Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 10 January 2007

MetsBot

Mets501 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Sebastian: just letting you know not to worry about the harsh feedback you received on the admin's noticeboard. I'm not upset about the situation either; I know you were acting for the good of Misplaced Pages, at that only. —Mets501 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! This came just in time for me before I'm taking a little break. And it gives me a good template I can use tomorrow, in my first mediation. I left a message on User talk:MrDarcy about what I learned from it; please let me know what you think. — Sebastian 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Help Desk

Hello, Sebastian! I joined WP:UPH nine days ago, and I have the help desk on my watchlist. So I was wondering if I could take your notice off, since I am around to help. Thanks and happy editing! —sd31415 (sign here) 13:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Actually, I'll do it right now, since you asked so nicely. Would you be able to help me with my question there? — Sebastian 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it my best shot. Fire away at the help desk. —sd31415 (sign here) 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

==Hi Sebastian==

I can't email until tomorrow. Until then, read my essays. They're located in my sandbox, and on my user page. This will explain a lot. :) Nina Odell 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Information request: Beer

Hello Sebastian,

I'm a University of Waterloo student, and my assignment is to track down the writers and several other facts from articles on "Beer", in different encyclopedias. I realize that everyone wrote this, but the form I have asks for a single author, so I decided on the person that started the article. I guess the only two facts I can't get from the article are your name (unless SebastianHelm is not a nickname... please excuse me if that is the case), and whether you are an expert on the topic.

I know this is an odd request, but you'll probably be getting it a lot... it might be a good idea to leave this post and your reply up for a few months at least. You see, because of extenuating circumstances, I was given the term's assignments early, but you're going to have at least a thousand other Waterloo students looking for the same information in a month or so. If all the information's there though, they likely won't bug you, we're generally a decent sort.

Thank you for your time,
Charles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.106.100.193 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Exceptionally replying on the user's talk page. — Sebastian 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

==Luck6.9==

I was told that you opend a mediation case against Luck6.9 I also had a deleated on an accoutn of vandalism. It was about an user created goverment in the popular game located on the teen grid. It was a movement that contains many documents, quotes and history. It even has a forum and website soon to be launched. She an/or He deleated it within the first 5 minutes I left it alone to log an and fetch history from its founder and any important document portaining to its history. I understand He and.or She is on a forced Wikibreak right now but I was rather sad it was deleated on the spot. I was hoping soon to start and artcle on the internet phenomenom but I was afraid it would be sho down again. She also deleated all the messages I sent to her off her user page and also diddnt reply to my emials. I dont know how a Mediation works but could you help me out here Im new with how this works and could use somone to help exlpain some things. I hope I helped in the case of mediation with Luck6.9, please get abck to me.

Isaac Witte 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed in SL articles

Hello, as a person who had mediated SL related articles before I would like you to look at this article to make it WP:NPOV. Mylanthanai massacre especially versionthat was hacked this thus making it a weak article.

Also there seem to be an attempt to remove valuable references from Nagerkovil central school bombing by a potential misreading of WP:RS. The reference is it is secondary source of documents before the internet became popular. Please look into it if you have time. Thanks RaveenS 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice message! I will look at these two. Also, I noticed that you corrected a typo in Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India. If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to participate there. — Sebastian 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC), changed 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Further to your numerous requests to "clarify what dispute we are trying to resolve", I have requested Pmgetzer to draw up a concise summary of the dispute. Pending this, however, I am going to ask if you have actually read the Case Page's summary of the dispute, located here.

Regards, Anthonycfc 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We were apparently editing at the same time. I just wrote a reply on the case page. Why do you ask if I read the summary? I commented on it as early as 21 December 2006 ("This will give you an entirely different impression than the “What's going on?” section.") and then several times in our conversation. Did you not read what I wrote? — Sebastian 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:my username

Hi - I had discussed this with a bureacurat, Taxman a couple of months ago and he asserted that he was ok with it and wouldn't normally ask me to change it. That said, I have done my level best to keep my opinions to myself while on WP - I strongly deny Szhaider's accusations and I doubt his integrity - it is common to accuse the person who is inconveniencing you with anything you can throw at him. I have given him ample warnings and opportunities to resolve disputes via discussion - it is only when he violated WP:3RR on Iqbal that I went ahead and blocked him for all the issues cited on the ANI report - otherwise I was planning to let others handle it. Rama's arrow 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You mean purdah right? Blocking for Iqbal would be completely an abuse of admin powers, and this is the user that despises szhaider the most talking.Bakaman 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am no expert on criteria for blocking, so don't take my word for it when I gave my opinion that it seemed justified to me. It probably was a mistake to state this as a fact. However, I have seen admins acquitted at ANI who blocked users indefinitely for "trolling", which seems to me a much lesser offense. — Sebastian 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: How about moving this conversation to a more appropriate place, maybe User talk:Szhaider?

