This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 3 August 2009 (→Question: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:11, 3 August 2009 by FT2 (talk | contribs) (→Question: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- Archived talk page comments: /Archive
Closed topics are archived to approx. June 15 2009.
- Current discussion summaries
Summer Wikibreak
 | FT2 is taking a wikibreak due to busy things in real life. I'll be intermittently around and responsive to some things, but if it's urgent please consider asking someone else until I get back.
In brief I have a number of big "real life" matters all coming up (mostly good, I hope!), but I need to have a clear mind and a clear desk to handle them without wondering what's up on the wiki and elsewhere. At any rate until they're over, which could be anything from 3 weeks to 4 months.
|
just in case
I dropped a note in here :-) - hope you're good... Privatemusings (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Labrador Retriever
The peer review has been archived (though you should still look there for some constructive points on how to improve the article further). I have updated the {{ArticleHistory}} of the article at the talk page accordingly, at Talk:Labrador Retriever. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
DreamHost COI
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments at Talk:DreamHost. If it is not inappropriate, can you offer me any advice for how I might be able to defend myself against this kind of stuff from a rather abusive user? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Requests for mediation/OpenNote
In your e-mail to MedCom, you mentioned the changes you have made to the note to users opening a request for mediation. Your changes are a real improvement, IMO. I've made some edits; no big changes, just clarified a few points. I would say that the committee is generally neutral as to whether users wish to engage in mediation. We don't encourage people to try mediation, they must choose it. Often the more that choice is their own, the more likely the mediation will succeed.
I was puzzled by one aspect of your e-mail message: use of the word "parties." A definition that I am partial to is: "a person or people forming one side in an agreement or dispute." Parties thus seems to me the more neutral term as it deals with either agreement or dispute. That is the essence of mediation, don't you think: To turn a dispute into an agreement?
A minor point compared to your very helpful changes to the note. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- In a dispute, the naming by one user that another person is "a party" has often in the past been used or taken as a confrontational gesture, with disputes in some cases related to aggrieved users who wake up one day to find someone has now listed them as a "party" on some other page of the wiki. We might not push people to mediation but we do hold the door in an open and reassuring manner. I agree that in theory it's neutral, but in practice I'd question whether it's the most reassuring neutral term that's possible. FT2 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Recent ANI matters
If you're visiting my talk page to discuss some recent edits reported at ANI, I am aware of the situation but the matter has been handled by other administrators and is quickly closed.
In accordance with my commitment of December 18 2008, I will not participate in communal discussions or threads about it, except in the context of formal dispute resolution processes (if needed), since that could provoke engagement by the user involved. FT2 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Question
Luna Santin has closed your request regarding Peter, so I'm reposting my question from it below. I think it would make sense for you to clarify this once and for all, because it's obviously going to keep on being raised—though I want to stress that I don't support people adding sock tags to your page. SlimVirgin 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- FT, can you say definitively whether you were TBP (talk · contribs)? Peter was blocked for having posted a sockpuppet tag on that page, saying you had admitted it somewhere. I don't defend his posting the tag, or reverting to retain it, but it would be good to know whether there was truth in what he was saying, even if he expressed it inappropriately. SlimVirgin 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- That account is not me. It was a co-editor from long ago; we last collaborated in 2006. If you have further questions you can ask John Vandenberg. An arbcom ruling flatly forbids even indirect wiki interaction by me with a user you name. See the previous section above for more.
- FT2 05:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the response. SlimVirgin 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- heh.. this has a vaguely familiar feel, being on this page, posting in a thread with Slim asking smallish direct questions - funny old world.
- I've been reading through some of the TBP diff.s and am beginning to feel that there's a bit further explanation required for a few things (nothing PD related incidentally) - are you cool if I ask a few questions here? - or is there a better spot, or something I don't know? Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please see my response to a similar question above, and its reasons, and respect them. Thanks. FT2 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the response. SlimVirgin 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy and WP:NHBE wikilink
I just removed the WP:NHBE wikilink you added on the basis that it is a "working draft" and has not yet gained consensus for adoption. We can take this discussion to the policy's talk page if you disagree. Nuβiατεch /contrib 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Policy and project pages often link to information pages, informal but non-controversial views, and other pages. It was in that sense that it's an appropriate link, not because it is itself a communally endorsed page. FT2 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop
Please don't post again on Bishonen's talk page, for the good of Misplaced Pages. We don't need battles. Jehochman 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- It only looks like a simple question to me. Chillum 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- An admin has asked a question to Bishonen that directly affects other matters. While it's not a matter for formal resolution; it's a serious point and should not be ignored. Instead of deterring reasonable inquiries in a reasonable manner on a point of concern , a better way to stop a battle might be to ask those posting like this to not post if they have no helpful contribution, and ask that posts like this be rewritten to leave aside all rhetoric and simply talk about the actual point of concern. FT2 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to address your concerns at a neutral location. User's may feel cornered on their own talk pages, and their friends may respond excessively. Please, please, please, we don't need a huge battle, and I am afraid that's what's about to happen. If you start a discussion some place else, I will be glad to deliver an invitation to Bishonen or anybody else to attend and comment if they wish to. Jehochman 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)