link has denied many people who might be thinking of making the trip access to a first hand account which would be of value to them. As a compromise can it be included on the discussion page rather than the main article? Keithmall 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if the link doesn't add anything to the article, it should not be there. blog.myspace.com is blacklisted with good reason, however, you may include excepts from the site on the talk page for public consumption, if you like, as a compromise. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. However it would be interesting to know why two other links to similar accounts are considered valid when mine is not. Just because Myspace is my only outlet for publishing an account shouldn't be held against me. Keithmall 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry. The only reason they haven't gotten removed is I'm only one person and can only get so many links at a time. At least not without my talk page turning into a train wreck :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the AMA!

Hello Wizardry Dragon, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Before heading into your first case, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the AMA FAQ's, the Guide to Advocacy, and the AMA Handbook.

Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel, which reports new cases and alerts to us. It can also be used as a place to ask for advice on an issue. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out AMA Requests for Assistance, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocate's talk page, including our coordinator Steve Caruso or deputy coordinators Wikiwoohoo and Aeon. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded :) Ask if you need any help - you'll be an asset to the association :). Feel free to pick a case from WP:AMAREQ and get started. I reckon that the IP one there just needs someone to explain WP:EL to him (not very glamorous), but we've got some older, bigger disputes sitting in the list. You can also sit in #AMA-Misplaced Pages if you want :) Martinp23 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser on user:Asian2duracell

Hi,

I respectfully request a usercheck on user:Asian2duracell. He has been engaged in personal attacks against me on talk:Tamil people, talk:Dravidian people, and my user talk:Wiki Raja page. On the first two it seems that he is not only using his user:Asian2duracell name, but also another name of user:Vandh. Also, on my user page of user talk:Wiki Raja I have received a personal attack message by an anonymous user whose langauge sounds the same like the first two. The title of the message is "hey". If you could please look into this issue, I would appreciate it.

Wiki Raja 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

What's going on there? What is the mediation about? I haven't been editing there in awhile.Jance 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The same issues that were going on when you left are still ongoing, and I thought you may want to weigh in with your opinions on the matter. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The mediation is a stopgap measure to allow all parties to understand the -content- disputes that have erupted. It is not a place for hearing personal attacks. I'm of the opinion that if Ilena is sincere, then the mediation will work, but if she is insincere, then it will become obvious if she can't stay away from personal attacks. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To me its, simple, if she can discuss the matter on mediation, and play nice, and some resolution comes of it, then it will be done and ended and we can all live happily ever after. If she cannot, then her rope will have run to it's end and I'd be the first to see her blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problems you list (neutrality, Ilena's links, and inflammatory content) are minor and pretty well resolved from my perspective at least on Barrett v. Rosenthal. Stephen Barrett is much more problematic, and The National Council Against Health Fraud is so incredibly bad that we've compromised WP:OR (and other policies) just to get some disputes behind us. As for Ilena's part in this, as long as she's unwilling to understand and/or follow basic wiki policy (WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA), what's the point? --Ronz 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I agree or disagree, I'd like to know why this RfM was created as is, specifically the choice of issues, editors, and article. I can't make sense of any of them. Your comments above, "I'm of the opinion that if Ilena is sincere, then..." and "To me its, simple, if she can..." suggests the real, unlisted reason for the RfM is to give Ilena yet another (final?) chance to demonstrate that she can control her behavior. --Ronz 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what the content dispute is on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It seems pretty stabilized. Am I wrong?Jance 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

... having just taken a look at your user page, it sounds like you're going through a tough time right now. I'm sorry for bugging you with petty Misplaced Pages disputes at a time like this - I didn't realize. You have my best wishes. Take care. MastCell 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• No harm done, though Durova's involvement and handling of the issue disappointed me greatly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional information on user:Asian2duracell

- Obvious, disruptive sock puppet.

Your sig

Hi Peter. I don't know if anyone has ever brought this up, but I find your signature confusing here . It appears two times, but in two different forms, giving the impression that two different people are writing. You are free to design your signature as you wish (although it is more difficult to read when editing, than an ordinary and simple sig), but it would help if you used the same sig all the time. -- Fyslee 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact you may even want to consider a move to User:Peter Dodge as a permanent user name. You can move all your contributions and history to that new user name. It took me a while to figure out that you, Peter, on the talk pages, was the same as wizardry dragon in the history. David D. (Talk) 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