Just to clarify, I totally endorse the block, just am worried of the repercussions.Bakaman 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To assuage your concern on my username, I suggest you visit Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2 where in repsonse to a question from Kylu about my first RfA, I have reiterated that my username is not based on any POV of any nature, least of all to offend or attack something. Rama's arrow 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm not concerned about it myself, but I will keep my promise if he gets back to me about it. The reason I gave it to him was to show him a way out of the agression in which he boxed himself. I think it is important for people not to feel helpless - that only breeds aggression. — Sebastian 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your judgment is reasonable, but I can't help commenting that if you acquaint yourself with Szhaider's editing history, he has started-off aggressive and never actually provoked. As for the username issue, I will happily do my best to assuage any concerns, but it is hardly resonable to me to consider Szhaider's accusation as legitimate - that after having edited for more than a year with due respect for Misplaced Pages's policies, that some obvious POV-pusher who does not hesitate to insult Hinduism and Hindus should feel "offended" at my username. Whatever personal views I have, I don't let them intrude on my editing and adminship duties. Rama's arrow 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his aggression was inappropriate - that's why I posted this before I noticed the block. But please understand why I'm taking him seriously. I'm a mediator in cases like Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and I'm still mediating behind the scenes. You can imagine that there are a lot of people who are very angry, especially now that they just experienced two bus bombings. The fact that someone is angry doesn't mean that he's all wrong. I need to drive home that point. — Sebastian 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just forfairness, please do get non "Hindu fascists" and "Indian imperialists" to review it (Note the sarcasm there User:Bakasuprman#Names). ANI maybe?Bakaman 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Good morning (GMT time); I have posted a rather lengthy and important reply at the Mediation Cabal case page (WP:MEDCABAL/Equiv vs Equal Def).

Regards,
Anthonycfc 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, boy, what a mess! Two more 180° turns in one day! You had a good idea when you asked for some time - what in the world changed your mind? And then writing a message that contradicts itself ("scrap the above" - when "above" refers to something in the same message)! I am fine with you deleting anything that hasn't been answered yet, but I ask that my messages, and the messages they reply to, remain intact. If you choose to write a new message, I hope that it says something along the lines of: "Please let's wait till my exam is over and I found the time to read the case" (unless, of course, you'd just like to go along with one of my two easy proposals.) Since you wrote on my talk page, I'll take the opportunity to ask a rather personal question: Why did you take on this mediation? — Sebastian 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I took on this mediation in order to attempt to resolve this dispute; once again, you are beginning to irritate me - I don't mind admitting it - and to be honest I don't know why it is relevant: chances are, you'd have waited the full 15 days waiting time to get a mediator for a dispute of this nature. Please reply further at the mediation page - I only dropped a reminder here of the case (as I would expect from you or Pmzegter if I became inactive) not an invitation for discussion. Anthonycfc 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Messages from Iwazaki

misunderstanding

Dear Sebastian,

I think the warning you have given to me is quite unfair..I still stand by by edits ,which correctly question the comments of a person who is regarded as a staunch LTTE supporter..This is not my own personal belief..If you think so, then I would kindly ask you to show me any statement made by this "bishop" criticizing the "LTTE"..The whole article, before my intervention was written purely based on article at "tamil net",which is a pro LTTE site and definitely can't be consider as a WP:RS..And if you read it carefully, the author has given a high importance to the comment of the "bishop" ,as he was the only "called it an act against humanity" ??? "Crimes against humanity" is a serious allegation ,as we all know..The whole article sounds like the Government did something intentional and it is an crime..With only the "bishop's" comment was given as an example !! And that's why I changed it to this..I strongly object having one sided comments of a known LTTE sympathiser. And I have the right to let Wikipedian community that this Bishop has not criticized The "LTTE", even a single occasion.Sinhalese people were kicked out from North and being massacred and this person has not made a single comment son this.. .Its like Nazis talking about "humanity", while involving in "crimes against humanity"..What I did was balancing the article,nothing else.I think my other edits also did some thing similar..You have to remember that the Author of these articles are not only creating them,he also calling them "state terrorism", and include them to it as soon as he created them..These are serious allegations..And as from the present evidences isn't it obvious that the Authors comments were biased and this is indeed a LTTE naval base!! So why would this be a part of state terrorism ?? And also, isn't this obvious that the bishop's comments was made to deceive people ?? AS he had done before.. Sebastian,I immensely appreciate your work here..But I think its not correct to call my edits "defamatory"..I should have wrote something in the talk page,other than that My comments regarding the "Bishop is correct" and the "New evidences" just prove what I said.Keep up your good work. thanks.--Iwazaki 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also..