I've got to discuss your participation in the Ilena/Fyslee dispute. It doesn't help a user who's being blocked to watch her mentor and the acting administrator disagree on procedures and policies. You're welcome to e-mail me if you want to discuss things directly or to post at WP:AN if you prefer to sound out other sysops, but please don't do Ilena the disservice of fostering confusion at her own user talk page. In my honest opinion her chances of adjusting to Misplaced Pages's user standards aren't good - I've expressed that before - and at this point I believe your participation in the dispute is harming her. I honestly anticipated that when I posted the diff that prompted her 24 hour block you would change your mind about WP:AGF regarding her. I also referred to her ability to produce a diff. Here's the post where she actually created one. So she understands how to satisfy this site's standards of evidence and chooses not to do so. If you've watchlisted my userpage you know I've suggested to Fyslee that he open a user conduct RFC on you if this appeal fails (I had started composing this when his post arrived). Quite frankly things have gotten to where the alternatives are that I warn or block you. I'd rather not go through any of that so please cooperate on this - and if it's a hot button to you for some reason then consider recusing yourself. Ilena can get another mentor. Durova 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably have Ilena's talk watchlisted, but shortly after posting this I extended her block to 1 week and opened a thread on WP:AN. Durova 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I should read user pages more closely. I've asked Fyslee to hold off on RFC. Please accept my condolences. Most sincerely, Durova 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you would condemn me for reaching out to a harried and attacked user, you have fallen a little out of touch with Misplaced Pages's values. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I applaud the gesture of reaching out to a user who needs help. The problem is that your understanding of site standards is at variance with what the community consensus has determined. So when, for example, you attempt to caution me at Ilena's own talk page as if dispute resolution generated some shield against user blocking, that's counterproductive. The proper way to discuss that would be through e-mail and I could cite many precedents where it even happened during arbitration. You've done that sort of thing quite a few times - such as stepping in with the referee whistle (one of my trademark gestures) and attempting to interpret policy. The fact is, both of us asked the community to trust us as referees. The community selected me on an 81-0-1 decision and the only neutral voice came from someone who thought I was too soft on underdogs. You've told me before that you think I'm out of touch with site policies. Repeating that opinion directly to me is unproductive: if you're right then I obviously haven't understood you and if you're mistaken then it only draws attention to your misunderstanding. There's an active thread at WP:AN where you could air that opinon. So far nobody is saying I'm out of line and quite a few people, including arbitrators, have weighed in. I understand how devastating a loss in the family can be and how that can affect one's outlook so I heartily recommend if you sense that dynamic here then you endorse my suggestion that Ilena enter WP:ADOPT. KillerChihuahua has already supported that proposal. I'd like to be able to endorse you for adminship if you try again and one of the things which would earn my trust is if you demonstrated good discretion about when to recuse yourself. Everyone needs to sometimes; see User:Durova/Recusal. From your message at your user page it looks like you have enough on your plate. Respectfully, Durova 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Response (and also a convenient section break)

Durova, I am seriously disappointed in your lack of perspective on the matter. The posts on AN, especially the one by Taxman are things I have been saying all along, if anyone chose to read what I said.

So, since we seem to all be talking past each other in this matter, I will put my response into a few, clear, points.

1. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground • It takes two (or more) to fight on Misplaced Pages, and your disproportionate response to Ilena leads me, and some others, looking at your above post, to believe some bias in this matter exists on your part.

2. Personal attacks go both ways • Fyslee went so far as to post a blog attacking Ilena on the Barrett vs. Rosenthal article and the talk for "our enjoyment." Attacks by either party should not have been condoned, and so far, Fyslee has had a free ticket, thanks to your disproportionate response.

3. Everyone who has a legitimate complaint should be dealt with respectfully • Ilena may not have but her comments in the best of way, but she had legitimate concerns about the bias of these articles, and of fyslee's attacks on her, as did fyslee of her attacks on him.

4. Assume good faith • No, really - you should. Everyone here has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart, so charged accusations and blocks do little but agitate and divide. Assumptions of motives, such as yours assumptions of my motives, only harm.

5. Administrative actions are a last resort • Blocks are used to protect the site in the case that other attempts at dispute resolution failed. If a good faith attempt at dispute is ongoing, a block should only be placed in the direst of situations. I do not feel we have reached such an irremediable point at this juncture.

6. Misplaced Pages has a Code of Conduct • This extends to ALL of us, and one users indiscretions do not give someone an excuse to act out themselves. Especially in your case Durova - as I said previously: administrators on Misplaced Pages are chosen for their cool heads, clear judgement, and serve as an example of expected behaviour. Taking sides in a dispute sets a dangerous precedent. Some good reading on this matter is Essjay's neutrality policy.

Finally, and most importantly:

7. The beauty of Misplaced Pages is us all working together towards a common goal - building an encyclopedia.

To quote Essjay:

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Durova, I think that Wizardry Dragon is doing his best, and right now I see at least one issue here. How come only one side of the dispute is blocked... they both did personal attacks on each other. —— Eagle 101 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Congress

Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? (This is related to the admin decision to merge List of United States Representatives from Minnesota and United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota, which was essentially undone by User:Markles. Then I changed the Template:USRepSuccessionBox to accomplish a similar effect. Markles reverted that as well.) So, now I'm asking a wider community what they think. Thanks --Appraiser 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

?

Can you be specific about what you mean by "less than stellar" with regards to me?-Cindery 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)