I'm glad that You brought this issue.. Well first have a look at the very first version of this article.. first..As you can clearly see there is an grave contradiction with the article and the source..The source is about the "Acquittal" and the article is about the "massacre", not a single word of acquittal is there..So the Author had decided the Army did the "massacre" and happily used that term several times. lets take a look at my first edit in this my first edit..Where have I mislead ?? I have correctly changed the phrases.What the source said about the "Army personnel's" Acquittal and That's what exactly I did here..Removing the word Army from it,as they were "Acquitted" by an independent jury..We live in the 21 st century where people supposed to respect the law and order..If a court gives a decision , and "acquit" someone , why would we still defame him ?? These are WP:POV ,and wikipedia shouldn't be used for attacking a judicial systems of a democratic country..If we do so, then,there will be no "consensus"..if the Author wants to challenge the decision he can do it over the court..this is certainly not a task of wikipedia !! Also, the source does not give a single "human rights organisations" ..NOT a single name given !! Then how do we know whether this is true ?? I should have removed it totally, but I still changed it to "some"..if the Author claims something,don't you think evidence should be produced ?? Its certainly not presented here !! Also, I seriously doubt this "Sri Lankan Monitor",for me its looks like an another NGO led organization..This what they say in the front page "The British Refugee Council established the Sri Lanka Project in December 1987, on the request of international NGOs."..And they also say The work of the Project is supervised by an Advisory Committee, comprising international NGOs, including the Refugee Counc..Highly suspicious!! So far I a have only seen the Tamil side of the stories, yet to see a single article regarding the "Sinhalese civilian massacres by LTTE"..I am doing a bit of research about this site and If I can clearly see this as a bias site, then I will let you know.

And lets take the second case edit..Once again, this is about the bishop..I think I have addressed　issue already..I stand by with my statements as they were correct and made the article neutral. Dear Sebastian, I have presented my case and I don't think I did any thing misleading.Edit summaries mat have mislead some, but they were definitely done to make the article a better neutral one.And there was no spam nor personal attacks..I would like if you reconsider about the warning that you have given to me..Thank you for spending your valuable time in helping others and making the articles look better.--Iwazaki 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ohh also have a look at this too ..Written by a Catholic/Christian SL citizen...

Reply (short)

Hello Iwazaki! Thank you for your messages. I am quite busy today, but I will read them carefully later. I just started reading a really good book, "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall B. Rosenberg, and while I'm only in chapter 2, I already realized several mistakes I made here. I would like to continue reading it and then read your mails with that in mind. Have a good day, — Sebastian 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ..Enjoy the book..Hopefully you can use the knowledge you might gain from the book to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Look forward to your reply.--Iwazaki 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply (long)

I am sorry, my reply is not going to contain much of what I read in the book yet, because I haven't finished it. I had wanted to wait with my reply until I finished the book and then take all the time it takes to apply a new, unpracticed technique to give you a nonviolent response. However, this isn't gonna happe now. Unfortunately, your recent actions have made it urgent for me to read and reply to your messages.

I don't see that you are addressing the first two policy violation warnings, and you're not addressing my table which backs up the third:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly

Not only did you not refrain from doing so, you even did it again - and this time even 4 times!

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory

This warning is unfortunately quite unclear; what it means is you violated WP:BIO. And yes, I agree with you that there was no spam. I'm sorry about that misunderstanding. This was a template, and the wording was not from me.

misleading edit summaries "Where have I mislead ??"

I don't see how anyone could not understand my table, but I will make it even clearer by directly putting the different versions next to each other - see table below. Regarding your second edit: Are you denying that you deleted {{fact}} without providing reference in your edit? Your summary does not mention this. In the contrary, it sounds as if you had added a {{fact}} template.

Here's the table for your first edit:

If you describe an edit as "corrected phrases according to citations", but in fact you are changing wording that was correct to a paraphrased and weakened version, then that is misleading.

All other points you raise, such as the discussion of the POV of one source, or what the bishop is or is not, have nothing to do with the three warnings. Moreover, I find it disengenuous if you target other people's sources while you yourself don't even provide sources for very harsh accusations of living people. — Sebastian 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh thanks brother

Ooh thanks brother . I never did think that you were disillusioned because of the edit wars on Sri Lankan conflict related topics. I have been here nearly 4 n half months and I always had to face such experiences. RaveenS has been here for 11 months and both of us and every other user have been facing such problems and none of them gave up editing. Why? That's because we all have an infinite hope that we regret to lose. But some people like Elalan, after they have been confirmed as sock puppets of another user, became a blatant vandal and I was accused as a sock puppeteer for some thing I didn't do and I was blocked for one week. Have you ever been accused for some thing you didn't do and punished? At least on your school days? I have been once and with this incidence the count was raised up to two. Ater that I was really disappointed and I thought to give up editing but I didn't give up my infinite hope. So there's no point in doing something like giving up editing for a simple matter. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)